1

ASSIGNMENT TOPIC:
FIGER-PRINT EXPERT

NAME: UMAIMA ALI

ROLL NO: 2K16/LLB
SUBJECT: MEDICAL FORENSIC
SUBMITTED TO: MAM SHABANA
DEPARTMENT: INSTITUTE OF LAW

© INTRAC 2017
 2

INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION 03
1.1 WHO IS AN EXPERT IN LAW 03
1.2 PAKISTAN LAW REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY
OF EXPERT EVIDENCE 03
2. FINGER-PRINT EXPERT 04
3. TYPES OF FINGER-PRINT 11
4. FRINGERPRINT AND CRIME 13
5. WHERE FINGERPRINT MAYBE FOUND AT
CRIME SCENE 19
6. ROLE OF FINGERPRINT EXPERT 19
7. FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS PROCESS 23

8. CRIME SCENE CHEMISTRY: FINGERPRINT

ANALYSIS 24

9. CASE LAWS 25
REFERENCES 29

2
 3

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Who Is An Expert In Law

Article 59 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 stated as under:-
“Opinion of experts: when the court has to form an opinion upon a
point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as an identity of
handwriting or finger impressions, the opinion upon that point of
persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in
questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are
relevant facts.
Such persons are called experts”
Section 2(f) of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency Act 2007 defines
expert as under:-
“Expert includes a qualified foreign expert working in a forensic
science facility and whose evidence is admissible in the country of
his origin.”
Section 3(f) of Investigation for Fair Trial Act, 2013 defines experts as
under:-
“Expert means a person qualified or trained or experienced in
conducting surveillance or interception who is nominated by the
applicant or the federal Government as an expert for analysis of the
intercepted material.”
Expert is a person who has specialized knowledge or skill or expertise in
any of following area.
1. Foreign Law
2. Science or Art e.g. computer forensic, DNA etc.
3. Identity of Handwriting
4. Identity of finger impression
1.2. PAKISTAN LAW REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF
EXPERT EVIDENCE:-
PROVISIONS OF QANUN E SHAHADAT ORDER 1984
Relevant Articles
59. Opinions of experts:
When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of
science or art, or as to identity Of handwriting or finger impressions; the

3
 4

opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law,
science or art, or in questions as to identity of hand-writing or finger
impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.
60. Facts bearing upon opinions of experts:
Facts not otherwise relevant, are relevant if they support or are inconsistent
with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant...
65. Grounds of opinion when relevant:
Whenever the opinion of any living person is relevant, the grounds on
which such opinion is based are also relevant

2. Fingerprint Expert/Analyst
Fingerprint analysts, also often referred to as forensic print analysts,
latent (meaning hidden or concealed) print examiners, latent fingerprint
analysts, fingerprint examiners, or fingerprint experts, are scientists who
are responsible for preserving, studying and evaluating fingerprints (and
often palm prints and footprints) as part of a crime scene investigation.
Fingerprint analysts, who may work in the field, in the lab, or in a
combination of the two, use a number of technologies as to retrieve
fingerprint samples and then compare them with fingerprint databases.
Fingerprint analysts may be called upon to:

 Process various types of fingerprint samples

 Enhance visible prints using a variety of photographic and
computer equipment
 Identify and label latent prints
 Verify the identification of latent prints to known impressions
 Prepare detailed reports on tests and their results
 Sweep crime scenes as to carefully lift fingerprints
 Preserve fingerprint specimens for lab analysis
 Load fingerprint images into state or national fingerprint databases
for comparison

Forensic fingerprint analysts may work for law enforcement agencies and
other governmental agencies, and their work requires them to collect and
preserve evidence at crime scenes and perform tests in the laboratory.
They are also often called to testify as expert witnesses in criminal or
civil trials.

4
 5

2.1 Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System

In addition to state databases, fingerprint analysts must have a solid
background in the operation of the Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (IAFIS), a national fingerprint system run by the
FBI.
The IAFIS, which assists local, state and federal law enforcement
agencies and partners, is designed to solve and prevent crime through
automated fingerprint search capabilities, latent search capability,
electronic image storage, and the electronic exchange of fingerprints.
In addition to fingerprint services, the IAFIS stores information on
criminal histories, mug shots, and physical characteristics, all of which
are submitted on a voluntary basis by state, local, and federal law
enforcement agencies.
To date the IAFIS includes more than 70 million subjects, as well as more
than 73,000 known and suspected terrorists. During FY2010, the IAFIS
processed more than 61 million submissions.
2.2 Job Duties
Fingerprint analysts must be available at a moment's notice to sweep a
crime scene for clues. Law enforcement works quickly to secure a crime
scene in order for print examiners to uncover clean, undisturbed finger- or
footprints to analyze. The examiner must carefully lift any fingerprints
using a fingerprint brush, black and bi-chromatic powder, lifting tape and
fingerprint cards. From there, the examiner must carefully preserve the
specimen for lab analysis, which involves using complex computer
software and microscopic imaging. The fingerprints are then loaded into
state or national databases for comparison with other convicted criminals
or missing persons.
2.3 Work Environment
Fingerprint experts are useful in police precincts, government agencies,
prosecutors’ offices, law firms, insurance companies, hospitals and
consulting firms. Because examiners must uncover clues from crime
scenes, the location of the next job is always unpredictable. Examiners
must be on call to attend a crime scene at all hours and may have to work
in hazardous or dangerous conditions. Fingerprint experts also serve as
expert witnesses in criminal or civil trials.
2.4 The nature of expertise in fingerprint examination
Latent print examiners face a daunting task. Finger-prints are often the
only physical evidence left at a crime scene, but these are typically

