Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

Sci#329
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

2024

Forensic Pattern Evidence

Professor Kimberlee Moran

LABORATORY NOTEBOOK
ASSA JOHN

RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY | Camden, NJ

08102
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

Table of Contents
Fingerprint Powders…………………………………………………………………………..…………1
Scope, Objective, Safety, Materials……………………………………………………………………………………………..2-3
Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………...3-4
Results……………………………………………………………………………………………….4-7
Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………8
Chemical Enhancement of Fingerprints…………………………………………………………………9
Scope, Objective, Safety, Materials……………………………………………………………………………………………9-11
Methodology……………………………………..……………………………………………….11-12
Results…………………………………………..………………………………………………...13-15
Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………….15-16
Fingerprint Comparison………………………………………………………………………………..17
Scope, Objective, Safety, Materials……………………………………………………………………………………………...17
Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………18
Results………..…………………………………………………………………………………...19-20
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………..20
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

Lab 1: Fingerprint Powders

6:32 pm - 8:05 pm on February 06, 2024: Lab room #329

SCOPE
The experiment encompassed the visualization of latent fingerprints using a variety of
powders and brushes, followed by the lifting of the impressions with hinge lifters. We utilized
sweat to load prints onto glass and scrap papers. Additionally, ten-print marks fingerprints were
created for comparison exercises. This facilitated a comprehensive exploration of fingerprint
visualization techniques and comparison methodologies in forensic analysis.
When characterizing the prints, it's important to note that "latent" denotes invisibility, whereas
"patent" signifies visibility.

OBJECTIVE
● The objective of this lab was to use several different types of powders and brushes to develop
and lift impressions from porous and nonporous surfaces to determine the best combination
for a particular surface.

SAFETY
When working with laboratory powders, it's vital to recognize potential hazards. Powders
can become airborne, causing respiratory irritation or skin issues upon contact. They may also
irritate the eyes and pose fire risks. Improper disposal can harm the environment. To mitigate
these risks, use proper protective equipment, handle powders safely, and dispose of them
correctly.
∙ Safety Data Sheet Information for powders used in the experiment
o Black contrast powder
♣ Black powder or dual contrast powder
∙ Hazards: Irritant if exposed to skin, eyes, or respiratory tract
∙ Treatments: Rinse with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes.
For inhalation. Remove to fresh air and give artificial respiration
if needed. Seek medical attention.

o Black contrast magnetic powder

♣ Black or dual contrast magnetic powder
∙ Hazards: Irritant if exposed to skin, eyes, or respiratory tract
∙ Treatments: Rinse with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes.
For inhalation. Remove to fresh air and give artificial respiration
if needed. Seek medical attention.
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENTS

∙ Supplies Provided ∙ Personal Supplies
o Ten-print card o Photo scale
o Pre-inked strip o Scissors
o Glass sheet o Goggles
o Fiberglass brush o Lab gloves
o Camel hair brush o Lab coat
o Feather brush o Camera
o Magnetic powder o Scrap paper
o Magnetic wand
o Dual contrast powder
o Green Fluorescent powder.
o Hinge lifters
o Glass cleaner
o Towel
o Linen tester

METHODOLOGY
∙ For the Ten-Print Fingerprint Record:
o I started by folding the ten-print form along the lines beneath the boxes,
positioning it along the edge of the station to allow ample space for wrist and hand
movement while rolling my inked fingers onto the form. This process was repeated for
both hands.
o Next, I took the pre-inked sheet and carefully peeled it in half to expose the ink.
Using proper technique, I rolled each finger from the far right side of the nail, pressing
the fingertip into the ink and smoothly rolling it over to the left side of the finger,
ensuring complete coverage of the known print with sufficient pressure.
o Beginning with my right hand and then moving to my left, I held the paper
along the station's edge with my palm, ensuring that ink from the previous hand did not
transfer onto the form while keeping the form steady.
o Once each finger was fully coated with ink from the first joint to the underside
of the fingernail and across the entire width of the nail, I rolled each finger from left to
right onto the form, capturing the fingerprint impression.
o These steps were repeated for each finger on both hands, systematically
completing the ten-print fingerprint record.
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

