FINGERPRINTS: YOUR PERSONAL SIGNATURE

1
FINGERPRINTS YOUR PERSONAL SIGNATURE
Katerina Christoforatos Class Code
SBF5-01 Wednesday, April 9th, 2008 Instructor
Ms. Villani
2
Today the fingerprint is the pillar of modern
criminal identification.
3
Lets take a trip through fingerprint history
1685 Marcello Malpighi first recognizes
fingerprint patterns and describes them in terms
of loops and whorls when writing about the
varying ridges and patterns he saw on human
fingerprints.
1892 Sir Francis Galton publishes his classic
textbook, Finger Prints, in which he established
a system of classification for prints, known as
Galtons details. Galton also calculated that the
chance of any two people sharing a common print
was on in 64 billion.
1856 Sir William Herschel requires natives in
Bengal, India, to sign contracts with a hand
imprint to prevent fraud in contracts and pension
distributions. He finds that his prints are
unchanged after 50 years, an important fact in
developing fingerprints as a forensic tool.
Prehistory Early potters identify their works
with an impressed fingerprint.
Prehistory
1000 BC
1823
1685
1880
1892
1856
1899
1880 Henry Faulds, a Scottish physician,
published an article in the international science
journal Nature suggesting that fingerprints could
be used as a practical means of identification.
1000 BC The Chinese sign legal documents with
fingerprints.
1823 Joannes Purkinje establishes nine basic
fingerprint patterns and rules for classifying
them, thus forming the basis for modern
classification systems.
1899 Sir Edward Henry devises a fingerprint
classification system inherited by English
speaking regions.
4
SIR EDWARD HENRY (1850 1930)

• Sir Edward Henry, an inspector general of the
  British police in Indias Bengal province, worked
  on a fingerprint classification system for many
  years.
• Much of Henrys work was built on ideas of
  Francis Galton.
• The Henry System, which he completed in 1899, is
  still in use (with a few modifications) in the
  United States and Great Britain.
• In Spanish speaking countries of Central and
  South America, a different system, devised by
  Juan Vucetich, an Argentinean police official, is
  used.
• The U.S. Army went over to fingerprinting in
  1905, followed by the Navy in 1907 and the Marine
  Corps in 1908.
• By 1915, fingerprint technicians were so numerous
  that they created the International Association
  for Identification.
• In 1919, the first journal of the profession,
  Finger Print and Identification Magazine, began
  publication.

In 1924, the United States Congress established
the Identification Division, which was to serve
as the nations storehouse of all fingerprint
records.
5
FBIs Identification Division

• More than 200 million
• sets of prints represent
• over 68 million
• individuals on file in the
• Criminal Justice
• Information Services
• Division.

At present, the FBIs Identification Division is
its largest unit, with over 2,600 employees.
6
FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION
DEPENDENT UPON THREE PRINCIPLES
1
A fingerprint is individual and is not shared by
any two people.
2
A fingerprint remains unchanged throughout life.
3
Fingerprints exhibit general patterns that
provide a basis for classification.
7
CROSS SECTION OF HUMAN SKIN
8
Grouping by arches, loops, and whorls

• Whorls, loops, and arches are still the basis for
  fingerprint matching and identification. Even
  though everyone has them, how they have them is
  unique.
• Each person has a different number of these types
  of patterns, and the patterns vary from fingertip
  to fingertip on each person.
• Loops are the most common type, accounting for
  about 60 percent of all fingerprints. Whorls
  account for 35 percent of fingerprints, and
  arches for 5 percent.

GENERAL FINGERPRINT PATTERNS
9
ARCHES

• Approximately one person in twenty (or 5 of the
  human population) has ridge patterns arranged in
  arches.
• Arches are ridgelines that rise in the center to
  create a wavelike pattern.
• Arches are classified as plain arches if they
  follow a smooth, wavelike pattern.
• Arches are classified as tented arches if they
  end in a sharper point at the center.

