COMPENDIUN ON FORENSIC 2

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The fingerprint is a physical biometric aspect. It is used to identify a person's identity due to its
uniqueness where no two persons can share the same fingerprint. Besides, a fingerprint is unchangeable
with time and can be easily recognized during the whole life of the individual Muhammad Sarfraz (2021)

Principles of Fingerprint Analysis

Fingerprints are distinctive patterns, produce by dermal ridges (as elevated) and furrows
(recessed/depress), in which appearing on the distal phalanx of fingers and thumbs. Palms, toes and feet
prints are also peculiar to individual; however, these are used less often for identification, so this guide
focuses on prints from the fingers and thumbs. Delac, K., Grgic, M. (2004)

No two person have the same fingerprints patterns even identical twins, with though same DNA
results, but they have different fingerprints. This peculiarities of fingerprints is used in all aspect of
investigation including criminal, personal background checks, biometric security purposes, missing
person identification,. Ravi, J., K, R. B., Venugopal, R. K. (2009)

Fingerprint analysis has been used to identify suspects and solve crimes for more than 100
years, and it remains an extremely valuable tool for law enforcement. One of the most important uses
for fingerprints is to help investigators link one crime scene to another involving the same person.
Fingerprint identification also helps investigators to track a criminal’s record, their previous arrests and
convictions, to aid in sentencing, probation, parole and pardoning decisions. Borra, S. R., Reddy, G. J.,
Reddy, E. S. (2016)

The History of Fingerprints

Fingerprint Identification?
Fingerprints provide a reliable means of personal identification. Base on various research revealed
the validity fingerprint as means of personal identification in court trial producing 100% exact evidence
to convict criminals. Deokar, S., Talele, S. (2014). Fingerprint (includes palm print, toe, and footprint
impressions) examination and identification is not the same , but it is most reliable when taking
fingerprint classification must observe both national and international minimum standard requirement
Bazen, A., Gerez, S., Veelenturf, L.P., Verwaaijen, G.T., Zwaag, B.J. (2000)

The science of fingerprint identification is the most valid material evidence compare to any other
form of forensic sciences due to previous studies recorded.

●Universally accepted in the field of criminal investigation specifically in crime against persons and
property in which has no eye and nor state witness available. No two person have same fingerprint
even identical twin as describe in the principle of individuality. And it is also supported in the group of
mathematician worldwide for studying at about billions of human fingerprints subjected for automated
computer comparisons result no one are alike. Maddala, Sainath, et al. (2011).

● Fingerprints have better of solving crime than DNA. Simple because fingerprint provide 100%
personal identification for individual. US Government especially Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI
and DHS) Department of Homeland Security databases every year were added to the FBI's Combined
DNA Index System (CODIS). Is a computer software programs operates local, state, and national
databases of DNA profiles from convicted offenders, unsolved crime scene evidence and missing
persons. In the past 20 years. Deokar, S., Talele, S. (2014)
Anthropometric measurement system was introduce by Alphonse Bertillon used universally of
several country purposely for personal recognition. In 1903, Will West and William West case which
totally discarded Bertillon’s techniques of person’s identification.
Precisely investigation begin to run, it was notice there are two people who looked very similar in nature
their names were William and Will West. As regard to Bertillon measurements individual comparison
and identification result revealed that William West and Will West the same person. But science of,
fingerprint classification described the individuality of fingerprint pattern of their left index finger
comparisons(base on prison institution document years after, the West men were identical twin due to
testimony with the same immediate family relatives.

Prehistoric
Ancient artifacts with carvings similar to friction ridge skin have been discovered in many places
throughout the world. Prehistoric picture writing of a hand with ridge patterns was discovered on a cliff
in Nova Scotia. In ancient Babylon, fingerprints were used on clay tablets for business transactions
BC 200s - China
Chinese records from the Qin Dynasty (221-206 BC) include details about using handprints as evidence
during burglary investigations.

Clay seals bearing friction ridge impressions were used during both the Qin and Han Dynasties (221 BC -
220 AD).
AD 1400s - Persia

The 14th century Persian book "Jaamehol-Tawarikh" (Universal History), attributed to Khajeh
Rashiduddin Fazlollah Hamadani (1247-1318), includes comments about the practice of identifying
persons from their fingerprints.
1600s

1684 - Grew

In the "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London" paper in 1684, Dr. Nehemiah Grew
was the first European to publish friction ridge skin observations.
1685 - Bidloo

Dutch anatomist Godard Bidloo's 1685 book, "Anatomy of the Human Body" included descriptions of
friction ridge skin (papillary ridge) details.
Table 4 from "Anatomy of the Human Body."

1686 - Malpighi

In 1686 Marcello Malpighi, an anatomy professor at the University of Bologna noted that fingerprint
ridges, spirals and loops in his treatise. A layer of skin was named after him, the "Malpighi" layer, which
is approximately 1.8 mm thick.

No mention of friction ridge skin uniqueness or permanence was made by Grew, Bidloo or Malpighi.

1700s

1788 - Mayer - First Mention of Uniqueness

German anatomist Johann Christoph Andreas Mayer authored the book "Anatomical Copper-plates with
Appropriate Explanations" containing drawings of friction ridge skin patterns (the original title in
German was "Anatomische Kupfertafeln nebst dazu gehörigen Erklärungen"). Mayer wrote, "Although
the arrangement of skin ridges is never duplicated in two persons, nevertheless the similarities are
closer among some individuals. In others the differences are marked, yet in spite of their peculiarities of
arrangement all have a certain likeness" (Cummins and Midlo0, 1943, pages 12-13). Mayer was the first
to declare friction ridge skin is unique.
1800s

1823 - Purkinje

In 1823, Jan Evangelista Purkinje, anatomy professor at the University of Breslau in Wrocław, Poland,
published his thesis discussing nine fingerprint patterns. Purkinje made no mention of the value of
fingerprints for personal identification. Purkinje is referred to in most English language publications as
John Evangelist Purkinje.

1856 - Welcker

German anthropologist Hermann Welcker of the University of Halle, studied friction ridge skin
permanence by printing his own right hand in 1856 and again in 1897, then published a study in 1898.
1858 - Herschel

The English began using fingerprints in July 1858 when Sir William James Herschel, Chief Magistrate of
the Hooghly District in Jungipoor, India, first used fingerprints on native contracts. On a whim, and
without thought toward personal identification, Herschel had Rajyadhar Konai, a local businessman,
impress his hand print on a contract. Jungipoor is now know as Jangipur in the state of West Bengal.
The purpose of the hand print was to "... to frighten [him] out of all thought of repudiating his
signature." The native was suitably impressed and Herschel made a habit of requiring palm prints--and
later, simply the prints of the right Index and middle fingers--on every contract made with the locals.
Personal contact with the document, they believed, made the contract more binding than if they simply
signed it. Thus, the first wide-scale, modern-day use of fingerprints was predicated not upon scientific
evidence, but upon superstitious beliefs.

However, as Herschel's fingerprint collection grew, he began to realize the inked impressions could
prove or disprove identity. While his experience with fingerprinting was admittedly limited, Sir William
Herschel's private conviction that all fingerprints were unique to the individual, as well as permanent
throughout that individual's life, inspired him to expand their use.

1863 - Coulier

Professor Paul-Jean Coulier, of Val-de-Grâce in Paris, published his observations that (latent) fingerprints
can be developed on paper by iodine fuming, explaining how to preserve (fix) such developed
impressions and mentioning the potential for identifying suspects' fingerprints by use of a magnifying
glass.

1877 - Taylor
American microscopist Thomas Taylor proposed that finger and palm prints left on any object might be
used to solve crimes. The July 1877 issue of The American Journal of Microscopy and Popular Science
included the following description of a lecture by Taylor:

Hand Marks under the Microscope. - In a recent lecture, Mr. Thomas Taylor, microscopist to the
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., exhibited on a screen & view of the markings on the palms
of the hands and the tips of the fingers, and called attention to the possibility of identifying criminals,
especially murderers, by comparing the marks of the hands left upon any object with impressions in wax
taken from the hands of suspected persons. In the case of murderers, the marks of bloody hands would
present a very favorable opportunity. This is a new system of palmistry.

1870s-1880 - Faulds

During the 1870s, Dr. Henry Faulds, the British Surgeon-Superintendent of Tsukiji Hospital in Tokyo,
Japan, took up the study of "skin-furrows" after noticing finger marks on specimens of "prehistoric"
pottery. A learned and industrious man, Faulds not only recognized the importance of fingerprints as a
means of identification, but devised a method of classification as well. Dr. Faulds' clinic in Tokyo
eventually became St. Luke's International Hospital.

In 1880, Faulds forwarded an explanation of his classification system and a sample of the forms he had
designed for recording inked impressions, to Sir Charles Darwin. Darwin, in advanced age and ill health,
informed Dr. Faulds he could be of no assistance to him, but promised to pass the materials on to his
cousin, Francis Galton.

Also in 1880, Faulds published an article in the Scientific Journal, "Nature" (nature). He discussed
fingerprints as a means of personal identification, and the use of printer's ink as a method for recording
such fingerprints. He is also credited with the first latent print identification - a greasy fingerprint
deposited on an alcohol bottle.

1882 - Thompson

1882, Gilbert Thompson of the U.S. Geological Survey in New Mexico, used his own thumb print on a
document to help prevent forgery. This is the first known use of fingerprints in the United States. Click
the below image to see a larger image of an 1882 receipt issued by Gilbert Thompson to "Lying Bob" in
the amountof 75 dollars.

