The NATIONAL UNIVERSITY of SINGAPORE

GEK1542 FORENSIC SCIENCE Practical Examination: Development of Latent Fingerprints

Practical Report

From Invisible Prints to Crucial Evidence

Name: ZOU LI Matric No: U083530W Group No: D21 TA: Bani Kaur Suri

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 The History of Fingerprints..................................................................................................... 1 Types of Fingerprints .............................................................................................................. 1 Fingerprint Patterns ............................................................................................................... 2 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................ 2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES.................................................................................................... 2 Detection by Ninhydrin Solution ............................................................................................ 3 Detection by Black Powder .................................................................................................... 3 Detection by Magnetic Powder.............................................................................................. 3 Ink Prints................................................................................................................................. 3 Latent Prints on the Different Surfaces of Objects ................................................................ 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 4 Effect of Print Age on Print Clarity ......................................................................................... 4 Differences in Effectiveness of the Different Development Methods................................... 4 Classification of the 10 Fingerprints....................................................................................... 5 Effectiveness of Development Methods for Prints on the 3 Objects .................................... 6 Answer to Laymans Query on Latent Prints at Crime Scenes ............................................... 8 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 8 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 9 ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................. 10

INTRODUCTION
Fingerprints are impressions left by the friction ridges of a human finger on a surface it had come into contact with. As fingerprints are unique to every individual and remain unchanged until death, they offer an infallible means of personal identification that is extremely useful in the establishment of forensic evidence and the identification of criminals. The History of Fingerprints Fingerprints have been used as a means of identification for over 2000 years. There are signs that the ancient Chinese and Babylonians used fingerprints as signatures on official and business documents. However, it wasnt until 17th and 18th century Europe when scientific inquiry was made on the structure and uniqueness of fingerprints, when the English physician Nehemian Grew published the first scientific paper to describe the ridge structure of the skin covering the fingers. In 1788, the German anatomist Johann Mayer recognized that fingerprints were unique to every individual. The first wide-scale use of fingerprints in the modern era was in 1858, when William Herschel, the British chief magistrate of a district in India, made locals imprint their palms and fingers on business contracts as a means of contractual binding. In 1892, Francis Galton, after 10 years of study, published his book, Finger Prints, detailing a statistical model for fingerprint analysis and identification and encouraging its use in forensic science. Galtons work gained worldwide recognition and prompted the application of fingerprint identification in criminal cases and trials all over the world. In 1897, Edward Henry, the British Inspector-General of Police for a province in India, published his book, Classification and Uses of Fingerprints, after correspondence with Galton regarding the use of fingerprinting to identify criminals. Henry eventually devised a fingerprint classification system for convicted criminals, known as the Henry Classification System, which was subsequently used by police departments throughout the world for almost the entire 20th century. Thus began the widespread use of fingerprint identification in forensic science over the past 100 years, with the manually filed Henry Classification System eventually giving rise to the computerized Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) used today. Types of Fingerprints Fingerprints are one of the primary and most common types of evidence that crime scene investigators search for at crime scenes. Generally, there are 3 types of fingerprints that can be recovered for identification purposes. Firstly, patent or visible prints are prints that are visibly obvious to the human eye which have been caused by the transfer of foreign material from a finger to a surface. Because they are already visible, they do not usually need any enhancement techniques and are generally simply photographed at the crime scene. Examples of patent prints are prints made with ink or blood. Secondly, latent prints are prints secreted on a surface as a result of perspiration derived from sweat pores found in the ridges of fingers and are usually invisible to the naked eye. To make these prints visible and usable for identification purposes, these prints need to be processed and 1

