FINGER PRINT EVIDENCE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 15 May 1922, Page 2

FINGER PRINT EVIDENCE.

"ABSOLUTELY INFALLIBLE/ RECORDS AT WELLINGTON. In the Wellington Criminal Court, before Mr. Justice Heed, Seniorfcergeant l>innie, of the Wellington Criminal .Registration .branch, during his evidence gave an exposition of the technicalities dealing with fingerprints. These, witness said, prior to Deing photographed, were developed by the aid of a tine camels-hair brusu and special powders, to afford contrast and strength in the various values of the photograph. The finger-prints in this particular case, he said, developed very well, and, after being photographed were enlarged. The points of them were taken by a highly-polished copper slab covered evenly with a small quantity of printers' ink, this slab being then pressed evenly against a sheet of paper. Principally, said witness, what experts looked for were the indications known as arches, whorls, and loops, which were the prevalent markings, certain ridges being formed on the human being prior to birth which, to ail intents and purposes, remained the same until after decomposition set in at death. The chances, .said witness, were over one hundred thousand millions to one against any .finger-print taken from one person being similar to a print taken from any other person; and the odds in the present case were even incalculably heavier, since there were two prints discovered on each piece of glass examined, instead of one. Up to the present, witness continued, it had never been found that any two persons had the same finger-prints. In the case before the court, witness was quite certain the finger-prints on the panes of glass were made by the prisoner. | Witness claimed an experience of over 19 years in finger-print matters, and informed the Court that there were on file in the Wellington Criminal Registration Branch the prints of 28,000 persons, which, with an average of 10 prints to the individual, gave a total of 280,000 prints available for police investigation. Those prints were all classified and sub-classified, the markings and groups of markings affording facilities for quick and easyreference. When asked by Mr. Justice Reed how long it might take an expert to find any corresponding finger-print as a basis of identity, witness said it depended entirely upon the actual number of prints obtained from that one individual. If given the whole of the ten points of that person, witness could tell in five minutes, because of the greater number of details available as a guide in classification. i In his concluding address to the jury his Honor said it was far too late in the day to say that finger-print evidence was not of extreme value. In a recent conviction for murder, practically the whole of the. evidence was finger-print evidence. In another case, said his Honor, in which the charge of burglary was involved (in Australia), the whole of the evidence was confined to finger-prints found on a bottle. When the case was carried to the Australian Supreme Court, the following decision was recorded by the learned judges: "Signatures have been accepted as evidence as long as they "have been used. The fact of the individuality of the coruscations on Ithe skin of a finger could not be contradicted, and a finger-print was therefore an unforgeahle signature, us an unforgeable signature, was so recognised in most parts of the world." Such had been the findings of the indires in Australia, said Mr. Justice Reed, and the leaving of a finger-print was more valuable as evidence than if the accused had left his hot there or had written his name on a paper and . had left that.