CCCrrriiimmmeee RRReeeddduuuccctttiiiooonnn vvviiiaaa ttthhheee SSShhhaaarrriiinnnggg ooofff

FFFiiinnngggeeerrrmmmaaarrrkkk VVViiisssuuuaaallliiisssaaatttiiiooonnn BBBeeesssttt PPPrrraaaccctttiiiccceee

Dr Helen Bandey MRSC

2014

A report for the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust

2

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust for giving me a unique opportunity to

travel and broaden my knowledge in the field of fingermark visualisation and its integration with

other forensic disciplines. I am also extremely appreciative to my employers, the Home Office Centre

for Applied Science and Technology (CAST), for supporting my application and giving me the time to

complete the travelling fellowship.

These travels would not have been possible without the full support and overwhelming generosity of

my hosts. In particular I am indebted to Robert Ramotowski (United States Secret Service), Dr Della

Wilkinson (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), and Alex Beaudoin (Sûreté du Québec) for their time

and flexibility both before and during my visit, and for arranging a full and rounded schedule for the

time that I spent within their organisation. I am also very appreciative of all of the staff within these

organisations who gave up their time to talk to me about their fields of expertise and show me their

facilities.

3

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................2

Table of Contents...................................................................................................................................3

An Introduction to Fingermark Visualisation........................................................................................4

My Fellowship........................................................................................................................................6

Aims...........................................................................................................................................6

Itinerary.....................................................................................................................................6

Presentations.............................................................................................................................7

Travels within the USA...........................................................................................................................7

Stage 1: Minneapolis, Minnesota..............................................................................................7

Stage 2: Washington DC ............................................................................................................8

Travels within Canada..........................................................................................................................11

Stage 3: Ottawa (and Toronto)................................................................................................12

Stage 4: Montréal (and Québec City).......................................................................................19

Summary of Main Recommendations and Implementation Plan......................................................22

Conclusions...........................................................................................................................................23

4

An Introduction to Fingermark Visualisation

Fingerprints have been used for over 100 years as a form of personal identification. Even today, their

use in criminal investigations is important, and fingerprints continue to produce more identifications

than any other form of forensic evidence, including DNA. In order to utilise fingerprints for criminal

investigations they must first be ‘visualised’ as they are normally invisible to the naked eye. Once

visible the fingermark (or ‘mark’) is imaged and compared to suspect fingerprints or other crime

scene marks, thus linking crimes to suspects (or vice versa) or linking scenes.

Unfortunately there is not one single process that will visualise all marks as their constituents are

varied and complex, and normally unknown, and the surfaces on which they are found are diverse.

For example, marks may consist of a range of organic or inorganic chemicals excreted through the

various sweat glands on the body, or they may contain contaminants picked up on the hands

through contact with other materials, e.g. food or toiletries. This concoction of chemicals on the

fingers can be transferred to any surfaces touched, and these surfaces can have different physical

properties such as porosity, texture, cleanliness, colour etc. Because of this variability in both the

properties of the mark and surface, many branches of science are utilised to visualise marks

normally via chemical reactions, physical adhesions, or interactions with electromagnetic radiation.

The Home Office has a long history in providing comprehensive advice on all aspects of fingermark

visualisation, from strategic decision making to the practical implementation of processes, whether

at crime scenes, or on items removed to a laboratory. This has typically been via the ‘Manual of

Fingerprint Development Techniques’ (MoFDT) which was first published in 1986. The Manual was

adopted by every UK police force and by many overseas law enforcement agencies. It was typically

updated every 3-4 years including the publication of the 2nd edition in 1998, although the approach,

style and design have not changed over this time period. The final update was in 2010.

In the UK fingerprint evidence has traditionally been exploited by scientific support departments

within the police service, whilst other forensic disciplines (e.g. DNA, bloodstain pattern analysis,

trace etc.) have been exploited either in-part or wholly by outside forensic service providers.

Typically, a scientific support department has: (1) a crime scene unit, for recovering marks at crime

scenes; (2) a fingerprint laboratory, for enhancing marks on items that can be removed from the

scene, or applying more complex processes to the scene, and; (3) a fingerprint bureau, where

comparisons are made. In recent years there have been many changes to this structure. Some police

forensic departments have merged with neighbouring forces in efforts to save money whilst

continuing to provide a high level of forensic service provision. These larger departments are also

growing their capability in forensic disciplines in addition to fingerprints. Other major changes

include the introduction of the internationally recognised quality standards (ISO 17025) for forensic

science, and the closure of the Forensic Science Service and subsequent opening up of the forensic

market.

In order to keep fingerprint guidance relevant and up-to-date, the Fingermark Visualisation Manual

(FVM) was published by the Home Office in 2014 and replaced the MoFDT which had been the main

source of guidance for the past 28 years. The FVM was produced to provide comprehensive

information for practitioners involved in the recovery of evidential fingermarks in the UK, and was

written for today’s requirements, in particular the requirement of the ISO 17025 standard. The

5

change in name reflects the vastly different approach and there is more emphasis on competence

and integrated forensics, in addition to containing a vast amount of detail on the processes

themselves. I was lucky enough to be given the opportunity to be a lead author and Editor-in-Chief

for this publication and it has been a big part of my life for the duration of its production (about 3

years) and subsequent implementation across the UK.

I’m very proud of the FVM, but as

with all publications, it only

documents what is known at the

time of publication. Fingermark

visualisation processes continue to

evolve, enabling end users to find

more marks on more surfaces,

leading to more identification,

detections and ultimately more

crimes solved. In addition to this,

substrates can change as materials

and requirements change. A

recent example of this is the

increase in the amount of recycled

material of some papers and

plastic bags. A future example is the change from paper to plastic monetary notes which will happen

from 2015. Do we know how to recover fingermarks from such items? The FVM also contains a

chapter that was not covered in MoFDT, and relates to an integrated approach to forensic science.