Plain arch
Tented arch
10
ARCH DEFINITIONS in depth
Plain arch

• Ridges flow from one side of the pattern to the
  other with a rise or wave in the center
• Smooth rise and gentle upward curve
• Simplest of all fingerprint patterns
• Generally gives no difficulty being correctly
  identified

Tented arch

• Has either a central up thrust or a well-defined
  angle
• Regarded as a traditional pattern between arch
  and loop
• May occasionally be seen with a re-curving
  ridge or other feature common to the loop pattern
• Does not possess all four of the requisites of
  the loop pattern

11
LOOPS

• Two-thirds of the population have ridge patterns
  that form loops.
• A loop has one or more ridges that enter on one
  side, recurve, and flow back out on the same
  side. The pattern must have four characteristics
  (1) a core, (2) a delta, (3) a recurving ridge,
  (4) a ridge count.
• Loops are subdivided into two types (1) ulnar
  loops and (2) radial loops
• Both types of loop patterns have the same
  characteristics, except for direction of flow.
• To characterize a fingerprint as a radial or
  ulnar loop, one must know from which hand it
  came.

Ulnar loop
Radial loop
12
LOOP DEFINITIONS in depth
Core
The approximate center of the pattern
Delta
The triangular area caused by the divergence of
ridges
Re-curving ridge
Passes between the core and the delta
Ridge count
The number of ridges that cross, or at least
touch, an imaginary line between the precise core
of the precise delta
Right-hand print
If the ridges flow downward to the left, it is a
radial loop if they flow downward to the right,
it is an ulnar loop
Left-hand print
The directionality is reversed - if the ridges
flow downward to the left, it is an ulnar loop
if to the right, it is a radial loop
13
EXAMPLES OF LOOPS

• Notice that there is one delta (shown in the blue
  box) and a core (shown in the red box).
• If the pattern consists of a core and one delta,
  then it is a loop.

• Notice that the core pattern area (noted in red)
  tends to come in from the left and go back out to
  the left.
• Hold your left hand up and notice that your
  little finger is on the left, which is the
  direction that the pattern tends to come in from
  and go back out to.
• Since this is towards your little finger, or your
  ulnar bone, this loop pattern is classified as an
  ulnar loop.

• Notice that the fingerprint has two loops.
• Therefore, this pattern is called a double loop
  pattern.

14
WHORLS

• Almost one-third of the population has ridge
  patterns in whorls.
• Whorls look like little whirlpools of ridgelines.
• Whorls are subdivided into four groups
• 1. Plain whorls
• 2. Central pocket loop whorls
• 3. Double loop whorls
• 4. Accidental loop whorls

15
WHORL DEFINITIONS in depth
Plain whorl
Two deltas and at least one ridge that makes a
complete circuit about the core. Some have
concentric circles (like a bulls-eye target) or
ovals, others a spiral (like a clock spring).
Consists of two separate loop formations, each
with its own core, and two deltas.
Double loop whorl
Combination of loop and whorl it has all the
characteristics of a loop, with the addition of a
second delta near the core and a whorl-type ridge
or ridges circuiting around the core.
Central packet loop whorl
Pattern with two or more deltas that cannot be
placed into any of the other classes.
Accidental whorl
16
INDIVIDUALIZATION

• Fingerprints are not only grouped and
  sub-grouped. They must be individualized.
• Each individual has unique fingerprints. A
  fingerprint is defined by the uniqueness of the
  local ridge characteristics and their
  relationships.
• Minutiae points (aka Galtons details) are the
  local ridge characteristics.
• Identification points consist of bifurcations,
  ending ridges, dots, ridges and islands.
• A single rolled fingerprint may have as many as
  100 or more identification points that can be
  used in order to identify the individual.

