PRACTICAL RESULTS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS OF DACTYLOGRAPHY
Till quite recently the method of identifying prisoners was that
of personal recognition, often very admirably carried out. One may
readily conceive that a criminal officer, a Bow Street runner of the
old school, or a modern detective, might acquire great acuteness in
perceiving points of individual character in face, form, gait, speech,
and manner; and during the period of arrest, trial, and imprisonment
there were many opportunities of observing notable offenders. Nor
is such a power to be despised at the present time. How helpful a
little point might even be under skilful disguise occurred to my own
mind in this way. When I saw the great Henry Irving in the part of
Mephistopheles in “Faust,” a certain slight stiffness in the calves
was assumed, by me, to be a very clever and subtle suggestion of the
cloven hoofs which were supposed to aid the movements of that mediaeval
personage. But the great actor walked other totally different parts in
the same way, so that on the street, in any disguise, the notice of an
acute detective might have been arrested. I am shortsighted, but can
often recognize people at a distance too great to distinguish features,
by some peculiarity of gait or gesture. In Taylor’s _Manual of Medical
Jurisprudence_ [ed. of 1891, pp. 317, 318], there is a curious and
interesting example of how recognition sometimes failed. The story is
thus told:--
“A trial took place at the Old Bailey in 1834, in which a man was
wrongly charged with being a convict, and with having unlawfully
returned from transportation. The chief clerk of Bow Street
produced a certificate, dated in 1817, of the conviction of a
person, alleged to be the prisoner, under the name of Stuart. The
governor of the gaol in which Stuart was confined believed the
prisoner to be the person who was then in his custody. The guard of
the hulks to which Stuart was consigned from the gaol swore most
positively that the prisoner was the man. On the cross-examination
of this witness, he admitted that the prisoner Stuart, who was in
his custody in 1817, had a wen on his left hand; and so well-marked
was this that it formed part of his description in the books of
the convict-hulk. The prisoner said his name was _Stipler_: he
denied that he was the person named Stuart, but from the lapse of
years he was unable to bring forward any evidence. The Recorder was
proceeding to charge the jury, when the counsel for the defence
requested to be permitted to put a question to an eminent surgeon,
Carpue, who happened, accidentally, to be present in court. He
deposed that it was impossible to _remove such a wen as had been
described, without leaving a mark or cicatrix_. Both hands of the
prisoner were examined, but no wen, nor any mark of a wen having
been removed, was found. Upon this the jury acquitted the prisoner.”
Charles Dickens, aided by the pencil of “Phiz,” in _The Pickwick
Papers_, gives us the power of seeing the process of “portrait taking,”
which was simply done by a group of runners and warders staring hard at
the prisoner and noting his points.
In a Blue Book, _Identification of Habitual Criminals_, published
in 1892, which contains the report of a Committee appointed by Mr.
Asquith, who was then Home Secretary, we read that:--
“The practice of the English police, though the details differ
widely in different forces, is always dependent on personal
recognition by police or prison officers. This is the means by
which identity is _proved_ in criminal courts; and, though its
scope is extended by photography, and it is in some cases aided
by such devices as the registers of distinctive marks, it also
remains universally the basis of the methods by which identity is
_discovered_.”
_The Register of Distinctive Marks_, such as the wen in the case just
mentioned, contained under nine divisions of the body those permanent
scars from wounds, operations or burns, tattoo marks, moles, wens,
warts, mother marks, etc., which might be expected to prove helpful
in identification. Those registers were published annually, and
distributed to all the different forces throughout the country. The
system does not seem to have been very successful. For example, out of
sixty-one enquiries, in twenty cases no information was obtained. As to
the remaining forty-one cases, eight were incorrect, while of ten cases
no ultimate intelligence reached the Registrar. The conclusion of the
Committee is thus stated (p. 8):--
“It appears to us, therefore, that the comparative failure of
these registers is due, not to any want of care in the way in
which the work has been done, nor to the mode of classification,
but rather to the inherent difficulty of devising any exhaustive
classification of criminals on the basis of bodily marks alone, and
also to the difficulty of using a register of criminals that is
published at intervals and in a printed form.”
Four years before this, as I have stated, I submitted to Inspector
Tunbridge, deputed from Scotland Yard to meet me, an “exhaustive
classification of criminals on the basis of bodily marks alone,” but
the chairman of that Committee, now Sir Charles E. Troup, told me
himself, at the Home Office, that he had never heard anything of it. It
is now, however, in use pretty well throughout the civilized world.
Some progress, nevertheless, was made. A card index was recommended,
and greater definiteness in the description of the bodily marks was to
be observed. A very notable change was also foreshadowed in the whole
conception of the subject.
It is interesting now to read that “it was strongly represented to us
by Chief-Inspector Neame and his officers, that there should be greater
precision in the taking of descriptive marks, and that their distance
from fixed points in the body should be measured and recorded.” Science
is measurement, and it is highly creditable to the English police that
this demand was now to come from them.