1882-Bertillon
Alphonse Bertillon, a clerk in the Prefecture of Police of at Paris, France, devised a system of
classification, known as anthropometry or the Bertillon System, using measurements of parts of the
body. Bertillon's system included measurements such as head length, head width, length of the middle
finger, length of the left foot; and length of the forearm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger.
Bertillon also established a system of photographing faces - which became known as mugshots.
In 1888 Bertillon was made Chief of the newly created Department of Judicial Identity where he used
anthropometry as the primary means of identification. He later introduced Fingerprints, but relegated
them to a secondary role in the category of special marks.

1883 - Mark Twain (Samuel L. Clemens)

A murderer was identified using fingerprint identification in Mark Twain's book "Life on the Mississippi."
A dramatic court trial, including fingerprint identification, was depicted in a later book, "The Tragedy of
Pudd'n Head Wilson." This book was adapted into a movie in 1916, and a made-for-TV movie in 1984.

1888 - Galton

Sir Francis Galton, British anthropologist and a cousin of Charles Darwin, began his observations of
fingerprints as a means of identification in the 1880's.

1891 - Vucetich
Juan Vucetich, an Argentine Police Official, began the first fingerprint files based on Galton pattern
types. At first, Vucetich included the Bertillon System with the files.

Right Thumb Impression and Signature of Juan Vucetich

1892 - Alvarez

At Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1892, Inspector Eduardo Alvarez made the first criminal fingerprint
identification. He was able to identify Francisca Rojas, a woman who murdered her two sons and cut her
own throat in an attempt to place blame on another. Her bloody print was left on a door post, proving
her presence at the scene of the murder. Alvarez was trained by Juan Vucetich.
 Francisca Rojas' Inked Fingerprints

1892 - Galton

Sir Francis Galton published his book, "Finger Prints" in 1892, establishing the individuality and
permanence of fingerprints. The book included the first published classification system for fingerprints.
In 1893, Galton published the book "Decipherment of Blurred Finger Prints," and in 1895 published the
book "Fingerprint Directories."

Galton's interest in fingerprints included assistance for his research into Eugenics. Eugenics focused on
manipulating heredity or breeding to produce better people and on eliminating those considered
biologically inferior.

While Galton soon discovered fingerprints were of no help to his genetic research (fingerprints offered
no firm clues to an individual's intelligence or genetic history), he was able to scientifically prove what
Herschel and Faulds already believed:

(1) Except for injury or disease, fingerprint ridge arrangements do not change over the course of an
individual's lifetime; and

(2) No two fingerprints are exactly the same.

According to Galton's calculations, the odds of two individual fingerprints being the same were 1 in 64
billion. He named the characteristics by which fingerprints can be identified. Most Galton Detail terms
describing friction ridge skin and impression features have been abandoned in modern forensic science
terminology.

1896 - Hodgson

On 8 May 1896, Dr. Ralph Hodgson gave a lecture on the value of fingerprint identification at the Sydney
School of Arts in Sydney, Australia. The lecture included discussion of the great value of fingerprints and
also the limited adoption of fingerprint records for identification by worldwide agencies already using
Bertillon measurements. A diagram used in the lecture is shown above.
1897 - The first National Bureau of Identification in the US

On October 20, 1897, the National Association of Chiefs of Police of the United States and Canada
opened the National Bureau of Identification (NBI) in City Hall at Chicago, Illinois. NBI files included
mugshots, fingerprints and related Bertillon records from criminals. In 1902, the parent organization's
name was changed to the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the NBI moved from Chicago
to Washington, DC.

1897 - India's Fingerprint Pioneers

Qazi Azizul Haque

Hem Chandra Bose

On 12 June 1897, the Council of the Governor General of India approved a committee report that
fingerprints should be used for the classification of criminal records. The Anthropometric Bureau in
Kolkata (now Calcutta) became the world's first Fingerprint Bureau later that year. Qazi Azizul Haque
and Hem Chandra Bose worked in the Calcutta Anthropometric Bureau (before it became the
Fingerprint Bureau).

Haque and Bose are the two Indian fingerprint experts credited with primary development of the Henry
System of fingerprint classification (named for their supervisor, Edward Richard Henry). The Henry
classification system is still used in many countries (primarily as the manual filing system for accessing
paper fingerprint card archive files which have not been scanned and computerized).
1900s

1900 - E.R. Henry

The United Kingdom Home Secretary Office conducted an inquiry into "Identification of Criminals by
Measurement and Fingerprints." Mr. Edward Richard Henry (later Sir ER Henry) appeared before the
inquiry committee to explain the system published in his recent book "The Classification and Use of
Fingerprints." The committee recommended adoption of fingerprinting as a replacement for the
relatively inaccurate Bertillon system of anthropometric measurement, which only partially relied on
fingerprints for identification.

1901 - New Scotland Yard

The Fingerprint Branch at New Scotland Yard (Metropolitan Police) was created in July 1901. It used the
Henry System of Fingerprint Classification.

1902 - de Forest Starts America's First Civil Fingerprint Process

Dr. Henry Pelouze de Forest was appointed Chief Medical Examiner of the New York City Civil
Service commission in June of 1902. He was tasked with developing a civil applicant
identification process to reduce fraud involving imposters taking tests for applicants. Dr. de
Forest travelled to Europe to study the Bertillon system, but while in England enroute to
France, he read a September 15, 1902 Daily Telegraph newspaper with the headline
"Identification by Finger Prints." Scotland Yard's success in solving cases with fingerprints
convinced de Forest to abandon the Bertillon system, cancelling his plans to study that system
in France.

Although rebuffed by Scotland Yard at first, with US Embassy assistance Dr. de Forest was
accepted as a fingerprint student under Sergeant (later Chief Inspector) Charles S. Collins at
Scotland Yard. Dr. de Forest returned to America with a fingerprint magnifier, several record
forms, and a copy of Sir Edward R. Henry’s publication "The Classification and Uses of Finger
Prints."

On 19 December 1902, James Johnson was the first person in America fingerprinted for civil
applicant purposes. Johnson was fingerprinted as part of New York City's Civil Service
application process.

1903
The New York State Prison System and Leavenworth Penitentiary in Kansas began using
fingerprinting.

The fingerprints of Will and William West were compared at Leavenworth Penitentiary after
both men were found to have very similar Anthropometric (Bertillon System) measurements.
1904The use of fingerprints began at the St. Louis Police Department. They were assisted
by a Sergeant from Scotland Yard who had been on duty at the St. Louis World's Fair Exposi
tion guarding the British Display. After the St. Louis World's Fair, more and more US police agen
cies joined in submitting fingerprints to the International Association of Chiefs of Police Burea
u of Criminal Identifica

05U.S. Army begins using fingerpr

ts.U.S. Department of Justice forms the Bureau of Criminal Identification in Washington, D

C to provide a centralized reference collection of fingerprint c

07U.S. Navy begins using fingerpr

ts.
In 1907, the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Bureau of Criminal Identification moves from
Washington, DC to Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary in Kansas where it is staffed at least
partially by inmates. Suspicious of inmates involvement with the identification process, the
International Association of Chiefs of Police BCI (still located in Washington, DC), refused to
share with the DOJ BCI in Kansas. The lack of communication between local, state, and federal
law enforcement presented great challenges at all levels in locating and identifying wanted
criminals, especially those moving from state to state. The disconnect was not remedied until
1924.

1908

U.S. Marine Corps begins using fingerprints.

1910 - Brayley
In 1910, Frederick Brayley published the first American textbook on fingerprints, "Arrangement
of Finger Prints, Identification, and Their Uses."

1912 - Fingerprint identification came back to haunt Sir E.R. Henry on 27 November 2012 when
he was shot outside his home in the Kensington district of west central London. Sir Henry was
exiting a vehicle when Alfred Bowes (also known as Albert Bowes) shot at him three times. One
shot hit Henry, lodging in his groin. Bowes was angry because his fingerprints proved he had
previously been arrested for being drunk and disorderly - causing him to be denied a taxi
driver's license. Bowes was sentenced to a prison term of up to 15 years. Sir Henry spoke out
for a lenient sentence at Bowe's trial, and when he was released from prison in 1922, Henry
paid for his passage to Canada for a new start on life.

1914 - Edmond Locard

Dr. Edmond Locard published his fingerprint identification conclusions and the criteria that
should be used to ensure reliability based on a statistical analysis study in 1914. His research
revealed the following three-part rule, which can be summarized as follows:

1. If more than 12 concurring points are present and the fingerprint is sharp, the certainty of
identity is beyond debate.

2. If 8 to 12 concurring points are involved, then the case is borderline and the certainty of
identity will depend on:

2.a. the sharpness of the fingerprints;

2.b. the rarity of its type;

2.c. the presence of the center of the figure [core] and the triangle [delta] in the exploitable
part of the print;

2.d. the presence of pores [poroscopy was previously spelled porescopy in some fingerprint
publications];

2.e. the perfect and obvious identity regarding the width of the papillary ridges and valleys, the
direction of the lines, and the angular value of the bifurcations [ridgeology / edgeoscopy]. Dr.
Locard also realized the value and the importance of, and rendered qualified conclusions to the
identification process.