This chapter barely scratches the surface, but highlights the need for a better understanding of the

requirements of each forensic discipline so that evidence most relevant to the investigation can be

maximised. In my opinion, this is an area that could be expanded in the future, either as part of the

FVM, or more likely as part of a suite of forensic best practice manuals. It is clear that the FVM must

be kept up-to-date, and there are some clear gaps in knowledge either around specific fingermark

visualisation processes or more strategic areas including integrated forensics. In addition, there may

be better, faster, cheaper ways of doing what is already done – something the Home Office is very

keen on, in particular doing more processes directly at the scene. My fellowship is based around

these thoughts, and by seeing firsthand how international organisations tackle some of these issues

will be invaluable in evolving the FVM into a greater publication, to the benefit of the UK.

Front cover of the Fingermark Visualisation Manual

6

My Fellowship

Aims

The overriding aim of my Winston Churchill Fellowship was:

1. To bring good practice in forensic evidence recovery back from North America to the UK so

that policing can benefit from improved methods. The focus was on fingerprint recovery and

its interactions with other forensic methods.

This broad aim has three underlying objectives:

1. To gain knowledge on the rationale behind using fingermark recovery methods at scenes

versus recovering items to a laboratory. This is most pertinent for the visits within Canada

where geographic size may mean it is not feasible to send items to a laboratory.

2. To learn how organisations have implemented specific processes that are likely to be

relevant to UK policing in the near future. In particular I investigated the use of ‘Oil Red O’

and ‘Physical Developer’.

3. To learn how organisations maximise evidence recovery when multiple evidence types are

required so that UK guidance can be built upon.

Itinerary

My fellowship lasted for five weeks and involved travelling to four main locations in USA and Canada

(in bold) with several opportunistic trips added en-route (in italics). My itinerary was as follows:

10th – 15th August International Association of Identification (IAI) Educational

Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

18th – 22nd August US Secret Service (USSS), Washington DC, USA

22nd August Consolidated Forensic Services (CFS), Washington DC, USA

25th August – 5th September Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

28th August Toronto Police Service, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

29th August Linde Canada Ltd, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

8th – 12th September Sûreté du Québec (SQ), Montreal, Québec, Canada

11th September Sûreté du Québec (SQ), Québec City, Québec, Canada

7

Presentations

I prepared three presentations prior to my departure and delivered all to the USSS, RCMP and SQ:

1. ‘The Police Service in the UK and Forensic Service Provision’

This presentation was a good ‘ice-breaker’ and gave an honest appraisal about how policing in the

UK is set-up and how forensic services are provided. It also gave the audience an appreciation of why

I was interested in finding out about how their forensic services function.

2. ‘An Overview of the Fingermark Visualisation Manual’

In addition to prepared slides, I gave a live demonstration of the interactive Manual. This was an

opportunity to showcase the Manual, field questions and get direct feedback from those who have

already been using it.

3. ‘Fingerprint Research Projects at CAST’

This was an opportunity to discuss current or recent research projects that my organisation have

been involved in and get feedback.

In total, I delivered ten presentations during the five weeks of my travels.

Travels within the USA

Stage 1: Minneapolis, Minnesota

I started my fellowship by attending the 99th International Association of Identification (IAI)

Educational Conference. The IAI is the oldest and largest forensic association in the world. Its

annual conference focuses on educating those working in the field of forensic identification,

investigation, and scientific examination of

physical evidence.

This part of my trip was part-funded by the

Home Office and part-funded by the fellowship.

This enabled me to stretch my fellowship funds

to cover additional visits later on in my journey,

and also enabled me to promote the Fingermark

Visualisation Manual (FVM) to the

predominantly North American audience.

By starting my travels at the conference I had

the opportunity to make contact with a large

number of people from industry, academia and

government organisations, from researchers to

practitioners. Most of the contacts were made Lesley Hammer, President of IAI 2014, and myself at the Fingermark Visualisation Manual stand in the exhibition hall

8

through attending presentations (primarily on fingerprints, integrated forensics or footwear mark

recovery) and delivering my own presentation about the FVM, and spending two days on the Home

Office/TSO stand in the exhibition hall show-casing the FVM. It was also a good opportunity to catch

up with some of the people who would be hosting me later in my travels. It was within the vast

exhibition hall that I first came across Calvin Knaggs from Linde Canada Ltd and his AdroitTM FM300

fingermark development system, a product that caught my attention enough to warrant a detour

later on in my schedule.

Stage 2: Washington DC

I flew from Minneapolis to Washington DC where I spent four days with my host, Robert

Ramotowski, Chief Forensic Chemist within the Forensic Services Division of the US Secret Service.

Forensic Services utilised by the Secret Service include the full range of questioned document tools,

including fingerprints. They have long been recognized as one of the foremost questioned document

laboratories in the world and are home to the world's largest ink library.

The primary reasons for visiting this organisation were threefold:

Firstly, I wanted to see first-hand exactly how Robert uses Physical Developer (see case study

on pages 8-9);

Secondly, I wanted to understand more about how evidence is retrieved from documents

from an integrated forensics perspective;

And finally, as with all visits to other facilities, I wanted to absorb as much as I could about

general working practices within the fingerprints laboratory.