enhanced using electronic, optical, chemical or physical fingerprint development methods at the crime scene or at a forensics lab. The third type of fingerprints is indented or plastic prints. These are fingerprints that occur when a finger touches a soft, malleable surface such as clay or wax, resulting in an indentation. Like patent prints, indented prints are also easily observable and no enhancement technique is required. In this practical, we will deal with mainly latent prints developed using various techniques, but will also compare the developed prints with patent prints formed by ink. Fingerprint Patterns The Henry Classification System is based on three distinct groups of fingerprint patterns Arch, Loop and Whorl with each group possessing the same basic ridge characteristics and resemblances. Within each major group there exist subgroups containing similar differences among patterns in that particular group. Today, different governing bodies and police departments may classify patterns somewhat differently than Henry did, but the original system still represents a body of work that has been well established and widely recognized and used for over a century. Arch Ridges enter continuously from one side of the finger and exit from the opposite side, making a rise in the center. Arches can be classified as plain arches and tented arches. Loops Ridges enter from one side of the finger, make a backward re-curve, then exit from the same side they entered. Loops can be classified into radial or ulnar loops depending on the side which it enters, and also nutant loops which point towards a delta (triangular division of ridges). Whorls In whorls, ridge patterns are usually circular, whirling around two or more deltas. Whorls can be classified into plain whorls, double loops, lateral pockets, composites and accidental whorls.

OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this experiment are as follows. To learn how to apply the various chemical and physical enhancement techniques to develop latent fingerprints To determine the effect of print age on print clarity, based on latent prints developed using Ninhydrin solution To compare the effectiveness of the different fingerprint development methods To be able to choose the correct fingerprint development methods for latent prints on different surfaces

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Note: All of the fingerprints in this report belong to the author and experimenter (me).

Detection by Ninhydrin Solution For this chemical method of developing fingerprints, a series of latent prints of the left and right thumbs were taken with the print age varied to determine the effect of print age on print clarity. 3 sets of left and right thumbprints were imprinted on pieces of white paper. The first set was taken 10 days before the practical, the second set was taken 3 days before the practical, and the third set was taken on the day of the practical itself. All 3 sets of thumbprints were then dipped using forceps into petri-dishes containing Ninhydrin solution for 5 seconds, followed by drying on a flat surface using a heating mechanism. After drying, purple-coloured prints appeared on the papers. The results are shown in Annex A at the back of this report. Detection by Black Powder For this method of fingerprint development using black powder, fresh prints of all ten fingers were imprinted on a piece of white paper on the day of the practical. These prints were then developed using black powder by the following procedure: Using a dry brush lightly dapped with a small amount of black powder, the powder was gently spread in a circular manner across a print until it is fully revealed. Care was taken to prevent the over-application of black powder on the print to keep the ridge lines were clear. The results are shown in Annex C at the back of this report. Detection by Magnetic Powder For this method of fingerprint development using magnetic powder, fresh prints of all ten fingers were imprinted on a piece of white paper on the day of the practical. These prints were then developed using magnetic powder by the following procedure: A magnetic applicator was used to attract magnetic powder onto its tip. The applicator tip is then gently brushed in a circular manner across a print until it is fully revealed. The remaining powder is then released back into the powder stock. The applicator is then used again to attract excess powder on and surrounding the print until the print becomes clear. The results are shown in Annex D at the back of this report. Ink Prints Patent prints of all ten fingers were also imprinted on a piece of paper using an ink pad 2 days before the practical. As these prints are not latent prints and their patterns are directly observable, no enhancement technique is required. Care was still taken, however, to ensure that the ink pad and the fingers were not overly soaked with ink to prevent smudging and overlapping. These ink prints mainly serve as comparison for the other three methods of fingerprint development and the results are shown in Annex B at the back of this report Latent Prints on the Different Surfaces of Objects This part of the experiment aims to fulfill the fourth and final objective of this experiment. Here, a fresh print of the right thumb was deposited on each of the following surfaces: The smooth side of a white tile, the outer surface of a white Styrofoam cup and the concave surface of a stainless steel metal spoon. A choice between three fingerprint development methods was made to develop of each 3