∙ For the Powder Procedure:

o I commenced by thoroughly wiping down the glass sheet with the provided
spray cleaner and towel to ensure its surface was free from any previous markings or
contaminants.
o Subsequently, I "loaded" my right thumb with sweat from my forehead,
ensuring thorough coverage by rolling and rubbing it in.
o Following this, I transferred three prints onto the glass sheet, maintaining
approximately a two-inch separation between each print.
o Next, I selected the fiberglass brush and loaded it with black powder, being
careful not to overload it by lightly tapping it in the lid of the powder. Using gentle
strokes, I brushed the area of the first fingerprint to apply the powder evenly.
o I positioned a white piece of paper behind the glass under the print, along with a
scale, and captured a photograph of the marked area before proceeding to lift the print.
o Using a hinge lifter, I carefully lifted the dusted print, placing the adhesive side
over the print and gently peeling it from the glass. I sealed the hinge slowly to minimize
the formation of bubbles and preserve the integrity of the lift.
o Upon preserving the lift, I took an additional photograph with a scale to
document the process in the lab notebook.
o These steps were then repeated using feather and camel hair brushes on the two
remaining prints with the same powder.
o Finally, I carried out similar steps for latent marks using fluorescent powder on
the glass and magnetic powder on the scrap paper, ensuring a meticulous approach
throughout the entire procedure.

∙ Standards and Controls

o Refer to the Fingerprint Sourcebook, Ch 7.
o All images with a single fingerprint have a standard scale reference.

RESULTS
Figure 1: Ten-Print Inked Photo taken at 6:56pm
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

These inked prints were obtained for a comparison exercise aimed at identifying an unknown
mark from fellow students. In this context, they can be referred to as sample or reference prints.
The prints contain level 1, 2, and 3 details, including information such as ridge count, variations,
and minutiae, which are clearly visible.

Figure 2: Visualization using the dual contrast powder and a combination of brushes
Before visualization Camel hair brush Feather brush Fiberglass brush

Figure 2a: Shows a Figure 2b: Patent print Figure 2c: Patent print Figure 2d: Patent print
latent mark before after brushing with dual after brushing with dual after brushing with dual
powdering, almost contrast before hinge contrast before hinge contrast before hinge
invincible. lifting. lifting. lifting.
Photographed at 7:05pm Photographed at 7:11pm Photographed at 7:12pm Photographed at 7:1pm

In Figure 2 above, certain characteristics of finger marks are visible, albeit imperfectly. Excess
powder application has resulted in unclear marks. It is important to note that these imperfect
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

impressions are typical of those encountered at crime scenes. Finer details become apparent
when the images are enlarged.

Figure 3: Lifted dual contrast fingerprints using a hinge lifter

Camel hair brush Feather brush Fiberglass brush

Figure 3a: Patent print after Figure 3b: Patent print after Figure 3c: Patent print after
hinge lifting. hinge lifting. hinge lifting.
Photographed at 7:16pm Photographed at 7:19pm Photographed at 7:21pm

Figure 3c exhibits more details compared to 3b and 3a. Although challenging to discern, level 1
and 2 details become apparent when Figure 3c is enlarged. Hinge lifters serve to preserve latent
impressions once revealed through dusting, as demonstrated above. However, it's crucial to note
that they do not enhance the prints. In fact, caution must be exercised during the lifting process
to avoid distortions or the creation of false impressions.
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

Figure 4: Visualization using the green fluorescent powder and a combination of brushes
before Camel hair brush Feather brush Fiberglass brush

Figure 4a: Shows a Figure 4b: Patent Figure 4c: Patent Figure 4d: Patent
latent mark before print after brushing print after brushing print after brushing
brushing with with green with green with green
powder. fluorescent powder. fluorescent powder. fluorescent powder.

Photographed at Photographed at Photographed at Photographed at

7:05pm 7:23pm 7:24pm 7:25pm

Figure 4b reveals minimal information. Among the images, Figure 4c stands out as the clearest,
followed by 4d. However, distortion in Figure 4d is noticeable, attributable to overprocessing.
Excessive powder application and unnecessary brushing have led to difficulty in discerning level
1 details, particularly as the core appears distorted.