During the time at USSS, I was given a good overview of how questioned documents are processed

end-to-end, with in-depth focus on fingerprints. We spent a couple of hands-on days in the

fingerprint laboratory, learning about the processes utilised in the lab, and going through in detail

Robert’s methodology for Physical Developer, and also Indandione. Both of these processes will

need modifying in the next couple of years in the FVM, so learning as much as possible from an

organisation that predominantly processes porous items is invaluable. In addition, we treated papers

brought over from the UK to see if there were any unusual reactions caused by the different

manufacturing processes used in each country. It was also interesting to see how ISO 17025, the

quality standard that is being applied to forensic laboratories, has been implemented within the

fingerprints area.

As part of the visit I had a tour of the questioned documents section and got to see some of the

many tools used within this field to assist with handwriting analysis, revealing indented writing, ink

identification, and security feature viewing, to name a few. Most impressive was the ink analysis

laboratory which houses their ink library – one of only two places worldwide to have such a

collection. From an integrated forensic perspective, the ink analysis would be done prior to

fingerprints as many of the fingerprint processes would be detrimental to ink analysis.

9

CASE STUDY: Physical Developer

What is it?

Physical Developer is a fingermark visualisation

process that detects marks on porous

substrates. It is a chemical process that involves

exposing the item or surface to three solutions

in sequence. It works by preferentially

depositing silver metal onto fingermark ridges

resulting in grey/silver-coloured fingermarks. It

is believed to detect the presence of sebaceous

trapped eccrine constituents which assist

deposition of silver during development of the

fingermark.

It was first used in the UK in 1976 and was

included in the first edition of the Manual of

Fingerprint Development Techniques in 1986.

Pros

It is still the single most effective process for the detection of fingermarks on wetted or

previously wetted porous substrates, e.g. items recovered from waterways or left outside in the

rain.

It can be used in sequence with other more effective processes on dry porous substrates and will

find additional marks that would not have been found otherwise. Thus it is an essential process

for serious crimes where full sequential processing is essential for maximising mark recovery.

Cons

It is not used as widely as it could be, or used to be, in UK fingerprint laboratories due to the

time it takes to set-up, the observation required during processing, and its ability to ‘go wrong’,

i.e. it is a labour intensive process relative to other porous process, such as Ninhydrin or DFO.

The USSS Approach

The USSS use Physical Developer on an almost daily basis. Their formulation is more stable than the

formulation described in the FVM, and, by default, this stability eliminates many of the problems

associated with the process. Their solutions are prepared in bulk and stored (for up to two months)

until required, thus saving a considerable amount of preparation time.

The success of this process is partly down to the instability of the solutions – the silver ions don’t

want to be in solution and so will deposit on fingermark residue with relative ease. By making the

solutions more stable, it may be that fewer fingermarks are detected, although research at USSS

does not back up this statement and they are happy with the sensitivity of the process.

continued...

Scanning electron micrograph of silver particles deposited on a fingerprint ridge on a fibrous paper substrate

10

CASE STUDY: Physical Developer continued

Potential Impact to the UK

Police Force Fingerprint Laboratories would be able to pre-prepare and store bulk solutions

ready for use as and when needed. This would reduce significantly the time taken to do Physical

Developer as currently it is recommended that solutions are made up fresh. This time saving

would mean police force laboratories are more likely to use Physical Developer as a more

routine process.

Solution stability means that the process is more consistent and is less likely to ‘go wrong’. This

would result in an increase in user confident with the process.

Both points would result in practitioners who are more likely to use Physical Developer, which would

then lead to an increase in the fingermark recovery rate from porous surfaces.

Recommendation

That more stable Physical Developer formulations are considered for use within UK Fingerprint

Enhancement Laboratories, subject to appropriate validation studies under UK conditions.

Whilst in Washington DC, Robert kindly arranged for me to visit the Consolidated Forensic

Laboratory. This facility opened two

years ago and houses all forensic

services for the District of Columbia,

although some areas are still to be

fully functional. The DC area covers

sixty-five square miles and has thirty-

nine law enforcement agencies, so

the benefits of a consolidated service

are self-explanatory. The building

itself has been given the highest

rating for energy and environmental

design. I was given a tour by Dr Max

Houck, Director, and was able to see

some of the CFL capabilities such as

DNA laboratories, material/trace laboratories, gun store, and the vast vehicle bay. I also spent time

with Jeffrey Cover who gave me a good overview of their current fingerprint practices and issues

they face. As in the UK, they are considering best ways to maximise both fingerprint and DNA of

items such as firearms. By having all forensic disciplines under one roof, they are ideally set-up to

understand the needs of each other’s disciplines in order to maximise evidence recovery most

appropriate to the investigation.

The new Consolidated Forensic Laboratory, Washington DC

11

Travels within Canada

Before going into detail about the specific visits within Canada, it is worth pointing out the

geographical differences between the UK and Canada as this has a significant bearing on how

forensic services are implemented in the two countries. See table below:

UK Canada

Population 63 million 35 million

Geographic area 224,000 km2 9,980,000 km2

[Ontario: 918,000 km2] [Quebéc: 1,542,000 km2]

Population density 258 people per km2 3 people per km2 Table showing the differences between the UK and Canada in terms of population, geographic area and population density

Canada has approximately forty times the land mass of the UK, and just greater than half the UK

population. The two provinces visited, Ontario and Québec, have approximately four and six times

the UK land mass respectively. I found this staggering and when you see the UK superimposed on a

map of Canada, you start to appreciate the logistical difficulties of providing forensic services:

The size difference between Canada and the UK is apparent when one map is superimposed upon the other

The majority of forensic services within Canada are provided by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

(RCMP). RCMP is the Canadian national police service, and provides a total federal policing service to

all Canadians and police services to all provinces except Ontario and Quebéc. Forensic science within

these two provinces is provided locally by the Ontario Provincial Police and the Sûreté du Québec.