Here is a specimen of the Register Form as applying to the Right
Arm--one of the nine divisions of the body for this purpose.
+-----+---+----------+-----------------------------+------+------+
|Name.|No.| Limb | TATTOO MARKS. |Moles |Other |
| | |deficient,+------+-----+----+-----+-----+ or |Marks.|
| | |malformed,|Anchor| Man |Ship|Heart|Other|Warts.| |
| | | injured, | or | or | or | or |Marks| | |
| | | or |Cross |Woman|Flag|Star | | | |
| | |diseased. | | | | | | | |
+-----+---+----------+------+-----+----+-----+-----+------+------+
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
+-----+---+----------+------+-----+----+-----+-----+------+------+
A “scar on the forehead” was so common a mark of the criminal class,
that, unlike the brand of Cain, it had no distinguishing value. One
curious point, which has surely escaped the notice of writers of
detective stories, was that in Liverpool “special registers are kept
of the maiden names of the wives and mothers of criminals, as it is
found that in a large proportion of cases an offender, when he changes
his name, takes either his wife’s or his mother’s.” It is curious
that, in France, a criminal more readily gives his own name correctly
than in this country, but the trustworthiness of the finger-print
records is now slowly working to a similar frame of mind among English
recidivists. Photographs had been taken, as they are now to some
extent, and they are, indeed, often most useful. Certain “routes” were
arranged, and the forms and photographs were sent round the circuit of
police stations, so as to be returned within the usual week of remand.
Remarks on these forms were not used as evidence, but were used for
official guidance only. The word “photograph” seems now (1912) to
comprehend the taking of finger-prints in the official method with
ordinary printer’s ink.
With all the precautions then available, it was found that mistakes
in identification involved unjust suffering. A man named Coyle was
sentenced for larceny in 1889, a Millbank warder swearing to his
previous conviction, ten years before, as one Hart. The jury having
examined Hart’s photograph gave a hostile verdict, the distinctive
marks of the two men were found to be different, and Coyle moreover
showed that he had been doing a short term when Hart was in prison.
As is wisely stated in p. 23 of the Report: “The true test of the
efficiency of a system of identification is not the number of
identifications made, but the number of mis-identifications, or of
failure to identify.”
A woman lacking her left breast was identified with another who had
suffered in the same way, and who had been previously convicted. It
became clear that the women were different, and poor Eliza ---- had her
punishment accordingly reduced from seven years’ penal servitude to six
months’ imprisonment.
A case in 1908 was that of two men charged with burglary, both of whom
were short of a fore-finger, and were about the same age and of similar
appearance.
A man named Blake was found under circumstances that suggested an
attempt at burglary, and was identified by a constable and several
others, including a prison warder, as a convict called Steed, under
supervision. It was found, however, that Blake had clearly been at
liberty when Steed was in prison, and the former was promptly acquitted.
One Callan was convicted as an incorrigible rogue, but had been
identified wrongly with another man, he himself at the time of the
alleged offence certainly having been in St. George’s Workhouse. He
was, however, afterwards rightly convicted for a similar offence.
It would appear from these and numerous other cases not referred to
in this Report, that those mistakes affect only the criminal class.
Probably there is a little too much readiness to identify a known
rogue with the offender wanted, and those unfortunate victims often
of disease and early training deserve fair and just dealing. Alas,
however, the really innocent have sometimes suffered dreadfully from
judicial blunders. The famous Beck case is too recent and tragic to
require recall.
But, besides occasional false identifications of innocent persons, the
old system, now happily superseded, was admittedly very ineffective
in detecting old offenders passing under different disguises and with
false names. The time spent on each identification of old offenders
was very great, an average of eight hours being required for one
identification. A few minutes is now found to be sufficient.
Tattoo marks are not always so small or so restricted in character as
they are found to be by the English police. In _Knowledge_ of April,
1911, I had printed in colours a wonderful reproduction of a painting
made for me in Japan, of a servant of mine, whose body was finely
tattooed over its whole surface, barring face, hands, and feet, in
different colours. It had cost him many years’ suffering and a small
fortune in money to achieve, but he was rather proud of it. I have seen
many such examples, though few so fine as a work of art. Extensive
tattooing is also common among Italian criminals, the whole body being
adorned.
Simple tattoo marks cannot be entirely effaced, but may be defaced;
a simple design being made more complicated or altered so as to
mislead entirely. A Leeds warder said in evidence before Mr. Asquith’s
Committee, that: “Tattoo marks are sometimes defaced. I know one case
where a person had a letter =D= on left breast; it is now made into
‘Mermaid.’ This is sometimes done to prevent recognition in prison.
Sometimes the tattoo is removed, but a flesh mark of same shape left.”
