FINGER-PRINT CLUES.

Western Star, 5 December 1933, Page 3

FINGER-PRINT CLUES.

SOTTISH JUDGE’S THEORY. That an innocent man’s finger-prints' could be-reproduced in order to “frame” him was the surprising theory put forward''by a judge in the High Court ,at Glasgow a few- weeks ago. He also to.ld the jury that they need not accept the evidence of identity by fingerprints as infallible if it was not backed by other and independent evidence. . The case was one in which Charles Bradley appeared before Lord Moncliieff, charged with : breaking into the Savoy Kinema, Cambuslang, and stealing £lls from a safe after blowing it open with explosives. It-was stated that when the safe was- forced an' overcoat and' Office ledgers were used, to deaden the explosion. A finger-print was found- on the glass panel of a door and another on the window through which entrance had been gained. Bloodstains were found on a piece of broken glass. Photographs of the prints were taken and sent to Scotland Yard. Bradley was suspected, and when detectives called at his home he was wearing a bandage on his left forefinger. When charged, he replied, ‘You can’t prove' that against me.”

Inspector Parrott, . of Scotland Yard, stated that he had received from the Glasgow police .two photographs of finger-prints found on a piqee of glass, and a form showing the finger impression of Bradley. He had no hesitation in saying that' the prints on the glass were made by Bradley. The inspector added that he had found 16 points ?of similarity between Bradley’s prints and that on the glass. The chances were four billion' to one against a mistake —or more than the whole population of the world. : Defending counsel cross-examined the witness at great length, and quoted from an authority on the finger-print •system. >,:■ , Inspector Parrott declared that he had never known of a case where a person’s finger-print altered exc<*>t where the finger was damaged, and a scar resulted.'-'.;: ■ , Lord Monchieff then asked .the inspec-

tor if it was possible; by means of photography and what ho described Os ‘a gelatine finger’ to reproduce a man's finger-prints. Inspector Parrott replied that he had never " heard of : this being done, but admitted that it was possible. ' Another. Scotlaud Yard officer stated that he was certain that tho fingerprints Oh-the glass were Bradley s. They were careful to make no identification unless they were absolutely sure. In sununing-up, Lord Moncrieff said that the evidence of identity as supplied finger-prints alone was not i strong. When the police arrested Bradley they did not find him in possession of explosives, they did not find that ho was richer by £IOO, they did not find that he was in possession of tho imploments of burglary, ' . , As to the evidence of the finger-prints on the glass, continued the judge, if what he had heard of storybook enm- • iuals was true, the of gloves vvas a routine measure. .Yet in this case they found that the gloves had been discarded within the premises, and that two distinct fingerprints were found on pieces of glass.. The gloves did not fit Bradley, . , It wa3 not fantastical to suggest, he continued, that finger-prints could be reproduced. It followed that an inno* cent man could be ‘framed-up’ if someone who. liad a grudge against him left a forgery of his finger-prints on the scene of the crime. After a short absenee the jury returned a majority verdict of "Not proven.”