12

Stage 3: Ottawa (and Toronto)

I travelled from Washington DC to Ottawa where I would spend the next two weeks of my journey,

with a small detour to Toronto part way through my stay. The majority of the time was spent with

my host Dr Della Wilkinson, Research Scientist within the Integrated Forensic Identification Services

(IFIS) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

IFIS is the national policy centre for RCMP that

supports forensic identification services and is

based in Canada’s capital city, Ottawa. It

employs two researchers and three forensic

identification specialists (police officers

certified in fingerprint comparison) whose

responsibility is to ensure forensic services are

meeting modern technical standards and are

fit-for-purpose for Canada’s needs. In addition

to supporting ‘traditional’ forensic

identification services, the team also provide a

scientific input into specialist areas such as

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and

Explosive response (CBRNE) crime scene

examinations, an area that Della has

significantly contributed towards over the past

few years.

The primary reason for visiting RCMP was:

To understand how fingerprint and forensic service provision is provided by the RCMP across

Canada, with particular emphasis on learning about their approach to integrated forensic

evidence recovery and crime scenes.

For the duration of my stay in Ottawa, Della had kindly organised a schedule of visits to see various

departments and/or speak to specific staff members. The highlights are outlined below.

National Division Forensic Identification Service (FIS): There are more than seventy RCMP FIS

units across Canada, providing a forensic service to all but Ontario and Québec. The National Division

FIS is based in Ottawa, Ontario and focuses its expertise in sensitive, high-risk investigations into

significant threats to Canada’s political, economic and social integrity. They do not deliver ‘normal’

policing forensic services within Ontario as this is provided locally by the Ontario Provincial Police.

I met Sergeant Maryse Laurin, a uniformed forensic identification specialist, and we spent time in

the fingerprint laboratory talking through her job role and comparing it to UK job roles to see the

differences. Most apparent was the broad and diverse nature of an identification specialist job, and

the fact that they are police officers rather than civilian staff as in the UK. A forensic identification

specialist is trained to investigate, perform crime scene examinations, including all photography and

recording of the scene. They are also trained to examine and process physical evidence including

fingerprints, footwear impressions and tyre tracks, determine what evidence is of value, enhance

Dr Della Wilkinson and myself enjoying a day off at Willson Carbide Mill, Gatineau Park, Quebec

13

digital images, prepare evidence charts and present

opinion evidence. In the UK many of these roles are

performed by individual specialists in each field e.g.

forensic laboratory officers (who are expert in

fingermark visualisation), or fingerprint experts (who are

experts at the comparison of fingerprints). Part of the

reason for RCMP’s approach goes back to the

geographical size of Canada. In remote areas the

Forensic Identification Specialist may be the only person

in the area to investigate that crime, so they have to be

able to turn their hand to all tasks. This approach

remarkably means that Canada is able to provide

forensic services to 80% of its landmass, which is

incredible considering the vast amounts of wilderness

across Canada, particularly in the north of the country.

Maryse also informed me that, due to scene constraints,

putting items on a plane and sending them back to a

laboratory was often the preferred way to enhance fingermarks on small, removable items – in this

case the size of Canada did not seem to influence their decisions on what to process where.

Forensic Assessment Centre (FAC): I met Ghislain Cormier a National Operations Specialist to

discuss the role of FAC. FAC assess evidence collected by forensic identification specialists and sent

in by investigators to see if it should be accepted for further forensic testing (such as toxicology,

firearms, biology, trace or handwriting). By the time evidence gets submitted to the forensic

laboratories it would have been treated for fingerprints already by the Forensic Identification

Specialist. There are several reasons why FAC may reject evidence for further treatment. Firstly, they

will not accept items in that have been poorly packaged and this in turn raises packaging standards.

Secondly, they find out what the forensic question is that needs answering and its relevance to an

investigation, e.g. if a positive DNA result doesn’t add any value to the investigation then it will be

rejected. So in summary, FAC will push evidence back to the investigator if they are not content that

they meet their acceptance criteria. This ‘check’ stage ensures that only the most productive of

evidence is submitted for further forensics tests, thus saving time and money. There is a target turn-

around time of forty days to complete all of the required analysis and send the results back to the

investigator.

Fingerprint Bureau: S/Sergeant Mike Leben gave me a comprehensive overview of the history and

current practices within the RCMP fingerprint bureau. Their database contains records for 4.5 million

individuals – this is comparable to the UK’s database when population differences are taken into

account. Mike ran through the statistics relating to the value of the database and some of the

current issues they face, and since my return I’ve put Mike in contact with specialists in the UK to

advise with these issues. From a fingermark visualisation perspective, I was encouraged to see the

level of detail submitted by Forensic Identification Specialists, which included entirety shots

alongside images of the marks themselves, and information about the type of visualisation process

used and the surface on which it was found. This additional information is important in ensuring

mark images are interpreted correctly and thus avoiding possible missed identifications. This level of

A photo of Maryse Laurin, Dr Della Wilkinson and Rolanda Lam taken during a tour of National Division FIS

14

recording and communications is described in the new FVM as it is an area that could be improved in

the UK.

Forensic laboratory: The forensic laboratory contains all of the facilities expected of a modern

forensic laboratory. I was given a tour of the laboratories which include biology, DNA, trace

(including gunshot and explosive residue), drugs and alcohol, firearms and counterfeiting. Evidence

would be submitted to the laboratory after fingermark recovery.

