CLPEX Chat Board

Has anyone ever heard of this term? Apparently it involves describing a fingerprint over the phone in order to make an ID? I did a google search of the term and found this reference to it but nothing else. Was this actually a common practice in the past? To make ID's?
( And if so )

https://books.google.com/books?id=kUBz0 ... ng&f=false

I have never heard that term before and fail to see where it would come from in this context.

I can recall doing "verbal comparisons" on known prints in limited circumstances back in the late 70's.

You have to remember that "faxed prints" was a relatively new phenomenon back then and we were still comparing fingerprint class on subjects for warrants etc.

Don't be so quick to turn your nose up at things that were done in the past. We got the job done and it was a different era

I never heard that term, but it was a common practice early in my career. Let's say I have a suspect in custody on a warrant out of your department and you have a set of inked prints that could confirm that I have the right guy. I phone you and we agree to look at the right thumb. Then conversation may unfold something like this:

Me: The pattern is a plain whorl and the left delta is a clean triradius.
You: Yes. Two ridges in from that left delta is a bifurcation opening upwards.
Me: Got it. Follow the inner branch of that bifurcation upward about a quarter inch and it comes to a ridge ending.
You: Check. Skip two more ridges toward the core and there is a bifurcation opening downward.
Me: Yes. And skip one more ridge toward the core and there is a ridge ending pointing downward.
You: Got it. Follow that ridge upward from the ridge ending and it comes to a bifurcation that opens to the left straight above the core.
Me: Check. It's six ridges down from that bifurcation to the core, which is an upthrusting rod inside a clean recurve.
You: That's it. And if you follow that rod down, it recurves about a quarter inch further down.
etc., etc., etc.

Both examiners agree that a sufficient number of points match and there are no points mentioned by either that are not readily obvious in each others' prints, they can reach the conclusion that both prints must have been made by the same person. We would frequently run the count up to 15 or 20 just to make sure.

When I started doing that kind of telephone ident in the 1970s, we did not even have fax machines. It was fairly common to call the State Criminal History Section to confirm an ident on an arrest warrant. Without that confirmation, we could only hold a suspect for 24 hours. With the telephone ident, we could hold the suspect longer until copies of the inked prints were exchanged by mail and an actual manual comparison confirmed the ident.

I echo Bill's comment: "Don't be so quick to turn your nose up at things that were done in the past. We got the job done and it was a different era."

There was a post on my agency website referencing this practice...this is the only description of it that I can find- I have no idea what it is besides this description from my google search. I have much respect for the job examiners did in the past but this technique would be way out of my comfort zone lol. Thanks for the reply and info Taz and Bill

quick follow-up question for you guys - was this just done for ten print comparisons (i.e. a full inked set of prints) or was it for latent comparisons as well?

I concur with both Bill & Tazman that the “term” you referenced is unfamiliar to me, but can confirm that comparison over the phone was done in the 70’s when I was over the pond in London. At that time we also did not have fax machines. The people involved were always experts at either end of the line. Often the scene examiner (an expert) would recognize that they had seen the latent they had just lifted at the scene previously, at other scenes, or when in the bureau. On their return to the police station after the scene examination, they phoned the yard and a 2-way discussion took place regarding the latents data leading to the comparison & identification. Final confirmation only after all items received for direct comparison. Additionally, the same occurred but not with direct comparison to a known individual, but with the bureau experts searching through the known offender manual files (pre AFIS) to get the ID with the over the phone latent info. Also latent to latent case linking was done. Not an everyday task, but yes it did happen.

Graham

Interesting - thanks Graham!

Back in those days, all fingerprint examiners were badge & gun carrying cops (at least, in the US -- sorry, Graham). So in small or medium sized departments, we had other duties, as well. Nowadays, they refer to us as "Cops in Lab Coats" and make derisive remarks about us, but I think we did damned good work.

Anyway, one day I was on patrol when I answered a shoplifter call from a major chain store. The store security had three shoplifters in custody. They had entered the store together and immediately split up, attracting the attention of security. The security officers watched all three hide items in Ace Bandages around their calves under bell bottom trousers, then stopped them as they were leaving the store. Two of them had stolen goods on their persons when they were stopped. The third had ditched his goods and they had no "probable cause" to hold him. But he had no ID and a records check came back clean all the way. He was using a name like "Bob Smith," obviously a fake alias.

I went to talk to him and asked to look at his hands. He held them out for me and I mentally rapped off a quick major, secondary, and subsecondary in Henry classification (only took a few seconds, if you knew Henry). I then went into an adjacent room where I phoned the nearest major city Fingerprint Unit. Luckily, Theresa answered the phone (I knew her well). I gave her the Henry class and asked her to check B/M professional shoplifters between 40 and 50. In less than a minute, she came back with the name "Jake Jones" and said they had warrants out for his arrest, for shoplifting, of course! So I walked back into the room where he was. He had his back turned to me and I hollered out "Hey, Jake!" He turned, surprised, hesitated, and said "Hey, how'd you know my name?" Needless to say, all three went to jail than night, thanks to good, old fashioned fingerprints.

That is the kind of fun we had in the old days. I'm sorry the new generation of scientists will miss out on it.

Definitely interesting work back in those days from the sound of it - I wasn't trying to disparage that in any way. The link where I found the term made it sound like the idents were made via the description over telephone and that was it. As Graham explains there wasn't a final confirmation until after they had a look at the materials...

Ok, I guess it's up to me. Yes, friends, "cartooning" was an actual term used by fingerprint examiners for 10-print to 10-print work. And I did it a couple of times. It may have been a West Coast term, but I want to say I heard about it in an FBI class (although said class would most likely have been held in California). I was working for a department on the central California coast (1980-1992) and if I needed an assist, I'd telephone an analyst either at the California Department of Justice or the FBI. I'd give him the fp class, any references, then describe each finger, #1 to #10 - pattern type, ridge count, tracing, scars, creases, warts, etc. On the other end of the line, my colleague would be taking all this down, verify my classification, then check the files for a possible match. None of this "put you on hold;" a call the next day or a day or two was the norm. A copy would arrive in the mail later.

Why not just fax the print card? Because this was before faxes were used in police departments, at least where I worked. And, to answer the other question posed: cartooning, at least as I used it and understood it, was not for latent work. You needed a full set of 10 fingers for a full Henry class. It was kind of a pain in the butt, so I tried not to use it often. But it was a "legitimate" term and I did it.

Tazman
Yes I was commissioned & gun carrying here in the US, but not back in London. Just different systems and different times.

Comparing prints over the phone was useful in the past (before faxes). It could give you a clue if you were on the right track. But we never made a firm decision until we had the hard cards in hand for a complete comparison. Was a good way to expedite the jail processing to stay on track.

Check out my signature on this forum...the FBI has been 'doing it' since the 30's...

The quote I'm using was found on the Library of Congress site when I was searching for fingerprint images. If you google the guy's name, you should be linked to it.