Figure 5: Visualization using the green fluorescent powder under UV light

Camel hair brush feather brush fiberglass brush

Figure 5a: Patent print after Figure 5b: Patent print after Figure 5c: Patent print after
brushing with green brushing with green brushing with green
fluorescent powder under UV fluorescent powder under UV fluorescent powder under UV
light. light. light.
Photographed at 7:27pm Photographed at 7:28pm Photographed at 7:30pm

Under UV light enhancement, figure 5c (previously 4d) now reveals more detail. Characteristics
such as ridge count, variation, and other minutiae become observable. Further clarity can be
achieved by zooming in on figures 5b and 5c.
Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

Figure 6: Visualization using the magnetic powder and a combination of brushes

Camel hair brush feather brush fiberglass brush

Figure 6a: Shows a Figure 6b: Patent print Figure 6c: Patent print Figure 6d: Patent print
latent mark before after brushing with after brushing with after brushing with
brushing with powder. magnetic powder magnetic powder magnetic powder
before hinge lifting. before hinge lifting. before hinge lifting.
Photographed at
7:31pm Photographed at Photographed at Photographed at
7:32pm 7:33pm 7:34pm

Additional details in these figures become apparent upon zooming in. However, due to the use of
excess powder, optimal results were not achieved. The core remains difficult to discern, making
it challenging to identify level 1 details and consequently determine the pattern accurately.
Figure 7: Lifted magnetic powder fingerprints using a hinge lifter
Camel hair brush Feather brush Fiberglass brush

Figure 7a: Patent print after Figure 7b: Patent print after Figure 7c: Patent print after
hinge lifting. hinge lifting. hinge lifting.

Photographed at 7:36pm Photographed at 7:38pm Photographed at 7:40pm

The observed distortions are a result of hinge lifting from the scrap paper. The presence of white
spots is caused by paper material adhering to the hinge lifter, thereby disrupting the patterns.
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

Figure 8: Magnetic Wand and Powder Handprint, Photo taken at 7:43pm

Figure 8 shows Level 1, 2 and most likely any level 3 details present because of how clear and easy the
magnetic powder produces a clean and clear print.

Conclusion
Based on the results obtained, it can be concluded that the magnetic powder combined
with the magnetic wand proved to be the easiest to use and produced the clearest prints overall.
However, when it comes to lifting prints, the fiberglass brush paired with the dual contrast
powder produced the cleanest and most distinct lifted prints. This finding is significant in the
scientific context of the experiment as it highlights the importance of utilizing different brushes
and powders for the recovery of prints on various surfaces. While magnetic powder is effective
for porous surfaces, its difficulty in lifting prints makes it less suitable for certain scenarios.
Therefore, in cases requiring print recovery from glass surfaces, the fiberglass brush stands out
as the most efficient option based on the results of this experiment.
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

Lab 2: Chemical Enhancement of Fingerprints

6:45 pm - 8:35 pm on February 13, 2024: Lab room #329

SCOPE
The experiment encompassed a thorough exploration of fingerprint enhancement
techniques using blood and sweat as matrices for latent print development. Various substrates
posed unique challenges, including glass, plastics, and packing tape. Ninhydrin and DFO
exhibited versatility in staining amino acids, while super glue fuming facilitated clear print
development on non-porous plastics. Amido black showed affinity for blood proteins across
substrates, and the Small Particle Reagent (SPR) technique proved effective on wet, non-porous
surfaces. These findings contribute to the advancement of forensic science by offering insights
into selecting and applying enhancement techniques for latent print detection and analysis across
diverse substrates.

OBJECTIVE
● The objective was to use various chemical enhancement techniques to develop latent and
patent prints on substrates with different porosity. Sweat simulated latent prints, while blood
served for patent prints. Chemicals like Ninhydrin, DFO, Amido black, Sticky side powder,
super glue fuming, and small particle reagent were tested to assess their effectiveness across
different substrates, providing insights for forensic fingerprint analysis.

SAFETY
∙ Safety Data Sheet Information for powders used in the experiment
o Ninhydrin
♣ Hazards: Extremely flammable, harmful upon contact, and causes
irritation.
♣ Mitigate Risk: Wear personal protective equipment. Keep away from
flames and under the fume hood.
♣ Treatments: Rinse with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. For
inhalation. Remove to fresh air and give artificial respiration if needed.
Seek medical attention.
♣ Disposal method: Waste bin in the fume hood. Then follow all federal
and local regulations for disposal.
o Amido Black
♣ Hazards: Flammable. Irritation and poisonous if ingested.
♣ Mitigate Risk: Wear personal protective equipment. Keep away from
flames and under the fume hood.
♣ Treatments: Rinse with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. For
inhalation. Remove to fresh air and give artificial respiration if needed.
Seek medical attention.
♣ Disposal method: Waste bin in the fume hood. Then follow all federal
and local regulations for disposal.
o Cyanoacrylate
♣ Hazards: Irritant
♣ Mitigate Risk: Wear personal protective equipment.
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