5
 6

invisible until developed and lifted. Even after they are dusted with lifting
pow-der and stabilized using clear lifting tape or fixed using
cyanoacrylate fumes, friction ridge impressions may be corrupted by
visual noise or may have missing regions. In some cases, it may even be
difficult to orient the print correctly. This impression of the print must
then be compared against a known standard, which can be either an ink
print of a suspect developed by the investigating detective or one
provided by a donor who has previously entered into the criminal justice
system, whose prints now reside in a computerized database. Although
computers are used to store databases of finger-prints and to suggest
possible matches, the amount of distortion and noise in latent prints
prevents computer algorithms from performing near the level of human
examiners. Thus, virtually all evidence admitted in courts comes from the
testimony of experts. It is up to the examiners to decide whether they
believe that there exists sufficient evidence to conclude that the two
impressions (the latent and the ink print) come from the same source or
that it can be excluded that they come from the same source. The decision
itself is fraught with complications. To conclude that the two impressions
come from the same source implies that one has compared the latent print
with all possible donors, which could be interpreted as all people who
were in a position to leave the impression at the particular location. This
set is potentially quite large, making any conclusion about individuality
quite problem-atic. The flip side of this argument is that fingerprints are
unique (as are all patterns in nature) and even identical twins have
differentiable friction ridge impressions (Jain, Prabhakar, & Pankanti,
2002).Latent print examiners are caught between these two philosophical
extremes, and given that skin may change through scars or wear, many
practitioners now favor the term persistence over uniqueness. The field
has had to contend with a steady stream of criticism, most recently from a
National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (2009)
report that highlighted what the panel saw as serious deficiencies in the
practices of forensic scientists. However, even the most ardent critics of
fingerprint identification would likely agree that there is some value in
latent prints, and the aim of criticism is to address some of the
shortcomings of current approaches. Cognitive scientists have a role to
play in this process, and the goal of this article is to discuss some of the
major issues confronting the applied science of latent print examinations.
We will review some of the nascent research on expertise among latent
print examiners, as well as related research from cognitive psychology.
This article focuses on the perceptual expertise side of latent print
examinations; a companion article in this special issue by Dror and Cole
(2010) addresses the cognitive biases that can affect the decision process,
among other issues. The two articles focus on different aspects of latent

6
 7

print examinations, but both articles argue that the field itself has a large
number of open questions and is in great need of assistance from
cognitive scientists. One of our aims in writing this article is to illustrate
how basic expertise research in the lab can impact the forensic sciences,
and we will offer suggestions on how to become involved in research on
these topics.
2.4.a How Do Experts Conduct Latent Print Examinations?
Individual laboratories may differ, but in general, an examiner will
receive a set of latent prints from an in-vestigating detective or a crime
scene investigation (CSI) unit, along with a set of ink prints from a
potential suspect. If no suspect is provided, the latent print may be
entered into an automated database search engine, which uses the
locations of minutiae and, sometimes, other sources of information to
suggest a set of 10–20 candidate matches. The examiner will then spend
time examining the latent print, often drawing or tracing the ridges.
During this process, the examiner also determines which latent prints are
deemed to be of value. The traditional approach is to look at the actual lift
cards, using a magnifying glass, although many labs are going to digital
images on LCD monitors. Many examiners subscribe to an approach to
the exam-nation called ACE–V (Vanderkolk, 2009), which stands for
analysis, comparison, evaluation, and verification. This methodology,
which has been criticized as nothing more than an acronym (Zabell,
2005), provides some structure to the examination process. The examiner
first studies the latent print and then looks for matching or mismatching
detail in a candidate ink print. No two impressions will be identical, and
the distortion caused by differences in pressure and skin contact requires
that the examiner decide whether deviations in the locations of features
are explainable by realistic physical processes, such as the ability of the
skin to stretch without sliding. Some features are immune to distortions,
such as counting the number of intervening ridges between two minutiae,
and if an un-explainable difference is discovered, the examiner must
exclude the suspect as the donor for the latent print.European countries
often have a numeric criterion for how many minutiae, or points, must
match, whereas U.S. examiners are free to use whatever detail they deem
of value. This implies that, at some level, the comparison process is a
similarity judgment followed by a comparison with an internal criterion.
Some examiners describe this process as one in which they ask whether
these two prints are more similar than any other close non match that they
have encountered. Experts typically testify to one of three conclusions:
The two impressions come from the same donor (individualization), the
two impressions did not come from the same donor (exclusion), or there
was insufficient detail to determine a conclusion (inconclusive). The

7
 8

examiner may also issue a statement of confidence, some of which have

been criticized as prejudicial (e.g., “100 percent confident,” “zero percent
error rate”; Cole, 2005).

2.4.b Are Experts Better Than Novices and, If So, How?

The process described above has been described as overly subjective,
since the evidence used to make a determination may vary from expert to
expert. This raises the issue of whether experts can reliably match latent
to ink prints at rates greater than novices and, if so, what psychological or
physiological changes support this greater accuracy. Relatively little
literature exists on whether experts out-perform novices in testing
conditions that mimic latent print examinations. Recent work by
Wertheim, Langen-burg, and Moenssens (2006) demonstrated that
experts with more than 1 year of training had an erroneous
individualization (i.e., accusing an innocent person) rate of 0.034 percent
out of all individualizations performed. However, the examiners also had
what the researchers described as a clerical error rate of 1%. The source
of these errors is un-clear, and the methods by which they were resolved
were unconventional (including discussing the errors with the participants
to determine the source of the error).There is evidence that novices can
match ink prints at above-chance levels (Vokey, Tangen, & Cole, 2009)
in abbreviated comparisons. Busey and Vanderkolk (2005) tested
examiners with fragments of fingerprints that could be partially masked
and/or corrupted by visual noise. The examiners were shown a target
fingerprint for 1 sec and then, after a delay of 200 msec or 5 sec, were
shown two new fingerprints that included a matching print and a
dis-tractor print. We used this task to focus on the perceptual aspects of
expertise, rather than decisional factors. The distractor prints were
carefully chosen to appear quite similar to the target, and features such as
scars or creases were eliminated to encourage the participants to rely on
ridge structure. The experts performed reliably better than the novices at
identifying the matching print and were al-most unaffected by the 5-sec
delay. In addition, the experts performed much better on the full
fragments in noise than on the partial fragments in noise, and multinomial
processing tree analyses demonstrated that this improvement was above
what would be predicted by probability summation models. We
interpreted this result as evidence for configurable processing, in which
the information in one half of the print becomes more useful in the
presence of the second half. This result was confirmed in a second study
using electrophysiological recording. The N170 ERP component is
reliably delayed and enhanced when stimuli that are thought to be