Our Home Office was indisposed to move hastily in such a matter as
finger-print evidence of identity suggested by Englishmen. Another
system, very excellent in its way, had the immense advantage of
being of foreign origin. As the result, however, of several years’
experience, some inherent defects in Mons. Bertillon’s anthropometric
system--adopted in a modified form by our authorities in 1894--were
brought into notice. It was found to be rather delicate for every-day
practice, and the fine measurements taken officially often varied.
In 1901 therefore, a fresh Committee, with Lord Belper as chairman,
was appointed, but no report seems ever to have been published. Soon
afterwards, in July, 1902, the Home Secretary directed the introduction
of a system of identification based upon finger-prints only, in
supersession of the French method of identifying by bodily measurements
in a certain order. The results soon showed that the tardy decision
had been immediately justified. There was greater certainty assured
of valid identifications, the labour was much less, the expense was
diminished, and a great danger of false identification was effectively
removed.
That the system had taken root was soon evidenced by many newspaper
paragraphs of subsequent date. Here is a bit of every-day evidence
from a criminal case which resulted in conviction. It appeared in the
columns of the _Daily Chronicle_, as far back as December 2nd, 1903.
Many such cases were never reported at all. The witness, we are told,
had “not the slightest shadow of a doubt that the finger-prints of
Elliott were identical with those in the records of Scotland Yard.
He might be considered an expert in the matter of finger-prints.
Altogether he had dealt with about 500,000 cases of finger-prints.” To
this report may be added a sentence from that of _The Times_, of the
same date: “He had never known the finger-prints of different persons
to agree.” The witness is significantly described as Detective-Sergeant
Collins, of the Finger-Print Office, Scotland Yard. At a later date
the same witness (now Inspector Collins), bearing evidence as to
the Houndsditch murders, stated that they had now 170,000 different
sets of prints recorded. He added that, “During the last ten years,
since the introduction of the system in 1901, they had made upwards
of 62,000 identifications and recognitions, and, so far as he knew,
without error. They dealt, therefore, with pretty large numbers, and
he was justified in saying that he had never found two impressions of
different fingers to agree.” [_The Daily Mail_, February 25th, 1911.]
In _The Daily Mail_ of August 10th, 1910, Inspector Munro, of the
Finger-print Department of Scotland Yard, in giving evidence that an
imprint on a broken window was that of the accused’s right middle
finger, added: “There had never been any mistake yet in finger-print
identification.”
One Cris Keegan, who received five years’ penal servitude at Dublin
in June, 1910, had left a finger-print on a broken church window at
Rathmichael. His counsel, pleading guilty for him, said: [_The Daily
Mail_, June 10th, 1910] “That when, before the magistrates the accused
supplied the best testimony to the finger-print system which it had yet
received, by saying ‘The taking of these finger-prints is the greatest
invention for the detection of criminals. I throw myself on the
mercy of the court. I did visit the church.’” This poor man had been
convicted forty times before.
Mr. William Henry, a witness in the case, who was in charge of the
register for criminals in Dublin castle, said, “he had put through
his hands about 150,000 finger-prints, and no two had ever been found
alike. This system of identification had now superseded all other
methods, and he regarded it as infallible.” Witness, having examined
the prisoner’s fingers in the dock, then said, “the finger-print on the
glass had been made by the prisoner’s right fore-finger.”
Criminals, dreading this kind of evidence, have of late taken sometimes
to destroying their ridge-patterns on the fingers. They sometimes also
remove and clean a window-pane which they have touched. In the early
part of the fourteenth century, clerks in holy orders claimed what
was called “benefit of clergy,” that is, the privilege of being tried
for certain crimes by ecclesiastical courts only, a privilege which
was afterwards extended to all persons who could read--for reading
was a somewhat rare accomplishment in those merry old times. In 1487
this benefit was restricted, so that a mere layman who was able to
read could secure it only once, and then he was to be _branded on the
thumb_, to show that he had already enjoyed his one opportunity, thus
carefully obliterating by legal methods the best means of proving the
fact.
A Leeds man, charged with burglary, was stated in _The Daily Mail_ of
April 14th, 1908, to have destroyed every one of his finger-ends so
that his prints could not be taken. He had been convicted several times
before, and had been sentenced to three months’ imprisonment.
The complete burglar’s outfit now includes well-fitting gloves as an
essential element, quite as important as skeleton keys and regulation
jemmies. This fact is curiously applied by the late John Davidson, who
says, in _Mammon and His Message_: “The gloves of party, of culture,
of creed, wherewith men hide their finger-prints lest they should be
caught in the act of being themselves, I decline to wear.”
