Permanence of 3rd level detail??

[Bill]

Thanks, Les, that answers my question.

I have observed all the conditions you described--and could add some omore to the list. However, those conditions are exterior trauma, and not from within the body. A bricklayer's skin, for the most part, will return to it's "normal" state if he or she were to quit laying bricks. Even if the exterior trauma caused permanent scarring, the skin will heal and continue to be healthy. The skin will regenrate a healthy, but scarred epidermal layer of skin.

However, a diabetic, particularly those with the severe congenital type, often become worse over time, even when controlled with insulin, exercise and diet. The circulatory system is unable to deliver the blood and nutrients to the extrimities and its skin on the exterior of those extrmities.

Drug users also cause trauma from within. I have gone through ten-print jackets of defendants who have a long history of drug use, and, for the most part, I have observed a declination of the quality of their fingerprint images over time, occasionally, to the point where they are basically crap, for lack of a better term.

Therefore, if I understand you correctly, the permanence of the third-level detail is permanence in theory, based on the assumption, that, if nothing "abnormal" happens to the person, this third level detail would be visible, and remain visible--or detectable, throughout life, the same way second level detail does.

Is this correct?

I hate to beat a point to death, but sometimes I feel a little dense.

I really appreciate your patience.

Bill

[Les Bush]

Gooday Bill,

Yes is the answer to your question. To understand why that is so wet your appetite with a few of the following references.
BABLER William J, “Embryologic development of epidermal ridges and their configurations”, Birth Defects original article series, Vol 27, n) 2, pp 95 - 112
BREATHNACH A. S., “An atlas of the Ultrastructure of human skin”, J & A Churchhill, London 1971.
CARLSON, “human embryology and developmental biology”, 1994, Mosby USA
DELL David A, Munger Bryce L., “The early embryogenesis of papillary (sweat duct) ridges in primate glabrous skin: the dermatotopic map of cutaneous mechanoreceptors and dermatoglyphics”, The journal of comparative neurology, 1986, 244 pp 511 - 532.
HIRSCH W, Schweichel J U, “Morphological evidence concerning the problem of skin ridge formation”, J. Ment Defic. Res (1973) 17, pp 58 - 72.
HOLBROOK Karen A, Odland George F, “ Regional development of the human epidermis in the first trimester embryo and the second trimester foetus (ages related to the timing of amniocentesis and foetal biopsy)”, Journal of investigative dermatology, 80: 161 - 168, 1980.
MONTAGNA W, Lobtiz W C, The Epidermis, published by Academic Press, 1964 New York and London.
MOORE Susan J., MUNGER Bryce L., “The early ontogeny of the afferent nerves and papillary ridges in human digital glabrous skin”, Developmental Brain Research, 48 (1989) pp 119 - 141.
TORTORA Gerard J., Anagnostakos N. P., “Principles of Anatomy and Physiology” book published in USA

As the chinese proverb goes a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. Some of these may be available on the CLPEX Holy Grail. Enjoy and regards.

[antonroland]

Thank you Les

Will have a look.

Anton

[Bill]

Les,

Thanks so much.

I have Dr. Babler's works in PDF, but I do not think I have any of the others.

You have been most gracious and helpful.

I don't think we've ever met, but I hope to meet you someday and discuss this further. It sounds like you have done a considerable amount of research in this yourself.

Bill

[Boyd Baumgartner]

Like most things, I say, 'it depends on...'

Considering 3rd level detail is defined as both intrinsic (dimensional aspects) and extrinsic aspects (accidental), it can be, by definition permanent or non permanent.

Per Michele's dictionary

Level 3 detail
Friction ridge dimensional attributes, e.g., width, edge shapes
and pores.
SWGFAST, Glossary - Consolidated 09-09-03 ver. 1.0
http://www.swgfast.org/Glossary_Consolidated_ver_1.pdf

Ridge shape, relative pore location, and some accidental details.
Quantitative-Qualitative Friction Ridge Analysis, David R. Ashbaugh 1999 CRC Press


Example of permanent 3rd level detail.
The unique puckering of ridges along the path of a permanent scar. See Ashbaugh pg 101, figure 4.3 (Extrinsic, Accidental Damage)


Example of non permanent 3rd level detail.
Ridge dimensional variance caused by a wart (Extrinsic, Accidental Damage), that has the potential to completely heal.