3.If a limited number of characteristic points are present, the fingerprints cannot provide
certainty for an identification, but only a presumption proportional to the number of points
available and their clarity.
(Modified from: Christophe Champod, Institut de Police Scientifique et de Criminiologie
BCH/Universite de Lausanne, " Edmond Locard - Numerical Standards & "Probable"
Identifications, Journal of Forensic Identification, 45 (2) 1995, pp136-155)

1914

The idea of INTERPOL was born in Monaco at the first International Criminal Police Congress (14
to 18 April 1914). Officials from 24 countries discussed cooperation on solving crimes. In
addition to laying the foundation for INTERPOL, the meeting proposed laying the foundations
for establishing:
(1) An international identification file;
(2) A classification system for such files; and
(3) A list of categories for ordinary-law "international" or "cosmopolitan" offenders.

Electronic Encoding of Fingerprints - Denmark Police

In 1914, Hakon Jrgensen with the Copenhagen, Denmark Police lectured about the distant
(remote) identification of fingerprints at the International Police Conference in Monaco. The
process involved encoding fingerprint features for transmission to distant offices facilitating
identification through electronic communications. In 1916, the book "Distant Identification" is
published and used in Danish police training. The NIST (NBS) 1969 technical note reviewing
Jrgensen's system is online here. The 1922 English version of a book describing Jrgensen's
"Distant Identification" system is online here.

1915

Inspector Harry H. Caldwell of the Oakland, California Police Department's Bureau of

Identification wrote numerous letters to "Criminal Identification Operators" in August 1915,
requesting them to meet in Oakland for the purpose of forming an organization to further the
aims of the identification profession. In October 1915, a group of twenty-two identification
personnel met and initiated the "International Association for Criminal Identification" In 1918,
the organization was renamed to the International Association for Identification (IAI) due to the
volume of non-criminal identification work performed by members. Sir Francis Galton's right
index finger appears in the IAI logo. The IAI's official publication is the Journal of Forensic
Identification. The IAI's 100th annual educational conference was held in Sacramento,
California, near the IAI's original roots.

1923 - US Department of Justice Fingerprint Repository Returns to Washington, DC

Following a meeting between the US Attorney General and representatives of the International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the US Department of Justice Bureau of Criminal
Identification fingerprint collection was transferred from Leavenworth Penitentiary back to
Washington, DC, in October 1923.

1924 - FBI's Identification Division is formed

In 1924, an act of congress established the Identification Division of the FBI. The International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Bureau of Criminal Identification fingerprint repository and
the US Justice Department's Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI) fingerprint repository were
combined with fingerprint cards from Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary to form the nucleus of
the FBI Identification Division fingerprint files with a starting total of 810,188 fingerprint cards.
In 1924, the FBI's Identification Division had less than 1,000 routine contributors and received
an average of 300 fingerprint cards daily (FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, February 1933).

Fingerprint Clerks in the Technical Section of the FBI's Identification Division in 1930. The job
title Fingerprint Clerk was later changed to Fingerprint Examiner.

1933 - Between 1924 and early 1933, the number of law enforcement agencies routinely
submitting fingerprint records to the FBI had increased more than five-fold to 5,282 routine
contributors... and the average number of daily fingerprint cards received increased more than
six-fold to 2,000 cards daily (FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, February 1933).

1938 - The FBI's Identification Division files included more than 9,500,000 fingerprint cards as of
the end of 1938 (FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, December 1938, p. 18).

1940s

By the end of World War II, most American fingerprint experts agreed there was no scientific
basis for a minimum number of corresponding minutiae to determine an "identification" and
the twelve-point rule was dropped from the FBI publication, "The Science of Fingerprints."
 FBI Identification Division experts
in the Washington DC Armory.

By 1946, the FBI had processed over 100 million fingerprint cards in files maintained manually.
In 1947, the FBI's fingerprint repository was moved from the Washington DC Armory Building to
a new building at 2nd and D Streets Southwest in Washington, DC.

With the introduction of automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) technology, the files
were later split into computerized criminal files and manually maintained civil files. Many of the
manual files were duplicates though, the records actually represented somewhere in the
neighborhood of 25 to 30 million criminals, and an unknown number (tens of millions) of
individuals represented in the civil files.

1960s

In 1963, the FBI's Latent Print Unit completed 9,668 latent print cases from local, state and
federal American law enforcement, including 76,309 specimens (evidence items) for latent print
examination. The Latent Print Unit identified suspects in 795 of the cases.

As of 1 May 1964, the FBI's Identification Division had more than 170 million fingerprint records
(170,681,473 records), including almost 45 million criminal fingerprint records (44,926,750
criminal fingerprint records).

1970s

1971
On 15 December 1971, the FBI began accepting only arrest fingerprint cards with light red
(pinkish) impression boundary lines conforming to FD-249 specifications. Before that date,
many US law enforcement agencies used their own 8-inch x 8-inch fingerprint cards with slight
variations of the height and width of blocks wherein fingerprints would be recorded. The
change was needed for two reasons:
● To standardize the location of fingerprints for automated fingerprint scanning (flying spot
laser scanning in the early years); and
● To eliminate artificial bifurcations (artifacts) created when inked fingerprints extended over
black ink finger block boundary lines. The light red ink eliminated such artifact problems.
Click on the above image to see the front of the new "pinkish" FBI criminal record fingerprint
cards used since 1971.

The thousands of Ten print Examiners working in the FBI's Identification Division in the 1970s
had to pull groups of fingerprints cards from file cabinets (sometimes only a few cards and
sometimes hundreds) to manually compare the one-by-one against a newly received arrest,
applicant, or other type of inked fingerprint card.

Here are front and back images of a placeholder card which was used by one of those Tenprint
Examiners in 1972. Frequently, examiners would find that a group of fingerprint cards they
needed to search would have another examiner's placeholder card inserted among them. That
large plastic placeholder card was the signal to let them know they would have to wait for the
missing (currently being hand-searched nearby) cards to be returned to the file drawer before
the new search (one-by-one comparisons) could be completed.
The above placeholder card is stamped with the word "DEAD" to indicate the Fingerprint
Examiner worked for the Dead Desk unit of the Technical Section (TECH. DEAD DESK). The Dead
Desk examiners were assigned the task of daily searching unknown deceased fingerprints from
unidentified persons (from bodies discovered without ID documents, and fingerprints from
unidentified deceased US soldiers in the Viet Nam war).

The imperfect (often very deteriorated) condition of the skin on the deceased person's fingers
meant that DEAD DESK fingerprint records were especially difficult to analyze/classify, and
compare. Additionally, DEAD DESK fingerprints had to be compared against both criminal and
civil files, with the civil files having much less specific classification segments, often requiring
tens times as many comparisons in the civil files versus the same fingerprint classification range
in the criminal files.

1973
The International Association for Identification Standardization Committee authored a
resolution stating that each identification is unique and no valid basis exists to require a
minimum number of matching points in two friction ridge impressions to establish a positive
identification. The resolution was approved by members at the 1973 annual IAI conference.
1974 - The Fingerprint Society

In 1974, four employees of the Hertfordshire (United Kingdom) Fingerprint Bureau contacted
fingerprint experts throughout the UK and began organization of that country's first
professional fingerprint organization, the National Society of Fingerprint Officers. The
organization initially consisted of only UK experts, but quickly expanded to international scope
and was renamed The Fingerprint Society in 1977. The initials FFS behind a fingerprint expert's
name indicates they were recognized as a Fellow of the Fingerprint Society. The Society hosted
annual educational conferences with speakers and delegates attending from many countries. In
2017, The Fingerprint Society merged with The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences (CSFS)
and has since been known as the CSFS Fingerprint Division.

1977

On 1 August 1977 at New Orleans, Louisiana, members attending the 62nd Annual Conference
of the International Association for Identification (IAI) voted to establish the world's first
certification program for fingerprint experts. Since then, the IAI's Latent Print Certification
Board has tested thousands of applicants, and periodically proficiency retests all IAI Certified
Latent Print Examiners (CLPEs).

Contrary to assertions by some forensic science critics that fingerprint experts claim they never
make erroneous identifications, the Latent Print Certification program, active since 1977, has
specifically recognized such mistakes sometimes occur and must be addressed.

During the past four decades, CLPE status has become a prerequisite for journeyman fingerprint
expert positions in some US state and federal government forensic laboratories. IAI CLPE status
is considered by many identification professionals to be a measurement of excellence. CLPE's
have sometimes made erroneous latent print identifications (including an erroneous
identification made by the chair of the IAI's Latent Print Certification Board).

1995
At the International Symposium on Latent Fingerprint Detection and Identification, conducted
by the Israeli National Police Agency, at Neurim, Israel, June, 1995, the Neurim Declaration was
issued. The declaration, (authored by Pierre Margot and Ed German), states "No scientific basis
exists for requiring that a pre-determined minimum number of friction ridge features must be
present in two impressions in order to establish a positive identification." The declaration was
unanimously approved by all present, and later, signed by 28 persons from the following 11
countries: Australia, Canada, France, Holland, Hungary, Israel, New Zealand, Sweden,
Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States.

In 1995, the FBI established the Technical Working Group for Friction Ridge Analysis, Study, and
Technology (TWGFAST) to help establish national standards, guidelines, and best practices for
friction ridge examination in forensic science laboratories and law enforcement latent print
offices. TWGFAST was modeled after the FBI-sponsored Technical Working Group on DNA
Analysis Methods (TWGDAM) established in 1989.

In 1999, TWGFAST became SWGFAST when all the FBI-sponsored Technical Working Groups
(TWGs) were renamed to Scientific Working Groups (SWGs). The renaming was partially to
differentiate the long-term (many years) aspect of forensic working groups establishing
standards, guidelines, and best practices from the short-term (one-day or one-week) TWGs
sponsored by the US National Institute of Justice to work on documents/guides... and partially
to emphasize the focus on embracing science for improvement in the various forensic
disciplines.