Early in 1904, an office in Bradford was broken into by smashing a
glass panel in the door. Some cash and postage stamps were secured
by the robber. On one piece of glass a single finger-mark had been
imprinted accidentally, which was found by the police to be that of
a suspected person whose impressions had been officially secured
some time before. The offender was duly charged with the crime and
convicted. The photographs in this case were reproduced in _The
Strand Magazine_ of May, 1905, one being the enlarged impression
found on the piece of glass, and the other that of the supposed
corresponding impression, which was that of the prisoner’s left
thumb. Those finger-prints resemble, but their mutual likeness is by
no means quite conclusive and convincing. Mr. Mallet, the author of
the “Finger-Prints which have Convicted Criminals,” however, says:
“The reader will see how precisely similar are the impressions, and
he will be interested, with the aid of a microscope, in seeing how
exactly the almost countless ridges and characteristics of the thumb
are faithful doubles.” The patterns are both enlarged so greatly that
not even a lens is required for their discernment, and the “countless
ridges” do not run above forty. The two figures are not equalized in
their enlargement and comparison is made unnecessarily difficult, but
when made, the curves for some reason cannot be got to agree. The
officially registered impression affords clear lineations, but that on
the bit of glass panel is muddled and smudgy. On the whole I should not
call it a good example of this kind of identification.
A second case given is that of an imprint on a small box which had been
used for containing homœopathic remedies. Some cash had been stolen on
a certain Saturday night, and on Friday the delinquent was captured and
convicted by means of his finger-prints.
The reproduced photographs show the pattern to be somewhat simple,
and, allowing for a certain inevitable faintness due to indirect
reproduction, the evidence is good of its kind. A pattern of somewhat
greater complexity would have afforded much stronger evidence. The
chances of a single finger-print of very simple design, so to say,
being repeated in the case of another person, is not to be ignored, and
if the suspected smudge is obscure the evidence ceases to be of much
value.
Of the third case mentioned, we are assured that “without the
finger-print it would have been impossible to convict.” Now, the
enlarged imprint of the suspect’s right middle finger has been
printed quite clearly, and has good, unique characteristics, but just
where these would be most useful for identification the lines in the
suspected smudge are fatally blurred and useless for comparison.
A better case is that of a print on a drinking-glass, which was
brought out in the way dealt with in a previous chapter of this work.
The pattern was rather striking, and the resemblance convincing. The
prisoner afterwards confessed his guilt and assisted the police to
arrest another man and to recover some stolen property.
In an old French reading book I learned from in earlier days, there was
a story of a country doctor who in visiting an upland farmer’s wife
could find no paper or ink for his prescription. So he wrote his orders
in chalk on the farm door and told them to take that to the chemist.
They took the door. It seems that a chief detective of Bradford found
a bath-room door imprinted in circumstances that aroused suspicion.
Protected carefully by paper the door was conveyed on a cart to the
Town Hall, as evidence in the case.
Identification does not merely ensure the conviction of the guilty.
A very pleasing example was sent to me by an eminent American author
and journalist, which shows how the legal use of finger-print evidence
established the innocence of an accused negro. Briefly, the story was
this. A murder had been committed in Kansas by a coloured man named
William West. While looking for him it turned out that the police had
just placed under arrest for some minor offence, a young negro named
William West, who, however, stoutly maintained his innocence of the
murder. The French method of bodily measurements was applied, and the
person under arrest was found to correspond exactly in his dimensions
in trunk and limbs with those of the sought-for murderer. It remained
now only to take the imprints of his finger-tips, a method not long
before introduced in that State. It was then clearly seen that, by
their decided divergences in pattern, the man in custody could not be
the guilty person, although name, colour, and measurements all agreed
in the two men. A few days later the real murderer was arrested.
The report sent by my friend concludes thus: “The coincidences of
name and figure might have been fatal to the innocent man, if the
impression of the finger-tips had not also been employed as a means
of identification. The police say that this test is infallible. The
impression of one man’s finger-tips never corresponds exactly with
those of any other man.”
The system is now largely used in many of the States. Mr. W. A.
Pinkerton, the well-known Sherlock Holmes of America, has a high
opinion of the validity of the method, and wrote me on his recent visit
to this country that he intended to study the subject more closely.
A curious incident happened many years ago to a doctor in the district
where I live. Returning from a visit at a late hour, by a lonely
road, he was suddenly assailed by a powerful ruffian who tried to
garrot him. The doctor, a notably athletic man, objecting to the
treatment, finally got one of his assailant’s fingers into his mouth
and amputated it neatly with his teeth. Early in the morning the rogue
came to the same doctor’s surgery unwittingly, seeking for surgical
help, was seized, and ultimately convicted, getting heavy punishment.
Now, on telling this true story (the finger is still kept in spirit)
to Mr.--now Sir Charles E.--Troup, at the Home Office, that gentleman
smilingly said such a case would never by any chance occur again.
Well, in October, 1909, a constable patrolling St. John’s Street,
Clerkenwell, found, sticking on a spike at the top of a gate, a bloody
finger with a ring on it. This was promptly submitted to the police
experts at Scotland Yard, who were convinced that it had belonged to
a man known as “William Mitchell.” A man called “May,” with his hand
bleeding and bandaged up had just been arrested. It was then found that
he had just lost a finger, which he admitted had been done when he was
hurriedly getting over the gate. He got twelve months’ hard labour, as
consolation.