8
 9

processed using configurable processing are inverted. Faces (Eimer, 2000)

and trained stimuli such as Greebles (Rossion et al., 2000) are examples
of these stimuli. Examiners almost always view fingerprints in an upright
orientation and, therefore, may develop holistic representations only at
this orientation. We inverted the fingerprints during categorization and
identification tasks and found that it produced a reliable delay in the
N170 ERP component, suggesting configural processing of upright
fingerprints (Busey & Vanderkolk, 2005). This opens up the possibility
that experts may encode configurations of features, rather than simply
matching individual minutiae. Work by Schyns and Rodet (1997) has
suggested that experience can alter the featural representation of a learned
stimulus set, and Goldstone (2000) argued that unitization can create new
features. Thus, one aspect of expertise that would support greater
accuracy may be the development of new feature sets or configural
mechanisms. Empirical data collected as part of abbreviated 20-sec latent
print examinations where participants determined whether two prints
matched (Busey et al., 2010) showed

viewing times.Despite all this evidence, no overall error rate for latent
print identification is currently known and would probably be lab- and
examiner-dependent. Although examiners undergo proficiency testing in
some labs, it is difficult to calibrate the difficulty of these exams against
that required by casework, and laboratories may give more difficult cases
to more practiced examiners. All of these factors work against a single
summary of the overall quality of fingerprint evidence, which is not to
say that we cannot work toward an understanding of how pervasive errors
are and how to reduce them. Indeed, the National Institute of Standards
and Technology and the National Institute of Justice have jointly
commissioned a working group to identify the human factors that affect
accuracy in latent print examinations

2.4.c What Features or Sources of Information Do Experts Use?

One approach to the question of what information expert’s use is to rely
on eye tracking procedures (Busey et al., 2010). In the medical imaging
discipline, this technique has proven useful for determining the features
that are used to diagnose breast cancer (Krupinski, 1996). We tested
experts using a portable eye tracker in abbreviated 20-sec trials, during
which they searched for the most di-agnostic features in order to decide
whether two prints came from the same source. We addressed the
question of whether experts as a group show more consistency than do

9
 10

novices. Somewhat surprisingly, we found that with latent ink

comparisons (where one print is taken from the field and one from an
arrest record), experts show more variability than do novices. Novices
may all look for the relatively small regions of the latent prints that are
fairly clear, whereas experts may venture off into less clear regions in
order to identify diagnostic features. We repeated this test with ink prints
that were free of visual noise and found the opposite result: Experts as a
group were now more consistent, despite the fact that the ink prints
presented a wealth of information to choose from. Part of the reason for
this consistency comes from the fact that the experts tended to focus on
the core and delta regions of the fingerprint.Figure 1 illustrates an
example pair of prints in which ex-perts show greater consistency than do
novices. These results suggest that, among examiners, there is an implicit
under-standing of which regions are the most diagnostic and they visit
these first. However, if the information is constrained by external noise,
different examiners will examine different regions to identify detail that
best suits their style.Experts appear to make smaller saccades when
viewing latent and ink prints, which suggests that they are accumulating
information across regions or following individual ridges. More
sophisticated analyses of the actual image information will reveal the
feature set that experts rely on, which requires a choice of data reduction
algorithms. We are currently exploring several candidate techniques. One
approach relies on feature induction procedures, which have been
successful in more restricted domains (Cohen, Shiffrin, Gold, Ross, &
Ross, 2007).We have addressed the question of what sources of
information experts rely on, using noise-masking procedures (Busey,
Schneider, & Wyatte, 2008). We used band-pass filtered noise in a forced
choice identification task in which the f altered noise was added to the
study stimulus and then the observer chose from two clear test prints. The
logic of this design is that the noise will knock out a specific range of
spatial frequencies and, if performance suffers when the noise is added to
the image, we can infer that participants were using information in that
spatial frequency band. Fingerprints have a characteristic bump in the
amplitude spectrum that corresponds to the typical width of the ridges.
We tested experts and novices, using faces and fingerprints, and recorded
electrophysiological data during the presentation of the stimulus
embedded in noise. The range of noise that affects performance gives an
estimate of the width of the visual filter, since it describes the range of
spatial frequencies that allowed good performance when seen without a
mask. We found that fingerprint examiners had narrower visual f ilters
than did novices, but only for fingerprints. The narrower visual filter was
found both for behavioral accuracy and for the EEG activity recorded
over the right parietal region at about 250 msec after stimulus onset. We

10
 11

interpreted these results in terms of experts’ learning to ignore spatial

frequency channels that had low signal-to-noise ratios and, therefore,
being unaffected by noise added in these shoulder channels next to the
highly informative channels for fingerprints

3 Types of fingerprint patterns

Edward Henry recognized that fingerprints could be described as having
three basic patterns – arches, loops and whorls. These shapes and
contours were later sub-divided into eight basic patterns and are used by
the FBI till today.
 Arches
These occur in about 5% of the encountered fingerprints. The ridges of
the finger run continuously from one side of the finger to the other and
make no backward turn. Normally, there is no delta in an arch pattern but
if it exists, there must be no re-curving ridge that intervenes between the
core and delta points.
 Loops
These can be seen in almost 60 to 70% of the fingerprints that are
encountered. The ridges make a backward turn in loops but they do not
twist. This backward turn or loop is distinguished by how the loop flows
on the hand and not by how the loop flows on the card where the imprint
is taken. This imprint on the fingerprint is similar to the reverse image
that we see when we look at ourselves in the mirror. A loop pattern has
only one delta.
 Whorls
These can be found in about 25 to 35% of the fingerprints that are
encountered. Some of the ridges in a whorl make a turn through at least
one circuit. Therefore any pattern that contains two or more deltas will be
a whorl.
Subcategories of these patterns
3.1 There are two sub-types of arch patterns
 Plain arch
In this pattern a consistency of flow can be observed. It starts on one side
of the finger and the ridge then slightly cascades upward. This almost
resembles a wave out on the ocean and then the arch continues its journey