♣ Treatments: Rinse with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. For

inhalation. Remove to fresh air and give artificial respiration if needed.
Seek medical attention if symptoms occur.
♣ Disposal method: Waste bin in the fume hood. Then follow all federal
and local regulations for disposal.
o Small Particle Reagent
♣ Hazards: Irritant if exposed to skin, eyes, or respiratory tract. Treat as
nuisance dust.
♣ Mitigate Risk: Wear personal protective equipment.
♣ Treatments: Rinse with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes. For
inhalation. Remove to fresh air and give artificial respiration if needed.
Seek medical attention if irritation persists.
♣ Disposal method: Waste bin in the fume hood. Then follow all federal
and local regulations for disposal.
∙ Standards and Controls
o Refer to the Fingerprint Sourcebook, Ch 7.
o All images include a standard scale reference.

MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENTS

∙ Supplies Provided ∙ Personal Supplies

o Lancet & Band-aids o Ruler or Photo scale
o Fume hood, glue, boiling o Scissors
water
o Goggles
o Ninhydrin spray
o Lab Gloves
o Steam iron
o Lab Coat
o Small particle reagent
o Camera
o Glass substrate
o Scrap paper
o Sticky-side powder
o Packing tape
o Super glue fuming chamber
o Black plastic
o Linen tester
o Amido Black methanol
solution
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

o Fixing & Wash solutions

o Tweezer/Forceps

METHODOLOGY
o For the sample preparation phase:
▪ I began by cutting out five pieces of paper and one piece of black trash bag,
carefully labeling each according to their print type and intended chemical
enhancement, while the trash bag was marked with my name.
▪ Prior to any chemical treatment, I ensured to photograph the prints for
documentation.
▪ Latent prints were acquired from the forehead blood for patent prints from the
right thumb finger.
▪ Patent prints were acquired by poking my right middle finger and rubbing the
blood with my right thumb.
▪ The prints were placed accordingly, with latent prints positioned at about 6:40
pm and patent prints at about 6:50 pm, distributed across various substrates
including scrap paper, black trash bag, glass, and packing tape.
o Moving on to the super-glue fuming process:
▪ A small fuming chamber was set up in the fume hood. The latent print on the
trash bag was then introduced into the chamber alongside a beaker of boiling
water and a glue packet to initiate the fuming process at 6:52 pm. Once
developed, the prints were photographed.
o Ninhydrin
▪ Next, I took two scrap pieces of paper, one latent and another patent, and wet
them with ninhydrin in the fume hood.
▪ Then I brought the print over to the steam iron on the bench and placed the
print in between a layer of folded paper towels and hovered the iron in a
circular motion until the prints were clearly visible.
▪ The same procedure was repeated for DFO spray. However, a dry (no steam)
iron was used.
o The Amido Black technique followed:
▪ Beginning with dipping the prints in a fixing solution of pure methanol for
three seconds.
▪ Followed by immersion in the Amido Black working solution for at least five
seconds.
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

▪ The prints were then rinsed twice before being left to dry in the fume hood
and subsequently photographed.
o For the Sticky-side powder method: the adhesive side of the packing tape with latent
prints was treated with a liquid mixture using a brush, followed by a twenty-second
wait before rinsing with water, and final documentation through photography.
o Lastly, the Small Particle Reagent technique involved spraying a white solution just
above the latent prints on glass substrates, allowing the solution to run down and
reveal the prints. This process was repeated until prints became visible, after which
they were photographed against a black background for analysis.

RESULTS
i) Super glue fuming
Before glue fuming After glue fuming

Figure 1: Latent mark on a piece of trash bag Figure 2: Patent mark on a piece of trash bag
Photographed at: 6:40pm Photographed at: 8:30pm

The patent mark in Figure 2 is best observed in a dark environment free from light reflections.
Alternatively, angling a light source to highlight the mark from one side can enhance visibility.
Level 1 and 2 details, including the delta, core, ridge count, and variations, are among the
characteristics that can be observed.
ii) Ninhydrin (patent)
Before ninhydrin spray After ninhydryn spray and steaming
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

Figure 3: Patent blood mark photographed at Figure 4: Patent blood mark photographed at
6:52pm 7:19pm (replace)