17
Basic and composite ridge characteristics
(minutiae)
18
The Henry System

• Henry separated fingerprints into those with
  whorls and those with loops and arches.
• Using the Henry System, individual prints are
  assigned scores based on where whorls show up
  within a ten-finger set of prints.
• Any fingers with arches or loops receive a score
  of zero, but those with whorls were given a
  higher value, depending on which finger the whorl
  was on.

19
The Henry System

• Fingers are paired as in the previous table, and
  a whorl on the first pair of fingers is assigned
  a value of 16, the second pair is assigned a
  value of 8, the third gets 4, the fourth 2, and
  the fifth 1.
• These pairs are then treated as fractions, and
  the fractions are added up, including a value of
  1 on the top and bottom of the fraction.
• For example, a person with a whorl on their right
  ring finger and left index finger would have a
  value of 9/3. The value for the left hand is 9
  (080001), that for the right is 3
  (000201).

• Henrys code, which is still used today, generate
  1,024 possible variations, and any individuals
  prints can be quickly sorted into one of these
  categories.
• This doesnt pinpoint a person as around 25
  percent of people fall into the 1/1 category
  but it does massively reduce the number of
  suspects that police had to track down.
• It has proven particularly useful for spotting
  criminals working under false names, as their
  prints matched those given under previous
  aliases.

20
HIGHEST AND LOWEST CLASSIFICATION

• The lowest primary classification a person can
  have is 1/1.
• 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
• 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
• If an individual has the lowest possible
  classification, you would immediately know that
  the person has loops or arches on all ten fingers
  and no whorls.
• The highest possible classification a person can
  have is 32/32.
• 16 8 4 2 1 1 32
• 16 8 4 2 1 1 32
• If an individual has the highest possible
  classification, you would immediately know that
  the person has whorls on all ten fingers.

21
SPEEDING UP IDENTIFICATION AFIS

• Because criminals almost never leave behind a
  full set of prints, systems that rely on prints
  from all ten fingers (like Henry system) are
  flawed. With growing numbers of print sets being
  housed in the FBIs database, a better method for
  storing, retrieving, and matching fingerprints
  became necessary.
• The AFIS computer scans and digitally encodes
  fingerprints, storing that information in massive
  databases. The AFIS uses automatic scanning
  devices that can convert the image of a
  fingerprint into digital minutiae that contain
  data showing ridges at their points of
  termination (ridge endings) and the branching of
  ridges into two ridges (bifurcation). The
  relative position and orientation of the minutiae
  are also determined, allowing the computer to
  store each fingerprint in the form of a digitally
  recorded geometric pattern. It can search
  hundreds of thousands of files every second while
  simultaneously attempting to match them to an
  unknown ten-print set or even a single or partial
  print. During the search for a match, the
  computer uses a scoring system that assigns
  prints to each of the criteria set by an
  operator. When the search is complete, the
  computer then produces a list of file prints that
  have the closest correlation to the search
  prints. All of the selected prints are then
  examined by a trained fingerprint expert, who
  will make the final verification on the prints
  identity.
• After the computer established a match, an agent
  trained in fingerprinting evaluation then
  hand-checks the file.
• The computer can also improve the quality of the
  print through minor digital manipulations.
  Brightness and contrast can be enhanced and fuzzy
  images can be made sharper.

22
AFIS CLOSE UP
Automated Fingerprint Identification System A
network that scans crime scene fingerprints and
compares them with millions of prints collected
by law enforcement agencies around the world.
23
FINGERPRINTS AT THE CRIME SCENE

• The fingerprints found at crime scenes fall into
  four main categories

(1) Impressed prints
(2) Visible prints
(3) Plastic prints
(4) Latent prints
24
IMPRESSED PRINTS

• Impressed prints that have been pressed in a soft
  material such as the surface of a congealed pool
  of blood, sand, mud or snow. Forensics experts
  may be able to capture impressed prints by
  photographing them, or by casting a molding.
• Since impressed prints are visible to the naked
  eye, they are easily detected.
• Impressed prints are easily photographed.

