|Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 09:56 am: ||
You must understand that any small portion of your fingers and palm are identifiable to you. If you were to scar your fingertips all the ridge detail arround that scar will still be the same and identifiable to you.
Look at it this way, if you were to get a scar on your face (say accross your right eye) your family/friends will still be able to recognise you by all your other features. shure you have a scar now but its just you with a scar.
I think Casey means that when people try to mutilate ther fingerprints it makes them stant out as someone who has a bad past and an examiner will look harder at the areas arround the scar to identify him.
|Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 10:45 am: ||
Also wanted to add that part of my research will also cover mutilation for non-criminal activities. An example of this would be sweden refugees who have been cutting and burning their fingers to avoid indentification by EU authorities
It's clear that some will seek mutiliation for criminal reasons, but there are others who seek it with the intentions of starting over, or enter a country due to bad life conditions.
Permanent scarring obviously would rise suspicion even to a refugee, the question which i'm seeking is "can it happen? permanent scarring give someone be it a criminal or a refugee a new start"?
Judging by this news article, it seems some refugees were able to not be detected.
|Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 10:35 am: ||
Im a writer in Brazil and have been searching for weeks now the subject of Mutilation and/or altering fingerprints. We're doing a story how Brazil has been a safehaven for criminal fugitives for the last 50 years. Part of our story covers how some criminals will go to the extent of mutilation to avoid detection.
I've spent lots of hours on this website and basically the information I gathered from here is this:
Scarring DOES change fingerprints to a permanent change, and if a person were to physically or chemically damage skin cell layers of the dermis, then the fingerprint would be permanently scarred and all future cycles of 30-day skin replacement would reflect the new scar formation.
Same as with burning, if the burn is on the friction ridge skin of a finger, and if the burn damages the dermal layer of skin, then it creates a permanent scar that is a part of future impressions.
So this I concluded as a proven FACT: Permanent scarring IS possible.
Where im getting mixed inconclusive information is something CASEY has said: "The effects of scarring actually provide more detail per square unit of measure than normal friction ridge skin provides"
What exactly does that mean? Are you saying that if a fingerprint is fully scarred, this individual's print is now easier to find? (the ORIGINAL)? This question may be hard to understand , so using the following example maybe I can explain better my question.
John Doe has his fingerprints from birth (BIRTH FP). He succesfully alters it by scarring the dermis and how has (ALTERED FP). Does this mean his BITRH FP is now easier to identify because of the scarring? or just his ALTERED FP?
Im sorry for my broken english. Portuguse is my first language. Proper credit will be given to this website. thank you