2004
Because of quality assurance lessons learned after high-profile case errors such as the Brandon
Mayfield mistaken identification, check boxes for latent print examination since 2004 have
included the following:

 Training to competency of all latent print examiners in compliance with national or

international guidelines.

 Annual Proficiency Testing of every latent print examiner in compliance with national or
international guidelines.

 International Association for Identification Certified Latent Print Examiner status. Just as
most accountants are not Certified Public Accountants, less than half of all latent print
examiners in America ever achieve IAI Certification. It does not mean they are not
trained to minimum competency but does mean they have not passed what many US
state and federal labs consider the minimum status for employment as senior latent
print examiners.

 Every latent print "identification" (strongest association) must undergo quality

assurance review by a second trained to competency latent print examiner.

 Every case including one of the following "red flags" must undergo blind-review by a
second latent print examiner (preferably by a CLPE). During the past four decades, one
or both of these red flags have almost always been present when a mistaken
"identification" happens:

o Only one latent print strongest association ("identification") to a person,

especially if the association resulted from automated search results (AFIS or
ABIS).

o Any complex (poor quality) latent or record print involved in a strongest

association ("identification") opinion. The following sufficiency graph (SWGFAST
version 2013) does not suggest or endorse the use of minutiae counts as the sole
criteria for a decision threshold, but the yellow (B) area is typically complex and
the red (A) area is typically insufficient for "identification":
  Requiring a second expert blind-review of any case involving only one latent print
suitable for comparison, whether or not an elimination or strongest association
(identification) occurred. This practice helps eliminate confirmation bias when other
experts might expect only "identifications" to be presented to them for review.

 Requiring a second latent print examiner review (typically not a blind-review) of every
latent print comparison in every case, including all eliminations (non-idents).

INTERPOL's Automated Fingerprint Identification System repository exceeds 150,000 sets of

fingerprints for important international criminal records from 190 member countries. Over 170
countries have 24 x 7 interface ability with INTERPOL expert fingerprint services.

2014
In 2014, SWGFAST was replaced by the Friction Ridge Subcommittee of the Organization of
Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC). Most, but not all, SWGs were
disbanded when OSAC was formed.

2015
The International Association for Identification celebrated it's 100th Anniversary in California,
the same state where the IAI began in 1915.

2021 - Largest Annual International Identification Conference

105th IAI Annual Educational Conference
Sunday, August 1st, 2021 - Saturday, August 7th, 2021
The IAI Annual Educational Conference is the largest organized event in the world and provides
a week of high-quality, cutting-edge education and hands-on training in forensic physical
evidence examination and crime scene processing.

2021- Fingerprint Records versus DNA Records

On 21 April 2021, the FBI's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) met a major milestone of 20
million total DNA records received in its combined national DNA repository.

2022

America's Largest Databases

The Department of Homeland Security's Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM was
formerly US-VISIT), contains over 120 million persons' fingerprints, many in the form of two-
finger records. The US Visit Program has been migrating from two flat (not rolled) fingerprints
to ten flat fingerprints since 2007. "Fast capture" technology currently enables the recording of
ten simultaneous fingerprint impressions in as little as 15 seconds per person.

As of March 2022, the FBI's Next Generation Identification (NGI) conducts processes an average
of more than 145,000 tenprint record daily searches against more than 144 million
computerized fingerprint records (both criminal and civil applicant records). The 145,000 daily
fingerprint searches support 18,000 law enforcement agencies and 16,000 non-law
enforcement agencies. At 70% more accurate that the FBI's previous version of automated
latent print technology, NGI is the FBI's most valuable service to American law enforcement,
providing accurate and rapid fingerprint identification support.

FBI civil fingerprint files in NGI (primarily including federal employees and federal employment
applicants) have become searchable by all US law enforcement agencies in recent years. Many
enlisted military service member fingerprint cards received after 1990, and most (officer,
enlisted and civilian) military-related fingerprint cards received after 19 May 2000, have been
computerized and are searchable.

As of December 2022, NGI's civil fingerprint repository has 67,908,793 searchable fingerprint
records and over 81,969,052 criminal fingerprint repository records (https://le.fbi.gov/file-
repository/ngi-fact-sheet.pdf/view).

The FBI continues to expand their automated identification activities to include other
biometrics such as palm, face, and iris. Direct face search capabilities in NGI are a reality for
some US law enforcement agencies, and all others can submit faces to FBI CJIS' Face Services
Unit by opening collaborative investigations through their supporting FBI offices.

Every state in the America, as well as many large cities, have their own AFIS databases, each
with a subset of fingerprint records which are not stored in any other database. Palmprints are
also stored and searched in many of these databases. Law enforcement fingerprint interface
standards are important to enable sharing records and reciprocal searches to identify criminals.

International Sharing

Many European nations currently leverage multiple fingerprint information sharing operations,
including the following: Schengen Information System (SIS); Visa Information System (VIS);
European Dactyloscopy (EURODAC); and Europol. Additionally, a biometric-based Entry Exit
System (EES) is in planning stages. Many other countries exchanges searches/fingerprint
records in a similar manner as Europe, with automated and non-automated interfaces existing
in accordance with national/international privacy laws and the urgency/importance of such
searches.

As of 2022, INTERPOL's Automated Fingerprint Identification System repository exceeds

220,000 sets of record fingerprints for important international criminal records and more than
17,000 crime scene marks (latent prints).

World's Largest Database

The Unique Identification Authority of India is the world's largest fingerprint (and largest multi-
modal biometric) system using fingerprint, face and iris biometric records. India's Unique
Identification project is also known as Aadhaar, a word meaning "the foundation" in several
Indian languages. Aadhaar is a voluntary program with the goal of providing most of India's
estimated 1.25 billion residents with reliable national identification documents.

With a biometric database many times larger than any other in the world, Aadhaar's ability to
leverage automated fingerprint and iris modalities (and potentially automated face recognition)
enables rapid and reliable automated searching and identification impossible to accomplish
with fingerprint technology alone, especially when searching children and elderly residents'
fingerprints (children are fingerprinted and photographed as young as age 5). As of November
2022, the Authority has issued more than 1.35 billion Aadhaar numbers.

Over a period of decades, scientific understanding in every discipline increases. Newly realized
"truths" then enable replacement of erroneous portions of standards, guidelines, and best
practices consecrated by the previous generation of well-intentioned experts.

Science is a set of provisional explanations, also known as hypotheses, which are updated as new
information becomes available.

For example, the 12-point rule utilized for "identifying" fingerprints in America during the early 1900s
was abandoned by the FBI in the 1940s when it was realized 12 poor-quality (low clarity) points were
less rare (had lower specificity) for "identification" support than fewer very clear points having relatively
rare shapes and unit relationships.

Nowadays, friction ridge science is improving by attempting to express subjective opinions with greater
accuracy (not as positive identifications) until new research supports the next advancement... perhaps
that advancement will be a well-validated algorithm stating likelihood ratios.

* As of 2016, the term positive identification (meaning absolute certainty) has been replaced in forensic
reports and testimony by most agencies/experts with more accurate terminology, including variations of
wording such as the following:
Examination and comparison of similarities and differences between the impressions resulted in the
opinion there is a much greater support for the impressions originating from the same source than there
is for them originating from different sources.

Current US Department of Justice Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports for the Latent Print
Discipline.

A related 2014 paper titled "Individualization is dead, long live individualization! Reforms of reporting
practices for fingerprint analysis in the United States" by Simon Cole, Professor at University of
California, Irvine.

Professor Cole's 2020 paper recommending use of the word "findings" in forensic reports instead of
conclusions, decisions, and other term.

Common Terms

The Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST) maintains a
list of terms generally used and accepted within the fingerprint analysis community. Additional terms
can be found on the SWGFAST website .

Arch, plain - A type of print pattern in which the friction ridges enter on one side of the print and flow
out the other side with a rise or wave in the center.

Arch, tented - A type of print pattern similar to the plain arch but that possesses an angle, upthrust
(central rise), or two of the three basic characteristics of the loop.

Cyanoacrylate - The primary (>98%) component of super glue; it is used in a fuming technique to
develop latent (invisible) prints on a variety of surfaces so they can be photographed.

Core - A structure in the print that is the center line or lines of the print; it is important for conducting
ridge counts.

Delta - A point in loop and whorl prints that lies within an often triangular, three-pronged or funnel-
shaped structure; it is the part of a ridge nearest the point where two parallel ridge lines (the “type”
lines) diverge to flow around the loop or whorl; loop patterns have one delta, which is the starting point
for conducting a ridge count, and whorls have two or more, which are important for determining the
whorl type.

Friction ridge - The raised portion of the skin of the print, consisting of one or more connected ridges.

Furrow - A valley or depression between friction ridges.

Loop - A type of print pattern in which one or more friction ridges enter on one side of the print, curve
up and around and back down, then flow out on the same side of the print from which it entered; types
can be divided into left slant loops and right slant loops or, if the source of the print is known to be a
specific hand (the left or right), into radial loops (the pattern flows in the direction of the radius bone of
the forearm, toward the thumb) and ulnar loops (the pattern flows in the direction of the ulna bone of
the forearm, toward the little finger).
Loupe - A small, often frame-mounted magnifier used for examining fingerprint detail.

Print - The mark made by a finger or thumb on a surface or in a soft material such as wax or wet paint;
can be patent (surface-visible), latent (surface-invisible), or plastic (3-dimensional in soft material).

