FINGER PRINTS

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 143, 21 May 1925, Page 12

FINGER PRINTS

CONVINCING EVIDENCE. REStfLT IN MAN’S CONVICTION. Per Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, May 19. “Finger prints,” the Crown Prosecutor said in the Supreme Court today, “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 finger prints with the same characters. 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, hut the evidence of finger prints is beyond all doubt.” The case was a charge against a young man, Frederick Charles Richmond, of having broken into the office of R. IV. England and Company and stolen LlO in silver. He pleaded not guilty and conducted his own case. The Crown Prosecutor said the office was closed on Saturday, April 4, at 1 p.m. On the morning of April oit was found it had been broken into, some person evidently having got in through the lavatory window. In the office there were some knives and forks. Finger prints had been left on two of the knives, probably used to open something in tlio office. The finger prints were sent to Senior-Sergeant Diniiie, in charge of the Criminal Registration Branch of the Police Department in Wellington, who found that they tallied with Richmond’s finger prints already in that officer’s possession. The same result was obtained by comparison with Richmond’s fingerprints taken at Paparua Prison. There could not he any doubt as to Richmond having stolen the money.

Senior-Sergeant Dinnie said the chances of error in comparing finger prints were about 6,00(1,000,000 to 1. There were 2G 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 1,490,110,110,384,765,625 to 1..

Claude Montague Francis, assistant in the Criminal Registration Branch, said that there could be no doubt about the identification.

Mr Justice Adams said the jury need not doubt the accuracy of the experts’ statements. Some jurymen might remember that when a man named Gunn was tried for murder at Auckland Mr Justice Chapman gave a long, learned and interesting memorandum showing the tremendous value and cogency of finger print evidence. The jury, after retiring for about 10 minutes, returned a verdict of guilty. Richmond was remanded for sentence.