Many years ago I endeavoured to show the value of this method in the
recognition of the dead, where records existed. The importance it might
acquire is illustrated by the case of a man killed on the Great Western
Railway at Slough. His body had been badly shattered and mutilated,
and nothing was found in the poor man’s pockets but a match-box and
a tobacco pipe. Superintendent Pearman sent the finger-prints of the
dead man to Scotland Yard, where it was established beyond any doubt
that the deceased was one Walter James Downes, a farrier, of Deal. How
he came to be known at Scotland Yard is not stated in the newspaper
report. The record of a blameless life would have permitted him to rest
in a nameless grave.
In some parts of the Continent means are used systematically to
identify, by their finger-prints, all vagrants and tramps. It would
seem to be clear that in this country a large proportion of those poor
waifs are not really criminals in disposition, being often merely
failures from physical or mental incapacity, persons hopelessly
inefficient in performing the simplest tasks of an industrial life.
Among those there is ever a floating population of professional
criminals, and others again who are not chronic evildoers, but have,
perhaps, once been guilty of some grave offence which has separated
them from home and friends.
The Chief Constable of Halifax, in his annual report (1909) deplores
the absence of any means of discriminating between the “honest
hard-up” and the habitual tramps, who are often rogues and vagabonds.
He advocates a central registry for the United Kingdom, based on the
finger-print method. This, he thought, would reduce the number of
beggars, and would give the genuine but unfortunate worker indisputable
evidence as to the purity of his record, and entitle him to more
generous treatment in his search of work.
Amongst other evidences that the English method has come to stay, one
might quote the prospectus of the Birmingham University Medical Course
(1911). There we are informed that the course of Forensic Medicine
(Professor Morrison) now includes “Finger-prints and Foot-marks.”
In Stoke-on-Trent, the method of finger-prints is reported to have
saved the borough both time and money, as compared with the old
photographic method. The Chief Constable reported that in Hanley, in
1908 (now incorporated with Stoke): “The finger impressions of seven
prisoners, whose antecedents were unknown, were taken by the police,
and forwarded to the Registrar of Habitual Criminals, and in six of the
cases the impressions were identified as those of persons previously
convicted of crime.” As had been done in a previous report, it is also
stated, that “a considerable amount is annually saved to the department
by the discontinuance of the photographing of prisoners, excepting
where special circumstances make it desirable or necessary.”
According to the _Evening Post_, the leading financial journal of
New York, the new system of finger-prints is rapidly growing in
favour with bankers who have been recently victimised by swindlers
and forgers. The Williamsburg Savings Bank was the first institution
to adopt the system. Other banks, finding it entailed much delay,
appointed a special clerk, whose duty it is to persuade ladies to
remove their gloves and submit to the inking operation.
A New York lawyer, Mr. F. R. Fast, advocated some years ago a
finger-print method of attesting legal documents, as by the
old-fashioned seal now disused, except in a few high official cases.
His suggestion was that a man should choose one of his ten fingers,
the one which happens to have most individuality about it, perhaps,
as his “Ego” finger, with which to adhibit his impression after his
usual written signature, in law papers, cheques, and the like. He
also advocated storing past (in regard to wills, etc.) impressions
of all the ten fingers. This has always been my contention, that the
ten fingers should be used in cases requiring great security. One or
more should also be adhibited in the case of illiterate persons who
now sign with a cross. With passports, this is now actually done in
several countries on the European continent. It ought at once, I think,
to be adopted by bankers, for circular notes--a great convenience to
travellers having to use different currencies, but who may sometimes
find it difficult to get a friend to identify them. The case of
pensioners, old age and others, would seem to be urgent now, and, as a
medical man, I cannot help thinking that present official methods are
rather loose and may lead to frequent abuses. A general practitioner is
asked to sign a certificate of identity in circumstances where it is
not easy to be certain. A good-natured, busy doctor may aid roguery by
simply echoing what an applicant, or his friends, may have suggested.
In criminal trials, an English jury ought to be afforded some safeguard
as to identity. A supposed old convict who had become a constable fell
again into evil ways, but was soon found out by a comparison of fresh
finger-prints, with records which he had not at first been suspected
of having left behind. He had had a good character in the army. The
jury in this case very properly insisted on being thoroughly satisfied
by their own examination of the finger-print evidence submitted to
the court. Not all juries are quite complaisant on this point. I was
present at a case in which very pertinent and intelligent questions
were asked by one or two sceptical jurymen, and a demonstration of the
printing process done before them was insisted upon.
In one Old Bailey case the jury finally rejected evidence of this kind.
The comment of a London newspaper was this:--
“In finger-print cases the police expert is generally trusted
implicitly, and the jury is apt to be forgetful of the fact that,
although the theory of finger-prints has been reduced almost to
an exact science, mistakes may be made in applying it, and the
policeman has frequently an over-anxiety to prove his case that may
distort his view.”
