Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T00:56:16.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Counts for Identity? The Historical Origins of the Methodology of Latent Fingerprint Identification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Simon Cole
Simon Cole
Affiliation:
Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging ResearchRutgers University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two parallel traditions have coexisted throughout the history of modern finger print identification. One, which gave more emphasis to the rhetoric of “science,” has always been somewhat troubled by the lack of an easily articulated scientific foundation for “dactyloscopy.” The other, more concerned with practicalities, was satisfied that the method of fingerprint identification appeared to “work” and that it won widespread legal acceptance. The latter group established conser vative rules of practice to guard against errors and preserve the credibility of latent fingerprint identification in the eyes of the law. The legacy of this history is coming home to roost today, as some latent fingerprint examiners (LFPEs) are beginning to argue that the traditional practice of latent fingerprint comparison lacks a scientific foundation appropriate to contemporary forensic science. This issue raises the question of what constitutes a “scientific” method for individual ized identification in a legal setting.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , Spring 1999 , pp. 139 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Civil Liberties Union. 1938. Thumbs Down! The Fingerprint Menace to Civil Liberties. New York.Google Scholar
Ashbaugh, David R. 1991. “Ridgeology.” Journal of Forensic Identification 41:16–64.Google Scholar
Ashbaugh, David R. 1994. “The Premise of Friction Ridge Identification, Clarity, and the Identification Process.” Journal of Forensic Identification 44:499–516.Google Scholar
Ashbaugh, David R. n.d. Ridgeology: Modern Evaluative Friction Ridge Identification. Royal Canadian Mounted Police.Google Scholar
Barley, Stephen R. and Bechky, Beth A. 1994. “In the Backrooms of Science: The Work of Technicians in Science Labs.” Work and Occupations 21:85–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belper, Lord (Henry), Albert, Frederick Bosanquet, Albert, De Rutzen, Charles, Stewart Murdoch and Charles, Edward Troup. 1901. Report of a Committee Appointed by the Secretary of State to Inquire into the Method of Identification of Criminals by Measurements and Finger Prints. London: Wyman and Sons.Google Scholar
Berry, John. 1991. “The History and Development of Fingerprinting.” In Advances in Fingerprint Technology, edited by Lee, Henry C. and Gaensslen, R. E., 1–38. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Berry, John and Haylock, Stephen E. 1984. “Galton Laboratory Revisted.” Fingerprint Whorld 9:69–73.Google Scholar
Bertillon, Alphonse. 1896. Signaletic Instructions: Including the Theory and Practice of Anthropometrical Identification, trans. McClaughry, R. W.. Chicago: Sharp and Smith.Google Scholar
Bertillon, Alphonse. 1912. “Les Empreintes Digitales — Considérations Générales sur le valeur signalétique des fragments d'empreintes digitales retrouvées sur les lieux de crime.” Archives d'anthropologie, de médecine légale et de psychologie normale et pathologique 27:40–49.Google Scholar
Kristine, Bonnevie. 1924. “Studies on Papillary Patterns of Human Fingers.” Journal of Genetics 15:1–é112.Google Scholar
Carlson, Milton. 1920. “Forging Finger-Prints.” Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 11:141–43.Google Scholar
Christophe, Champod Lennard, C., and Margot, P.. 1993. “Alphonse Bertillon and Dactyloscopy.” Journal of Forensic Identification 43:604–25.Google Scholar
Champod, Christophe. 1995. “Edmond Locard — Numerical Standards and ‘Probable’ Identifications.” Journal of Forensic Identification 45:136–63.Google Scholar
Carey, Chapman L. 1992. “Dr. Juan Vucetich: His Contribution to the Science of Fingerprints.” Journal of Forensic Identification 42:286–94.Google Scholar
Cole, Simon A. 1998a. “Manufacturing Identity: A History of Criminal Identification Techniques from Photography through Fingerprinting.” Ph.D. diss., Cornell University.Google Scholar