In Figure 3, the print is already visible; however, after enhancement in Figure 4, the print
becomes darkened and more easily readable.
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

iii) Ninhydrin (latent)

Before ninhydrin spray After ninhydryn spray and steaming

Figure 5: Latent mark photographed at 6:50pm Figure 6: Patent blood mark photographed at
7:21pm

Figure 5 shows an invisible mark before ninhydrin spray. Level 2 details are visible in figure 6
after ninhydrin spray and steaming.
iv) DFO (patent)
Before DFO spray After DFO spray Under green light

Figure 7: Patent blood mark Figure 8: DFO sprayed and Figure 9: Patent blood mark
photographed at 6:52pm dried patent blood mark photographed at 7:02pm
photographed at 6:57pm

In Figure 7, the print is already visible; however, after enhancement in Figure 8, it becomes
darker and more easily readable. Figure 9 appears even clearer after further enhancement with
UV light. Unlike Figures 7 and 8, level 3 details are easily readable in Figure 9. This allows for
clearer visibility of pores and finer details.
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

v) DFO (latent)
before after under green light

Figure 10: latent print Figure 11: Patent mark Figure 12: Patent mark
photographed at 6:50pm enhanced by DFO spray and a photographed at 7:08pm
dry iron photographed at
7:07pm

Some details become more pronounced when green light is used as seen in figures 9 & 12.

vi) Amido Black

before after

Figure 13: Patent blood mark photographed at Figure 14: Patent blood mark photographed at
6:52pm 7:53pm

Figures 4, 8, & 14 show how blood reacts with different chemicals. The same results are
expected to be seen in the case file because these are standard chemicals.
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

vii) Sticky side powder

Figure 15

Patent blood mark photographed at 8:02pm

viii) Small particle reagent

 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

Figure 16

Patent blood mark photographed at 8:12pm

In figures 6, 11, 15, &16, noticeable distortions in the prints are evident. These
distortions manifest as bubbles and smudges, indicating potential issues or challenges
encountered during the fingerprint development process. The presence of bubbles suggests
uneven application or excess powder, which can obscure the clarity of the print and affect its
integrity. Additionally, smudges may indicate accidental contact or improper handling, further
compromising the quality of the print.
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

Conclusion
Reflecting on the results, DFO chemical enhancement on patent prints under UV or green
light arguably yielded the highest level of detail. While alternative enhancements may have
resulted in prints appearing too light, smudged, or distorted, DFO provided clear and detailed
prints. Amido black comes very close when choosing an alternative for enhancing patent prints.
However, DFO is not the best option for latent prints. Ninhydrin does better with latent prints as
is evident. This observation underscores the critical importance of selecting the appropriate
chemicals for specific print types, emphasizing the scientific precision required in forensic
analysis. Moreover, the data highlights the necessity of considering substrate properties when
choosing enhancement techniques, as certain methods may be more effective on particular
surfaces than others. Moving forward, practitioners must carefully assess all factors, including
print type, substrate, and chemical compatibility, before attempting to lift or enhance a print to
ensure accurate and reliable results in forensic investigations.
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

Lab 3: Comparison of Fingerprints

7:45 pm-8:45 pm on February 20, 2024: Done at home

SCOPE
In our comparison analysis, we categorized and organized our comparisons into groups to
identify common sources. This categorization was structured into two levels of detail: Level 1
and Level 2. At Level 1 detail, our focus was on identifying the overall pattern of the print,
known as the class characteristic. This classification involved categorizing prints into one of
three primary patterns: arch, loop, or whorl. Whorls were further subdivided into plain, central
pocket, double loop, or accidental configurations, allowing for more refined classification and
comparison. Moving to Level 2 detail, our analysis delved into the individual line details within
the prints. These line details included ridge endings, bifurcations, lakes, islands, dots, spurs, and
bridges, providing a granular level of analysis to distinguish between prints and identify unique
characteristics within each print. By systematically analyzing both the overall pattern and the
individual line details of the prints, we were able to accurately classify and compare prints,
thereby identifying common sources and facilitating the forensic examination process.