11
 12

along the finger to the other side. The plain arch pattern is the simplest of
the fingerprints to discern.
 Tented arch
The similarity between this pattern and the plain arch is that it starts on
one side of the finger and flows out to the other side in a similar pattern.
However, the difference is that the tented arch lies in the ridges in the
center and is not continuous like the plain arch. They have significant up
thrusts in the ridges near the middle that arrange themselves on both sides
of an axis. The adjoining ridges converge towards this axis and thus
appear to form tents.
3.2 There are three sub-categories of loops
 Radial loops
These loops are named after a bone in the forearm known as radius that
joins the hand on the same side as the thumb. The flow of these loops
runs in the direction of the radius bone i.e. the downward slope of the
radial loop is from the little finger towards the thumb of the hand. These
loops are not very common and most of the times will be found on the
index fingers.
 Ulnar loops
These are named after a bone in the forearm called ulna. This bone is on
the same side as the little finger and the flow of this pattern runs from the
thumb towards the little finger of the hand.
 Double loop
This pattern consists of two distinct and separate loop formations. It has
two distinct and separate shoulders for each core, two deltas and one or
more ridges that make a complete circuit. There is at least one re-curving
ridge within the inner pattern area between the two loop formations that
gets touched or cut when an imaginary line is drawn.
3.3 There are three sub-groups of whorls
 Plain whorl
The ridges in these whorls make a turn of one complete circuit with two
deltas and are therefore circular or spiral in shape. This is the simplest
form of whorl and also the most common.
 Central pocket loop whorl
These whorls consist of at least one re-curving ridge or an obstruction at
right angles to the line of flow with two deltas and if an imaginary line is

12
 13

drawn in between then no re-curving ridge within the pattern area will be
touched or cut. These whorl ridges make one complete circuit and may be
oval, circular, spiral or any variant of a circle.
 Accidental whorl
The composition of the pattern in accidental whorl is derived from two
distinct types of patterns that have at least two deltas. Therefore whorls
containing ridges that match the characteristics of a particular whorl
sub-grouping are referred to as accidental whorls.

4 Fingerprint and crime:

4.1 What is a fingerprint?
The skin covering the palms of the hands and the soles of the feet, unlike
the skin on other parts of the body, is elevated into minute ridges which
tend to follow patterns of definite design. Such skin is called "friction
skin" and the ridges are commonly referred to as papillary ridges. On the
tips of the fingers the papillary ridges form definite patterns which may
be of the same general form on all of the fingers of the two hands or may
differ from one finger to the next, with several or all of the recognized
patterns represented in the same individual. These patterns may be
described and classified in various ways, depending upon the system used
for recording and filing of inked impressions. In the Henry system of
fingerprint classification, which is used in the United States, all
fingerprint patterns are divisible into four main types: Arches, Loops,
Whorls, and Composites.' Each of these may be subdivided into two or
more types so that at least nine patterns may be recognized.2 Since all
fingerprints are classified into only a few pattern types, for the purpose of
identification it is necessary to examine the detailed characteristics of the
fingerprint; in other words, those features of the individual ridges of
which the pattern as a whole is composed. Careful observation of the
ridges discloses that they are not simply a series of similar parallel lines
but tend to differ from each other in various ways. For example, some
ridges may run through the pattern without interruption, while others may
be discontinuous, or interrupted, forming ending ridges, or, as they are
sometimes called, ends. A ridge may also appear to become divided into
two ridges, forming what is known as a fork or bifurcation. Again, the
two branches of a divided ridge may be re-united to form a single ridge,
the characteristic thus constituted being referred to as an enclosure. Very
short ridges, containing only one or two pores, are called islands. In one
fingerprint there may be found a score or more of these fingerprint details,
as well as other ridge characteristics of a more unusual nature.

13
 14

In the comparison of two or more fingerprint impressions, as, for example,

a latent fingerprint from a crime scene and inked prints of a suspect, the
identification is dependent upon the presence of these ridge
characteristics. If the fingerprint in question is smudged, or for any other
reason does not show the ridge details, an identification is impossible.
Many investigators are not familiar with this fact and submit smudges or
finger marks to the expert with the expectation that such marks can be
identified, and possibly at the same time they may ignore the presence of
identifiable fingerprints which are invisible or are less* obvious because
they are not seen during the process of a casual examination. Even inked
impressions taken by persons unfamiliar with the procedure of fingerprint
identification often lack the structural features necessary for purposes of
comparison.
It is generally agreed among fingerprint experts that for a positive
identification there must be at least twelve corresponding ridge details in
the same relative positions. However, some experts hold that six to eight
identical points are sufficient proof of identity if consideration is given to
their grouping, angular values, presence of a core or center of exceptional
form, etc.3 On the basis of nine details it has been estimated that the
mathematical probability of two different individuals making exactly the
same print is about one in two quadrillion, a sum representing more than
one million times the estimated population of the earth. Moreover, no two
fingerprints have ever been found which were identical in all respects,
and this is true even among the ten prints found on any one person's
hands. Palm prints and sole prints can be identified with the same degree
of certainty as fingerprints but are of less frequent occurrence in criminal
investigations.
4.2 Types of fingerprint traces.
Fingerprint traces left at the scene of a crime are of three kinds,
depending upon the nature and condition of the object touched and also
upon the material coating the fingerprint ridges at the time of contact.
These three types are the following:
(a) Molded Impressions, formed by the pressure of the fingers upon a
relatively soft, plastic material, thereby producing an actual mold of the
fingerprint pattern. Fingerprints of this kind are found in such materials as
wax, tar, soap, putty, and various articles of food. They usually require no
special treatment preparatory to analytical study, but are photographed
with the lighting arranged in such a manner that the impressions show
most clearly.

14
 15

(b) Visible Impressions, made by contact of fingers which are coated

with some foreign coloring material. Visible fingerprints may be made by
fingers smeared- with blood, grease, dirt, paint and the like, and when
clear and sharp, are photographed in their original state. Fingerprints in
this category, however, are often blurred or 'smeared and do not contain
the requisite ridge structure to permit an identification.
(c) Latent Impressions: those produced principally by the natural
secretions of the skin which coat the fingerprint ridges, and are invisible,
or nearly so, unless illuminated or viewed at a critical angle. Of the three
types of impressions the most frequently encountered, and usually the one
more satisfactory than any of the others, is the latent fingerprint.