of these prints: Black powder, magnetic powder, and white powder. Justification for choices made will be detailed and explained in the Results and Discussion section of this report. After applying the chosen development method on each of the three prints, the prints were lifted using a fingerprint lifter. Care was taken to avoid the formation of air bubbles to ensure that the entire print was pasted onto the lifters sticky side.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Effect of Print Age on Print Clarity From Annex A, it can be seen that the prints taken on 6th September, 10 days before they were developed using Ninhydrin solution, were highly unclear. The ridge characteristics, though still present, can barely be seen and the prints cannot be used for identification purposes. The prints taken on 13th September, 3 days before they were developed using Ninhydrin solution, as well as the fresh prints taken on 16th September, a few minutes before development, were clearer than the ones taken on 6th September. An ulnar loop pattern can be seen on the left thumbprints, entering from the left and recurving back, with the delta on the lower right side of the loop. This is especially clear on the left thumbprint taken on 13th September. For the right thumbprint, a whorl pattern can be seen, with a circular center resting atop two deltas on its bottom left and right sides. There are no distinctive differences between the prints taken on 13th September and 16th September. The conclusion is that prints taken 3 days before development were of equal clarity as fresh prints, but prints taken 10 days before development show a significant degree of fadedness and were unclear. Hence, at least for the Ninhydrin solution method, latent prints at a crime scene, if left undisturbed, will remain clear for a period of about 3 days before it begins to fade. The fact that it eventually begins to fade still shows that age does have an effect on print clarity and hence it is still best, of course, to take fingerprints from a crime scene as soon as possible after their deposition. Differences in Effectiveness of the Different Development Methods Comparing the prints in Annexes A, B, C and D, it can be seen that the prints developed using magnetic powder, in Annex D, are by far the clearest. The ridge lines and characteristics were highly distinctive, forming print patterns that are easily recognizable. The use of the magnetic applicator reduced the amount of direct contact between the applicator and the prints, thus resulting in very fine print definitions with very little smudging. After the prints were revealed, the applicator was also used to easily remove any excess powder surrounding the prints via magnetic attraction, resulting in a set of very neat prints on a clean, practically unblemished document. Annex B, containing patent prints deposited using ink, ranked second in terms of print clarity. As long as the prints were carefully deposited and not overly smudged, ridge lines and characteristics were very clear and distinctive and can definitely be used for identification purposes. However, there 4

are a few issues concerning ink prints. The first of these is the problem of smudging. If there is too much ink on the finger or if the finger is pressed with too much force onto the surface, the ink will smudge, resulting in a lump of concentrated ink covering some of the ridge characteristics. This problem applies to all other forms of patent prints that may be found at crime scenes, such as those made with blood. The second issue is that ink prints, although quite good in terms of clarity, are rarely found at crime scenes and much more often deliberately collected from a person, whether for purposes of enrollment in a system or when under arrest for a suspected criminal offense. These exemplar prints in the database would then be used to match prints found at crime scenes and developed using other methods. Hence, while the ink prints in Annex B rank second in terms of clarity, the effectiveness of using ink as a print development method cannot be properly compared to the other three methods of print development mentioned in this practical, as they are different types of fingerprints altogether and used in the real world in a completely different context. In Annex C, prints were developed using black powder. While some of the prints have distinguishable ridge characteristics and print patterns, these prints are generally quite unclear compared to ink prints and prints developed using magnetic powder. The main reason for this is that dusting with black powder is a more traditional and physical technique and the spreading of powder evenly across a print has to be done manually. Without the aid of magnetic force to absorb any excess powder, significant care and experience is required to ensure that the powder flows and does not cake into solid lumps on the fingerprints, rendering them unclear. However, human error doubtlessly exists and some prints may have too much or too little black powder applied onto them. The prints on Annex A developed using Ninhydrin solution were the most unclear of all. This was the case even for the fresh prints deposited on the day of the practical itself. These prints were also subject to smudging and unevenness, and the presence of stains surrounding the revealed print was evident for all the prints taken, rendering them even more unclear. Classification of the 10 Fingerprints In this section, we will classify the fingerprints and discuss the differences in print patterns and ridge characteristics between each of the 10 fingers. For this purpose, the ink prints in Annex B will be used in the analysis. If the prints on Annex B for a particular finger are unclear or only partial, the prints developed using magnetic powder, on Annex D, are used to confirm the classification. A brief pattern classification describing the differences in print pattern between the 10 fingerprints is shown in the table below.

