CLPEX Chat Board

Hi Steve,
Thanks a gem.

Amazing, the internet is truly amazing.

When in NZ we had our Fingerprint section Centenary I was asked to put together the history of the Auckland Section, and in my ferreting about I was privileged to receive from T. White (Retired) a two page history for NZ fingerprints typed by the Late Merv Dedman. I spent some time editing it and converting to disc, it makes for some interesting reading, Edward Dinnie was our first Expert. Here are the first 3 paragraphs:-

History has attributed May 1903 as the month and the year fingerprinting commenced in the New Zealand Police. This is correct in that a Fingerprint Bureau was established at Police Headquarters, Wellington at that time. However, the actual recording of the fingerprints of criminals was in operation sometime prior to that date. How long prior to 1903 I have not been able to ascertain. It has been established that it was during the period of service of a Commissioner of Police named William Tunbridge. He was the New Zealand Commissioner of Police from 1897 to 1903. He was formerly an Inspector of Police from Scotland Yard and more importantly, as far as New Zealand fingerprinting is concerned a friend of Henry Faulds. Faulds was one of the foremost pioneers of modern day fingerprinting. It was then, without doubt, this friendship with Henry Faulds that prompted Tunbridge to endeavour to establish fingerprinting in New Zealand. Little is known of those early years, other than the fingerprints of the inmates of the New Zealand goals were recorded and these fingerprint forms were given into the custody of a civil servant by the name of Ward. Ward had no fingerprint knowledge, or training whatsoever, and placed all the fingerprint forms in a tin trunk. No doubt they would have been in alphabetical order.

In 1903 Tunbridge was replaced as Commissioner by another English Police Officer by the name of Dinnie. Commissioner Dinnie was accompanied, to New Zealand, by his son Edward Dinnie. Edward Dinnie was then 18 years of age and prior to his departure had spent three months at Scotland Yard learning the technique of fingerprint classification. With this new found knowledge Dinnie was able to take the fingerprint forms from the tin trunk and code and file them and in doing so, establishing the New Zealand Fingerprint Bureau. However, Edward Dinnie had only an elementary knowledge of fingerprints so it was therefore necessary for him to return to England to complete his training.

Upon his return Edward Dinnie was then recruited directly into the New Zealand Police and took charge of the Fingerprint Section. Nothing more is known of Mr Ward, the civil servant, other than one small anecdote. Apparently there was a request for him to make a comparison on a scene of crime fingerprint against a set of fingerprints that he had on record. Mr Ward decided that the fingerprints were not identical but was somewhat unsure, so unsure in fact, that he took the fingerprints home for his wife to study. Mrs Ward came to the decision that the fingerprints were in fact identical. Mr Dinnie, who related the story, informed me that Mrs Ward’s decision was the correct one.

Great information Neville!

Another gem I found has to do with the first case in New Zealand where fingerprints were the sole evidence. This was in 1905, which predates People v. Crispi by six years (first US case depending solely on fingerprints) as well as People v. Jennings (1910): http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bi ... 08.2.218.8

You'll also notice that the statistic mentioned in the same article is similar to that in the first.

Google news has a great collection of newspaper articles from New Zealand dating back over 100 years. And they allow specific date range searches.

Good stuff Steve, actually this is fingerprints 101 here in NZ, however there are some details I had not heard of before i.e. statistics were used and that the detectives cut out the glass and took it to the Fingerprint Section.

In the early years the NZ Police would bring in another expert from Scotland Yard or later from Sydney to give backup evidence. Can you imagine sailing from England to NZ to give evidence it must have taken months even in a ship not reliant on just wind.

Sooooo I guess we really are only reinventing the wheel by going back to statistic based evidence; we as a science have evolved to a point were we no longer needed statistics as a crutch (in much the same way as we have done away with the charts as a crutch).

It will not be long and we will be forced, in the name of science to bring in experts from Scotland Yard to give backup evidence. What a great idea, I am sure there will be a line at the boss's office in New Scotland Yard to volunteer; maybe there could be some reciprocation. Seeing it is my idea can I be the first to put my hand up.

Bruce, are there any court cases coming up in Assuie where you need back evidence given??? maybe around Hamilton Island would be nice at this time of year.

Just a question about the odds quoted in the article (2384 billion to one): By "billion" would the usage in NZ at the time have meant 1000 million? Or one million million? If I understand British usage correctly it would have been the latter, though maybe this has changed recently due to insidious American influence?

hi Alan
Beautifully put, living so close to Canada you will appreciate subtleties involved. Yes at that time and when I was at school one billion equalled one million million, I am not so sure what it is today but when I am worth a billion I am sure I will know. I think in 1903 they would have had a chart showing that if you have x number of points then this will be the number you will quote, I remember using 64 million million for 12 points on the odd occasion in the 1980's, in fact I use to say well in excess of as this is a very conservative number as it is limited in the information used. ie direction of travel, the type of point, how close it is to the delta etc.

see http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum ... _next=next

blame the FRENCH again!!!!!!!!!

when you get to that part Julius and Augustus are the reason!!!

Steve,

Many years ago I had taken a course with Charlie Walsh (FBI retired) and during the course of his instruction I seem to recall him mentioning that the odds of having two different fingers having the same eight individual characteristics in the same unit relationship one to another would be 191 quadrillion to one. My memory is a bit foggy on these stats though... I'll have to reach out to Charlie and (1) confirm that I'm citing the numbers correctly and (2) if so, where did those numbers come from? Anybody else out there ever hear something similar?

How often nowadays would a suspects print be checked against so many others ?

Excuse my ignorance but my understanding of this issue would be that once a suspect is Identified, it would not be further checked against any others therefore how can such stats be quoted in courts ?

Wullie,

There are lots of reasons that the stats on this thread would not apply to any practical identification used in court.

The statistics are highly theoretical.

The statistics were not produced by a statistician.

They do not take into account the likelihood of human error during mark-up and comparison of imperfect images.

As you point out, any identification used in court has gone through a selection process. This affects probabilities. If the only reason an identification was selected by the prosecution is because the identified person cannot give an explanation for being reported as the donor, this will very efficiency pick out an error to construct a case around. The likelihood of error for any specific identification is never the general likelihood.

yep that French dood a scientist had two the same, Batillion or some name like that, oh thats right he admitted it was a fraud!

The earliest mention of statistics that I am aware of is the figure of 1 in 64 thousand million of two persons having the same fingerprint. (FYI written as 1 in 64,000,000,000 in the book "Fingerprints: Fifty Years of Scientific Crime Detection" (1953) by Douglas G Browne and Alan Brock)

This was published in Francis Galtons book Fingerprints in 1892. A copy of which can be found at http://galton.org/books/finger-prints/index.htm

The relevant chapter (Chapter VII, that begins on page 100) explains his calculations, and although he was regarded as a statistician, I will leave it up to the stat bods on here to tell me whether his calculations are valid or flawed.

He presented this figure at The Troup Committee in 1893, which established the use of fingerprints in Scotland Yard as a method to prove the identity of habitual criminals.