Ridge counter - A handheld, pointed tool used for counting the number of ridges during fingerprint
analysis.

Shoulder - The point of a loop’s recurving ridge where it curves back around.

Whorl, accidental - A type of print pattern consisting of the combination of two different types of
patterns (excluding the plain arch) with two or more deltas; or a print pattern type that possesses some
of the requirements for two or more different types of patterns; or a print pattern type that conforms to
none of the definitions of a pattern.

Whorl, central pocket loop - A type of print pattern that has two deltas and at least one friction ridge
that makes one complete circuit, which may be spiral, oval, circular, or any variant of a circle; an
imaginary line drawn between the two deltas does not touch or cross the “central pocket” (the
recurving ridges within the inner pattern area).

Whorl, double loop - A type of print pattern that consists of two separate loop formations with two
separate and distinct sets of shoulders and two deltas.

Whorl, plain - A type of print pattern that consists of one or more friction ridges making a complete
circuit and two deltas; an imaginary line drawn between the two deltas touches or crosses at least one
recurving ridge within the inner pattern area.

References:

FBI, The CJIS Link; vol. 4, no. 23, page 10, by US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Fall 2000.

Jenkins, J. J. (1902). National Bureau of Criminal Identification (No. 429). U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary.

Moore, Greg; some of the above wording is credited to Greg Moore, from his previous fingerprint
history page at www.brawleyonline.com/consult/history.htm (no longer online).

Interpol, "General Position on Fingerprint Evidence," by the Interpol European Expert Group on
Fingerprint Identification (accessed March 2010 at www.interpol.int).

Coulier, P.-J. Les vapeurs d'iode employees comme moyen de reconnaitre l'alteration des ecritures. In
L'Annee scientiJique et industrielle; Figuier, L. Ed.; Hachette, 1863; 8, pp. 157-160
at http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k7326j (as of March 2010).

Henry Pelouze de Forest details are from an article by Harry J. Myer, II; Finger Print and Identification
Magazine; 30(2), August, 1948.

Margot, Pierre and Quinche, Nicolas, "Coulier, Paul-Jean (1824-1890): A Precursor in the History of
Fingermark Detection and Their Potential Use for Identifying Their Source (1863)", Journal of forensic
identification, 60 (2), March-April 2010, pp. 129-134, (published by the International Association for
Identification).

Herschel information is from a Fingerprint Identification presentation by T. Dickerson Cook at the annual
meeting of the Texas Division, International Association for Identification, at Midland, Texas on 9 August
1954 (documented in Identification News, April 1964, pp. 5-10).

August 2018 presentation by FBI Biometric Services/NGI Section Chief William G. McKinsey at the
International Association for Identification's annual educational conference.

William and Will West images courtesy of Joshua L. Connelly, CLPE, whose research into fingerprint
history archives continues to enlighten the friction ridge community.

TEST EVALUATION

I. Define each word operationally( 2 points each)

1. Fingerprint__________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Dactyloscopy________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Core_______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Delta_______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Ridge______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Typeline____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Bifurcation
ridge_________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Radial
loop_________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Ulnar
Loop_________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
8. Whorl______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
9. Loop_______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
10. Arch______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
II. Enumerate the element of word needed in every question
1-5 Give at least 5 persons involve in development of fingerprint identification system.
6-10 Give at least 5 importance of fingerprint in crime investigation.
11-20 Give at least 10 types of personal identification.
III Essay
!. Why fingerprint identification is important?( 10 points)
CHAPTER 2
Fingerprint Ridge Patterns and Characteristics
Systems of Personal Identification

1. Branding and even maiming were used to mark the criminal;

2. Cutting of hand of thief;
3. Tattooing to identify and prevent desertion of mercenary soldiers;
4. Visual memories (camera eyes) to identify previously arrested offenders by sight;
5. Photography
6. Bertillon System: (1) photograph, (2) portrait parle, (3) anthropometry; proven inaccurate in Will
and William West Case
7. Fingerprints

Scientific Basis of Friction Skin Identification

Nature of Friction Skin:

1. Undersides of fingers, palms, toes, & soles – corrugated skin structure: volar skin – biologist,
friction skin – fingerprint examiner, and fingerprints – public
2. Friction skin: (1) ridges - elevated areas, and (2) furrows - depressions
3. Friction skin; 2 main layers: (1) epidermis – outer layer, and (2) dermis - the inner layer.
4. Epidermis: (1) generating layer – innermost layer; creates new cells, and (2) outer layer - mostly
dead cells.

Summary of Formation of Ridges

- General patterns on the volar areas are determined by heredity and genetic master plan.

- Friction ridges are randomly formed because of biological variation.

- Biological variations are due to environmental influences occurring during fetal development.

- Environmental influences: pressures, stresses, and other physical factors such as disease and nutrition.
Thus, no two areas of friction skin will ever be the same.
- Identical twins may have similar friction skin patterns but their individual ridge formations will not be
the same.

- Ridges are formed and become unique and permanent during approximately the fourth month of fetal
life.

Reference: Leo, W. (2004). Fingerprint Identification. LawTech Custom Publishing, Inc.

FINGERPRINT PATTERN INTERPRETATION

TYPES OF PATTERNS

I. Arch (5%): a. Plain Arch b. Tented Arch

II. Loop (60%): a. Radial Loop b. Ulnar Loop
III. Whorl (35%): a. Plain Whorl b. Central Pocket Loop c. Double Loop d. Accidental Loop

I. ARCHES: Plain Arch and Tented Arch

Plain Arch: (1) ridges enter upon one side, (2) make a rise or wave in the center, (3) and flow or tend to
flow out upon the opposite side.

- No (1) looping ridge, (2) an upthrust ridge, (3) an angle, or (4) a recurve.

- Indicated by: (1) Capital “A” in fingers number 2 and 7; (2) Small “a” in fingers other than 2 and 7.

Tented Arch: possesses an (1) angle, (2) an upthrust, or (3) two of the three basic characteristics of the
loop.

Angular Type Tented Arch: (1) formed by two ridges meeting at an angle; (2) one continuous ridge
cannot form an angle; and (3) angle must be 90 degrees or less.

Upthrust Type Tented Arch: (1) an upthrust must be an ending ridge – a ridge which ends in space; (2)
an upthrust must make a definite change of direction from the basic ridge. It must be an angle of forty-
five degrees or more from base ridge; and (3) an upthrust must be as high as the surrounding ridges are
thick.

§ NOTE: Dots have no direction.

Loop Type (Lacking One Characteristic): (1) one which approaches the loop, (2) may have any
combination of two of the three basic loop characteristics, (3) lacking the third. Note: These three loop
characteristics are, to repeat: (a) A sufficient recurve. (b) A delta. (c) A ridge count across a looping ridge

- Tented arches are indicated by: (1) Capital “T” in fingers number 2 and 7, and (2) Small “t” in fingers
other than 2 and 7.

II. LOOP PATTERNS: (1) one or more ridges enter upon either side, (2) recurve, (3) touch or pass an
imaginary line between delta and core, and (4) pass out or tend to pass out upon the same side the
ridges entered.

Basic Requirements of a Loop:

(1) Sufficient recurve,

(2) Delta, and Core

(3) Ridge count across a looping ridge

Ridge Counting: Rules to Remember

o Draw a line between delta and core.

o As long as you touch or cross a ridge, you have a ridge count.

o One ridge must be a looping ridge.

o The delta and core are not included in the ridge count.

o Fragments and dots are counted as ridges only if they appear as thick as the surrounding ridges.

o If you cross a bifurcation, count each of its arms.

o If the delta is on the only loop, there is no ridge count.

TYPES OF LOOPS

o Ulnar loops flow toward the little finger – Ulna bone –

§ Indicated by a diagonal line in the direction the loop flows.

§ Remember: (1) Right hand ulna = Delta on left side; and (2) Left hand ulna = Delta on right side.

o Radial loops flow toward the thumb – Radius bone –

§ Indicated by a Capital “R” in fingers two and seven and by a small “r” in all other fingers.

§ Remember: (1) Right hand radial = Delta on right side; and (2) Left hand radial = Delta on left side.

III. WHORL PATTERNS

Plain Whorl: (1) consists of one or more ridges which make or tend to make a complete circuit, (2) with
two deltas, (3) between which, when an imaginary line is drawn, at least one recurving ridge within the
inner pattern area is cut or touched.

o Remember: (1) Two deltas and at least one ridge making a complete circuit or variant of a circle. (2)
An imaginary line drawn from delta to delta must cut or touch at least one recurving ridge within the
inner pattern area.

Central Pocket Loop Whorl: (1) consists of at least one recurving ridge, or (2) an obstruction at right
angles to the line of flow, (3) with two deltas, (4) between which, when an imaginary line is drawn, no
recurving ridge within the inner pattern area is cut or touched.

o Recurving Type: Similar to plain whorl, two deltas and at least one ridge making a complete circuit.

o Difference from a plain whorl – An imaginary line drawn from delta to delta must not cut or touch a
recurving ridge in front of the inner delta.

Double Loop Whorl: (1) consists of two separate loop formations, (2) with two separate, and (3) distinct
sets of shoulders and two deltas.

o Remember: (1) 2 separate loop formations, (2) 2 separate and distinct sets of shoulders, and (3) 2
deltas.

o No ridge count is needed for loops in a double loop whorl.

o The appendage rule for double loops is the same as that for plain loops.