Simon, Cole A. 1998b. “Witnessing Identification: Latent Fingerprint Evidence and Expert Knowledge.” Social Studies of Science 28:687–712.Google Scholar
Commonwealth v. Albright. 1931. 101 Pa. Superior Ct. 317, Pennsylvania Superior Court.Google Scholar
Cooke, T. Grant. 1920. Finger Prints. Chicago: University of Applied Science.Google Scholar
Harold, Cummins, and Charles, Midlo. 1943. Finger Prints, Palms and Soles: An Introduction to Dermatoglyphics. Philadelphia: Blakiston.Google Scholar
Daemmrich, Arthur. 1998. “The Evidence Does Not Speak for Itself: Expert Witnesses and the Organization of DNA-Typing Companies.” Social Studies of Science 28:741–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dastre, A. 1907. “Des Empreintes digitales comme procédé d'identification.” Comptes Rendus des Séances De L'Academie des Sciences 145:28–47.Google Scholar
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. 1993. 113 S.Ct. 2786, United States Supreme Court.Google Scholar
DeForest, Henry P. 1938. “The First Finger Print File in the U.S.” Finger Print and Identification Magazine 20:16–20.Google Scholar
Duayne, Dillon J. 1972. “Finger Print As Evidence First Proposed by Thomas Taylor — 1877.” Identification News 22 (February):11–12.Google Scholar
Dilworth, Donald C., ed. 1977. Identification Wanted: Development of the American Criminal Identification System, 1893–1943. Gaithersburg, MD: International Association of Chiefs of Police.Google Scholar
Albert, Druilhe. 1937. Evolution des Empreintes chez les Mammiféres. M.D. thesis, Faculté de Médecine de Paris.Google Scholar
Elderton, Ethel M. 1920. “On the Inheritance of the Finger-Print.” Biometrika 13:57–91.Google Scholar
Evett, I. W. and Williams, R. L.. 1996. “A Review of the Sixteen Points Fingerprint Standard in England and Wales.” Journal of Forensic Identification 46:49–73.Google Scholar
Faulds, Henry. 1880. “On the Skin Furrows of the Hand.” Nature 22:605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, Faulds. 1905. Guide to Finger-Print Identification. Hanley: Wood Mitchell.Google Scholar
Faulds, Henry. 1921. “The Dawn of Dactylography.” Dactylography 1:27–32.Google Scholar
Joseph, Faurot. 1921 “Criminal Identification.” In Proceedings of the National Police Conference. New York: NYPD Bureau of Printing.Google Scholar
Féré, Charles. 1893. “Les Empreintes des Doigts et des Orteils.” Journal de L'Anatomie et de la Physiologie Normales et Pathologiques de l'Homme et des Animaux 29:232–34.Google Scholar
Charles, Féeé. 1900 “Notes sur les Mains et les Empreintes Digitales de Quelques Singes.” Journal de L'Anatomie et de la Physiologie Normales et Pathologiques de l'Homme et des Animaux 36:266–67.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul K. 1975. Against Method. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Ren, Forgeoté. 1892. Des Empreintes Digitales tudiées au Point de Vue Medico Judiciaire. Lyon: A. Storck.Google Scholar
Galton, Francis. 1888. “Personal Identification and Description II.” Nature 38:201n–202.Google Scholar
Francis, Galton. 1892. Finger Prints. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gribben, A. A. 1919. “How the Finger Print Expert Presents His Case in Court.” Finger Print and Identification Magazine 1:10–14.Google Scholar
State, Grice v. 1941. 151 S.W.2d 211, Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.Google Scholar
Grieve, David L. 1990. “The Identification Process: Traditions in Training.” Journal of Forensic Identification 40:195–213.Google Scholar
David, Grieve L. 1996a.“Possession of Truth.” Journal of Forensic Identification 46:521–28.Google Scholar
Grieve, David L. 1996b.“Tilting at Treadmills.” Journal of Forensic Identification 46:144–48.Google Scholar
Saul, Halfon. 1998. “Collecting, Testing and Convincing: Forensic DNA Experts in the Courts.” Social Studies of Science 28:801–26.Google Scholar
Henry, Edward R. 1900. Classification and Uses of Finger Prints. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
David, Hepburn. 1895. “The Papillary Ridges on the Hands and Feet of Monkeys and Men.” Scient Transactions of the Royal Dublin Society 5:525–37.Google Scholar