The true cure for this evil, which has often been pointed out, would
seem to be the systematic instruction of the police force--or some
select numbers of them--in all such matters as come within their
official duties. With eight years’ experience as a police surgeon,
I must say that a great deal of the valuable kind of evidence that
recent fiction has made popular is spoiled by the methods of the
average constable. Professor Glaister, the eminent medical jurist
of Glasgow, was, I think, the first to give a place to finger-print
evidence in a work on Forensic Medicine. The second edition of his
work is fully illustrated with specimens. We have seen that the study
of finger-and foot-prints now forms a regular subject in the medical
course of Birmingham University. It would be easy to arrange, at local
centres, such instruction in this method as is now frequently given
to constables in ambulance work. To some extent this, I believe,
has already been done, but the teachers themselves evidently need
to be taught some elemental principles to instruct effectively.
The huge records left in Scotland Yard and other police centres of
administration have not as yet done any service to the biological
aspects of Dactylography. They are silent and still as the rocks were
before Hutton and Lyell struck them with the rod of science and made
living springs gush out in great abundance.
GLOSSARY OF SOME TERMS USED BY DACTYLOGRAPHERS.
ACCIDENTALS. Nondescript patterns in the class composites.
ANTHROPOID. Of the great man-like apes (gorilla, orangutan, and
chimpanzee).
ANTHROPOMETRIC. Bodily measurements.
ANTHROPOMETRY. Science of accurate bodily measurements.
ARCH. A curved set of lineations, without backward turn; a bow.
BERTILLONAGE. Alphonse Bertillon’s anthropometric methods.
BIFURCATION. Fork-like splitting into two branches.
BLUR. A dull, smudgy imprint.
BOW. A curved lineation like a bow.
BULB. The pad of a finger-tip.
CHARACTERISTIC. Any striking feature in a pattern which gives
distinctiveness.
CHIRALITY. The principle involved in “Mirror Patterns.”
COMPOSITE. Patterns composed of various elements, such as arch, loop,
or whorl.
CORE. The heart or central portion of a finger-print.
CREASE (_palmar_). The lines which indicate folding of the hand
surface.
DACTYLOGRAPH. A finger-impression taken by any process.
DACTYLOLITE. An indented finger-print as on wax.
DACTYLOSCOPY (_Daktyloskopie_). The practical study of Finger-prints.
DELTA. A somewhat triangular figure formed by skin lineations.
DERMA, DERMAL. The deep true skin, the “quick.”
DIGIT, DIGITAL. A finger, of fingers.
EPIDERMIS. The upper skin which readily peels off.
EPITHELIUM. The scaly surface of skin.
EXHIBIT. An article to be shown in court as evidence.
“FLEXIBLE CURVES.” An instrument for measuring enlarged curving
lineations.
FORK. A =Y=-like figure.
FORMULA (pl. FORMULÆ). The arrangement of syllables or signs to
denote a set of finger-prints.
FURROW. The hollow line between ridges, a _sulcus_.
HOOK. A =J=-like figure in any position.
INDEX FINGER. The finger used in pointing.
JUNCTION. Where two lineations meet or break off.
LINEATION. A line as printed, whether ridge or furrow.
LOOP. A curved line which returns on itself.
MICROMETER. An instrument like a pair of compasses, used for fine
measurements.
MIRROR PATTERN. The reverse (exact) image of a given figure.
NEGATIVE. A print in which the ridges are white and furrows black, as
when smoked glass is used.
PALMAR. Of front surface of the hand.
PAPILLA (pl. PAPILLÆ). Elements in a ridge where touch organs are.
“PHOTOGRAPH.” Used sometimes legally for finger-prints.
POCKET LOOP. A variety of imperfect loop.
POSITIVE. A finger-print where ridges appear black (or other colour
of pigment used) and furrows are white.
PRIMATES. An order of animals, including lemurs, monkeys, apes, and
man.
RADIAL. The thumb side of the hand (opposed to _Ulnar_.)
RECOGNITION. An identification.
RECIDIVIST. A relapsing or incorrigible criminal.
RIDGE. A line of skin tissue, elevated, with sweat-pores.
ROD. A figure like a rod.
ROLLED PRINT. A finger-print not taken by direct or plain impress,
but by a revolution of the inked surface on flat paper.
RUGA (pl. RUGÆ). A ridge.
SEARCHER. One who seeks for a former registration.
SEBACEOUS. Of the greasy excretion of the skin.
SMUDGE. A blurred or dull imprint.
STAPLE. A figure like a =U= inverted; thus, [U].
SUDOR. Sweat.
SUDORIPAROUS. Of sweat, sweat-yielding.
SULCUS (pl. SULCI). A skin groove or furrow.
TWINNED LOOP. Two adjoining loops in a core, complementary in
position.