Of particular interest was the difference in the DNA laws between Canada and the UK. In the UK, the

retention period for fingerprints and DNA are the same. Both can be taken from a person upon

arrest, but both must be destroyed at a later date if that person is not convicted (there are some

special situations where there are exceptions to this law). Both can undergo a one-off speculative

search against DNA and fingerprints obtained from crime scenes (i.e. those stored on the National

DNA and Fingerprint Databases) whether convicted or not. In Canada, the laws for the taking and

retention of fingerprints are similar to the UK, but the DNA laws are quite different. A suspect’s DNA

can be taken and compared to a specific crime scene sample only, but it cannot be used to

speculatively search the national database – this can only happen on conviction. The DNA and

fingerprint databases in the UK are both big and of a comparable size. In Canada, the fingerprint

database is significantly larger than the DNA database. With this in mind, it is clear why fingerprint

recovery is typically done prior to DNA by forensic identification specialists, as it is more likely to

lead to crime detection.

I spent an extended period of time with John Marshall from the firearms unit to discuss the impact

of fingermark visualisation on ballistics. For comparison, Canadian gun laws are more closely related

to UK laws rather than US laws. Even though their gun controls are strict, they still get many guns

coming into Canada from across the vast border with the USA. As with everything within the

forensics department, fingerprints have been done before exhibits enter the firearms unit, and this

was not considered a problem as firearms examinations are generally interested in the inside

surfaces, whilst a fingerprint examination is generally interested in the outside surfaces. However, it

is important that rust does not form on the inside of the gun – something that can occur if water-

based fingerprint processes are used. Most countries have had significant cutbacks in forensic

services over the past few years and Canada is no exception. Six firearm units across Canada have

been reduced to three, although this does not seem to affect the level of work they do with

firearms. This is a major advantage of having a national structure as it is easier to set-up regions of

expertise.

IFIS (Research laboratory and current projects): IFIS have their own laboratory for research

purposes and regularly have students working on short term projects as well as running a handful of

larger projects. In order for a new process or piece of equipment to be implemented across RCMP by

this team, there must be clear proven benefits as it is no small task to deliver updated training to all

forensic identification specialists across RCMP. This differs from my role at the Home Office where

even minor improvements are delivered as guidelines and it is up to the local police force to decide

whether or not to implement the changes. An important completed piece of IFIS research is the

assessment of processes for a new and relevant substrate – polymer banknotes. The UK will have

similar notes from 2015 and findings from the RCMP study are already influencing current Home

Office research in this area.

15

‘Rapid DNA’ is an area that the RCMP IFIS unit are currently interested in, as are we in the UK. They

are considering the future impact of being able to analyse DNA samples in fast time i.e. within a few

hours rather than days, and are considering two commercial systems that have this capability. Also

within the DNA area, they are looking at the impact of fingerprint reagents on DNA, but more from

the perspective of whether or not the chemicals impact on DNA extraction.

Other projects include: long term joint studies with other countries looking at the forensic recovery

from chemical/biological incidents; studying the efficiency of identifications (an interesting area

which, if successful, has the potential to streamline checks for straightforward comparisons, whilst

ensuring a more robust method for complex mark comparisons), and; work within the Canadian

Friction Ridge Working Group on guidelines for areas that forensic identification specialists could

testify to.

Canadian Police College (BPA, footwear, and fingerprint training): I’ve always been interested

in how evidence recovery is taught to practitioners, or how a new process is implemented amongst

end users. If done well, a practitioner is more effective at their job, the employer will get more

return for their investment, and more crimes will be solved. I have spent 14 years inputting into UK

fingermark recovery training courses and was very keen to see how specialists are trained within

RCMP. I visited the Canadian Police College (CPC) in Ottawa on a couple of occasions during my visit

and got to see specialists in blood pattern analysis (BPA), footwear and see the training centre itself.

Sergeant Beverley Zaporozan is a member of the Forensic Identification Training team and teaches

BPA to trainees. She gave me an overview of their approach to bloody scenes and used case studies

to demonstrate her points. Only experienced forensic identification specialist can go on to be a BPA

specialist, although a basic 40 hour awareness course is given to all. A BPA specialist would get

additional training, including a one-year understudy. This model seems to work well and has also

been used by Australia and New Zealand.

Sergeant Martin Lelievre is a forensic

identification specialist and teaches footwear

at the CPC. The use of footwear marks for

intelligence purposes is not as common in

Canada as it is in the UK, but instead all

marks go on to a full comparison. Many of

the recovery processes were similar to the

UK, although forensic identification

specialists may image electrostatic lifts or

gelatine lifts at the scene as they are fully

aware of degradation caused through

packaging and transport. There is a good

attitude toward getting the best possible

image of a mark (of any kind) as ultimately it

is the same person that has to make the

identification and go to court i.e. it is directly in their interest. Martin also gave me a tour of the

facilities used to train forensic identification specialists including the laboratories for chemical

The fingerprint training laboratory at the Canadian Police College

16

treatments and light source examination, photographic areas, and the comparison room used for

teaching fingerprint and footwear comparisons.

Police training is done at the RCMP facility in Regina, Saskatchewan. Once qualified, an RCMP officer

may choose to specialise and become a forensic identification specialist where they will receive

training not too far from the sort of training that UK crime scene examiners/laboratory

officers/fingerprint and footwear experts receive. This broad role, along with a geographically

flexible workforce (some employees typically will move around every 2-3 years) ensures that RCMP

can provide a service to remote areas of Canada – having specialists within narrow job roles as we

do in the UK is not considered an option. In order to keep up-to-date, forensic identification

specialists are updated by either email communication, online training and they get formal refresher

courses every two years. In addition, job-shadowing follows formal training which is something the

UK could learn from – a trained person isn’t necessarily a competent one.

