NO ERROR POSSIBLE

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 116, 20 May 1925, Page 11

NO ERROR POSSIBLE

VALUE OF FINGER-PRINT EVIDENCE

UPHOLDS CHARGE OF BURGLARY.

(BY TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.)

CHRISTCHURCH, 19th--May.

Finger-prints, the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. A. T. Donnelly, said in the Supreme Court to-day, have been demonstrated to be more conclusive than any other form of evidence of identification, because they admit of no possible errors whatever. No two people-have fingerprints with the same characters, and they are free from any of the errors that may weaken any other form of evidence. A person may make a mistake in identifying another person, but the evidence of finger-prints is beyond all doubt. The case was a charga against a young man, Frederick Charles Kicnmond, of having broken into the office of E. W. England and Company and stolen £10 in silver. He pleaded not guilty and conducted his own case. Tho Crown Prosecutor said - the office was closed on Saturday, 4th April, ?fc" 1 p.m., and on the morning of 6th April it was found-it had-been broken into, some person, evidently, having, got in through a lavatory window. In the omce there were some knives and forks Finger-prints had been left on two of tho knives, which were probably used to open something in tho office. The nnger-pnnts were sent to Senior-Ser-geant Dinnie, in charge of the criminal registration branch of the Police Department, in' Wellington, who found that they tallied with Richmond's fingerprints, already in that officer's possession. The same result was obtained by. comparison with Richmond's ■ fingerprints taken at Paparua Prison; and there could not be any doubt as to Richmond having stolen tho money. Senior-Sergeant Dinnie said tha chances of error in comparing fingerprints were about 6,000,000,000 to one There were 26 points of similarity in the two prints on the knives and in Richmond s known prints, and the chances against error in Richmond's case were 1.490,116,110,384,765,625 to one. ' _ Claude Montague Francis, assistant in the criminal registration branch said that there conld be no doubt about the identification-

Mr. Justice 4 Adams said the jury need not doubt the accuracy of the experts statements. Some jurymen might rememoer that when a man named Gunn was tried for mnxder at Auckland Mr. Justice Chapman gave a long,: learned, and ' interesting memorandum, showing the tremendous valua an^ cogency of finger-print evidence The jury, after retiring for ' about ten^minutes, returned' a verdict of guitly. Richmond was remanded for sentence.