But, worthy of mentioning, even when taken in the most strict interpretation (Dimensional aspects of the ridge), ridge dimensions change as we grow. My fingers take up physically more space than when I was a child, which translates directly to a dimensional increase in ridge width. The example of a fingerprint drawn on a deflated balloon, which is then blown up illustrates the point.

[Bill]

Hello--again,

I consider myself a reasonably competent and disciplined researcher. Grad school has a way of whipping one into shape for that task. However, other than the Ashbaugh, Babler, and some articles published in the JFI, I have not had much success in locating several of the documents posted by Les Bush of Australia, and Emma C., of the UK. I have Glenn's "Holy Grail" as well. But, some of the ones I am looking for are not yet a part of this famous "canon of holy writ of fingerprints" as yet.

I am familiar with a few of the titles, but, some of the databases require membeship or hefty fees to access and download materials. I don't need to remind you that public servants generally are not wealthy.

Does anyone have any suggestions? Would most university libraries have reasonable access to these documents, such as our neighboring George Mason University?

If anyone has some of these in PDF or MS Word, and are willing to share them, I would be much indebted to you. I'll buy dinner if you come to the DC area sometime.
My email can be accessed from the clpex user list.

Thanks in advance,

Bill

[Charles Parker]

I thought the following might fit well with this thread

From the Identification News Vol. 38 No. 5, 2008 Oct/Nov “Bibliotheque” section p. 21
(Recent technical abstracts from non-IAI publications

Latent Fingermark Pore Area Reproducibility

Gupta, A.; Buckley, K.; Suttona, R.

Forensic Science International, Volume 179, Issues 2-3, August 6, 2008, Pages 172-175. Elsevier, B.V., http://www.sciencedirect.com

Abstract:
The study of the reproducibility of friction ridge pore detail in fingermarks is a measure of their usefulness in personal identification. Pore area in latent prints developed using cyanoacrylate and ninhydrin were examined and measured by photomicrography using appropriate software tools. The data were analyzed statistically and the results showed that pore area is not reproducible in developed latent prints, using either of the development techniques. The results add further support to the lack of reliability of pore area in personal identification.

[Les Bush]

Hi,

Its easy to see how people can become confused with our science when we interchange terms and use some in the wrong context. This thread is about the permanence of third level detail in particular the eccrine sweat gland opening on the surface of the friction ridge. Firstly what we visualise is not the pore, we observe a conical depression on the ridge surface known as an ostia inside of which is the pore. The pore is much smaller as it represents the diameter of the lumen of the intra-epidermal duct. From this understanding the reseachers of the referred article have already made an error in terminology. Its not a pore, its an ostia.

The permanence of the ostia is based upon the biological development during second trimester followed by maintenance of the anatomy and physiology of the epidermis. This is true permanence and is conditional to disease, injury, abnormality and ageing process. The reproducibility of the shape of the ostia is also conditional as are all levels of fingerprint detail. The variables of skin transfer and the sensitivity of development technique are major contributors as to why reproducibility will require a tolerance for interpretation. We find this with the overall pattern of the fingerprint and with second level details so why not with third level detail? The hypothesis of the 'pore' research may have been too specific and limiting in tolerance for transfer variation factors. By comparison in my Metric tool paper I used the actual skin as a control to compare with the results derived from the exemplar and the latent impressions. The skin without transfer variables is different to any reproduction but it is the fundamental principles of our science that ensures when sufficient detail is transferred we can apply our expertise. If you wish to read my article get onto Glen for its inclusion in the website Holy Grail. Hope this helps. Regards from oz. les

[Charles Parker]

Les, I made that posting because I felt it complied with part of antonrolands request at the beginning of the thread.

He states

.....(b) the practical observations and problems in doing so.