Herschel, William J. 1880. “Skin Furrows of the Hand.–b” Nature 23:76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peter, Huber W. 1991. Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. New York: BasicGoogle Scholar
Institute for Applied Science. 1919–1977. Finger Print and Identification Magazine.Google Scholar
International Association for Identification. 1919–. Proceedings of the Annual Convention.Google Scholar
Israel National Police. 1995. “International Symposium on Fingerprint Detection and Identification.” Journal of Forensic Identification 45:578–84.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1995. Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheila, Jasanoff. 1998. “The Eye of Everyman: Witnessing DNA in the Simpson Trial.” Social Studies of Science 28:713–40.Google Scholar
Jordan, Kathleen and Lynch, Michael. 1998. ”The Dissemination, Standardization and Routinization of a Molecular Biological Technique.” Social Studies of Science 28:773–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Anne M. forthcoming. “Anthropometry, the Police Expert, and the Deptford Murders: The Contested Introduction of Fingerprinting for the Identification of Criminals in Late Victorian and Edwardian Britain.” In Documenting Individual Identity: The Development of State Practices in the Modern World, edited by Caplan, Jane and John, Torpey. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, Anne M. and Winter, Alison. 1996. “Making the Match: Human Traces, Forensic Experts and the Public Imagination.” In Cultural Babbage: Technology, Time and Invention, edited by Francis, Spufford and Jenny, Uglow, 193–214. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Keedy, Edwin R. 1913. “Finger Prints and Heart Pulsations.” Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 3:952–54.Google Scholar
Ronald, Kline. 1995. “Construing ‘Technology’ as ‘Applied Science’: Public Rhetoric of Scientists and Engineers in the United States, 1880–1945.” Isis 86:194–221.Google Scholar
Kuhne, Frederick. 1917. The Finger Print Instructor. New York: Munn.Google Scholar
Tire, Kumho v. Charmichael. 1999. 526 U.S., United States Supreme Court.Google Scholar
LaChard, L. W. 1919. “Finger-Print Characteristics.” Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 10:195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerald, Lambourne. 1984. The Fingerprint Story. London: Harrap.Google Scholar
Laufer, Berthold. 1912. History of the Finger-Print System, Smithsonian Publication 2220. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Martin, Leadbetter. 1977. “Rex v. Stratton and Stratton.” Fingerprint Whorld 2:32–38.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael. 1998. “The Discursive Production of Uncertainty: The O.J. Simpson ‘Dream Team’ and the Sociology of Knowledge Machine.” Social Studies of Science 28:829–68.Google Scholar
Michael, Lynch and Sheila, Jasanoff. 1998. “Contested Identities: Science, Law and Forensic Practice.” Social Studies of Science 28:675–86.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael and Ruth, McNally. n.d. “Technologies of Identity and the Crediblity of Fingerprint Evidence.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Mairs, G. Tyler. 1921. “The Evolution of Finger Prints: A Study and Graphical Demonstration of the Wilder Theory of Type Degneration of the Apical Patterns in Man.” Minutes of the Annual Convention of the International Association for Identification 7:51–58.Google Scholar
Menzel Roland, E. 1997. “On the Identification of Fingerprints.” Journal of Forensic Identification 47:29–33.Google Scholar
Moenssens, André A. 1972. “Testifying as a Fingerprint Witness.” Finger Print and Identification Magazine 54:3–18.Google Scholar
Andr, Moenssensé A. 1993. “Novel Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases: Some Words of Caution.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 84:1–21.Google Scholar
Mutrux-Bornoz, H. 1937. Les Troublantes Révélations de I'empreinte digitale et palmaire. Lausanne: F. Roth.Google Scholar
Harry, Myers II. 1948. “De Forest's Pioneer Finger Print Operations.” Finger Print and Identification Magazine 30:3–19.Google Scholar