4.3 Formation of latent fingerprints

The skin covering the tips of the fingers contains thousands of sweat
glands, each opening by means of a duct onto the outer surface of the
papillary ridge through a small funnel-shaped opening or pore on its
summit. Because of the activity of these glands there is a discharge of
sweat deposited upon the ridge surfaces. This excretion is about 99%
water, but in addition it contains various inorganic salts, as well as
organic matter in the form of fatty acids, urea, etc. Besides the secretion
of sweat, the ridges also become coated with oily matter secreted by the
sebaceous glands of the hair-producing parts of the skin. When, for
example, the fingers are run through the hair of the head or touch the face,
a small amount of sebum is transferred to the papillary ridges. Since the
deposit of sweat and sebum is practically always present, when the
fingers come into contact with a smooth, dry surface, some of the
material is transferred from the ridges to the object touched and remains
as a material, though perhaps invisible, reproduction of the skin design of
the finger tips themselves. The fidelity of the latent fingerprint so formed
is influenced by a number of factors: the cleanliness of the fingers;
amount of secretion; degree of pressure exerted when the object is
touched; whether the fingers made firm, even contact or whether they
slipped or twisted, etc. The nature of the object touched also plays a part
in the formation of latent fingerprints. Deposits of bodily secretion on
rough surfaces, such as stones, unfinished wood, pebbled leather, etc., are
not sharp and clear. Porous surfaces, such as newsprint or blotting paper
produce spreading and absorption of the moist deposit. Dusty, dirty or
oily surfaces also affect the formation of the fingerprint traces. However,
clear latent fingerprints may be expected on most hard, smooth surfaces
which are relatively clean. Identifiable latent fingerprints are frequently
encountered on glass, china, polished wood, porcelain, polished metals,

15
 16

patent leather, writing papers, and similar surfaces. The length of time
that a latent fingerprint will remain upon an object also varies, being
influenced by a number of factors. The amount of secretion deposited, the
porosity of the surface, and various climatic and atmospheric conditions,
as well as other factors, affect the duration of the latent print, and because
of their variability it is not possible to state categorically the interval
during which a fingerprint is susceptible of development. On absorbent
surfaces this may be a matter of a few hours, whereas on relatively
non-absorbent materials the life of a print may extend to several weeks or
even months. However, in any case there is a progressive weakening of
the print with the elapse of time, and it is therefore important that an
examination of the traces be made as soon after their discovery as
possible. Since the sweat and oily material which constitute the latent
fingerprint are nearly always colorless, the impressions are frequently
invisible or not sufficiently clear for photographing directly, and therefore
they must be intensified in some way to give them contrast with the
object upon which they are located. The intensification process is referred
to as the development of latent fingerprints, and although the procedure is
usually a simple one, considerable skill and experience are necessary if
the best results are to be obtained.

4.4 Development of latent fingerprints

The processes of development used by fingerprint technicians are
numerous, and many different materials are employed to "bring out"
invisible impressions. Various finely divided colored powders are
generally used for fingerprints on hard, smooth surfaces, such as glass,
painted or varnished wood, metals, etc., whereas certain vapors and liquid
reagents are utilized on relatively absorbent materials such as paper,
cardboard and unpainted wood. Many different powders can be used as
developers, and specially prepared fingerprint powders are available as
commercial products. However, the developers commonly used are of
two "colors"--one of light color, such as aluminum for fingerprints on
dark surfaces, and the other black, as, for example, lampblack or charcoal
powders, for latent prints on light surfaces. The need for both light and
dark powders is readily apparent, of course, since it is important that the
developed fingerprint presents maximum contrast with its background.
Powders are sometimes sprinkled or blown onto the object being
examined but are more frequently applied with a soft brush. A small
quantity of powder is taken on the end of the bristles and applied to the
object by short, light strokes of the brush. Sometimes a second or third
application is necessary for complete development of the latent print, but

16
 17

care must always be observed in applying the powder in order that the
impression is not smeared or obliterated by the use of too much powder
or by too heavy brushing. After the fingerprint has been intensified the
excess powder is removed with a few light strokes of the bruits. This
method of developing fingerprints is based upon the principle that the
sweat residue constituting the latent fingerprint is slightly adhesive and
will therefore cause some of the powder to adhere, whereas portions of
the object not covered by the deposit-including the spaces between the
sweat ridges-will not retain the particles of powder to the same extent. In
the development of fingerprints with powders it necessarily follows that
the surface must be free of grease or moisture, for a surface coating of
such materials would destroy the difference in adhesive power of a
fingerprint and the object upon which it is located. Following the
development of the latent impression a photograph may be taken as a
permanent record and also for subsequent comparison with inked
fingerprints. If the photograph is to be made at the crime scene a specially
designed portable camera is ordinarily employed. One type of camera in
common use has a self-contained lighting system and is easily operated.
Photographs are made in natural size and from the negatives suitable
enlargements can be prepared, or the examination may be made from
contact prints with the aid of a magnifier. Although a photographic
reproduction is used whenever possible, in some instances this is not
feasible and the developed latent print must then be preserved by "lifting"
it from the object with an adhesive material of some kind. A "lifter"
commonly used for this purpose is transparent cellulose tape. A piece of
tape of sufficient size to cover the print is placed over the powdered print
and pressed against it by stroking with the tip of the finger to insure even
contact. The tape is then peeled off, and the fingerprint is thus transferred
to the adhesive surface of the tape. It is then protected by placing it on a
piece of cellophane or other backing material to form a permanent mount.
Considerable care is required for accomplishing a successful "lift" and for
this reason photography should be used whenever possible. Although
powders are most frequently used for the development of latent
fingerprints, there are certain surfaces (e. g., paper and cardboard) on
which vapors or liquid reagents can be utilized to greater advantage.
Among the agents of this type in common usage are iodine fumes, osmic
acid vapor and silver nitrate solution. The selection of any one of these
three depends upon such factors as the age (or probable age) of the prints,
type of surface, etc. Not all of the methods can be used in combination,
the application of one sometimes precluding the use of others. The action
of such agents is either one of absorption (as in the case of iodine fumes
taken up by the fingerprint deposit), or of chemical reaction with one or
more of the components of the latent fingerprint, which results in a