TENTED ARCH. An arch shaped like a tent or volcanic mountain.
TERMINUS. A term used for distinctive points within and without a
core.
ULNAR. The little finger side of the hand. (Opposed to _Radial_).
VERSO. May be used for an imprint as the converse of the fleshy
pattern.
WHORL. A flat spiral figure.
WIDDERSHINS. The reverse of a clock-hand’s movement.
SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY.
ASQUITH’S COMMITTEE.--[Blue Book.] “Identification of Habitual
Criminals,” 1894.
CLEMENS, S. L. (Mark Twain.).--“Pudd’nhead Wilson” A story
illustrating the principles of Finger-Print Identification.
DARWIN, CHARLES.--“Origin of Species,” 1859; “Descent of Man,” 1871.
DEVON, JAMES.--“The Criminal and the Community,” 1912.
“ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA.”--“Finger Prints,” etc., 1911.
FAULDS, HENRY.--“On the Skin-furrows of the hands,” (_Nature_,
chap. xxii., p. 605), 1880; “Dactyloscopy” (St. Thomas’s Hospital
_Gazette_), January, 1904; “Guide to Finger-Print Identification,”
1905; “Finger Prints: a chapter in the History of their use for
Personal Identification,” (_Knowledge_), April, 1911.
FERRERO, G. L.--“Criminal Man” (Lombroso’s), 1911.
FORGEOT, RENÉ.--“Les empreintes latentes” (Thesis), 1891.
GALTON, FRANCIS.--“Identification by Finger-Tips” (_The Nineteenth
Century_), August, 1891; “Finger Prints,” 1892; “Finger-Print
Directories,” 1895.
GARSON, J. G.--“Finger-Prints Classification” (_Jour. Anthrop,
Inst._, chap. xxx. p. 101), 1900.
GLAISTER, J.--“Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence,” 1902 (and 2nd
edition).
GRAY, H.--“Anatomy, Descriptive and Surgical,” (16th ed.) 1905.
HADDON, A. C.--“Races of Man, and their Distribution,” 1909; “History
of Anthropology,” 1910.
HENRY, E. R.--“Classification and Uses of Finger-Prints,” 1905.
HEPBURN, D.-“The Papillary ridges on monkeys’ hands and feet,”
(_Nature_, vol. liii., 36), 1895.
HERSCHEL, W. J.--“Skin Furrows of the Hand,” (_Nature_, vol. xxii.,
76), 1880.
HOPF, LUDWIG. “The Human Species,” (Eng. trans.) 1909.
LINDSAY, B.--“Animal Life.”
MARETT, R.--“Anthropology.”
MITCHELL. “Science and the Criminal,” 1911.
PURKINJE, J. E. “Commentatio de examine physiologico organi visus et
systematis cutanei,” 1823.
SCHLAGINHAUFEN, OTTO. “Der Hautleistensystem der Primatenplanta”
(with a valuable bibliography), _Gegenbaur’s Jahrbüch_, 1905.
SCHOFIELD, A. T. “Elementary Physiology for Students,” 1892.
STEWART, G. N. “Manual of Physiology,” 1910.
THOMSON, J. A., and P. GEDDES. “Evolution,” 1911.
TYLOR. “Primitive Culture,” 1903.
WALKER, N. “Introduction to Dermatology,” 1904.
WALLACE, A. R. “The World of Life,” 1910.
WINDT and KODIČEK. “Daktyloskopie,” 1904.
INDEX.