OBJECTIVE
● The objective is to compare an unknown patent print with known prints using Level 1 and
Level 2 detail identification techniques. The comparison aims for a reliable source
identification with at least 10 minutiae. This exercise enhances proficiency in forensic
fingerprint analysis for investigative purposes.
SAFETY
Given that the experiment was conducted virtually, there are no identifiable physical
hazards typically associated with laboratory work. However, it's important to acknowledge the
potential risk of eye strain resulting from prolonged screen exposure during the minutiae
identification and comparison process. To mitigate this risk and ensure accuracy in the analysis,
it is recommended to take regular breaks to rest the eyes and prevent fatigue. By incorporating
breaks into the workflow, participants can minimize the likelihood of errors and maintain
concentration throughout the experiment. Additionally, adopting proper ergonomic practices,
such as adjusting screen brightness and seating position, can further alleviate eye strain and
promote overall comfort during extended periods of screen use.
Standards and Controls
o Refer to the Fingerprint Sourcebook
o Refer to SWGFAST document #4: Guideline for the Articulation of the
Decision-Making Process for the Individualization in Friction Ridge Examination
o Refer to SWGFAST document #10: Standards for Examining Friction Ridge
Impressions and Resulting Conclusions (Latent/Tenprint)
o Refer to SWGFAST document #8: Standard for the Documentation of Analysis,
Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V) (Latent)

MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENTS

∙ Supplies Provided o Scanned Ten-print cards available on Google Drive o Dusted,
lifted marked prints, available on Google Drive (above)
∙ Personal Supplies
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

o Computer
o Phone camera editor
o Snipping Tool (on computer)

METHODOLOGY
● In the elimination phase of the comparison process:
o The first step involved determining whether the unknown thumbprint belonged to the
left or right thumb, with all unknowns being produced from right thumbprints. This
included inverting and flipping the image, as it was lifted by a hinge lifter. I rotated
the image using my gallery app and canvas to flip it.
o Subsequently, the ten-print forms of each of the eight possible suspects were
inspected, noting the pattern types of the known suspects.
o Upon examining the question mark, the pattern type was recorded, and obvious non-
same source prints were eliminated from the suspect pool based on Level 1 detail,
particularly focusing on similar pattern types.
o After this initial elimination, three suspects remained, prompting further elimination
based on the general pattern, direction, and shape of the whorl pattern.

● Moving on to the comparison phase:

o The remaining suspect and questioned marks were enlarged to ensure clear visibility
of Level 2 detail (minutiae), achieved by manually marking the prints.
o I used numbers and colors to differentiate both minutiae details and clarity
respectively. A key on the far right of figure 3 comparison table on page 20 has more
detail.
o Once at least 10 minutiae and level 3 detail (creases) were compared between the
unknown mark and the remaining suspect, I took photos and cropped them using my
gallery app.
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

RESULTS
Figure 1: Unknown Print

This unknown print is labeled as #7 from one of

the students for comparison

The unknown print above is a loop from a right thumb

Figure 2: Prints taken from suspects that classify as a loop (Time: 7:51pm)
Suspect#1 Alysa DO Suspect#2 Taniya Robin Suspect#3 Sierra Hickey

Figure 2a Figure 2b Figure 2c

All the prints in figure 2 come from a right thumb

Once the suspect prints were categorized into the class characteristic of loops, a closer
examination was conducted specifically focusing on the ridge endings and dots. Among the
suspects, Taniya Robin's print exhibited the closest resemblance in this aspect, prompting further
consideration for Level 2 comparison. Level 3 details also show that Taniya’s print is the most
consistent. If Taniya Robin's print had failed to reveal additional similarities or agreeing minutiae
during this comparison, the examination would have proceeded to the next suspected print for
 Forensic Pattern Evidence| Assa John

further analysis. This iterative approach ensures thorough scrutiny of all potential matches while
maintaining a systematic and rigorous methodology in forensic fingerprint analysis.

Figure 3: Comparison Table

Customized Unknown Print Known Print: Taniya Robin Minutiae key

This comparison technique is borrowed from the powerpoint presentations bonus information at
the canvas right under the assignment.
Conclusion
The collected data indicates that the questioned print bears the closest resemblance in
minutiae comparison to the right thumb print of Taniya Robin. Both prints share the same class
characteristic of a plain whorl and exhibit at least 10 minutiae in agreement. Based on this
comparison, it can be confidently concluded that the identified prints originate from the same
source. Furthermore, reflecting on the scientific process involved in this field, it becomes evident
that while there is potential for error, such errors can be mitigated through a meticulous
breakdown into different levels of detail. This systematic approach enables comparers to
efficiently identify matches between prints, reducing the need for extensive individual one-to-
one comparisons and enhancing the reliability of forensic fingerprint analysis.