§ Plain loop appendage rule – Sufficient recurve consists of the space between the shoulders of a loop,
free of any appendages which abut upon it at a right angle on the outside of the recurve.

o “S” type whorls and “interlocking loops” are not double loop whorls.

Accidental Whorl: (1) consists of a combination of two different types of patterns with the exception of
the plain arch, (2) with two or more deltas, or (3) a pattern which possesses some of the requirements
for two or more different types or a pattern which conforms which conforms to none of the definitions.

o Remember: (1) combination of two different types of patterns with the exception of the plain arch,
(2) two or more deltas. Only pattern which may possess two or more deltas, (3) patterns possessing
some of the requirements of two or more different types, with the exception of the plain arch.

o Patterns conforming to none of the definitions.

WHORL SYMBOLS: (1) Plain Whorl – W, (2) Double Loop – D, (3) Central Pocket – C, (4) Accidental – X
o For classifying and general searching, “W” is used to indicate all whorl types below the fingerprint
block.

o Type of whorl should be indicated in the upper left hand corner of the fingerprint block.

WHORL TRACINGS

o Trace from left delta to a point opposite the right delta.

o Trace from the farthest left delta to a point opposite the farthest right delta when there are three or
more deltas present.

o Drop down at ending ridges.

o Follow the lower fork at a bifurcation.

o Stop at a point opposite the right delta and count ridges between that point and the delta.

o Do not count delta or tracing ridge. The tracing ridge is the ridge where the tracing stopped opposite
the right delta.

o It is not necessary to count more than three ridges.

Rules In The Selection of Type lines, Core & Delta

TYPELINES: (1) two innermost ridges that start or go parallel, (2) diverge and surround or tend to
surround the pattern area: (a) core, (b) delta and (3) ridges which are used in the classification of a loop.

RULES

1. Typelines are not always two continuous ridges, but are often broken. When there is a definite
break in a typeline, the ridge immediately outside of it is considered as its continuation.

2. When locating typelines, it is necessary to keep in mind the difference between a divergence
and a bifurcation.

3. The arms of a bifurcation on which the delta is located cannot be used for typelines.

4. Angles cannot be considered for typelines.

References:

The Science of Fingerprints, FBI, (2) Henry Fingerprint Classification and Identification, Sirchie Crime
Scene Technology School Youngsville, North Carolina

.Delac, K., & Grgic, M. (2004). A Survey of Biometric Recognition Methods. Proceedings. Elmar-
2004.46th International Symposium on Electronics in Marine, Zadar, Croatia, 2004, pp. 184-193

Ravi, J., K, R. B., & Venugopal, R. K. (2009). Fingerprint Recognition using Minutia Score Matching.
International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, Vol. 1(2), 35-42

Mir A.H, Rubab, S and Jhat, Z. A. Biometrics Verification: a Literature Survey. Journal of Computing
and ICT Research, Vol. 5, Issue 2, pp 67-80. http://www.ijcir.org/volume5-
number2 /article7.pdf

Borra, S. R., Reddy, G. J., & Reddy, E. S. (2016). A broad survey on fingerprint recogn ition systems.
2016 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Signal Processing and
Networking (WiSPNET), 1428-
1434. https://doi.org/10.1109/WiSPNET.2016.7566372

Subban, R., & Mankame, D. P. (2013). A Study of Biometric Approach Using Fingerprint
Recognition. Lecture Notes on Software Engineering, 209-
213. https://doi.org/10.7763/LNSE.2013.V1.47

Reference: German, E. (2012, January 21). The History of Fingerprints. Retrieved May 5, 2012,
from Latent Print Examination: Fingerprints, Palmprints and Footprints:
http://onin.com/fp/fphistory.html
TEST EVALUATION
III. Define each word operationally( 2 points each)

1. Friction skin________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Dermis_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Epidermis___________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Plain arch
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Tented arch
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Central pocket loop whorl_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Double loop whorl____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
8. Accidental whorl_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

9. Plain whorl__________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
10. Whorl tracing_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
IV. Enumerate the element of word needed in every question
1-5 give at least 5 characteristics of ridges.
6-10 give at least 5 types of delta.
11-15 give at least 5 rules in selecting delta.
16-20 give at least 5 characteristics of loop.
III Essay
!. Discuss the importance of determining ridge characteristics (10 points)

CHAPTER 3
Fingerprint Classification

CLASSIFICATION FORMULA
- “Blocking Out” step – identifying all 10 fingers as to pattern type.

o Index Fingers (No. 2 and No. 7) – capital letter to indicate the pattern type except an ulnar loop: (1)
Arch: A, (2) Tented Arch: T, (3) Radial Loop: R, (4) Ulnar Loop: in any finger are designated by a diagonal
line slanting in the direction of the loop, and (5) Whorl: W
o All other fingers – small letter except for ulnar loops. All whorls – capital “W”: (1) Small Letter
Designation: a, t, r; (2) Ulnar Loop: Right Hand \, Left Hand /

- The classification formula is composed of the following divisions: (1) Primary, (2) Secondary, (3)
Subsecondary (may be replaced by the “Small Letter” classification.), (3) Major, (4) Final, (2) Key plus
Extensions

Classification line: Key, Major, Primary, Secondary, Sub-secondary, and Final

Primary Classification: Whorl Division – based on the appearance of whorl.

- Predetermined number: (1) Fingers 1 & 2 = 16; (2) Fingers 3 & 4 = 8; (3) Fingers 5 & 6 = 4; (4)
Fingers 7 & 8 = 2; and (5) Fingers 9 & 10 = 1

- Predetermined number will only be considered if WHORL appears

- Add all the odd numbered fingers plus 1; add all the even numbered fingers plus 1.

- Evenumerator and Oddenominator

- If no whorls are present on the even fingers, the value given is 1. If no whorls are present on the
odd fingers, the value is 1.

- There are 1,024 possible Primary combinations.

Secondary Classification.

1. Capital Letter: type of pattern appearing on the index fingers (Fingers No. 2 and 7). Capital letters
are used to indicate patterns: (1) A – Plain Arch, (2) T – Tented Arch, (3) R – Radial Loop, (4) U – Ulnar
Loop, (5) W – Whorl (all types)

a. 25 possible combinations in the Secondary.

b. Placed to the right of the Primary in the classification formula.

c. The right hand is placed above the line and the left hand is below the line.

2. Small Letter: small letter patterns of the ART: arches, radial loops, and tented arches on fingers No.
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10.

a. The dash (-) indicates absence of ART.

b. No dash (-) in thumbs if they are not ART

c. If two or more small letter patterns exist consecutively, you may use a number to indicate the
series such as:

Sub-secondary Classification: Found thru examination of fingers 2,3,4,7,8,9.

- Not necessary for most filing systems if a Small Letter classification was possible.

- Even one Small Letter such as a plain arch, tented arch or radial loop out of ten fingers is enough
to eliminate this step.

- Only loops (ridge count) and whorls (ridge trace) are considered.

- Loop: (1) Index: (a) Inner (I) = 1-9, (b) Outer (O) = 10+; (2) Middle: (a) Inner (I) = 1-10, (b) Outer (O)
= 11+; Ring: (a) Inner (I) = 1-13, (b) Outer (O) = 14+;

- Whorls: “I” (Inner) = ridge trace (RT) going inward with 3 or more intervening ridges between RT
and Delta; “M” (Meeting) = RT going inward or outward with less than 3 intervening ridges between RT
and Delta; “O” (Outer) = RT) going outward with 3 or more intervening ridges between RT and Delta

- The sub-secondary is brought up to the classification line to the right of the Secondary.

The Major Division: concerned only with the thumbs (Fingers No. 1 and 6).

- There are two formulas for the right thumb.

- These formulas are used when there are loops or at least one whorl on either thumb.

- Eliminated if a Small Letter Classification was possible.

- When loops and/or whorls are present on the thumbs, ridge-count the loops and ridge-trace the
whorls.

- If both thumbs are whorls, perform a ridge tracing on each and place the resulting I, M, or O on
the classification line to the left of the primary.

- The right hand tracing goes above the line, and the left hand goes below the line.

- When a Loop appears on either or both thumbs, proceed as follows:

a. Look at the left thumb first

b. If the ridge count on the left thumb is from 1 to 11, it is given the designation of “S” (Small). If the
count is 12 -16, it is an “M” (Medium), and if the count is 17 or more, it is an “L” (Large).
c. Now look at the right thumb. When the left thumb is 16 or less or it is a whorl, use the following
formula: No. 1: 1 – 11 = S; 12 – 16 = M; 17 or more = L

- When the left thumb is 17 or over, use the following: No. 2: 1 – 17 = S; 18 – 22 = M; 23 or more = L

- Note: If the left thumb is a whorl and the right thumb is a loop, use formula No. 1 above.

The Final: The Final is taken from the little fingers, Fingers No. 5 and 10.

- If both little fingers are loops, Finger No. 5 has priority.

- When a loop and a whorl occur, the loop is given priority.

- If no loops occur, a whorl is used.

- A whorl pattern is treated as an ulnar loop (if no loops are present), and ridges are counted.

o Thus, a whorl on the right hand is ridge-counted from the left delta. A whorl on the left hand is ridge
counted from the right delta.

o Special Whorl Situations:

§ Horizontal double loop whorls are counted from the delta (selected per the above) to the nearest
core.

§ A vertical double loop whorl is counted from the left delta to the upright loop.

§ If there are two or more cores (accidental whorls), the ridge count is made from the left delta (right
hand) or right delta (left hand) to the nearest core.