Accidental Splashes, 74
Acromegaly, ridges in, 59, 78
Ainsworth’s _Jack Shepherd_, 18
Alcock, Dr. Reginald, 36
Alix, _Recherches, etc._, 19
Ambiguous prints, 74
Analysis of lineations, 71
Anderson, Sir Thos. M’Call, 37
Anthropoid lineations, 52
Asquith’s Committee, Mr., 102
Avebury, finger-marked pottery at, 13
Babylonian nail-marks, 10
Baldwin, Prof. G., 15
Belper’s Committee, Lord, 108
Bertillon, Alphonse, 26, 89
Bewick’s sign mark, 19
Billing’s Dr. (U.S.), 27
_Birmingham Post_, 36
Bowditch, Prof. (U.S.), 34
Bradbury, John (American traveller), 13
_British Medical Journal_, 36, 58
Casts of Ridges, 45
_Cha-no-yu_ pottery, finger-marked, 14
Channel, Sir A. M., 35
Chinese Ideographs, 86
Chinese Characters, Origin of, 10
Chromidrosis, 37
Classification of finger-prints, 83
Collins, Inspector, 66, 109
Coloured Sweat, 37
Comparing Prints, 68
_Copperfield, David_, 19
Consonantal patterns, 94
Criminology aided, 59
Curve Rules, 69
Curves, Flexible, 69
Dactylic origin of numerals, 11
Dactylograph, 45
Dactylography, its nature, 9
Dactylolite, 72
Darwin, Charles, 22, 41
_David Copperfield_, fishy thumb-marks, 19
Davids, T. W. Rhys, 16
Davidson, John (_Mammon and his Message_), 111
“Designs” in finger-print patterns, 46
Devon, Dr., 60
Dickens, Charles, 19, 102
Direct Observation of Finger-patterns, 44
Eggs, markings on birds’, 42
Enlarged Photographs, 66
Evaporation of Sweat-marks, 37
Evolutionary development, 50
Feet, ridges & furrows on, 33
Finger-and Foot-prints studied in Birmingham University, 116
Finger-print of Stone Age, 12
Finger-print System, applied to Banking, 117
Forgeot, Dr. René, on latent imprints, 63
Galton, Sir Francis, 17, 23, 27, 55, 79, 89
Garson, Dr. J. G., 63, 80
Gegenbaur’s Jahrbüch (1905), 23
Giles, Prof., 11
Glaister, Prof., 119
Glass Disc, centred, 73
Greasy Marks, visible and latent, 63
Gotch, Francis, 42
Halation in Photographs, 66
Halifax, Chief Constable of, 116
Hart, Dr. Berry, 58
Henry, Sir Ed. R., 16, 80, 88
Herschel, Sir William J., 16, 24, 27, 79
Hooker, Sir Joseph, 72
Holme, Chas. (_The Studio_), 14
Hopf, Ludwig, 30
Huxley, Prof., 40
Identification of Habitual Criminals, 102
_Index Medicus_ of U.S., 23
India, early use of finger-prints in, 11
Indirect Observation of patterns, 45
Ink used in printing, 65
Innocence established by finger-print evidence, 113
Irving, Henry, 101
Japan, use of finger-prints in, 11
Japanese hand-like use of feet, 33
Keith, Prof., 57
Kew Micrometer, 72
_Knowledge_, 107
Lineations like finger-patterns, 43
Lister, Lord, 81
Lombroso, Prof. Cesare, 60
Lyell, Sir Chas., 43
Mallet, Mr. (_The Strand_), 111
Malpighi, on ridges, 16
“Mark Twain”, 28
Mexican foot-prints, 9, 10
Minakata Kumagusa (_Nature_), 11
Mirror-patterns, 71
Mitchell, C. Ainsworth, 12, 54
Monkey, Tail of Spider, 30
Morrison, Prof., 116
Mummy Patterns preserved, 76
Munro, Detective-Sergeant Charles, 36
Munro, Inspector, 109
Musical glasses, 30
_Nature_, 11, 16, 23
Neame, Chief-Inspector, 104
“Negative” Prints, 45
_Nineteenth Century_, 37
Official Register Form, 69
Osmic acid for greasy marks, 65
Paleyan conception, The, 41
Palmar Creases, 11
Pater, Walter, 19
Patterns, viewed teleologically, 54
Pearman, Supt., 115
Persistence of patterns, 76, 79
“Photographs” in official usage, 105
Photo-telegraphy, 75
Physiographical analogies, 35
Poe, Edgar A., 44
Pore Marks, variability of, 62
“Positive” prints, 45
Poulton, Prof., 42
Proto-troglodytes, 57
Printing, technique of, 61
Purkinje, Prof. J. E., 16, 18
Racial peculiarities, 55
Reeve’s requisites for printing, 65
Register of Distinctive Marks, 103
Register of Habitual Criminals, 116
Registers, different purposes of, 91
Ridges of skin, 31
Ripple Marks in sand, 32
Rules for Classification, 92
Schlaginhaufen, Prof. O., 23, 44
Search, problems of, 84
Sollas, Prof. (_Science Progress_), 13
Spencer, Herbert, 30, 37
Stedman, Inspector, 66
Stoke-on-Trent, Chief Constable of, 116
_Studio, The_, finger-marked pottery, 14
Sweat, coloured, 37
" glands, ducts, and pores, 29
Syllabic system of classification, 88
Tabor, Mr. (U.S.), 27
Tattoo marks, 107
Taylor’s _Manual of Med. Juris._, 101
Thesing’s _Lectures on Biology_, 51
Thomson, Prof. Arthur, 42
_Tristram Shandy_, mention of thumb-prints, 18
Troglodytes, 57
Troup, Sir Chas. Ed., 105, 114
Tunbridge, Inspector, 25, 103
Twins, finger-patterns of, 58
Ulster, “Bloody Hand of”, 13
Variableness in printed results, 48
“Verso”, 72
Verworn’s General Physiology, 83
“Vowel” elements in patterns, 98
Wallace, Dr. Alfred Russell, 41
Wrong Identifications, 105
Wyman, Prof. Jeffries (U.S.), 34
Yedo, Bay of, ancient finger-marked pottery, 14
Zebra, Grevy’s, patterns in stripes of, 39
MILNER AND CO., PRINTERS, HALIFAX.