I am very interested in forensics and who knows that one day I will become an expert. I have a curiosity: fingerprints are taken at the fingers, but not at the tip, just under the nail until the fingertip begins. For example, if a person picks up a sheet of paper with the tip of two fingers using only the tip part, will they be fingerprinted? And will they be comparable and usable? it's a curiosity, shouldn't fingerprints of the fingertips also be taken during the identification phase?
Thanks so much for the informative video! I'm wondering why you would alter your original marks on the latent after viewing the exemplar - that seems like it could cause some issues if anyone were to question the comparison. Thanks again!
One of the main concepts in fingerprint comparison is connective ambiguity. Since the ridges on the skin are complex 3-dimensional shapes, they don't always reproduce exactly the same way when the transfer is made onto a 2-dimensional surface. Ridges aren't always the same height and the furrows aren't always the same depth. So sometimes a feature looks like a bifurcation, and sometimes it looks like an ending. Sometimes it may look like it connects to the left ridge, and sometimes to the right. The important thing isn't which kind of feature it is, but that a ridge event happens here. After seeing a second recording of a print, sometimes you can mark the minutiae in a more accurate way then when just seeing the first impression. In order to make sure that you're not just making stuff up and people start to question your comparison, it is best practice to save your original markup of the latent print as well as the final side-by-side.
So I'm saving both versions of the latent print. The analysis version gets saved so that I can demonstrate what I saw when I was only looking at the latent print. However, once I add in the exemplar print (and find similarities), now I'm demonstrating the similarities. This side-by-side markup should have the points in the correct position. Sometimes, my initial markup when only viewing the latent print has the point off by half a ridge or so. Now that I have two copies of the print, I can make a better judgement about where the point should go. Also, I can compare my original latent markup to my side-by-side markup. If they are only minor changes to some of the points by a half a ridge or so, then that's normal and acceptable. But if I can see that I significantly moved almost all of the points by large distances, then that's a flag that something is probably wrong.
Thank you as a CSI student who is just now learning about fingerprinting I appreciate your video.
HOW CAN I CONTACT YOU TO SEEK GUIDANCE FOR COMPARISON OF FINGER PRINTS
HOW CAN I CONTACT YOU TO SEEK GUIDANCE TO COMPARE FINGER PRINTS
PLZ REPLY AT YOUR EARLIEST
I am very interested in forensics and who knows that one day I will become an expert. I have a curiosity: fingerprints are taken at the fingers, but not at the tip, just under the nail until the fingertip begins. For example, if a person picks up a sheet of paper with the tip of two fingers using only the tip part, will they be fingerprinted? And will they be comparable and usable? it's a curiosity, shouldn't fingerprints of the fingertips also be taken during the identification phase?
Thanks so much for the informative video! I'm wondering why you would alter your original marks on the latent after viewing the exemplar - that seems like it could cause some issues if anyone were to question the comparison. Thanks again!
One of the main concepts in fingerprint comparison is connective ambiguity. Since the ridges on the skin are complex 3-dimensional shapes, they don't always reproduce exactly the same way when the transfer is made onto a 2-dimensional surface. Ridges aren't always the same height and the furrows aren't always the same depth. So sometimes a feature looks like a bifurcation, and sometimes it looks like an ending. Sometimes it may look like it connects to the left ridge, and sometimes to the right. The important thing isn't which kind of feature it is, but that a ridge event happens here. After seeing a second recording of a print, sometimes you can mark the minutiae in a more accurate way then when just seeing the first impression.
In order to make sure that you're not just making stuff up and people start to question your comparison, it is best practice to save your original markup of the latent print as well as the final side-by-side.
So I'm saving both versions of the latent print. The analysis version gets saved so that I can demonstrate what I saw when I was only looking at the latent print. However, once I add in the exemplar print (and find similarities), now I'm demonstrating the similarities. This side-by-side markup should have the points in the correct position. Sometimes, my initial markup when only viewing the latent print has the point off by half a ridge or so. Now that I have two copies of the print, I can make a better judgement about where the point should go.
Also, I can compare my original latent markup to my side-by-side markup. If they are only minor changes to some of the points by a half a ridge or so, then that's normal and acceptable. But if I can see that I significantly moved almost all of the points by large distances, then that's a flag that something is probably wrong.
It is a challenge to examine these prints.
19.41