CLPEX Chat Board

Is anyone having success obtaining latent prints from deceased bodies in Homicide cases? If so, can you advise what procedures you used? Do you prefer Super Gluing the entire body in a tent type configuration or do you find that fuming gives better results if it can be isolated to specific body parts?

When successful, what do you find to be the most favorable conditions? (Also the least favorable) Any input would be appreciated.

There is documentation of many successful cases of recovered prints from deceased individuals over the years. These cases involve a few different methods of recovery, superglue included. If you do opt for processing with superglue I wouldn't suggest fuming the entire body, isolate the processing to specific target areas you believe have been touched. Also bear in mind when processing at the scene the hazards of residual fumes using mass amounts of CA on the entire body. Good success has been achieved using the direct transfer process, far less invasive, good success, and allows for subsequent CA fuming if needed. Perhaps read the JFI Vol 55 (3). A comprehensive article "Recovery of Latent Prints from Human Skin" written by William & Karen Sampson who have been researching and conducting training in this area for some 13 + years. This article addresses some of the techniques found to be successful. Feel free to contact me directly if you would like additional information on these techniques. Lori Moore

I had only one occasion to do this, but I used a technique I learned from Joe Rynearson (thanks Joe!) for fingerprinting the recently deceased:

1. place a latent print card shiny-side down onto the skin of the deceased person in the "target area"

2. press it down and hold for a few seconds... be careful to not smear the card, and be gentle when lifting it off the skin

3. dust the latent card with magna powder

It's a cheap, easy, quick method... especially if your agency does not give the CSU a budget! It's also easy to practice on living people. Have someone (preferably with little arm hair) run their forearm under cold water for a long time to chill the skin. Dry the skin, place "practice" fingerprints on the person's forearm, and try it out. It worked well when we did it in Joe's class.

Has anyone had success (actual identification) in a criminal case in the past five years? If so, please elaborate.

Joe has part of it right, the temperature of the body and the trasfer media is the key.
See Willam Sampson JFI 46 2, 1996 pp188-195

I've had a few cases in the past with limited success, but not an identification. Limited success meaning useable prints (either identifiable or could be eliminated) were developed. The closest I came to an identification was 'unable to eliminate'. Never had the correct suspect to compare on the few cases with identifiable prints.

In one instance, I developed an identifiable print from a live sexual assault victim (exam was done within 20 minutes of occurance & victim was remarkably calm under circumstances, guiding me to precise areas she had been touched). That case was pre-AFIS in my state, so would hardly qualify for the 5 year timeframe.

The method used was similar to the one attributed in this thread to Joe Rynearson, also known as the Kromekote card transfer method. Resin coated (RC) glossy photo paper could also be used, as well as other plasticized paper or cardstock. I suspect that some of the current glossy inkjet printer paper could be used, although I haven't tried it.

Time of contact with the skin can be critical, as well as movement. Use of sifted magna-powder at approx 280 mesh improves results.

Because of several posts concerning this technique, I would like to be sure that individuals have knowledge of a correction to Bill Sampson's very comprehensive article in JFI (55:3). The correction and cautionary notice was published in JFI (55:5) in the 'Letters' section, but warrants repeating in association with these recent postings. This was the information/correction:

In the article, “Recovery of Latent Prints from Human Skin” (JFI 55:3), the author lists at Reference 38; “Hamm, E.D. A Latent from Human Skin. Fingerprint Whorld, October 1988, pp. 56:58”. However, an important part of the article’s title was not set forth. The full title is, “A Latent from Human Skin or is it?”. The “…or is it?” was the main focus of the article.

The article involved the use of the Kromekote method of latent recovery from human skin (Journal of Forensic Sciences, 23:1, 1978), but stressed the importance of insuring the integrity of the Kromekote lifting medium. Briefly stated, it cites an incident in which a latent print believed to have been lifted from a body was actually the fingerprint of a technician that prepared the pieces of Kromekote for inclusion in a crime scene processing kit. The Kromekote card was eventually used in a case and, following the procedures for this method of recovery, a ‘latent’ was developed. As it turned out, the latent was not from the victim’s skin, but was that of the technician that handled the Kromekote stock many months earlier.

I was never fortunate enough to work with the successful recovery of a latent print from human skin. When I was faced with this possibility, I was only able to resolve the proper origin of the latent print and not have it hanging around as an ‘unidentified’. The intent of the article was to guard against a similar occurrence by making individuals aware of the importance associated with proper handling of lifting material.

In addition to Fingerprint Whorld, the article was reprinted in RCMP Gazelle, 51:12 (1989).

I do not know if this relates to the cases/experiments associated with previous posts, but it could be an issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is anyone having success obtaining latent prints from deceased bodies in Homicide cases? If so, can you advise what procedures you used? Do you prefer Super Gluing the entire body in a tent type configuration or do you find that fuming gives better results if it can be isolated to specific body parts?


Danny in response to your question. I have just completed the chemical course at OPC (Ontario Police College) and examination of bodies was part of the course. A few techniques can be applied and the process is as follows.

-Laser Examination/ ALS
-Iodine/silver plate
-Kromecote
-Magna brush
-Iodine Naphthoflavone
-Ruthenium Tetroxide
-Cyanoacrylate Fuming with dye

Hope this helps. Lisa

The article in the JFI (55:3) was a comprehensive report on the history and various methods utilized to recover prints from human skin. This informative report was not designed as protocol. There have been numerous methods used in recovering prints from skin and there is not one best method for all cases.

As stated, the article by William Sampson JFI 46 2, 1996 pp 188-195 was designed as a guide versus the recent article, JFI (55:3), that provided a historical overview to these various processes.