17
 18

coloration of the print. Silver nitrate reacts with the ordinary salt which is
present in the trace and the osmic acid vapors react with the fatty
substances secreted by the skin.
From the foregoing discussion of the formation and development of
fingerprints, it can be readily understood that considerable caution should
be exercised in the handling of any object which might contain
identifying traces. Careless handling not only may introduce "foreign"
prints, but may also eradicate or smear the original impressions on the
object and thereby render them useless for identification purposes. In
many investigations it is unnecessary to touch or handle such objects
before an examination is made by the fingerprint expert, but whenever an
immediate examination is considered necessary or desirable the object
should be handled in such a manner that any possible fingerprint traces
are not destroyed. For example, the examination of an anonymous letter
can be carried out with the aid of tweezers or forceps, or even with two
small pieces of wood and, while possibly not so convenient as using the
fingers, this method. Of handling at least prevents the addition of many
extraneous fingerprints and palm prints. If the object to be handled
happens to be a container such ‘as a drinking glass, cup, or bottle, the
fingers may be placed inside, or it may be lifted and removed by placing
the fingers on the rim of the opening and on the bottom edge. In the case
of a pistol or revolver, it should be picked up by means of a pencil or a
small piece of wood inserted in the barrel or through the trigger guard, or
it may be handled by the grip if the stock happens to have a rough surface.
Careless transport of articles bearing latent fingerprints may also result in
partial or complete obliteration. The widespread practice of wrapping
exhibits in newspapers or in pieces of cloth, such as a handkerchief, is
responsible for the destruction or alteration of many identifiable traces.
The moist deposit of sweat or oil constituting a fingerprint impression is
extremely delicate and only slight friction from wrapping material is
sufficient to smear it or remove it completely. In the larger police
departments, as well as in some other investigative bodies, the problem of
transporting exhibits bearing fingerprints is seldom encountered because
such exhibits are investigated at the crime scene by the fingerprint experts
themselves. However, when an object must be carried some distance for a
fingerprint examination, it should be supported in such a manner that the
surfaces to be examined for fingerprints will not be touched or rubbed.
Some experts suggest enclosing the article in a wooden frame, or, in the
case of some objects, lashing them to a board with string to prevent
movement and friction. In the absence of special packing materials a
substitute method consists of placing the article in a cardboard or wooden
box in such a position that it is supported by its edges .or corners or rough

18
 19

surfaces (where fingerprints would not be found anyway), or in carrying

it in such a manner that the smooth, relatively broad surfaces are not
subjected to friction.

5. Where Fingerprints May Be Found At Crime Scene

Fingerprints can be found on practically any solid surface, including the

human body. Analysts classify fingerprints into three categories according
to the type of surface on which they are found and whether they are visible
or not: Fingerprints on soft surfaces (such as soap, wax, wet paint, fresh
caulk, etc.) are likely to be three-dimensional plastic prints; those on hard
surfaces are either patent (visible) or latent (invisible) prints. Visible prints
are formed when blood, dirt, ink, paint, etc., is transferred from a finger or
thumb to a surface. Patent prints can be found on a wide variety of
surfaces: smooth or rough, porous (such as paper, cloth or wood) or
nonporous (such as metal, glass or plastic).
Latent prints are formed when the body’s natural oils and sweat on the skin
are deposited onto another surface. Latent prints can be found on a variety
of surfaces; however, they are not readily visible and detection often
requires the use of fingerprint powders, chemical reagents or alternate light
sources. Generally speaking, the smoother and less porous a surface is, the
greater the potential that any latent prints present can be found and
developed.

6. Role of Fingerprint Expert

6.1 Collection pattern

a) Collecting Patent Prints
Patent prints are collected using a fairly straightforward method:
photography. These prints are photographed in high resolution with
a forensic measurement scale in the image for reference.
Investigators can improve the quality of the images by using
low-angle or alternate light sources and/or certain chemicals or dyes
during photography, but this is usually not necessary.

b) Collecting Latent Prints

One of the most common methods for discovering and collecting
latent fingerprints is by dusting a smooth or nonporous surface with
fingerprint powder (black granular, aluminium flake, black
magnetic, etc.). If any prints appear, they are photographed as

19
 20

mentioned above and then lifted from the surface with clear
adhesive tape. The lifting tape is then placed on a latent lift card to
preserve the print.
However, fingerprint powders can contaminate the evidence and
ruin the opportunity to perform other techniques that could turn up a
hidden print or additional information. Therefore, investigators may
examine the area with an alternate light source or apply
cyanoacrylate (super glue) before using powders.

c) Alternate Light Source (ALS): It is becoming more commonplace

for investigators to examine any likely surfaces (doors, doorknobs,
windows, railings, etc.) with an alternate light source. These are
laser or LED devices that emit a particular wavelength, or spectrum,
of light. Some devices have different filters to provide a variety of
spectra that can be photographed or further processed with powders
or dye stains. For example, investigators may use a blue light with
an orange filter to find latent prints on desks, chairs, computer
equipment or other objects at the scene of a break-in
.

Using a fluorescent dye stain and an orange alternate light source helps
this latent print appear clearly so that it can be documented. (Courtesy of
Scott Campbell, Ron Smith & Associates)

Use of various alternate light sources may help enhance the

appearance of a fingerprint. (Courtesy of Scott Campbell, Ron
Smith & Associates)

d) Cyanoacrylate: Investigators often perform cyanoacrylate

(superglue) processing, or fuming, of a surface before applying

20
 21

powders or dye stains. This process, typically performed on

non-porous surfaces, involves exposing the object to cyanoacrylate
vapors. The vapors (fumes) will adhere to any prints present on the
object allowing them to be viewed with oblique ambient light or a
white light source.

A chamber specially designed for exposing latent prints to super

glue fumes. (Courtesy of Scott Campbell, Ron Smith & Associates)

Super glue fumes adhere to latent fingerprints on the neck of a glass

bottle. (Courtesy of Scott Campbell, Ron Smith & Associates)

e) Chemical Developers: Porous surfaces such as paper are typically

processed with chemicals, including ninhydrin and physical
developer, to reveal latent fingerprints. These chemicals react with
specific components of latent print residue, such as amino acids and
inorganic salts. Ninhydrin causes prints to turn a purple colour,
which makes them easily photographed. DFO (1,
2-diazafluoren-9-one) is another chemical used to locate latent
fingerprints on porous surfaces; it causes fingerprints to fluoresce,
or glow, when they are illuminated by blue-green light.

21
 22

Paper treated with ninhydrin reagent reveals latent prints after being
processed with a household steam iron. (Courtesy of NFSTC)

f) Other Collection Methods: In addition to the methods identified

above, there are special techniques for capturing prints from skin,
clothing and other difficult surfaces. Amido Black, a non-specific
protein stain that reacts with any protein present, is typically used
for developing or enhancing bloody impressions on human skin. To
reveal prints on clothing, high-tech methods such as vacuum metal
deposition using gold and zinc are showing promise for the
investigator. AccuTrans®, a liquid casting compound, can be used
to lift powdered latent prints from rough, textured or curved
surfaces. AccuTrans® is basically a very thick liquid that fills in the
nooks and crannies of rough or textured areas where conventional
print lifting tape encounters difficulty.
Like fingerprint powders, chemical processing can reduce the
investigator’s ability to perform other techniques that could reveal
valuable information. Therefore, any non-destructive investigations are
performed before the evidence is treated with chemicals. For example, a
ransom or hold-up note will be examined by a questioned documents
expert before being treated with ninhydrin, since some formulations of
ninhydrin will cause certain inks to run, thus destroying the writing.

