Chapter 5
IN THIS CHAPTER
Defining fingerprints
Classifying and matching prints
Exposing and collecting prints
If you read, watch TV, or go to the movies, you know that fingerprints play a vital role in many mysteries, whether real-life or fictional. Fingerprints often are how police identify criminals and solve crimes, even crimes that are decades old.
Although fingerprint identification is now standard practice, acceptance of the individuality of fingerprints by police, scientists, and the courts didn’t happen overnight.
In this chapter, I explain the science behind fingerprinting, a little bit of its history, and some of the methods used for finding and lifting prints at the crime scene.
Using a bright light and magnifying glass, take a close look at your finger pads (the fleshy surface of your fingers that you use for touching and gripping). You’ll see very fine lines that curve, circle, and arch. These lines are composed of narrow valleys called grooves and hills known as friction ridges. When you see an inked fingerprint, you’re looking at the pattern made by the friction ridges.
These ridges evolved so that human beings would be less clumsy and more efficient when working with their hands. In fact, the ability to grip sticks and throw stones was a matter of survival to your remote ancestors. After all, how can you hunt and kill an elk if your weapon continually slips from your fingertips or that stone you hurl lacks any predictable direction? The evolutionary development of friction ridges makes a tough and perilous existence just a little easier. Modern-day people use these ridges to twist doorknobs, hold pens, grasp a steering wheel, and throw baseballs.
Fingerprints have a utility beyond gripping a doorknob or throwing a baseball, however, and that utility became evident as the need for a reliable method of identification arose.
One of the first attempts to identify and record differences among people was through anthropometry, the science of measuring humans.
Using anthropometry, French police officer Alphonse Bertillon developed the first truly organized system for identifying individuals in 1883. Believing that the human skeleton didn’t change in size from about age 20 until death and that each person’s measurements were unique, he created a system of body measurements that became known as bertillonage. According to Bertillon’s calculations, the odds of two people having the same bertillonage measurements were 286 million to one.
Bertillon thought everyone could be distinguished from one another by key measurements, such as the diameter of the head and the span of the outstretched arms. For many years, this system was accepted by many jurisdictions, but by the dawn of the 20th century, bertillonage was losing its luster. The inexact measurements varied according to who made them. And because the measurements of any two people of the same size, weight, and body type varied by fractions of a centimeter, the system’s flaws quickly appeared, and it soon was discontinued.
The similarity between Will and William West was not merely a bizarre coincidence. A report in The Journal of Police Science and Administration in 1980 revealed that the two actually were identical twins who had many fingerprint similarities and nearly identical ear configurations (unusual in any circumstance except with identical twins). Furthermore, each wrote letters to the same brother, same five sisters, and same Uncle George.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, Bertillon reluctantly agreed to add fingerprints to his bertillonage profile. However, he added only those of the right hand. Big mistake.
A fingerprint remains unchanged throughout life. The fingerprints you’re born with are the same ones you die with. If someone burns or shaves off the pads of his fingers, the prints disappear for a while, but as the skin repairs itself and wounds heal, the print reappears.
However, more severe damage that involves deeper layers of the skin may leave permanent scars and prevent prints from reemerging. Nonetheless, completely obliterating a print is difficult, and any scars left behind by attempts to do so create new individual characteristics that an examiner can use for making a match.
The purpose of any classification system is to add order to chaos by finding common traits among items. For instance, libraries organize books by subject matter, which keeps readers from having to wander aimlessly through the shelves for hours or (more likely) days. Lumberyards categorize wood by type, width, and length, and grocery stores stock pasta sauce with the linguine and spaghetti. You get the idea.
The same is true of fingerprint files. They’re useful only if they can be stored in great numbers and quickly searched for a match. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has more than 200 million fingerprint files. Imagine slogging through those! Organizing the prints into groups makes searching for a match to an unknown print much easier.
In 1685, Marcello Malphigi recognized patterns in fingerprints and named them loops and whorls. The arch pattern followed more than 200 years later, when Sir Francis Galton identified it in 1892.
Whorls, loops, and arches (see Figure 5-1) are still the basis for fingerprint matching and identification, because although everyone has them, how they have them is unique. Each person has a different number of these types of patterns, and the patterns vary from fingertip to fingertip on each person.
Arches are ridgelines that rise in the center to create a wavelike pattern. Arches are subgrouped into plain and tented varieties. Tented arches have a sharper central rise than do plain arches. Only 5 percent of all pattern types are arches.
Loops are comprised of one or more ridges that double back on themselves. About 60 percent of patterns in human fingerprints are loops. They’re subdivided into two types depending upon the direction the ridges flow in relation to the two bones of the forearm, the radius and the ulna:
Whorls look like little whirlpools of ridgelines. They make up 35 percent of patterns seen in human fingerprints and are subgrouped into four categories:
Sir Edward Henry, an inspector general of the British police in India’s Bengal province, worked on a fingerprint classification system for many years. The Henry System, which he completed in 1899, still is used (with a few modifications) in the United States and Great Britain.
This system separates fingerprint files into 1,024 groups, thus narrowing the focus of fingerprint searches. The actual matching still is done by hand, meaning the system doesn’t make the match but simply reduces the number of files the fingerprint examiner must wade through.
Now, in the computer age, prints are digitized and stored as computer data. This allows for much faster sorting and matching. Still, if a match is found, the final determination is made by a human visually comparing the prints in question.
Because criminals almost never leave behind a full set of prints, systems that rely on prints from all ten fingers are less than perfect. Enter the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS).
