| Author | Message | ||
     Steve |
OK, before things get too cheeky here... Ken, what do you mean by "I took a cusory look at the joint prints of my kids and several neighbour kids and saw many similiarities." When you say similarities, are you saying that the level one detail has some similarities? It's been over five years since I took Ron Smith's palm print class, but I do remember that there are certain similarities to the ridge flow from different fingers in the joint areas. The consistency seems to lie in the index and little fingers of both hands - the second and third joints. The ridges tend to flow down and out. The middle and ring fingers aren't consistent in this manner. | ||
| Ken C |
Kasey, sounds like you and I have a similiar sense of humour...thanks again! ken C | ||
| Kasey Wertheim |
Ken, I couldn't resist bringing back up the butt dimple thing... that was too funny. I hope your study goes well. Regards! -Kasey | ||
| Ken C |
Kasey, thanks for the info. I really did look around but didnt find anything pertinent. What you say, of course, makes sense and that such print types have been accepted in courts is, I guess, proof that courts have that knowledge. I know I found your photo shop prez in the Westerfield case very impressive. And, actually, that is what raised the question in my mind since I realized at that point that there seemed to be no presentation to the court that joint prints were unique or had been used in cases to any extent while all the other science, even the DNA had to put info out there for the jury. So, being a skeptic at heart, I took a cusory look at the joint prints of my kids and several neighbour kids and saw many similiarities. So I thought before I got into some serious looking at those prints, I would try and find out what the research and science had to say about joint prints specifically. Thanks for the info, I do appreciate it. And, my butt dimples are way too cute to be getting into trouble. LOL Butt, thanks for the advice! Ken C | ||
| Kasey Wertheim |
Ken, The skin on the second joint forms exactly the same way as all other friction ridge skin. "Print guys" don't just say so... latent print examiners base findings on over 2 centuries of medical research, a century of scientific study of the permanence and uniqueness of skin, and trillions and trillions of searches having never found two areas of friction ridge skin to be the same. There is also published scientific literature addressing the permanence and uniqueness of non-friction ridge skin. Many types of non-friction ridge skin impressions contain a sufficient quality and quantity of detail to be individualized, and have been. One lip print identification was upheld by an appeals court as being scientifically valid and reliable. Ear print identification has been accepted by the courts in several countries, including the Netherlands, where the world's most prominent expert on this topic resides. I have personally had the opportunity to individualize several non friction ridge skin impressions, but not in casework. If you are interested in this topic, the most current (October, 2003) issue of the Journal of Forensic Identification has an excellent article on the homeostasis of skin. Also read William Montagna's "Structure and Function of Skin" third edition. If you want pictures, order the "Atlas of Normal Human Skin"; there are several excellent full color images in that book demonstrating the uniqueness of all skin. In closing, to answer your question in a word, "yes". We should allow convictions on any impression that contains a sufficient quality and quantity of unique detail to permit a qualified expert latent print analyst to render a positive identification. You had better keep your butt dimples out of trouble. | ||
| Ken C |
Does any one have any research or data that proves uniqueness of a second joint print...unique in the way tips and palms are able to be used in criminal cases? I can find none. Or, is it just because a print guy says so? In that case should we allow convictions on nose pore prints, ear prints, butt dimple prints, forehead wrinkle prints etc etc? | ||
| Michele Triplett |
Gerald, I just wanted to add that the ridge unit idea was a hypothesis developed by Albert Hale. Some people have stated that there is no evidence to support this hypothesis and the current accepted hypothesis is that the primary ridge is first seen as a ridge, not as units fusing together. They may actually start out as units but if this is true, it happens before it can be seen with modern scientific equipment. Kasey Wertheim and Alice Maceo wrote a wonderful article about friction ridge formation for the JFI and I believe it covers this issue. If you know of any articles which give supporting data for the ridge unit hypothesis I'd love to read them. Michele | ||
| Gerald Clough |
I will go a bit farther with the reason. Friction ridge skin forms in utero as ridge units, each bearing one sweat pore, tend to align. The lines tend to form according to ridges and furrow in a deeper skin layer. The process is the same for all primate friction ridge skin, including feet. The overall pattern type that forms in one area (whorl, arch, etc.) is a function of the prominence of a temporary swelling in that area, and that effect is common to all persons. But the places in which the ridges fail to line up perfectly and continuously are accidental. It is those diversions from perfection that are unique. Since the process is the same for all friction surfaces, they can all be used for identification. | ||
| Steve |
All friction ridge detail on the hands (and feet, for that matter) is unique and can be used for individualization. | ||
| Merri |
Is a print from any part of the finger between the palm and the second joint as unique as a fingertip or palm print? In other words, is the whole finger unique or just the fingertips? |