6.2 Who Conducts the Analysis?

In criminal justice cases, computerized systems are used to search various
local, state and national fingerprint databases for potential matches. Many
of these systems provide a value indicating how close the match is, based
on the algorithm used to perform the search. Fingerprint examiners then
review the potential matches and make a final determination.
Fingerprint examinations may be conducted by forensic scientists,
technicians or police officers; however, the examiner should have the
proper training and experience to perform the task. Currently many
agencies require new examiners to have a four-year degree in science
(biology, chemistry or physics). In addition, agencies may require
examiners to become certified by the International Association for
Identification (IAI provides certification requirements.

6.3 How and Where the Analysis is performed

Fingerprint analysis is usually performed by law enforcement agencies or

crime laboratories; however, casework may be sent to private companies if
there is a need, such as to reduce backlogs, verify results, or handle
high-profile cases.

22
 23

Fingerprint examination involves looking at the quality and quantity of

information in order to find agreement or disagreement between the
unknown print (from the crime scene) and known prints on file. To conduct
the examination, fingerprint examiners use a small magnifier called a
loupe to view minute details (minutiae) of a print. A pointer called a ridge
counter is used to count the friction ridges.

An examiner uses a loupe to view minute details of a fingerprint. (Courtesy

of NFSTC)

7. The Fingerprint Analysis Process

Fingerprint examiners use the ACE-V (analysis, comparison, evaluation
and verification) method to reach a determination on each print.

Analysis involves assessing a print to determine if it can be used for a

comparison. If the print is not suitable for comparison because of
inadequate quality or quantity of features, the examination ends and the
print is reported as not suitable. If the print is suitable, the analysis
indicates the features to be used in the comparison and their tolerances (the
amount of variation that will be accepted). The analysis may also uncover
physical features such as recurves, deltas, creases and scars that help
indicate where to begin the comparison.

Comparisons are performed by an analyst who views the known and

suspect prints side-by-side. The analyst compares minutiae characteristics
and locations to determine if they match. Known prints are often collected
from persons of interest, victims, others present at the scene or through a
search of one or more fingerprint databases such as the FBI’s Integrated
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). IAFIS is the largest
fingerprint database in the world and, as of June 2012, held more than 72
million print records from criminals, military personnel, government
employees and other civilian employees.

23
 24

Evaluation is where the examiner ultimately decides if the prints are from
the same source (identification or individualization), different sources
(exclusion) or is inconclusive. Inconclusive results may be due to poor
quality samples, lack of comparable areas, or insufficient number of
corresponding or dissimilar features to be certain.

Verification is when another examiner independently analyses, compares

and evaluates the prints to either support or refute the conclusions of the
original examiner. The examiner may also verify the suitability of
determinations made in the analysis phase.

8. Crime Scene Chemistry: Fingerprint Analysis

Law enforcement has relied on fingerprint analysis to identify suspects
and solve crimes for more than 100 years. Investigators use fingerprints
to link a perpetrator to a crime scene. Individual fingerprint identification
records have also been used in sentencing, probation, and parole
decisions. Officers often rely on chemical techniques, such as those above,
to visualize the evidence. However, inadequate proficiency testing of
investigators has led to inaccurate interpretations of the evidence. Recent
wrongful convictions and scientific studies of forensic methods have
increased scrutiny of the validity and reliability of several forms of
forensic evidence, including fingerprints. A recent report prepared by the
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)
makes strong recommendations for improving the scientific basis of
forensic evidence used in the courtroom. For fingerprinting, the report
emphasized the potential for automating fingerprint analysis, to
potentially reduce bias in interpreting match results when fingerprints at a
scene are smudged or otherwise unclear.

24
 25

9. Case Laws:
9.1 Two suits were filed by the parties, plaintiff filed suit for possession
while the defandant had filed suit for specific performance of
agreement to sell. Contention of the defandant was that an agreement
to sell the suit land was executed in his favour with the delivery of
possession which was denied by the the plaintiff. Thumb impression
on the document was dispute and the same was examined by the
finger-print expert. Witness who produced the report in the trial court
was not the author of the report nor had he examined the documents or
given his opinion thereto. Trial dismissed the suit filed by the
defandant and that of the plaintiff possession was decreed. Appellate
court reverse the findings of trial court on the issue of execution of
document on the assumption that because the plaintiff had failed to
produce the forcible possession of the defandant and the report had
establish the thumb impression therefore, appeal filled by the
defandant was allowed. Plea raised by the plaintiff was the report of
finger-print expert which was not proved in accordance with law as
the same was signed by three officers of finger-print bureau but the
expert who had examined the thumb impression were not examined as
witness. Defandant failed to prove the report of finger-print expert,
therefore. Judgment and decree passed by the the appellate court was a
result of material irregularity and erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.
Judgment and decree passed by appellate court were set aside and that
of trial court was restored. Revision was allowed in circumstances.
2003 YLT 889.
9.2 In Ghazala Tehsin Zohra v Mehr Ghulam Dastagir Khanthe Court
pondered over DNA fingerprinting and its implications for
establishing paternity in the context of Article 128 of the QSO. The
paternity of two children born during a marriage was denied by their
father and a request for conducting DNA test was made. Referring
to Nandlal, it was argued that Indian courts have started allowing
DNA tests when the legitimacy of children is contested on the ground
of un chastity of one’s wife. The Court observed:
The Article [128] is couched in language which is protective of
societal cohesion and values of the community. This appears to be the
rationale for stipulating affirmatively that a child who is born within
two years after the dissolution of the marriage between his parents (the
mother remaining un-married) shall constitute conclusive proof of his
legitimacy. The Court further pointed out that Muslim scholars as well
as legislators of the QSO were not oblivious to the gestation period of
a fetus, and even then, they extended the presumption of legitimacy up
to two years, which shows ‘the legislative intent as well as the societal

25
 26

imperative of avoiding controversy in matters of paternity.