The care, custody, preparation and control of any medium used for the purpose of using as a direct transfer medium is a critical aspect. Ernie Hamm’s article clearly points this out.

To the best of my knowledge there have been 2 reported cases of practitioner prints being recovered from the body, the first Ernie has mentioned in his response, another reported case also indicated a practitioners prints was inadvertently placed on the transfer medium prior to application to the skin. It would appear to me that this his type of situation is rare considering the number of successful recoveries that have been reported, and avoidable if the practitioner prepares and secures their own direct transfer materials utilizing careful quality control measures.

Environmental conditions and condition of the skin are the key in the successful recovery of prints from the surface of the skin.

There have been 19 actual cases that have been reported since 2000, many of which have resulted in identifications of subjects. A beautiful print was recovered of a palmer surface from the wrist area of a murder victim in NY in 2005. They used cash register tape to recover the print. This was the second case in NY since 1999 using cash register tape, at least 1 having been identified to the perpetrator. There have been a total of 108 actual cases reported since 1975. There are likely more out there that have gone unreported to date.

The experimentation conducted by Joe Rynearson appears to support the findings of the effects of temperature and the durability of prints placed on a clean skin surface.

I am unaware of any proven or reported success on actual cases involving the use of chemical reagents with the exception of blood reagents such as amido black. I would be very interested in hearing of any actual cases involving the use of any chemical reagents that are not specific to the enhancement of blood residue.

Laser Examination/ ALS - has been successful on a limited basis, but should be used routinely in examination of body to aid in target area search.

It is also advantageous to examine the skin surface with low angle light for plastic impressions on a cadaver. It takes very little pressure to make an impression post mortem as the skin has no rebound ability.

Iodine/silver plate – has been successful on rare occasion, little reported usage of this technique of late.

Iodine Naphthoflavone - Ruthenium Tetroxide -Cyanoacrylate Fuming with dye – no reported success in actual cases.


Keep in mind that there is a vast difference in controlled experiments versus real field application. Having said this, experimentation does provide a basic guide as to what is possible. Practice is necessary and secondly going out and applying the process in actual cases. Try it, and it if doesn’t work, try it again.

I would suggest that those interested re-read an article published in 1978 Carr, JC; Stone, EG; Reichardt, GJ. “A Conventional Method for Lifting Fingerprints from Human Skin”; JFS, 23 (1), January 1978; pp 135-141


The following information was provided in the publication pertaining to actual case studies:

Direct Transfer – March 1976, a recovery of prints from a living victim of a physical assault who was found bound and gagged. Latent print evidence was recovered from her wrist.

Direct Transfer – March, 1976, an identifiable latent palm print was recovered from the outer surface of the homicide victims right calf.

Direct Transfer – May 1976, an identifiable latent palm print was recovered from the thigh of a murdered young victim.

Methodology

“a clean KromeKote card is placed against the surface of the skin. The latent impression will transfer to the surface of the KromeKote card after 2-3 s of firm pressure.”

“After the KromeKote card is lifted, it is processed with fingerprint powder to develop the latent impression.”

“The print may be slow to develop, and 5 to 20 s of brushing is frequently required to develop a fingerprint.”

“Once developed, the graphite impression may be preserved for analysis and courtroom presentation by placing a strip of cellophane tape over the surface of the KromeKote card.”

“Black fingerprint powder distributed with a filament brush often yields high quality fingerprint impressions on the skins surface.”

“The magnetic brush kit, if used in place of the fiberglass filament brush and fingerprint powder, yields prints of surprising clarity and contrast.”

“Laboratory experiments indicated circumstances where latent fingerprints could be developed with the KromeKote lift technique that could not be developed with other methods”.

Notations regarding the recover of fingerprints from living persons:

“Some individuals may retain prints longer because of condition of the skin and environmental conditions.”

“Pronounced heavy perspiration may have an undesirable effect on latent impressions on the surface of the skin of living victims, although comfortable temperatures do not produce sufficient perspiration to greatly harm a print.”

“Low-level secretions from the sebaceous glands and sweat glands tend to have no noticeable effect on the skins ability to retain impressions over a reasonable length of time.”

“Cosmetic oils or boy lotions on the skin seriously affect the ability of the skin to retain latent fingerprint impressions.”

“One phenomenon that occasionally occurs is that the skin surface is covered with secretions and other residue to the extent that a sebaceous print may be masked by the secretions on the skin, and a perfectly clean friction ridge area may contact the skin and cause the fingerprint patter of secretions to be lifted from the skin rather than being placed on the skin.”


Articles mentioned here are but a few that have been published regarding the successful recovery of prints from human skin. It seems every few years a new surge of interest in the recovery of prints from skin surfaces, and each time we seem to get an abundance of opinions on how difficult, if not impossible it is to recover prints from human skin. It is great to see more people applying the applications and sharing that success with others, I hope that continues to grow in the years to come. The many years of study, testing, research and field applications have shown various processes used in successful recovery of prints from skin. These processes should be applied whenever possible. While 108 reported cases over 30 years time may seem a low figure to some, is it? How many viable candidates are there to attempt recovery of prints from skin? Perhaps 1:100 victims of homicide may fall into that category. How many times has the attempt to recover prints from skin been overlooked or perhaps rendered pointless due to a lack of knowledge or willingness to conduct a thorough search for latents? So often we are searching for a “miracle method” for recovering prints from skin. Like any other item of evidence we process, no one method works best in all cases, on all items. With skin, this is especially true. History of the case will help dictate what process has the greatest chance for success. Research of historical data and most importantly, practice, will be your greatest tool to success.