Impressed prints in sand
25
VISIBLE PRINTS

• Visible prints are the easiest to spot. They are
  those made by fingers that have been in contact
  with wet paint, ink, blood, or another substance
  considered a marker.
• Since visible prints are visible to the naked
  eye, they are easily detected.
• Visible prints are easily photographed.

Blood print
26
PLASTIC PRINTS

• Plastic prints are made by the fingers pressing
  on a material like soap, wax, or putty which
  retains the image of the fingertip ridges.
• They are three dimensional depressions made by
  the friction ridges.
• Plastic prints are easily photographed.

3-dimensional fingerprint capture
27
LATENT FINGERPRINTS

• Latent prints are the most common type of prints.
• Latent fingerprints are made when the natural
  oils and perspiration that exist between the
  fingertip ridges are transferred to a surface by
  touch.
• Since latent prints are invisible, they are much
  harder to detect and preserve.
• There are several methods used to visualize a
  latent print.
• The method used to reveal such minute traces
  depends on the type of surface being tested.

Latent print
28
FINGERPRINT POWDER

• Hard and non-absorbent surfaces like glass,
  painted wood, tiles or metal are usually dusted
  with fingerprint powder, which sticks to the
  traces of oil and perspiration left by the
  fingertip.
• The powder is made in different colors so that
  investigators can select the one that provides
  the sharpest contrast with the surface being
  dusted.
• Black powder, which consists of black carbon or
  charcoal, is applied to white or light-colored
  surfaces.
• White powder, composed of aluminum dust, is used
  on dark-colored surfaces.
• Fluorescent powder can also be used, and this is
  photographed under ultraviolet light so that the
  fluorescing latent print will stand out even
  against the most brightly colored or patterned
  surface.

29
CHEMICAL METHODS

• Soft or porous surfaces such as cloth or paper
  can yield fingerprint evidence through the use of
  chemical methods.
• There are four chemical methods used to visualize
  latent fingerprints

Chemical fingerprint developing kit
30
1) IODINE FUMING

• The article is examined by being placed inside an
  enclosed cabinet with iodine crystals and then
  heated.
• The iodine vapor given off by the crystals
  combines with traces of the print in a chemical
  reaction that leaves a visible pattern.
• Once the process is stopped, the print will begin
  to fade.
• The print must be photographed immediately or
  sprayed with a solution of 1 starch and 99
  water. This solution will turn the print blue in
  color and make it last for several weeks.

Iodine Fuming Print
Iodine Fuming Kit
Iodine crystals
31
2) NINHYDRIN

• Ninhydrin spray forms a purple-blue color when
  combined with traces of amino acids in human
  perspiration.
• Applied by spraying onto a porous surface with an
  aerosol can.
• Prints begin to appear within an hour or two, and
  can be developed faster if they are heated in an
  oven or on a hotplate at a temperature of 80? to
  100? Celsius.

Ninhydrin Print
Ninhydrin Crystals
32
3) SILVER NITRATE

• Silver nitrate reacts with the salt in
  perspiration to form silver chloride, which in
  turn is revealed under ultraviolet light.
• The print will appear as a reddish-brown or black
  color.

Silver Nitrate Print
33
4) SUPERGLUE FUMING

• Superglue fuming is a newer technique that relies
  on cyanoacrylate ester, the active ingredient in
  this type of very strong, quick-acting adhesive.
• The fumes can be applied by heating the object in
  a closed cabinet or by filling the hole of a
  closed space, such as the interior of an
  automobile, with fumes to reveal every latent
  print.

Superglue Fuming Chamber
Print Developed Using Superglue
34
IF MORE THAN ONE METHOD IS USED...

• If more than one method is used to develop
  prints, the order in which the techniques are
  used is important. The following order should be
  used to develop fingerprints
• This is the procedure used for optimal
  visualization because Iodine fuming is not
  permanent.
• If Ninhydrin fails, silver nitrate can be used
  but it will wash away all the fatty oils and
  proteins from the surface.
• Superglue fuming, if used, must be used last.