Finger

General Pattern Plain whorl with two deltas Plan whorl with two deltas

Ridge Characteristics & Other Remarks A large number of bifurcations, ridge endings and independent ridges present at the top of the print. Several islands and independent ridges at the left side of the print. Ridge endings present at the top of the print. Islands and independent ridges at the left side of the print.

Right Thumb

Right Index Finger

Right Middle Finger

Radial Loop

Bifurcations present at the top of the print, with some bifurcations producing ridge lines that extend into other bifurcations. Ridge endings, spurs and crossovers at the left of the print. Delta on the bottom right side of the print. The loop slopes towards the thumb and is hence classified as a radial loop. Ridge endings and bifurcations at the top and top left of the print. Ridge endings at the top of the print. Lakes at the center of the whorl. Crossover at the bottom right of the print, on the right of the lower right delta. A large number of ridge endings, islands and bifurcations at the top and top right of the print. Ridge endings and bifurcations at the bottom left of the print. The loop tends towards the little finger and is hence classified as an ulnar loop. Bifurcations at the top of the print. There are also a number of bifurcations, ridge endings and lakes at the center of the whorl itself. More ridge endings present at the bottom of the print. Bifurcations, ridge endings and islands at the top of the print. More ridge endings near the center of the whorl. This print has two distinct deltas holding the whorl that are very close to each other. More bifurcations at the bottom of the print. This print is very similar in pattern as that of the left middle finger, described above. The two deltas below the whorl are very close to each other. There are a number of ridge endings, spurs, crossovers and bifurcations all over the print. A number of distinguishable ridge characteristics at the bottom left of the print, near the loop ending. The loop tends towards the little finger, and is hence classified as an ulnar loop.

Right Ring Finger

Plain whorl with two deltas Plain whorl with two deltas

Right Little Finger

Left Thumb

Ulnar loop

Left Index Finger

Plain whorl with two deltas

Left Middle Finger

Plain whorl with two deltas

Left Right Finger

Plain whorl with two deltas

Left Little Finger

Ulnar loop

Effectiveness of Development Methods for Prints on the 3 Objects White tile: Magnetic powder was used to develop the print deposited on the smooth side of the white tile. White powder was not chosen as the tile surface was also white in colour, and a lack of contrast would result in the print remaining invisible even after enhancement. In theory, both black powder and 6

magnetic powder may be used, but magnetic powder was chosen as we have established in an earlier part of the experiment that magnetic powder was more effective. The result is a very clear print with highly distinguishable ridge lines and characteristics, shown in Annex E. White Styrofoam cup: Magnetic powder was used to develop the print deposited on the outer surface of the white Styrofoam cup. White powder was not chosen as the tile surface was also white in colour, and a lack of contrast would result in the print remaining invisible even after enhancement. Black powder was not chosen due to the curved outer surface of the cup, for fear that during dusting, excess powder would fall to the sides of the print due to gravity, possibly staining the surrounding areas and causing the print to be unclear. The result is a fairly clear print, shown in Annex F. It is important to note that this print is more difficult to acquire using the lifter than the print on the white tile due to the curved surface of the cup. Care had to be taken to prevent any air bubbles from forming when sticking the lifter onto the surface. Another issue is that the surface of the cup, made of Styrofoam, is not of a smooth texture. From the print, we can see that the rough, scaled surface of the Styrofoam was also captured by the lifter, distorting some parts of the print and causing some ridge characteristics to be difficult to identify. This, however, is an inevitable result due to the material and nature of the surface. Hence, for the real-world development of prints on textured surfaces at crime scenes, using powder and a lifter might not be the best idea. An alternative is to use optical or chemical methods and photograph the revealed prints directly at the crime scene instead. Metal spoon: Black powder was used to develop the print deposited on the concave surface of the stainless steel metallic spoon. Magnetic powder was not chosen as the spoon was metallic and it would be difficult to spread the magnetic powder across the print using the magnetic applicator. In theory, both black and white powder could be used for this case, but black powder was chosen. As the surface of the spoon was curved, great care had to be taken to avoid the formation of air bubbles to ensure that the entire print was pasted onto the lifters sticky side. However, a major issue exists in that the powder was hardly visible when spread across the spoon due to its smooth, shiny surface. It was hence very difficult to gauge exactly how much powder to apply onto the print despite it being extremely crucial for physical development methods such as using black powder. When this issue was discovered, the spoon was cleaned and another print was deposited. This time, white powder was used as the enhancement technique, but the problem persisted. In the end, the print developed using black powder was lifted, with the result shown in Annex G. This print is unclear and hardly visible, and cannot be used for identification purposes. For the development of prints on metallic surfaces at crime scenes, powder and lifter developmental methods might not be the best idea. An alternative is to use optical or chemical methods and photograph the revealed prints directly at the crime scene instead. In fact, when the print was deposited, a very distinct layer of oil can be seen on the metallic surface of the spoon, making it