Also to comply with this request of his

If anyone has any further reading material / articles which they would be willing to forward I would appreciate it and abide by any conditions. I plan to use it purely for further reading and if ever used, it will be used on any and all conditions of original authors and with full credit.

I thought it also added some to the other comments made earlier in this thread.

I for one do not doubt for a second that pores are not "permanent" and I fully agree that on the human skin they are "never duplicated in their most minute detail".

But I think what the authors of that article are referring to is the reproducibility of 3-dimensional information into a 2-dimension. In other words from 3-dimensional human skin into a 2-dimension latent print with all the possible problems of transfer problems and distortion.

I think that is a key part of the discussion. Even you have stated in different parts of the thread about transfer problems.

Unless my understanding of "Reproducibility" is incorrect that is what the authors are talking about.

However if you feel that my posting is scientifically inappropriate or incorrect for this thread, let me know and I will delete it.

This is a good thread with lots of bibilographic material and I think it needs to be at the top and my intention was to add one more piece. By the way I have 'g''s grail as well as most of the works listed here (not all).

[David Fairhurst]

...an error in terminology. Its not a pore, its an ostia.

If we're giong to get hung up on terminology then it's not an ostia, its an ostium. (Ostia is the plural)

[antonroland]

Thanks for all the replies on here.

I have learned a good bit (yet again) and take notice of the fact that we often use the incorrect terms colloquially when referring to some aspects of 3rd level detail.

I look forward to learning even more from future replies in this thread.

Anton

[Les Bush]

Hi David, Charles,

Thanks for the feedback. You are correct David the single opening is an ostium and plural is ostia, I had the same difficulty with anlage and anlagen. Never mind as long as we are on the same page that the physical feature on the surface of the ridge is not the pore that is the important knowledge. The reason for correcting the terminology is that Ive seen the same term 'pore' used by a highly credible author to describe the intra-dermal duct of the sweat gland. Once again our science needs to be aligned with the parent sciences of biology and human anatomy.

Charles once again we have disagreed on a subject issue. Thats okay with me as getting consensus on technical or theoretical issues is the biggest problem facing our science so our part on this site is friendly banter. I dont have the answer how we self regulate but keeping the communication flowing is important as someone might get a bright idea. A classic example is the McKie case where very experienced experts are having opposing conclusions in relation to one latent Y7. When the public inquiry is complete we may get the independent and hopefully objective submission by the convenor about what constitutes knowledge, skill and experience. As far as the permanence and reproducibility of third level detail, one term is theoretical and the other technical but both need to be in agreement. Cheers les

[Charles Parker]

Les Bush Said

As far as the permanence and reproducibility of third level detail, one term is theoretical and the other technical but both need to be in agreement.

Les, if I understand the statement in regards to 3LD that permanence (theoretical) and reproducibility (technical) both need to be in agreement.

Could you elaborate on "both need to be in agreement".

[EmmaC]

Hi

I share an office with Abhishek Gupta and Dr Raul Sutton is my PhD supervisor so if you want any more information about the research that Abhi has done let me know and I'll ask him.

Emma

[Les Bush]

Charles,

The knowledge available about the biological construction of the sweat gland has defined its certain parts so that all in the human anatomy industry/academia can follow observations and presentations. This theoretical base remains so until new research redefines the current understanding or adds to its knowledge.

The technical knowledge is less controlled since it has a wider set of conditions influencing its outcomes. In our science this applies principally to the range of transfer variables that affect the reproducibility of friction skin to substrate contact. We accept that latent prints are produced in a 'chance contact' way so there isnt any expectation that we can repeat the same conditions of transfer using the same source skin. That is why we rely on a combination of levels of detail to achieve sufficiency for identification or exclusion. The ostia in the research you've raised represent the distribution and affect of the anlagen at and on the basement membrane, while the pathway of the intra-epidermal duct is guided (acrosyringium) generally into the conical depression at the surface.

I was trying to make the point that when technical research is conducted on the reproducibility of a skin feature then the terms used should coincide with the theory of skin anatomy. Kind regards. Les