CBRNE and Tour of Mobile Laboratory: S/Sergeant Doug Young and Sergeant Diana O’Brien gave

me a very informative tour of RCMP’s mobile laboratory, which is housed inside a large van and

capable of dealing with contaminated exhibits. The laboratory is extremely well designed and fitted

with all of the equipment used by a forensic identification specialist. The van is capable of being

mobilised to any part of Canada should such an event

require it. The van’s primary purpose is to screen items,

although it does have full identification capacity.

Sergeant Diana O'Brien (left) and S/Sergeant Doug Young (right) showcasing the RCMP mobile laboratory

17

As mentioned on page 7, I had made contact with Calvin

Knaggs from Linde Canada Ltd whilst in Minneapolis. He

is the inventor of the Linde AdroitTM FC300 Latent

Fingerprint Development System and has been very

innovative in his approach to mark development by

exploiting vapour-phase reaction/interactions between

chemicals and marks. As it happens, Calvin is based in

Mississauga – a town on the outskirts of Toronto. Toronto is

just a five hour bus journey from Ottawa, and with Della’s

help and support with travel logistics and rearranging my

schedule within the RCMP, I was able to visit Calvin and see

firsthand the equipment that grabbed my attention three

weeks previously.

Whilst at the Linde facility, Calvin gave me an overview and

demonstration of the equipment, including its development

from an idea, to the production of a proof-of-concept system, to the production of the current

prototype system. The following case study summarises the equipment and potential imact to the

UK:

CASE STUDY: LInde AdroitTM FC300 Latent Fingerprint Development System

What is it?

The equipment: It is a commercially available piece of

equipment capable of visualising fingermarks on a

wide range of surfaces, irrespective of the surface

porosity. The equipment consists of a vacuum

chamber in which items are placed. A selected

development tablet (see below) is then sublimed and

the vapours carried into the development chamber

via a carrier gas where mark development occurs.

The tablets: A range of tablets are available that

target different components of fingermarks. The

majority of the tablets are made up of the active

chemicals that are used in either liquid or vapour

phase traditional fingermark visualisation processes

(e.g. cyanoacrylate, Basic Yellow 40, Ninhydrin,

iodine), although there is also a new proprietary dye

tablet.

Continued...

Calvin Knaggs and myself at the Linde Canada Ltd facility in Mississauga

The prototype AdroitTM FC300 Latent Fingerprint Development System

18

CASE STUDY: Linde AdroitTM FC300 Latent Fingerprint Development System continued

Pros

It is simple to use.

All of the chemicals are applied in the gaseous phase.

There is a growing choice of development tablet which target different components of the mark.

These can be evaporated sequentially or even co-evaporated.

Running costs should be cheap as only the tablets will be required.

Cons

There have been no published comparisons made with current fingermark visualisation

processes either by Linde Canada Ltd or by an independent body.

The process is not well understood.

Initial set-up costs are likely to be expensive as the equipment will need to be purchased.

Only one system has been sold, probably due to the lack of any validation studies either by Linde

or other organisations.

Future Possibilities

Calvin Knaggs has produced a system that, I believe, has real potential to change the way

fingermarks on removable items are developed. In my opinion, if the processes prove to be at least

comparable to current methods, then it is not beyond the realms of possibility to have a simple

system that can process most small exhibits that get submitted to a laboratory for treatment. Taking

it one step further, it may even be possible to have generic tablets that target either ‘porous’ or

‘non-porous’ surfaces, thus simplifying the fingermark visualisation process considerably. In this

case, the tablet could be a mixture of chemicals that target main constituents (rather than specific

constituents) within fingermarks.

Potential Impact to the UK:

Cost savings to the police by removing expensive HFE solvent costs (estimated annual savings of

£20,000 per year per police force).

Time savings to the police by removing other more complex and time-consuming processes.

It is less destructive to the item and mark than traditionally chemical processes and therefore

less likely to be less destructive to the recovery of other types of evidence.

Recommendation

I strongly recommend that this technology and the vapour-phase approach to fingermark

visualisation are thoroughly investigated within the UK.

19

Stage 4: Montréal (and Québec City)

For the final leg of my trip I flew from Ottawa, Ontario to Montréal, Québec to spend a week with

Alexandre (Alex) Beaudoin at the Sûreté du Québec (SQ). SQ are the provincial police for Québec,

although they do not provide policing within the local area of Montréal, as this is provided by the

Service de Police de La Ville de Montréal (SPVM) (although laboratory facilities at SQ are shared).

Alex is the scientific and technical advisor within the Forensic Identification Division. The primary

reasons for visiting this organisation were twofold:

Firstly, to expand my knowledge on the use and benefits of Oil Red O;

Secondly, to see how forensic science at SQ is performed compared to a UK police force.

During my time at SQ Alex had kindly arranged a schedule which allowed me to visit various

departments and spend enough time in the laboratory to learn about Oil Red O. He even managed

to fit in a daytrip to the historic city of Québec, the capital of the province of Québec, to visit to a

different SQ fingerprint laboratory. The main findings are outlined below.