PLD 2015 SC 327.

9.3 Magistrate who attested affidavit alleged to have been executed by

prosecution witness does not executant or or deponent personally nor
he was able to identify the alleged executant in the court during the
course of his deposition. Mere fact that thumb-impression borne on
that document was found identical to specimen thumb-impression of
said prosecution witness by the finger print expert would not confer
any credibility on that document because of absence of any
explanation regarding circumstances under which it was executed.
Such affidavit execution of which was not proved, would have no
evidentiary value. 1990 ALD 706

9.4 The reason as well as opinion given by finger -print expert as to

identify of a palm impression are admissible in evidence. The
evidence given by a finger-print expert needs not necessarily be
corroborative, but the court must satisfy itself as to the value of the
expert in the same way as it must satisfy itself on the value of other
evidence. AIR 1957 cut. 200.

9.5 S 302/34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.59---Reappraisal of

evidence---Plea of alibi ---Proof---Report of Finger Print
Expert---Two accused were acquitted by Trial Court while other two
were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment---Conviction and
sentence of the accused was maintained by High Court---Plea raised
by accused was that at the time of offence, they were confined in
prison---Contention of prosecution was that persons confined in prison
were different---Validity---Question to be determined was as to the
identity of the accused---Both the Courts below relied upon the report
of Finger Prints Expert---Finding of both the Courts below was
unsustainable for the reason that there was no evidence on record that
the Finger Print Expert had compared the thumb-impressions of the
accused in jail record with their undisputed
thumb-impressions---Magistrate who was examined as prosecution
witness stated that the proceedings of obtaining thumb-impressions of
the accused did not bear his signatures and such proceedings were not
supervised by him and Investigating Officer inadvertently recorded his
name---Investigating Officer admitted that there was nothing on
sample papers as to the identification of accused persons before
Magistrate and National Identity Card numbers of accused were not
given on sample papers---Validity---In absence of proof of
comparison of undisputed thumb-impressions of accused by the

26
 27

Expert with thumb-impressions in jail record, the evidentiary value of

report of Finger Print Expert was nil---Plea of alibi was wrongly
rejected by the Courts below---Appeal was allowed. 2006 SCMR
1707-93

9.6 Opinion of finger-print expert was taken on file by the trial court
without any objection having been raised about its mood of proof.
Neither in the lower appellate court nor in ground of revision
objection about improper admission of opinion of finger print expert
in evidence was taken. Defendant in default of clear objection at
appropriate time was precluded from objecting to mode of proof
regarding admission of opinion of expert or his examination on
commission in revision.
1992 CLC 1801

9.7 Application for sending disputed cheque to Finger Print expert was
allowed. 489-F---Qanun-e-Shahadat (X of 1984), Arts.59 & 84---
Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.10-A & 199---Constitutional petition---
Dishonestly issuing a cheque---expert opinion-Comparison of
signatures-Right of fair trial---Petitioner was facing trial on allegation
of dishonestly issuing bank cheque which was dis-honoured on
presentation-Petitioner denied issuing of any cheque and his
application for getting comparison of his signatures on cheque from
Hand Writing expert :vas dismissed by Trial Court as well as lower
Appellate Court---Validity---Power of Trial Court to itself compare
cheque in dispute with admitted signatures of complainant (petitioner),
as envisaged under Art.84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, did not debar
Trial Court form sending the cheque for comparison to Finger Print
expert ---expert evidence was admissible in evidence under Art.59 of
Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and if such evidence was not available, only
then Trial Court could itself compare the cheque with admitted
signatures of petitioner-Petitioner was entitled to fair trial, in view of
Art.10-A of the Constitution-Denial on the part of Trial Court to send
cheque it: dispute to Finger Print expert , was violation of the
provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Trial Court as well as lower
Appellate Court failed to exercise their jurisdiction vested in them
under law and had illegally dismissed application submitted by
petitioner-Petition was allowed in circumstances. PLD 2015 Lahore
78

9.8 Thumb impression were taken in court to prove bogus person, who
had thumb marked the ballot papers instead of real voters. Non

27
 28

production of finger-print expert would render the evidence on

thumb-impression not worthy reliance. 1968 Quetta 93.

9.9 According to the case of Yasmeen Kumar V. The State, when court
had disbelieved the recovery, evidence of finger-print expert would be
of no material importance. PLD 1990 Kar. 275

9.10 So long as the report of the director of fingerprint bureau shows

that his opinion is based on observation which leads to conclusions
that his opinion can be accepted, there is no necessity of examining
the person making the report. But should there be any doubt, it can
always be decided by calling of the expert making the report. AIR
1972 SC 975.

9.11 Though report of fingerprint expert can be received in evidence

without calling for expert as a witness but in absence of such
corresponding provision in the QSO, opinion of the expert would not
be ipso facto admissible to be accepted in evidence without calling
expert as a witness. 1984 CLC 1697.

9.12 Fingerprints are absolutely certain mode of identification and have

great evidentiary value. 1907 5 Cr.L.J 220

28
 29

REFERENCES
https://www.pljlawsite.com/2015art9.htm

http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/prints/how.html

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/crime-scene-chemistry-fingerprint-analysis

https://sys.lhc.gov.pk/appjudgments/2011LHC1685.pdf
http://rulings.advocategeneral.punjab.gov.pk/index.php?law_officers=&ruling_cat=&srch=&currentp
age=9
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43099892_The_nature_of_expertise_in_fingerprint_exam
iners
https://work.chron.com/forensic-fingerprint-expert-9683.html?fbclid=IwAR32OiHbA04bY9wIMBor9m
hDm3HX_SMedVg7VG0WkWbvokGjEzI0tOVbEMg
https://daily.jstor.org/fingerprints-and-crime/?fbclid=IwAR0fQ99yRYXODQGM8Zju-XHUBjdYeq8OloX
dn99cbMfGoSRfRA4yedQv1Bo
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2926&context=jclc&fbc
lid=IwAR34Jlwf-gwURVbgWMZ9YBz34MwP_f2M9AvfkL-HIIVsOyZuwFXggisbQgY
https://www.touchngoid.com/8-common-fingerprint-patterns/?fbclid=IwAR2WQ5TDrxiRDxqcFazYUSr
VYigQdnPWxJpllXrQ9gzIEI8ajR7Xs_FmcAg

29