_Classification of Scarred Patterns--Amputations--Missing at Birth_
_Classification of scarred patterns_
Emphasis should be placed upon the necessity for fully referencing all
scarred patterns. In connection with their proper classification, the
following rules should be observed:
- When an impression is so scarred that neither the general
type of pattern nor the ridge tracing or count can be
determined with reasonable accuracy, the impression should
be given both the general type value and the
subclassification value of the corresponding finger of the
other hand.
- When an impression is partially scarred, i.e., large scars
about the core so that the _general type_ cannot be
determined with _reasonable accuracy_, but the ridges allow
reasonably accurate subclassifications by ridge tracings or
counting, the impression should be given the primary value
of the pattern of the corresponding finger and the
subclassification value as indicated by the ridges of
partially scarred impressions.
- When an impression is partially scarred and the general
type of pattern can be determined with reasonable accuracy,
but the ridges cannot be traced or counted so as to fall
within the proper subsecondary classification, the
impression should be given the ridge count or tracing value
of the corresponding finger of the other hand, if the
corresponding finger is of the same general type. If the
corresponding finger is not of the same general type, the
scarred impression should be given the probable value and
referenced to all other possibilities.
- When an impression is so scarred that neither the general
type of pattern nor the ridge tracing or count can be
determined with reasonable accuracy, and it so happens that
the corresponding finger of the other hand is similarly
scarred, both patterns are given the arbitrary value of
whorls with meeting tracings.
In figure 355, the pattern is entirely obliterated. It could have been
a small whorl, a small ulnar or radial loop, an arch, or a tented
arch. If the opposite finger were an arch or tented arch or whorl,
this impression would be classified as arch, tented arch, or whorl
(with the same tracing). If the opposite finger were a small-count
loop, this would be classified as a loop of the same count. If the
opposite finger were a large-count loop, this impression would be
given the count of the opposite finger even though it could never have
had that count. If the opposite finger were scarred in the same
fashion or were amputated or missing, both impressions would be
classified as whorls with meeting tracings.
In figure 356, the general type of the pattern could have been loop
(ulnar if in the right hand) or whorl. If the opposite finger were a
whorl this would be classified as a whorl, and with the same tracing.
If a radial loop were opposite, this would be classified as an ulnar
loop (if in the right hand). The ridge count can be obtained with a
fair degree of accuracy. If an arch or tented arch were opposite, this
impression would be classified as a loop because it looks as if it had
been a loop.
[Illustration: 355]
[Illustration: 356]
[Illustration: 357]
[Illustration: 358]
In figure 357, the ridge count cannot be determined accurately but it
would be classified as a loop, no matter what the opposite finger
might be. If the opposite finger were a loop with a count of from 6 to
17, this impression would be given that count. If the count of the
opposite loop were less or more than 6 to 17, the count for this
finger would be given I or O in the subsecondary classification
depending upon whether the opposite finger was I or O, but would not
be given less than 6 nor more than 17 counts as its possibility is
limited to those counts.
A pattern with a scar similar to either scar in figures 358 and 359
would always be given a loop as it could be seen readily that there
was no possibility of its having been any other type of pattern.
[Illustration: 359]
_Classification of amputations and fingers missing at birth_
When one or more amputations appear upon a fingerprint card, it may be
filed separately from those having no amputations in order to
facilitate searching. It is to be noted that before it may be filed in
the amputation group, the card must contain a definite and unequivocal
statement or marking by the contributor to the effect that a certain
finger or fingers have been amputated or were missing at birth. This
prevents the appearance on later cards of impressions of fingers
thought to have been amputated but which in reality were merely
injured and bandaged when previous prints were submitted.
If one finger is amputated, it is given a classification identical
with that of the opposite finger, including pattern and ridge count,
or tracing, and referenced to every other possible classification.
If two or more fingers are amputated, they are given classifications
identical with the fingers opposite, with no additional references.
If two amputated fingers are opposite each other, both are given the
classification of whorls with meeting tracings.
When a fingerprint card bearing a notation of fingers missing at birth
is classified, the missing fingers should be treated as amputations in
that they are given the identical classifications of the opposite
fingers and are filed in the amputation group. As these fingers are
missing from a prenatal cause, they would have always received the
identical classification of the opposite finger on any previous
occasion.
If all 10 fingers are amputated or missing at birth, the
classification will be
M 32 W MMM.
-----------
M 32 W MMM
If both hands are amputated or missing at birth, the footprints should
be taken as they, too, bear friction ridges with definite patterns. A
footprint file is maintained by the FBI for identification purposes in
instances where the subject has all fingers amputated or missing at
birth.
Partially amputated fingers often present very complex problems and
careful consideration should be given to them. The question often
arises as to the appropriate groups in which they should be filed,
i.e., amputations or nonamputations. As no definite rule may be
applied, it is a matter of experience and judgment as to their
preferred classification.
In those instances in which a partially amputated finger has half or
more than half of the pattern area missing, it is given the
classification of the opposite finger. It will be filed in the
amputation group under the classification of the opposite finger and
reference searches should be conducted in all possible classifications
in the nonamputation groups. If two or more of the fingers are
amputated in this manner, they are given the classification of the
opposite fingers only and are governed by the rules concerning
amputations.
Generally, a "tip amputation," or one which has less than half of the
first joint amputated, will always be printed in the future.
Therefore, a partially amputated finger with less than half of the
pattern area missing is classified as it appears and is referenced to
the opposite finger. It will be filed in the nonamputation group and
reference searches should be conducted under the classification of the
opposite finger, and in the amputation group. It must be referenced
this way even though it never could have originally had the
classification of the opposite finger.
_Classification of bandaged or imprinted fingers_
As noted in the chapter pertaining to "Problems in the Taking of Inked
Fingerprints," an indication to the effect "recently injured,
bandaged" is not sufficient to file a fingerprint card. It is obvious
that a fingerprint card bearing these notations cannot be properly
classified or filed. If the injury is temporary, and if possible,
these prints should not be taken until after healing.
If fingers are injured to the extent that it is impossible to secure
inked impressions by special inking devices, the unprinted fingers are
given classifications identical with the classifications of the
fingers opposite. If only one finger is lacking, reference searches
should be conducted in every possible classification. If more than one
finger is lacking, they should be given the classifications of the
opposite fingers, but no reference searches should be conducted. If
there are two lacking, opposite each other, they should be classified
as whorls with meeting tracings.
If, however, in the case of an injured finger, observation is made of
the ridges of the finger itself and indicated on the print, this
classification should be, insofar as it is possible, utilized. For
example, a missing impression labeled "ulnar loop of about 8 counts"
by the individual taking the prints, should be searched in the
subsecondary as both I and O but should not be referenced as a pattern
other than a loop. If the finger is used as the final, or key, it
should be searched enough counts on each side of 8 to allow for
possible error in the counting by the contributor using his naked
eye.