- A loop on Finger No. 5 eliminates the need to ridge-count a whorl on Finger No. 10.

- Note: If Fingers No. 5 and 10 are arches or tented arches, there is no final

The Key: found by ridge-counting the first loop appearing on the fingerprint record card – beginning
with the right thumb – exclusive of the little fingers (which are used for the Final). The Key, no matter
where it is found, is always placed to the extreme left of the numerator of the classification formula:

Extensions: used only when filing systems become (1) too large or (2) cumbersome

- WCDX Extension: Used for large Whorl Groups such as: 32/32

o W,C,D,X (capital letters) – whorl pattern on index fingers.

o w, c, d, x (lower case letters) – whorl pattern on all other fingers.

o Placed above the sub-secondary (instead of using a second sub-secondary).

Second Sub-Secondary: used when a group of fingerprints becomes too (1) cumbersome and (2)
unwieldy.

- Placed directly above the Sub-Secondary.

Use the following chart (based on ridge counts): Index – 1-5=S, 6-12=M, 13 or +=L; Middle – 1– 8 = S, 9–
14 = M, 15 or + = L; Ring – 1–10=S, 11–18=M, 19 or more=L

The NCIC Classification System: second classification system currently in use in the U.S.

- National Crime Information Center (NCIC) Classification System.

- Computerized database that allows law enforcement agencies nationwide access to among other
thing, wanted bulletins and warrants for outstanding suspects and fugitives.

- Developed and used as a short cut to the Henry System; individual suspected of being a subject of
want or warrant could be eliminated quickly.

- Letter or Number Codes: (1) Plain arch=AA, (2) Tented arch=TT, (3) Ulnar loop=The ridge count,
(4) Radial loop=The ridge count plus 50, (5) Plain whorl=P plus the tracing I, M, or O, (6) Central Pocket
loop=C plus the tracing I, M, or O, (7) Double loop whorl =small d plus tracing I, M, or O, (8)
Accidental=X plus the tracing, I, M, or O, (9) Missing finger=XX, (10) Scar or mutilation=SR

TEST EVALUATION
V. Define each word operationally( 2 points each)

1. Primary classification__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Secondary classification________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Sub- Secondary classification___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Final Classification___________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Key Classification_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Major Division__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Inner Whorl
_____________________________________________________________________________________
8. Meeting whorl_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
9. Outer Whorl_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Intervening ridge_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
VI. Enumerate the element of word needed in every question
1-5 give at least 5 rules in solving major division.
6-10 give at least 5 procedure in taking sub Secondary classification.
11-15 give at least 5 consideration in solving final classification.
16-20 give at least 5 essential element of primary classification.
III Essay
!. Discuss the importance of fingerprint classification (10 points)

CHAPTER 4
Classification of Scarred Patterns—Amputations—Missing at Birth

Classification of scarred patterns

Rule 1. (So) Scarred Impression –

Characteristics:

- cannot be determined with reasonable accuracy as to general type of pattern; ridge tracing; or ridge
count

Classification: general classification and sub classification is that of the corresponding finger of the
other hand.
Rule 2. Partially Scarred (general type cannot be determined) –

Characteristics:

- large scar around the core

- general type cannot be determined with reasonable accuracy
- ridges can be accurately sub classified by ridge tracings or counting

Classification: primary value of the pattern of the corresponding finger and the sub classification value
as indicated by the ridges of partially scarred impressions.

Rule 3. Partially Scarred (general type can be determined) –

Characteristics:
general type of pattern can be determined with reasonable accuracy; ridges cannot be traced or
counted so as to fall within the proper sub secondary classification.

ridge count or tracing value of the corresponding finger of the other hand, if the corresponding finger
is of the same general type.
· Scarred impression should be given the probable value and referenced to all other possibilities, If
the corresponding finger is not of the same general type.

Rule 4. (So) Scarred (general type and ridge tracing and count cannot be determined) –

Characteristics:

- general type of pattern and ridge tracing or count cannot be determined with reasonable
accuracy;
- corresponding finger of the other hand is similarly scarred.

Classification: whorls with meeting tracings.

Application of the Rule

1. It looks like any pattern

2. If opposite finger is

a. An arch or tented arch or whorl, classification is arch, tented arch, or whorl (with the same
tracing). (Rule 1)
b. Small-count loop, classification is loop of the same count. (Rule 1)
c. Scarred in the same fashion or were amputated or missing, classification is whorls with
meeting tracings. (Rule 4)
Classification of amputations and fingers missing at birth

Rule 1. Amputation Group; Statement of Amputation or Missing of Finger

- Separate filing of fingerprint cards having one or more amputations
- (Amputation) Card must contain express statement of subject about amputation of finger or
missing of finger since birth.

Rule 2. One Amputation; Classification Corresponds to Opposite Finger

- If one finger is amputated, classification corresponds with the opposite finger and referenced to
every other possible classification.

Rule 3. Two or More Amputations; Classification Corresponds to Opposite Fingers

- If two or more fingers are amputated, classification corresponds with the opposite fingers and
with no additional references.

Rule 4. Opposite Amputated Fingers; Classification is whorls with meeting tracings.

- If amputated fingers are opposite each other, classification is whorls with meeting tracings.

Rule 5. Missing Fingers Treated as Amputations

Rule 6. All 10 Fingers Amputated or Missing at Birth

- If all 10 fingers are amputated or missing at birth, classification is:

M 32 W MMM.
-------------------
M 32 W MMM

Rule 7. Both Hands Amputated or Missing at Birth

- If both hands are amputated or missing at birth, footprints should be taken, i.e., if the police
maintains a footprint file such as the FBI.

Rule 8. Partially Amputated Fingers

- Partially amputated fingers are left to the discretion of the classifier as there was no definite rule
to this effect.
- General Guidelines

· Half or more than half of the pattern area missing: classification of the opposite finger.

· Two or more fingers with half or more than half of the pattern area missing. Classification of the
opposite fingers and governed by the rules concerning amputations.

· Tip Amputation (less than half of the first joint amputated) – classified as it appears and
referenced to the opposite finger.

Classification of bandaged or imprinted fingers

Rule 1. Recently Injured, Bandaged Not Sufficient to File Fingerprint Card

- If the injury is temporary, and if possible, these prints should not be taken until after healing.

Rule 2. Injured Fingers Impossible to Ink

- If injured fingers are impossible to ink, classification of unprinted fingers correspond with the
opposite fingers.

- If injured fingers which are impossible to ink, classification is whorls with meeting tracings.

Reference: (1) Latent Fingerprints: From Crime Scene to Courtroom, Sirchie Fingerprint Laboratories,
Inc. (2) Leo, William, Fingerprint Identification, LawTech Custom Publishing, Inc. (3) Federal Bureau of
Investigation, The Science of Fingerprints, United States Government Printing Office.

TEST EVALUATION
VII. Define each word operationally( 2 points each)

1. Amputated fingers____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Scarred finger________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Missing fingers_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Injured fingers____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Imprinted Fingers_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Major Division_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
7. Inner Whorl
_____________________________________________________________________________________
8. Meeting whorl_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
9. Outer Whorl_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Intervening ridge_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
VIII. Enumerate the element of word needed in every question
1-5 give at least 5 rules in solving major division.
6-10 give at least 5 procedure in taking sub Secondary classification.
11-15 give at least 5 consideration in solving final classification.
16-20 give at least 5 essential element of primary classification.
III Essay
!. Discuss the importance of fingerprint classification (10 points)

CHAPTER 5

Fingerprint Recording
(Methods and Recommended Procedures)

Some methods:

(1) an ink slab and roller;

(2) PRINTMATIC™ Roller;

(3) Porelon® Pads, PRINTMATIC™ Impeccable Ceramic, Thermoplastic and Flawless Pads; and

(4) KlearInk™ Ceramic Pads.

WORK TABLE HEIGHT: 39" from the floor.

CARD SIZE: 8" x 8"

PREPARING THE INK SLAB

Slab and Roller Method:

- Amount of ink: about ¼" (0.6cm)

- Roller is lifted off the slab after each stoke and returned to starting point
- Do not use a back-and-forth motion with the roller.

- Repeat several times until a thin film of ink forms on roller.

INKING AND ROLLING THE FINGERS

- To avoid smearing: inking and rolling the fingers on the right hand.

- Each finger is inked and rolled individually

- After the right hand, ink and roll the fingers on the left hand.

- Record the plain impressions of both hands.

- Thumbs in (toward body of subject)

- Other fingers out (away from body of subject)

Reference: Technical Information: Fingerprint Taking Procedures and Methods, SIRCHIE® Laboratories,
Inc., Youngsville, N.C.

Latent Print Development

- Purpose of developing fingerprints: to make is visible so that it may be preserved and compared.
- Types of fingerprints: (1) visible, (2) plastic, or (3) latent prints.

Composition of Latent Fingerprints: Types of Glands

1. ECCRINE GLANDS – found all over the body but higher density on friction ridge surfaces (palms &
soles). Secretions: mostly water, amino acids, proteins, and lipids.

2. SEBACEOUS GLANDS – dermis layer of skin; found throughout the body; associated with body hair:
on scalp, face, anus, nose, mouth, and external portions of ear.

3. APOCRINE GLANDS – secretions from coarse hair of armpits and pubic area.

POWDERING METHOD

Types of Powders

Powder can be classified into two: traditional and advanced.

 1. Traditional Powder – includes black, white, silver, red, and gray. The choice of powder depends
on the kinds of surface on which the print is found. But when in doubt as to which powder is
used, a practical rule of thumb is to make a test print on the same or similar surface first.