The AFIS computer scans and digitally encodes fingerprints, storing that information in massive databases. It can search thousands of these files every second while attempting to match them to an unknown ten-print set or even a single or partial print. Current AFIS computers search through a batch of 500,000 prints in less than a second.
After the computer establishes a match, an agent trained in fingerprint evaluation then hand-checks the file or files. Even in the computer age, the final match is made by the trained eye of a fingerprint expert.
Despite this system’s incredible power, all is not rosy in AFIS Land. Early in the system’s development, several different AFIS manufacturers designed and supplied the computers, and not all of these computers are compatible. Added to this, not all jurisdictions subscribe to the AFIS system. This means that a set of prints in New York may belong to a criminal whose prints are stored in a Chicago database, but because the two systems can’t search each other’s databases, no match can be found. The FBI, which has a national database within the United States, is working with NIST to standardize the different systems so that searches can be conducted of fingerprint databases in all jurisdictions. Still not perfect, the system continues to improve year by year.
Fingerprints come in three general types that depend on how and where they were left. For example, a print left in grease on a wall is easier to find than one left on a garbage bag without any visible substance present to enhance its visibility.
Patent and plastic prints can be photographed, and the photo can be used for matching. Often the print is lighted at an angle to increase contrast, but little else is needed to make these prints recordable. If a criminal doesn’t leave behind a visible print, however, identification still is possible, but it’s certainly a lot trickier. Tools for tracking down prints can be as simple as a flashlight or black powder, as sophisticated as chemical reactions and lasers, or as goofy as Super Glue.
Which method investigators use depends upon the surface beneath the print. For harder surfaces, powders typically are used, and chemicals often are needed on more porous surfaces. Some prints show up under ultraviolet light or even a plain old flashlight.
Just because you don’t see it right away doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Fingers constantly are coated with sweat and oils that are left behind on everything you touch.
The inner surfaces of your fingers, palms, and even the soles of your feet contain friction ridges lined with pores that serve as outlet openings of your sweat glands. Although these particular glands secrete sweat that has fewer oils, your fingers nevertheless pick up oils, salts, and grime when you touch your hair, face, or any area of your body served by more oil-rich sweat glands. You deposit these residues whenever you touch another surface.
Fingerprint powders adhere to moisture and oils of the residue in a latent print and thereby expose the pattern of the friction ridges. The powders come in a variety of colors and types. Criminalists use the color that gives the greatest degree of contrast with the background surface. Black powder, which is made from carbon black or charcoal, and gray powder, made from aluminum or titanium powder, are used most often.
Other specialized powders are fluorescent. After they are applied, the print fluoresces (glows) under a laser light.
After the powdering process is complete, the print is either photographed or lifted. Lifting is done by gently laying the sticky surface of a strip of transparent tape over the print. As the tape is peeled off, the print pattern sticks to the tape, which is then placed on a card for later examination and matching. Because smears can render a print unusable, lifting a print takes a very steady hand. If the print is on an irregular surface, where tape lifting can be a problem, technicians may employ a gel-lifter or the silicon-based Mikrosil Casting Kit. This is also used for collecting tool-mark impressions.
Latent prints found on more porous surfaces are treated with chemicals that reveal print patterns by reacting with some component of the print residue. The reaction creates another compound that is more clearly visible. Common chemicals used for exposing prints include: cyanoacrylate vapor, iodine fuming, ninhydrin, and silver nitrate.
After a print has been exposed with cyanoacrylate, it can be photographed as is or treated with a fluorescent dye that binds to the print. The print then glows under a laser or ultraviolet light.
The item that’s to be checked for prints in this manner often is exposed to the vapor in something called a fuming chamber. The resulting fumed print is quite hard and stable, as you’d probably expect from Super Glue. Instead of setting up a fuming box at the crime scene, police now frequently use a handheld, wand-shaped gadget that heats a small cartridge of cyanoacrylate mixed with a fluorescent dye. The wand releases fumes that are directed at the latent print, enabling the criminalist to fix and dye the print at the same time.
When heated, solid crystal iodine releases iodine vapors into a fuming chamber, where the iodine fumes combine with oils in the latent print to produce a brownish print. This kind of print fades quickly, so it must be photographed right away or fixed by spraying it with a solution of starch in water, which preserves the print for several weeks or months.
Ninhydrin (triketohydrindene hydrate) is a staple of law enforcement investigators and has been used for years to reveal latent prints. The object with the supposed latent print is dipped in or sprayed with a ninhydrin solution. Because the reaction between the ninhydrin and the oils of the print is extremely slow, the latent print may take several hours to appear as a purple-blue print. Heating the object to a temperature of 80 to 100 degrees Fahrenheit speeds up this process. Ninhydrin is very useful in exposing prints left on paper.
Silver nitrate is a component of black-and-white photographic film. When investigators expose a latent print to silver nitrate, the chloride in salt (sodium chloride) molecules present in the print residue reacts with the silver nitrate and forms silver chloride. This colorless compound develops, or becomes visible, when it’s exposed to ultraviolet light, revealing a black or reddish-brown print.
More often than not, a print or partial print is unclear. Its minute details may be fuzzy or difficult to see. Digital technology has stepped up and helped remedy this problem. Prints are scanned into a computer and then subjected to one of many programs that can enhance, improve, and clean up the computer-generated image of the print. Changing the light, contrast, clarity, and background patterns can make a previously obscured print jump into clear view, speeding up the matching process and making it more accurate, to boot.