(1) Iodine fuming
(2) Ninhydrin
(3) Silver nitrate
(4) Superglue fuming
35
FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE CAN BE MADE NON-SIGNIFICANT

• Fingerprint samples can easily be ruined when
  they are lifted at a crime scene if the incorrect
  method is used to develop them, or if the
  incorrect order of methods is applied to develop
  them.
• Often times, fingerprints are the only evidence
  prosecutors may have to convict a criminal.
  Therefore, it is vital that the print is handled
  with care and preserved properly.

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE EXAMINER TO BE
CAREFUL IN DETECTING AND PRESERVING FINGERPRINTS
FOUND AT A CRIME SCENE!!!
36
CASE STUDY THOMAS JENNINGS

• Chicago, September 19th, 1910
• The Hiller family lived in Chicago. Early the
  morning of the 19th, Mrs. Hiller woke her husband
  Clarence and told him the gas lamp outside their
  daughters bedroom was not burning properly. He
  got up to check and met a stranger on the
  landing. Hiller challenged the intruder, the two
  men fought and both fell down the stairs. The
  intruder then fired two shots and fled, leaving
  Clarence Hiller dying on the floor. Neighbors
  arrived to help and the police were called,
  though a suspect had already been arrested less
  than a mile from the crime scene. Four off-duty
  officers had seen a man running, constantly
  turning to look behind him. When they stopped and
  searched him, they found he was carrying a loaded
  revolver. His name was Thomas Jennings and there
  were bloodstains on his clothing that he claimed
  had been made when he fell from a streetcar. When
  officers searched the scene of the murder, they
  found three unused cartridges close to Mr.
  Hillers body and some traces of sand and gravel
  at the foot of the daughter's bed, but these
  proved less significant than the fingerprints
  found in the kitchen. The day before his murder,
  Clarence Hiller had painted some railings next to
  the window through which the killer had climbed
  in order to get inside the house. The paint was
  still wet and had preserved a perfect set of four
  fingerprints from the intruders left hand. When
  Jennings prints were compared with those at the
  Hiller house, they proved a perfect match. He was
  found guilty of murder.

KEY TAKEAWAYS (1) The Chicago police force was
one of the first in the United States to
recognize the value of fingerprinting. (2) The
Jennings case is the first documented instance of
conviction based upon fingerprint evidence.
37
Thank you
38
WORKS CITED

• Slide 1
• www.ncsd.com/handprint1133.jpg
• Slide 2
• Saferstein, Richard.  Criminalistics.   Englewood
  Cliffs, NJ  Hall  5th Ed., 1996, p.363.
• Slide 3
• Lyle, Douglas P. Forensics for Dummies.
  Indianapolis Wiley, Inc., 2004. 73-84.
• Slide 4
• Nickell, Joe, and John F. Fischer. Crime Science
  Methods of Forensic Detection. Lexington The
  University Press of Kentucky, 1999. 112-147.
• www.policensw.com/.../images/henry.jpg
• Slide 5
• Nickell, Joe, and John F. Fischer. Crime Science
  Methods of Forensic Detection. Lexington The
  University Press of Kentucky, 1999. 112-147.
• www.noparolepeltier.com/images/warrant.gif
• Slide 6
• Lyle, Douglas P. Forensics for Dummies.
  Indianapolis Wiley, Inc., 2004. 73-84.
• Slide 7
• http//swiss-creations.com/images/skin-cross-secti
  on-c.gif
• Slide 8
• Lyle, Douglas P. Forensics for Dummies.
  Indianapolis Wiley, Inc., 2004. 73-84.
• Owen, David. Hidden Evidence. Ontario Firefly
  Books Ltd., 2000. 160-173.