2. Advanced Powders – include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Magnetic Powders – are composed of some 98% iron filings with only one to two percent (1-
2%) developing powder. They can develop better prints on the following surfaces: shiny
magazine covers, boxes with a coated surface, and some plastic materials.

b. Fluorescent Powder – Fluorescent

c. powder is composed of 98% Anthracene
d. and 1% aluminum dust. It is suitable for rough, contaminated and multi-colored surfaces.
Latent prints treated with this powder can only be seen after exposing the print to radiation.
e. Bichromatic Powder – Bichromatic powder can be used on either light or dark surface. It
appears black when used on a light colored surface and silver on a dark colored surface.
When a print developed by a bichromatic powder is lifted with tape and placed on a white
backing card, the latent print will appear dark.

Magneta Flake – coated with milled iron-flaked powder with amino acid to a specific weight. Every
particle of the powder is guaranteed to react with latent prints as it contains amino acid.

Chemical Method of Developing Latent Prints

In choosing a chemical developing technique, the investigator must be aware of the type of
surfaces upon which latent prints are suspected to be present. For this purpose, surfaces are divided
into three:

1. Porous surface – where water can absorb into

2. Non-porous surface – water cannot absorb into
3. Semi-porous surface – water is superficially absorbed such as Styrofoam.

Porous Surfaces

1. Iodine Fuming – used for paper, cardboard and similar surfaces. Iodine crystals are converted to
vapors without going into the process of liquefaction when subjected to heat, a process known
as sublimation. When using this process, an investigator should have a ready camera to take
photograph of the developed prints as the same is not permanent. It should be used before
Ninhydrine or silver nitrate.

2. Ninhydrine – prints treated with this chemical will appear purple in color. In performing this
developing technique, paper and other similar surfaces are sprayed, soaked or brushed with
Ninhydrine solution. Development is seen with ridges of purple color gradually appearing. Care
 should be taken not to handle treated material with bare hands to avoid investigator’s prints
from contaminating into the material.

3. Physical Developer – a silver-based reagent that reacts with components of fingerprint residue.
The reaction is shown by gray color reaction on paper, cardboard, and similar surfaces. Physical
developer is usually used on paper previously treated with Ninhydrine.

4. Silver Nitrate – This technique should be used as a last process. This is done by spraying, soaking
or brushing the materials with silver nitrate solution. Development takes place after exposing
the treated material with strong light such as ultraviolet light. As soon as the prints appear,
photograph should be taken immediately as the reaction will continue, resulting to paper and
other similar surfaces turning into dark.

Non-Porous Surfaces

Super Glue Fuming (Cyanoacrylate Ester)

Super glue is a household name for bulldog, mighty bond, quicktite and other adhesive of
cyanoacrylate composition available in the market. When heated, cyanoacrylate fumes are released and
polymerized on latent prints. Development is seen as a white blob.

MISCELLANEOUS

Fingerprint Classification Systems

1. The Henry Classification System – developed by Henry in the late 1800s.

Henry's classification system assigned a value to each individual finger. Fingers
number 1 and 2, being the right thumb and right index, held a value of 16. Fingers
number 3 and 4, the right middle and ring, held a value of 8, and so on.

Henry Faulds – Originator of fingerprint identification

Despite his many and varied contributions to mankind, Henry Faulds is a name that
remains relatively obscure.
The Fingerprint System

New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (.gov)

https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov › ojis › history › fp_sys

Explanation[edit]

Fa
csimile of outline of two palms (FAULDS, Henry.
The Henry Classification System allows for logical categorization of ten-print fingerprint
records into primary groupings based on fingerprint pattern types. This system reduces
the effort necessary to search large numbers of fingerprint records by classifying
fingerprint records according to gross physiological characteristics. Subsequent
searches (manual or automated) utilizing granular characteristics such as minutiae are
greatly simplified. The Henry Classification System is a method to classify fingerprints
and exclude potential candidates. This system should never be used for
individualization.

The Henry Classification System assigns each finger a number according to the order in
which it is located in the hand, beginning with the right thumb as number 1 and ending
with the left pinky as number 10. The system also assigns a numerical value to fingers
that contain a whorl pattern; fingers 1 and 2 each have a value of 16, fingers 3 and 4
have a value of 8, fingers 5 and 6 have a value of 4, fingers 7 and 8 have a value of 2,
and the final two fingers having a value of 1. Fingers with a non-whorl pattern, such as
an arch or loop pattern, have a value of zero.[7] The sum of the even finger value is then
calculated and placed in the numerator of a fraction. The sum of the odd finger values is
placed in the denominator. The value of 1 is added to each sum of the whorls with the
maximum obtainable on either side of the fraction being 32. Thus, the primary
classification is a fraction between 1/1 to 32/32, where 1/1 would indicate no whorl
patterns and 32/32 would mean that all fingers had whorl patterns.

Example of a Henry Classification:

Majo Sub-
Key Primary Secondary Final
r Secondary

16 M 9 R IIO 15

M 2 U OOI

Key- Ridge count first loop

Major- Value of the ridge counts or the tracings of fingers #1, #6

Primary- Summation of the value of: Whorl type patterns fingers (#2, #4, #6, #8, #10 for
Numerator), (#1, #3, #5, #7, #9 for Denominator); Value of fingers as whorls: #1 & #2
(16), #3 & #4 (8), #5 & #6 (4), #7 & #8 (2), #9 & #10 (1); Plus 1 in both Numerator and
Denominator.

Secondary- Pattern types in fingers #2 and #7, (U) Ulna Loop, (R) Radial Loop, (W)
Whorl, and (A) Arch

Sub-Secondary- Value of ridge counts or tracing- fingers #2, #3, #4 in Numerator; #7,
#8, #9 in Denominator.

Final- is the ridge count of the loops or whorls in both little fingers expressed in
numbers. The right little is used as the numerator and the left little as the denominator. If
a loop appears in one finger and a whorl in the other, enumerate both their ridge counts
by treating the whorl as an ulnar loop.[9]

Impact on current biometric systems.

The Henry Classification System has been a highly influential force in the formation of
current IAFIS technology (Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System).
When IAFIS solutions attempted to emulate the Henry process.

Up until the mid-1990s, it was not unusual for a state or city to continue to
maintain its physical file of Henry-sorted fingerprint cards just in case a disaster
occurred in the IAFIS. As processing speeds, network throughput capacities, and
system reliability increased, it was no longer necessary for automated fingerprint
matching to mirror what had been the manual processes.

IAFIS began to classify fingerprints according to the distance between the core
and delta, minutiae locations, and pattern type, the latter being based on the Henry
Classification System. Presently, there are some forensic AVIS solutions (e.g. state and
local) that still employ a Henry Classification System based manual fingerprint filing.
However, other than for legacy systems, the Henry Classification System is not
essential for automated systems. (Carlton)in 20234

References

Jump up to:a b Saquib Salim (24 May 2021). "Hem Chandra Bose: whose discoveries
were stolen by the British". www.awazthevoice.in. Retrieved 7 November 2022.

Jump up to:a b Saquib Salim (23 May 2021). "Azizul Haque: the Indian who devised
Fingerprint Classification System". www.awazthevoice.in. Retrieved 7 November 2022.

Agrah Pandit (6 January 2021). "How Two Indians Finally Won Credit For Henry
Classification System". www.thequint.com. Retrieved 7 November 2022.

Tewari RK; Ravikumar KV. History and development of forensic science in India. J.
Postgrad Med 2000,46:303–308.
J.S. Sodhi & Jasjeed Kaur The forgotten Indian pioneers of fingerprint science, Current
Science 2005, 88(1):185–191.

Colin Beavan: Fingerprints: The Origins of Crime Detection and Murder Case that
Launched Forensic Science, Hyperion, NY, USA, 2001.

2. Icnofalangometric System – the original name of the system developed by Vucetich in 1891

3. Dactiloscopy – the new name of the system developed by Vucetich.

4. The Oloriz System of Classification – developed by Oloriz. Identakey – developed in the 1930s
by G. Tyler Mairs.

5. The American System of Fingerprint Classification – developed by Parke in 1903.

6. The Conley System. The Flack-Conley System – developed in 1906 in New Jersey, an improved
Conley System.

7. NCIC Fingerprint Classification System. Collins System – a classification system for single
fingerprints used in Scotland Yard in the early 1900s.

8. Jorgensen System – a classification system for single fingerprints used in the early 1900s.

9. Battley System – a classification system for single fingerprints used in the 1930s.

Related Friction Ridge Identification

Poreoscopy – refers to the examination of the shape, size and arrangement of the small opening on
friction ridge through which body fluids are secreted or released.

Podoscopy – a term coined by Wilder and Wentworth which refers to the examination of the soles and
their significance in personal identification.

Chiroscopy – It is the examination and thorough study of the palms of the human hand as a point in
identifying persons.

Edgeoscopy – the study of the morphological characteristics of friction ridges; shape or contour of the
edges of friction ridges.

Ridgeology – describes the individualization process of any area of friction skin using all available detail.
Reference

 Agas, Bautista, Guevara, and Tatoy, Ma. Paulina Corazon S., Criminalistics, 2009, Wiseman’s
Books Trading, Inc., Quezon City.

 Asbaugh, David R., Ridgeology: Modern Evaluative Friction Ridge Identification, Forensic
Identifciation Support Section, Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

What is the purpose of fingerprint identification?

To establish the identity or non-identity of two sets of fingerprints.