Advances in Fingerprint Technology.pdf

Above all, the experienced examiner knows that the validity of the identification
can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of other qualified examiners.
The validity of fingerprint identification is best demonstrated using the conventional
method. In preparing a chart of the latent and inked prints for demonstration
purposes, photographic enlargements of the prints are marked by
drawing numbered lines from selected ridge characteristics to the margins of
the enlargements. The examiner demonstrates points of identity by using essentially
the same methodology that was used in making the initial identification.
The flowchart and protocol presented in this chapter represent one algorithm
for comparing the fingerprint depicted in Figure 2.6. It must be recognized
that there can always be several algorithms for solving any problem,
and the briefness of the algorithm presented is dictated by the limited purpose
of this chapter: to merely acquaint the reader with the principles involved.
Latent print examiners must be cognizant of and understand the tasks
involved and the decisions required throughout the processes of establishing
identity. Fingerprint identification is a science, and as such, it must have welldefined
principles and procedures for its application. The developing fields
of artificial intelligence and expert systems have opened up a new dimension
in reconstruction. These systems enable the latent print examiner to model
and make representations of laboratory analysis results, allow reasoning and
enacting of a crime scene, and aid in making logical decisions concerning
the case. Advances in hardware and software have added systematic problem
solving to the forensic scientist’s repertoire. Computer technology allows
communication between the user and the expert system — in a sense each
is helping the other to solve a specific forensic problem.
References
1. Lee, H. C. and Harris, H. A., Physical Evidence in Forensic Science, Lawyer &
Judges, Tucson, AZ, 1999.
2. Lee, H. C. and Gaensslen, R. E., Editors, Advances in Fingerprint Technology,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1991 (see also Chapter 8 of this volume).
3. Halle, L. Out of Chaos, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1977, 15.
4. Osborn, A. Questioned Documents, Lawyers Co-operative, Rochester, NY,
1910, 479–481.
5. Seymour, L. Finger Print Classification. Los Angeles (privately printed by
author), 1913, 72–79.
6. Bridges, B. Practical Fingerprinting. Funk & Wagnalls, New York, 1942,
335–336.
7. Brown, W., Here we go again! Finger Print Mag., 28, 5, 1947.
8. Davis, J., Pressure distortion in latent prints. Finger Print Mag., 28, 3, 1946.