Scenes of Crime: I was given a good overview of the role of the crime scene investigator (CSI) by

Sergeant Luc Gagnon. He is responsible for making sure that there is crime scene cover across the SQ

area should it be needed, and that they have the necessary equipment to carry out their job. It was

interesting to talk through their approach to major crime scenes in rural or remote areas, where

crimes of this type are extremely rare. It is difficult for such areas to maintain forensic staff

competent in all aspects of crime scene examination when they may use some of the tools

infrequently (once a year at most). For this reason, SQ will often send an experienced CSI from

Montréal to help the CSI in the remote area. This approach

minimises mistakes made by inexperienced staff. This seems

to be a pragmatic approach and offers a value for money

solution, and the UK could learn from this, especially with the

use of processes such as luminol1. SQ also provide basic

fingerprint kits to police officers as it is not always possible to

get a CSI to the scene due to the vast area that SQ cover

(which leads to prohibitive costs).

In general CSIs do not lift many powdered marks, instead

preferring to photograph marks in-situ. In the UK, the

majority of powdered marks are lifted, partly due to the fact

that aluminium powder is most commonly used, it lifts well,

and due to its highly reflective nature can be difficult to

image on the surface. Many countries prefer to use granular

powders which are easier to image directly. Items recovered from the crime scene can be sent to the

fingerprint laboratory for processing by a permanent laboratory technician – this is similar to the

way that UK scientific support operates. As with RCMP, after basic CSI training, the staff member is

mentored for up a year to build their level of competence.

1 Luminol is a spray reagent commonly used to search for traces of blood at crime scenes. It reacts with the haem constituent of blood to produce a blue chemiluminescence, but can also react with other materials to yield false positives. Its use and interpretation require a high level of competence from the user.

Alex Beaudoin, myself and Sergeant Luc Gagnon in Quebec City

20

Fingerprints: I spent time in the fingerprint

laboratory with Alex learning as much as I

could about Oil Red O - a process that is

currently not used in the UK. However it does

now feature in the Fingermark Visualisation

Manual as a niche application process, albeit

with limited processing instruction. For

further information on this process see the

case study on the next page. The Oil Red O

research is one of several projects that have

been carried out by summer students which

Alex has had access to for the past few years.

This year’s student is looking at the number of

marks developed as a function of time for the

range of processes that they use in their laboratory.

I spent some time with Marie-Eve Gagné, the laboratory technician, and one of the highlights of the

trip was seeing her successfully access and navigate around the Fingermark Visualisation Manual

directly on a computer in their laboratory. I was so proud I had to take a photo and include it in this

report as evidence of a successful implementation!

Forensic Services: Forensic services for SQ are provided by Laboratoire de Science Judiciares et de

Medicine Legal. They are not part of SQ but a government organisation and based within the SQ

headquarters in Montréal. I was given a tour of the many laboratories, including biology,

blood/semen screening, serology, their examination room, research and development and firearms.

Evidence that is fragile (e.g. trace) or prone to contamination (e.g. DNA) is recovered first, but as

with RCMP, I was extremely impressed with the

knowledge that different specialists had with

regards to minimising damage for subsequent

examinations (e.g. fingerprints). The tour of the

firearms unit confirmed everything that I had

previously learned from visiting units within RCMP

and back in the UK, and it is worth noting that I

haven’t yet found anywhere that has success with

recovering DNA or fingermarks from fired

cartridge cases. This is currently an active area of

research in the UK, but I believe studies need to

focus on whether any components of the mark

survive the firing process, before determining the

visualisation process.

Marie-Eve Gagné, laboratory technician, accessing the Fingermark Visualisation Manual within her laboratory

Tour of the Laboratoire de Science Judiciares et de Medicine Legal

21

CASE STUDY: Oil Red O

What is it?

Oil Red O is a fingermark visualisation process that

detects marks on porous substrates. It is a chemical

process that involves the application of a solution to

the item or surface followed by washing with water. It

interacts with the fats and lipids in latent fingermarks

and some greases to give a red/brown-coloured

product.

Pros

It is a cheap, simple and quick process.

Cons

Its effectiveness drops considerably with the age of

the mark.

The SQ Approach

Alex has developed this process and now makes full

use of it within his laboratory. It would be used after

Ninhydrin, but before Physical Developer, as part of a

sequential processing plan for treating porous items.

Recommendations

Oil Red O is not one of the most effective processes for

developing latent marks on porous substrates.

However, it may add value when other processes in the

porous sequence cannot be used. For example, amino

acid reagents are ineffective on wetted papers, and

some papers can degrade or give high levels of

background development with Physical Developer. SQ

is one of the few organisations exploiting Oil Red O and I therefore recommend that:

Further validation studies are conducted to establish whether or not there is value in using Oil

Red O on porous substrates in the UK.

Potential Impact to the UK

Oil Red O could provide a simple option to fingerprint laboratories for treating wetted papers

that are known to be destroyed by Physical Developer, thus giving them a chance of finding

fingermarks on such items.

Alex Beaudoin demonstrating Oil Red O in his laboratory

22

Summary of Main Recommendations and Implementation Plan

Recommendation 1:

That the findings from this trip are shared with relevant members of staff within my organisations.

Recommendation 2 (page 10):

That more stable Physical Developer formulations are considered for use within UK Fingerprint

Enhancement Laboratories, subject to appropriate validation studies under UK conditions.

Recommendation 3 (page 18):

I strongly recommend that this technology [the Linde AdroitTM FC300 Latent Fingerprint Development

System] and the vapour-phase approach to fingermark visualisation are thoroughly investigated

within the UK.

Implementation Plan

Within the Home Office Centre for Applied Science and Technology (CAST) the following staff

members may be interested in the findings of my report:

1. The service manager for the ‘Evaluation and Validation of Fingermark Development Processes’

service. They will be interested in all three recommendations, plus the additional pieces of

informative information too numerous to mention in this report. For that reason, I will also

share my ‘daily diary’ and any other information gained. It is hoped that recommendations two

and three are taken forward within this service in the future.