New York State Probation Commission. 1917. Annual Report. Albany: J. B. Lyon.Google Scholar
Olsen, Robert D. Sr.. 1982. “Cult of the Mediocre.” Identification News 32:3–6.Google Scholar
v, People. Crispi. 1911. New York Magistrates' Court.Google Scholar
Jennings, People v. 1911. 96 N.E. 1077, Supreme Court of Illinois.Google Scholar
Jones, People v. 1939. 12 N.Y.S.2d 635, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department of New York.Google Scholar
Poll, Heinrich. 1935. “Dactylographische Gesclechtsuntershiede der Schizoph renen.” Monatschr fur Psychiatrie und Neurologie 91:65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, Rhodes T.F. 1968. Alphonse Bertillon: Father of Scient Detection. New York: Abelard-Schuman.Google Scholar
Robertson, Bernard W.N. 1989. “Fingerprints, Relevance and Admissibility.” New Zealand Recent Law Review 1:252–58.Google Scholar
Julia, Rodriguez E. forthcoming. “Criminology and the Construction of Modern Argentina, 1880–1920.” Ph.D. diss., Columbia University.Google Scholar
Ross, Andrew. 1997. “If the Genes Fit, How do you Acquit?” In Birth of a Nation 'hood: Gaze, Script, and Spectacle in the 0. J. Simpson Case, edited by Morrison, Toni and Claudia, Brodsky Lacour, 24 1–72. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Saks, Michael J. 1998. “Merlin and Solomon: Lessons from the Law's Formative Encounters with Forensic Identification Science.” Hastings Law Journal 49:1069–1141.Google Scholar
Scientific American 1911. “No Two Finger Prints Alike.” (August 19).Google Scholar
Leonard, Scott Case. 1912. Zur Anaiomie der Rassenhände: Drei Mhehe-Hände vom Stamme der Wahehe aus dem deutsch-ostafrikanischen Schutzgebiet. M.D. thesis, Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität.Google Scholar
Shapin, Steven. 1994. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelton v. Commonwealth. 1939. 134 S.W.2d. 653, Court of Appeals of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Edmund, Spearman R. 1894. “Known to the Police.” The Nineteenth Century: A Monthly Review 36:356–70.Google Scholar
Spencer, Herbert. 1886. “The Factors of Organic Evolution: Concluded.” The Nineteenth Century: A Monthly Review 19:749–70.Google Scholar
Lapan, State v. 1928. 141 At. 686. Supreme Court of Vermont.Google Scholar
Stoney, David A. and Thornton, John I. 1986. “A Critical Analysis of Quantitative Fingerprint Individuality Models.” Journal of Forensic Sciences 31:1187–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoney, David A. 1997. “Fingerprint Identification.” In Modern Scient Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, edited by Faigman, David L., et al. , 50–78. St. Paul, Minn.: West.Google Scholar
Szumlanski, René. 1934. La Main de L'homme et Ia Main du Singe: Considérations sur leurs empreintes, Essai d'interprétations medico-légale et zoologique. M.D. thesis, Faculté de Médecine de Paris.Google Scholar
Jurgen, Thorwald. 1965. The Century of the Detective, trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Troup, Charles Edward, Griffiths, Arthur and Melville, Leslie Macnaghten. 1894. Report of a Committee Appointed by the Secretary of State to Inquire in the Best Means Available for Identifying Habitual Criminals. Command Paper C.-7263. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.Google Scholar
Vanderkolk, J. R. 1993. “Class Characteristics and ‘Could be’ Results.” Journal of Forensic Identification 43:119–25.Google Scholar
August, Vollmer and Albert, Schneider. 1917. “The School for Police as Planned at Berkeley.” Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 7:877–98.Google Scholar
Wehde, Albert and Beffel, John N.. 1924. Finger-Prints Can be Forged. Chicago: Tremonia.Google Scholar
Whipple, Inez L. 1904. “The Ventral Surface of Mammalian Chiridium with Special Reference to the Conditions found in Man.” Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie 7:261–368.Google Scholar
Frank, White Marshall. 1910. “Crime and Fingerprints: Only Once during the Existence of Our Solar System Will Two Human Beings Be Born with Similar Finger Markings.” Harper's.Google Scholar
Wilton, George Wilton. 1955. Fingerprints: Fifty Years of Injustice. Galashiels: A. Walker and Son.Google Scholar