39
WORKS CITED

• http//agrippina.bcs.deakin.edu.au/bcs_courses/for
  ensic/Chemical20Detective/images/fingerprint_type
  s.gif
• Slide 9
• Owen, David. Hidden Evidence. Ontario Firefly
  Books Ltd., 2000. 160-173.
• www.brazoria-county.com/.../parch.jpg
• www.brazoria-county.com/.../tarch.jpg
• Slide 10
• Nickell, Joe, and John F. Fischer. Crime Science
  Methods of Forensic Detection. Lexington The
  University Press of Kentucky, 1999. 112-147.
• Slide 11
• Owen, David. Hidden Evidence. Ontario Firefly
  Books Ltd., 2000. 160-173.
• www.johnnyfincham.com/images/ulner-loop.jpg
• Slide 12
• Nickell, Joe, and John F. Fischer. Crime Science
  Methods of Forensic Detection. Lexington The
  University Press of Kentucky, 1999. 112-147.
• Slide 13
• Nickell, Joe, and John F. Fischer. Crime Science
  Methods of Forensic Detection. Lexington The
  University Press of Kentucky, 1999. 112-147.
• www.biometrika.it/eng/images/fingsing.gif
• www.biometrika.it/eng/images/fingsing.gif
• Slide 14
• Owen, David. Hidden Evidence. Ontario Firefly
  Books Ltd., 2000. 160-173.
• Nickell, Joe, and John F. Fischer. Crime Science
  Methods of Forensic Detection. Lexington The
  University Press of Kentucky, 1999. 112-147.

40
WORKS CITED

• http//express.howstuffworks.com/gif/express-detec
  tive-prints.gif
• Slide 15
• Nickell, Joe, and John F. Fischer. Crime Science
  Methods of Forensic Detection. Lexington The
  University Press of Kentucky, 1999. 112-147.
• Slide 16
• http//www.google.com/search?hlensafeactiveqm
  inutiaefingerprint
• http//www.ces.clemson.edu/stb/ece847/fall2004/pr
  ojects/proj10.doc
• Slide 17
• http//www.policensw.com/info/fingerprints/finger0
  8.html
• Slide 18
• Moore, Pete. The Forensics Handbook the Secrets
  of Crime Scene Investigation. New York Barnes
  Noble, Inc., 2004. 86-95.
• Slide 19
• Moore, Pete. The Forensics Handbook the Secrets
  of Crime Scene Investigation. New York Barnes
  Noble, Inc., 2004. 86-95.
• http//www.all-about-forensic-science.com/images/f
  ingerprint-analysis.jpg
• Slide 20
• Katerina Christoforatos - Fingerprint Laboratory
  Report
• Slide 21
• Lyle, Douglas P. Forensics for Dummies.
  Indianapolis Wiley, Inc., 2004. 73-84.
• Moore, Pete. The Forensics Handbook the Secrets
  of Crime Scene Investigation. New York Barnes
  Noble, Inc., 2004. 86-95.
• Slide 22

41
WORKS CITED

• http//www.policija.si/si/organiziranost/pu/lj/sli
  ke/afis.jpg
• Slide 23
• Owen, David. Hidden Evidence. Ontario Firefly
  Books Ltd., 2000. 160-173.
• http//www3.sc.maricopa.edu/ajs/Scene201.jpg
• Slide 24
• Dale, W. Mark, and Wendy S. Becker. The Crime
  Scene How Forensic Science Works. New York
  Kaplan, 2007. 55-66.
• Lyle, Douglas P. Forensics for Dummies.
  Indianapolis Wiley, Inc., 2004. 73-84.
• http//planetgreen.discovery.com/ecological-footpr
  int-sand-ezioman.jpg
• http//pro.corbis.com/images/RF244122.jpg?size572
  uid7B97D5E5AB-4758-4A2D-A60F-64A25F2D22E07D
• Slide 25
• Dale, W. Mark, and Wendy S. Becker. The Crime
  Scene How Forensic Science Works. New York
  Kaplan, 2007. 55-66.
• Lyle, Douglas P. Forensics for Dummies.
  Indianapolis Wiley, Inc., 2004. 73-84.
• http//business.fullerton.edu/resources/biometrics
  /images/ist2_509515_Blood_fingerprint.jpg
• Slide 26
• Ramsland, Katherine. The Forensic Science of
  C.S.I. New York City Berkley Boulevard Books,
  2001. 112-119.
• Lyle, Douglas P. Forensics for Dummies.
  Indianapolis Wiley, Inc., 2004. 73-84.
• http//www.tbsinc.com/uploads/5553e_3dfinger1.jpg
• Slide 27

