8127/frame/fm

 
Nature
in 1880. In the end, it
was left to Sir Francis Galton, first cousin to Charles Darwin, to consolidate
the information and publish the first paper dealing with the statistics and
significance of fingerprints (Galton, 1888). Galton also published the first
comprehensive book on the nature of fingerprints and their use in solving
crime (Galton, 1892). Interestingly, in this book, 
 
Finger Prints
, he gives Her-
schel, rather than Faulds, credit for the initial publication in Nature (Cole,
1999).
As with all physical evidence, the strength of a fingerprint association
could not be determined without an estimation of its frequency in the pop-
ulation. Although Galton predicted the first theoretical probability of dis-
crimination based on mathematical models, the development of working
fingerprint classification systems was pioneered by Juan Vucetich, an Argen-
tinean police researcher, and Sir Edward Henry, another Briton working as
an Inspector General in India. Vucetich’s system became entrenched in Latin
America, while the system Henry invented on his shirt cuff during a train
ride to Calcutta (Thorwald, 1964) continues to be used in Europe and North
America. A standardized classification system enabled the collection and
storage of large volumes of fingerprint data that could be organized into
searchable databases and shared between institutions. Although a number of
workers, from Galton forward, have attempted to introduce mathematical
models that would allow for the estimation of the rarity of a fingerprint,
none of these has been adopted for use by the field (Stoney and Thornton,
1986a).
As with many scientific advances, the use of fingerprints was not imme-
diately accepted as a replacement for anthropometry. It took the death of
8127/frame/ch02 Page 30 Friday, July 21, 2000 11:51 AM

---

The Evolution of Forensic Science
31
Bertillon, who had come to be a revered although disgruntled figure in police
science, to finally allow the changeover. However, one specific incident finally
convinced the skeptics that fingerprinting was the more appropriate and
useful technique. In 1903, a new inmate by the name of Will West was brought
to Leavenworth State Prison in Kansas. Leavenworth was one of the first
correctional institutions in the United States to add fingerprint data to the
anthropometric measurement database of its inmates. A particularly obser-
vant prison guard noticed that another Will West was already in residence at
the prison and, surprisingly, had the same anthropometric measurements as
the new arrival. As an experiment, fingerprints of the two men were com-
pared and found unquestionably to differ. That the two men were later
suspected to be estranged identical twins (German, 1999) only strengthened
the obvious advantages of fingerprint identification over anthropometry.
Ironically, Bertillon, during his later years, was the first to solve a crime on
the continent using fingerprints, which he had begun to collect along with
other anthropometric data (Thorwald, 1964).
Prints of other body areas containing friction ridges, such as the soles of
the feet and palms of the hands, have also found forensic application, as have
prints of various body orifices. Since the acceptance of fingerprints into
general use, major advances have come mainly in two areas. Numerous
methods have been developed to visualize latent prints, such as cyanoacrylate
fuming and laser detection, making it possible to collect a print from prac-
tically any surface. On the other hand, the development of computerized
databases has made it possible to store an enormous amount of fingerprint
data in a form that is readily searched.*
It is worth pointing out that both fingerprinting and anthropometry, ques-
tions of validity aside, share the characteristic of being directly related to a
person. They attempt to answer the