almost like a patent, visible print with fairly clear ridge lines. The use of optical or chemical methods, followed by a photograph, might have easily done the job. Answer to Laymans Query on Latent Prints at Crime Scenes Fingerprints are impressions left by the friction ridges of our fingers on surfaces we come into contact with. These latent, invisible impressions are left behind by the natural secretions of sweat from our skin. Fingerprints are unique to each individual and do not change over time. This makes them an infallible form of identification crucial to forensic science and crime scene investigation. To make these prints visible, a number of fingerprint development techniques can be used. These methods usually involve the application of a powder or chemical on the print, after which the print is either photographed directly at the crime scene or acquired using a lifter or sticker such that it can be taken back to the police station or forensics lab. There are also more advanced techniques using infrared, ultraviolet, laser and other special forensic scanning and photographic devices. Selection of which development method to use depends on the colour, material, texture and porosity of the surface on which the fingerprint is deposited. The preservation of prints is also important. For instance, gloves should always be worn at crime scenes so as to not deposit your own prints.

CONCLUSION
This experiment shows that latent fingerprints deposited on a piece of paper or on an everyday object can easily be turned visible by applying various enhancement techniques. However, as with all other forms of evidence at crime scenes, great care has to be taken in the preservation and treatment of the fingerprints. The correct development method to use for a particular surface on which a fingerprint is deposited is also of utmost importance. In this experiment, we learned how to apply 3 common techniques to develop latent fingerprints, using Ninhydrin solution, black powder, and magnetic powder. A set of exemplar ink prints was also deposited and used for classification and comparison purposes. It was found that for prints developed using Ninhydrin solution, print age has a negative effect on print clarity, i.e. the older the print, the more unclear it is, although prints up to 3 days old still remain relatively clear after development. It was also found that the magnetic powder method gave the clearest prints compared to prints developed using black powder and Ninhydrin solution. For the prints deposited on the different surfaces of the 3 given objects, a significant amount of consideration had to be exercised in choosing the correct technique for each surface. Although the print retrieved from the metal spoon is highly unclear, reasons that may have caused this were given and possible alternative methods were suggested. With the above findings, it can be concluded that the objectives of the experiment have been adequately met. 8

REFERENCES
German, E. (2011). Retrieved September 27, 2011, from Latent Print Examination: http://onin.com/fp Human Fingerprints. (2011). Retrieved September 27, 2011, from http://www.fingerprinting.com Lei, P. P. (2011). An Introduction to Fingerprints. GEK1542 Lecture Notes . National University of Singapore. Lennard, C. (2001). The Detection and Enhancement of Latent Fingerprints. Retrieved September 27, 2011, from http://www.latent-prints.com/images/SpecialPresentation.pdf

ANNEXES

10

IMPORTANT NOTE:
In this soft copy version of the practical report, Annexes A to G show only photographs of the prints. These may be too unclear for the prints to be properly examined. For actual scrutinizing and grading of the prints, please kindly refer to the original prints in Annexes A to G of the hard copy version of the report.

ANNEX A

ANNEX B

ANNEX C

ANNEX D

ANNEX E

White Tile (Magnetic Powder)

ANNEX F

Styrofoam Cup (Magnetic Powder)

ANNEX G

Metal Spoon (Black Powder)