42
WORKS CITED

• Dale, W. Mark, and Wendy S. Becker. The Crime
  Scene How Forensic Science Works. New York
  Kaplan, 2007. 55-66.
• Lyle, Douglas P. Forensics for Dummies.
  Indianapolis Wiley, Inc., 2004. 73-84.
• http//www.larry-adams.com/LatentPrintBlack.jpg
• Slide 28
• Lyle, Douglas P. Forensics for Dummies.
  Indianapolis Wiley, Inc., 2004. 73-84.
• 5. Moore, Pete. The Forensics Handbook the
  Secrets of Crime Scene Investigation. New York
  Barnes Noble, Inc., 2004. 86-95.
• leswebsite.com/images/pict_002.jpg
• http//shop.armorforensics.com/mm5/graphics/000000
  02/white.jpg
• http//shop.armorforensics.com/mm5/graphics/000000
  02/black.jpg
• Slide 29
• Owen, David. Hidden Evidence. Ontario Firefly
  Books Ltd., 2000. 160-173.
• Ramsland, Katherine. The Forensic Science of
  C.S.I. New York City Berkley Boulevard Books,
  2001. 112-119.
• http//www.lynnpeavey.com/images/05646.jpg
• Slide 30
• Lyle, Douglas P. Forensics for Dummies.
  Indianapolis Wiley, Inc., 2004. 73-84.
• Nickell, Joe, and John F. Fischer. Crime Science
  Methods of Forensic Detection. Lexington The
  University Press of Kentucky, 1999. 112-147.
• http//www.bvda.com/images/b745_use.jpg
• http//www.bvda.com/images/b50_kl.jpg
• http//www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/ERP/images/iodi
  ne.jpg

43
WORKS CITED

• Lyle, Douglas P. Forensics for Dummies.
  Indianapolis Wiley, Inc., 2004. 73-84.
• Nickell, Joe, and John F. Fischer. Crime Science
  Methods of Forensic Detection. Lexington The
  University Press of Kentucky, 1999. 112-147.
• http//www.ok.gov/osbi/images/ninhydrin20print.jp
  g
• http//shop.armorforensics.com/mm5/graphics/000000
  02/products/ninhydrin.jpg
• Slide 32
• Lyle, Douglas P. Forensics for Dummies.
  Indianapolis Wiley, Inc., 2004. 73-84.
• Nickell, Joe, and John F. Fischer. Crime Science
  Methods of Forensic Detection. Lexington The
  University Press of Kentucky, 1999. 112-147.
• http//www.alternativephotography.com/artists/mare
  k_matusz/mm_satista_fig2.jpg
• Slide 33
• Lyle, Douglas P. Forensics for Dummies.
  Indianapolis Wiley, Inc., 2004. 73-84.
• Nickell, Joe, and John F. Fischer. Crime Science
  Methods of Forensic Detection. Lexington The
  University Press of Kentucky, 1999. 112-147.
• http//www.dps.state.vt.us/cjs/vfl/pictures/cyvac.
  gif
• http//www.forensicsrus.com/images/SupergluePrint.
  jpg
• Slide 34
• Katerina Christoforatos - Fingerprint Laboratory
  Report
• Slide 35
• Katerina Christoforatos - Fingerprint Laboratory
  Report
• Slide 36
• Owen, David. Hidden Evidence. Ontario Firefly
  Books Ltd., 2000. 160-173.