NEW ENGINE OF DETECTION. A THIEF LEAVES A FINGER PRINT.

Evening Post, Volume LXIX, Issue 55, 7 March 1905, Page 5

NEW ENGINE OF DETECTION. A THIEF LEAVES A FINGER PRINT.

Experts claim to identify it. John Clancy was charged yesterday afternoon, before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., with having, on 23rd February, nt Wellington, broken and entered the dwelling «f Mary Ann Williams, WcllingUm-tor-raco, and stolen therefrom two gold brooches and two gold rings valued at £3. Accused was undefended. Chief •Detective M'Gmth prosecuted. Tho case for tho Crown was that the Window through which tho thief must have obtained entrance had been brokon and then pulled down from tho top. In catching hold of the window to pull It down, the person entering hail allowed the flugora of his two humta to extend over on to tho surface of tlio gl;u»s. The result was that tho ends of several fingois of each hund loft impressions on tho glass surface ; and when tho pieces of gla»s, cut out, wero produced in court, tho finger-prints showed quito clearly. Ono wa» especially dmtiuct, and this wiie the one that tho experts investigated. The evidence was Unit tho window had bo«n cleaned six days before. The impression was of the nature of any ordinary finger prinfi, such as may be left even on clean glass. After Detective Broberg had had tho pieces of glass out out by t( glazier, they Vreio photographed, and the experts hiiy that tho imprewion mentioned as being tho plainest coiucides with an impression, taken in Auckland Gaot last; May, of the third or ring finger of tho right ham! of accused. 'five impression taken, in gaol is among the record» of the Fingerprint Department. Tho third finger imureuion and tho print on the window nave both bten enlarged by photography iibout a hundred times, and the photoitraphs wero put lv. Tho window print appears to bo perfect except for a smudge in the unptt part. Thrf experts swear tiiat, outatdd of this Jmad^e, the serried suifaco of tho finger lines — with ita ridgos, bifurcations, junctions, etc. — 3 linns 24 points of reseiublnnco between flic window-print »ud the record. They lay also shut piobably not ono other person In a hundred would bo found to coincide, in a Single bno of these points, with accused. But htHtottd of taking the chances of coincidence on a singlo uoint at 1 fo 100, they tako it at 1 to i> so as to allow a wide nuu^ifi against, tho syrtioni ; and on this basts of 1 to 5. calculating on the wholo 24 point?, they work out tho chance of a cpmplete cohiaidence on all theso points us practically impowsible. In opening the Crown's case, Chief Detective M'Grath stated that on the evoning of tho day when the windowprint was submitted to the experts of tho Fincor-print Departnuent, they reported that they lwul identified it a* that of accused. Detective Broberg next day arrested accused, who denied ho was on Wt'llington-terrace on tho day of the offence. It wna submitted that proof of identity of tho fincer-prinfc on tno window with thitfc of accused was proof that ho was tho man who brokri in and atole the jewellery, though the articles had* not been traced to him. Identification by finger-print was so looked on in England ano European countries, where luiuiy convictions resulted from it. The Finger-print Department was under tho immediate supervision of tho Commissioner of Police and two .experienced i-lciks, one of whom, Mr. Dinnio, had studied tho nysiom at Scotland Yard. Mary Ann Williams, Detective Broberg, and Rohi-rt Stewart, warder in Auckland Gaol, gave evidence. Tho lastmuned produced two sots of finger-prints whioh he took from accused at Auckland on 7th May. Tho sheet with llio prints bore accused's signature. Edmond Walter Dinnio, ion of Commissioner DlnnlD, deposed that ho had worked on tho system at Scotland Yard, and had no-vcr known any two fingerprints of different persons to bo identical. During tho two years tho aystern had been in operation in New Zeularid, there ltifcl been about 200 identifications. On on It otto dcuution had thero bocn a dispute us to identification. That \hus at Napier, but aftet 1 the pritiU had been produced, and other evidence of identification, besitto tho finger-prints, hod been given, tho man gave in, and Admitted tho idohtificatloh. Accused : Is it impossible to err ; aro there, no two men lit tho with tho mine mark? Witness: It has never been found so yot. Tho chances, agaiust it being ao -work out at 20 or 30 times ai many pcoplo as thero aro in the world at tlio present time. At 1 to 6 It tuns into 298,023 billions. Accused : Thoro must bo ono of my doubles somewhere. Witness said ho swore the two photographed prints were identical. Ono was taken from accused's recorded impression, tho other from the print on tho glass. Arthur B. Quartcrmain, • clerk in the sam<3 department, and an expert in classification and identification of impressions, corroborated. Accused asked witness If ho could explain tho identifications po that ho (accused) could understand it. Witness ; In estimating the proportion of specified characteristics — Accused: That's too strong for mo already. Witness went on to 6xpkin tho system to tlio tame effect as stated above. Accused j No question*. Accused was committed for trial at tho next (sessions of the Supromo Court. Bail : two sureties of £800 ench. , This is the first chargo brought ill tho colony on the foundation of finger-print identification.