2. The lead domain specialist for fingerprints. This person is also the chemistry functional home

manager and is responsible for resourcing most forensic science projects within CAST.

3. The forensic capability advisor. They are responsible for overseeing forensic science in CAST.

4. The head of delivery within CAST.

In addition to circulating the report to those listed above, I would like to explore other avenues to

ensure that recommendation three is taken forward. These include:

5. Exploring the possibility of conducting a feasibility studies on the Linde AdroitTM system via the

‘Innovation’ service.

6. Exploring other funding streams such as the Police Innovation Fund.

7. Making introductions between Calvin Knaggs, Linde Canada Ltd and relevant UK organisations

with the aim of improving routes to market.

23

Conclusion

During my five weeks of travelling around the USA and Canada, I have received an overwhelming

amount of information/advice/guidance from a broad range of forensic organisations that have

expanded my views and knowledge on fingermark visualisation and its integration with other

forensic disciplines. For clarity, only key points have been documented within this report, but

beneath these broad descriptions lay a level of detail that will be invaluable for improving forensic

science practices within the UK.

The advancement in vapour-phase fingermark visualisation processes is particularly exciting. The

multi-process vacuum system, invented by Calvin Knaggs from Linde Canada Ltd has huge potential if

it is researched further by applied science organisations in collaboration with end users, so that the

operational benefits can be determined. This wasn’t the only vapour phase process of interest.

Calvin has also done work on alternative Vacuum Metal Deposition processes using aluminium

instead of traditional gold/zinc. Whilst at the IAI conference, I also spoke to a Dutch forensic

company, BVDA, as they have made a one-step fluorescent superglue product. This is another

vapour-phase process that removes the need for applying liquid-based dyes, and is one of three

similar products to make it to market in the last two years. I have since received a sample for

inclusion into comparison studies that are currently taking place within my organisation.

I have gained a wealth of useful information for two specific fingermark visualisation processes

(Physical Developer and Oil Red O) from two scientists (Robert Ramotowski and Alex Beaudoin

respectively). Over the years, both Robert and Alex have conducted extensive research into these

processes and have a depth of understanding greater than most within this field, particularly when it

comes to the practical use of them in an operational environment. The knowledge gained from

seeing how other organisations have implemented such processes, and overcome known problems

with them, will directly feed into the current research programme at my organisation, and ultimately

form part of an update to the Fingermark Visualisation Manual.

In addition to the scientific findings, it was interesting to compare the UK policing and forensic

structure to Canada’s structure. Both systems have evolved to meet the requirements of that

country, but there were ways of working within Canada that may be beneficial to the UK. The time

spent at RCMP gave me a very good insight into the benefits of a coordinated national approach to

policing and forensics across the majority of Canada. An obvious benefit includes the fact that some

forensic services are expensive and benefit from being shared across large areas/populations. In

times of austerity, department closures have meant that some laboratories have been closed, but

there is always somewhere across Canada and within RCMP that can do the work. I was also

extremely impressed by how staff looked outside of their field of expertise and understood that the

needs of the investigation were more important than their own department’s successes. This may be

because all forensic science within a case is typically delivered by one organisation, whereas the UK

may use in-house services and those provided by the private sector or other government

organisations. Or it may be because UK departments are very target driven, and each area has to

prove that it is important and value for money, thus there may be a level of competition between

departments in terms of who gets the credit for the detection. With regards to scene use of

fingermark visualisation processes, I was surprised (considering Canada’s vast landscape) that the

majority of processing is not necessarily done at the scene. Their preference was to take removable

24

items back to the laboratory where they could be dealt with under a controlled and less stressed

environment. The fact that the laboratory may be a plane ride away was not considered a problem.

In terms of using my finding to make an difference within UK forensic science, I have many small

nuggets of useful information (too many to document all in this report), along with bigger

recommendations (as outlined in the case studies), that will feed directly into Home Office work

areas as outline on page 22.

In addition to the forensic aspects of my travels, I’m also keen to continue to promote the WCMT

whenever possible. I will be delivering a lecture to my organisation where I will talk generally about

the trust and give an overview of my travelling fellowship, and try to inspire others to apply for this

unique opportunity.

I have already delivered a general WCMT presentation to scientists at an ‘Industry and Academia

Research meeting’, organised by a colleague at the Home Office. This was also a good opportunity to

inform the lead fingerprint researchers of my thoughts with regards to the Linde Adroit Fingerprint

Development System. A UK (and world leading) forensic equipment company, with a growing

research team, have shown interest in the Adroit system after listening to my thoughts on its

potential as a fast, cheap, effective and multi-functional fingermark visualisation system. It will be

interesting to see how this develops, and the Industry and Academia group, along with the Home

Office, may be able to offer support in terms of process validation or assist with the fundamental

understanding of the science behind it.

So overall I’ve had an incredible experience – a once in a lifetime opportunity to do something

different and worthwhile for both myself and the UK, so I am extremely grateful to the Winston

Churchill Memorial Trust for giving me such an opportunity. I do believe my findings will make a

difference. Some of the differences will be small and generally go unnoticed by those outside of the

field. But the important point is that they will make a difference as these small changes mean that

police forces continue to have tools available to them that are safe, effective, and as cheap as

possible. Without this input, I believe that the ability to find fingermarks on surfaces would slowly

decline as current processes become ineffective or unavailable. I will do all I can to make sure that

the bigger recommendations come to fruition – it is these finding that will have the biggest impact in

terms of improving fingermark recovery rates. Finally, in the not too distant future I would hope to

see at least some of my findings feeding into the Fingermark Visualisation Manual – subject to full

validation of course!