WEBVTT - FORENSICS: The DVD Murder 0:00:02.590 --> 0:00:04.300 A listener production. 0:00:09.100 --> 0:00:13.750 Welcome to Crime Insider's forensics. For those joining us for 0:00:13.750 --> 0:00:17.830 the first time. My name's Catherine Fox. I'm a former GP, 0:00:18.040 --> 0:00:23.410 crime author and screenwriter. I'm enthralled by forensics and have 0:00:23.410 --> 0:00:27.730 spent thousands of hours researching for books and screenplays. So 0:00:27.760 --> 0:00:32.350 I thought, why not turn my research into a podcast? 0:00:32.920 --> 0:00:36.820 Every week you'll be joining me in discovering how forensic 0:00:36.820 --> 0:00:40.750 science is helping solve high profile crimes in Australia and 0:00:40.750 --> 0:00:45.729 around the world. This week, the fingerprint science behind one 0:00:45.729 --> 0:00:49.120 of the world's most contentious homicide investigations. 0:00:51.460 --> 0:00:54.040 It was just that one fingerprint and how it was 0:00:54.040 --> 0:00:57.640 used in this particular case that created enough doubt in 0:00:57.640 --> 0:01:00.340 the jury's mind that the only outcome that they could 0:01:00.340 --> 0:01:02.590 proceed with was an acquittal. 0:01:03.490 --> 0:01:07.120 Doctor Scott Chadwick is an expert in finger mark detection 0:01:07.120 --> 0:01:11.529 at the UTS centre for Forensic Science. His research focuses 0:01:11.530 --> 0:01:15.580 on pushing the boundaries of fingerprint analysis, from improving conventional 0:01:15.580 --> 0:01:20.320 fingerprint detection methods to producing prints on challenging surfaces. 0:01:20.350 --> 0:01:24.340 We're actually able to recover fingerprints from documents for up 0:01:24.340 --> 0:01:25.539 to 70 years. 0:01:26.650 --> 0:01:31.660 Our conversation begins with the officially closed but unsolved Engelbart's 0:01:31.660 --> 0:01:36.790 murder investigation. It's a story where a single fingerprint affected 0:01:36.790 --> 0:01:41.470 the outcome and determined whether the suspected killer was acquitted 0:01:41.470 --> 0:01:51.120 or convicted. Ingle Lotz was a 22 year old master's student. 0:01:51.120 --> 0:01:55.200 She was studying mathematics in University town of Stellenbosch in 0:01:55.200 --> 0:02:01.280 South Africa. She was found in her very secure apartment block, 0:02:01.280 --> 0:02:04.880 sitting on her lounge cross-legged with a magazine in front 0:02:04.880 --> 0:02:08.690 of her in a very relaxed position. But the tragedy 0:02:08.690 --> 0:02:12.020 of this is that she was bludgeoned and stabbed multiple 0:02:12.020 --> 0:02:17.660 times in what seems like a very violent, very targeted attack. 0:02:17.990 --> 0:02:23.900 And police automatically looked, as they usually do, to the 0:02:23.900 --> 0:02:27.650 people who were closest to her. And as it transpires, 0:02:27.650 --> 0:02:33.350 her boyfriend, Fred VanDerveer, had a fight with her that morning. 0:02:33.560 --> 0:02:36.650 She'd written a note to him and told someone she'd 0:02:36.650 --> 0:02:39.770 met at lunch that their relationship was over, so police 0:02:39.770 --> 0:02:44.900 automatically targeted him as the most likely suspect. But can 0:02:44.900 --> 0:02:48.109 you please talk about why that was not the wisest 0:02:48.110 --> 0:02:50.419 move for the police to make at the time? 0:02:51.470 --> 0:02:56.270 Yeah. So a key part of this particular case was 0:02:56.270 --> 0:03:00.350 that they recovered a fingerprint on a DVD case. So 0:03:00.350 --> 0:03:03.260 the events leading up to her murder in the morning, 0:03:03.260 --> 0:03:05.570 she went to university. And as you said, she had 0:03:05.570 --> 0:03:08.810 her lunch with a friend. And then on her way home, 0:03:08.810 --> 0:03:12.500 she went to a video store and picked up a 0:03:12.500 --> 0:03:17.419 DVD to watch that evening. And when she came home 0:03:17.419 --> 0:03:22.010 where she was living, it was a secure compound. There 0:03:22.010 --> 0:03:25.400 wasn't any signs of forced entry. You needed a. 0:03:25.400 --> 0:03:28.310 Remote control to enter and exit the compound. Yes. 0:03:28.790 --> 0:03:32.299 It wasn't CCTV cameras at that particular time. It was 0:03:32.570 --> 0:03:37.880 in the early 2000. But whoever committed the crime, it's 0:03:37.880 --> 0:03:39.890 believed that Inga knew that person. 0:03:39.890 --> 0:03:42.320 So they had access to this community? 0:03:42.320 --> 0:03:45.710 Yes. Or Inga recognized that person and then let them 0:03:45.710 --> 0:03:47.180 into her house. 0:03:47.270 --> 0:03:50.390 We should probably say, too, that she was wearing pajamas, 0:03:50.750 --> 0:03:54.740 and she was apparently a devoted Christian and very modest, 0:03:54.740 --> 0:03:59.180 and her boyfriend was even more conservative and didn't approve 0:03:59.180 --> 0:04:02.600 of her wearing, um, thin straps. And unless he was 0:04:02.600 --> 0:04:05.660 with her. So to be in a position where she 0:04:05.660 --> 0:04:11.210 was wearing very casual pajamas. Given the context that she 0:04:11.210 --> 0:04:14.600 and her partner also allegedly had no physical contact because 0:04:14.600 --> 0:04:17.870 he believed that any physical contact could lead to sexual 0:04:17.870 --> 0:04:22.880 activity in a relationship, she therefore, in that context, it 0:04:22.880 --> 0:04:25.970 wasn't just like anybody sitting there in their pajamas. For her, 0:04:25.970 --> 0:04:30.290 this was an intimate situation. So I think that's easier 0:04:30.290 --> 0:04:34.070 to assume that someone who was in her apartment was 0:04:34.070 --> 0:04:36.229 let in. And to be in that casual position, sitting, 0:04:36.230 --> 0:04:40.580 reading a magazine. She obviously didn't suspect anything. 0:04:40.940 --> 0:04:45.020 Yeah, absolutely. She was obviously very comfortable in the person 0:04:45.020 --> 0:04:48.710 that she invited in. If you're in your pajamas, you're 0:04:48.710 --> 0:04:51.890 in a state of relative undress, but you would be 0:04:51.890 --> 0:04:54.620 comfortable with the person. Otherwise you put a jacket on 0:04:54.620 --> 0:04:58.520 or you'd want to cover yourself and the other side 0:04:58.520 --> 0:05:02.539 to interpret it is that perhaps she wasn't expecting a 0:05:02.540 --> 0:05:05.750 visitor that evening, in that she was in her pajamas 0:05:05.750 --> 0:05:07.729 to watch a movie at home and then go to 0:05:07.730 --> 0:05:10.550 bed and not expecting someone to come over. 0:05:11.650 --> 0:05:14.680 From what I've read at the scene, there were seven 0:05:14.680 --> 0:05:20.380 police plodding through the crime scene, and they weren't necessarily experienced, 0:05:20.380 --> 0:05:24.580 but obviously they had to try and find evidence, and 0:05:24.580 --> 0:05:27.070 fingerprints were one of the first things they started with. 0:05:27.400 --> 0:05:30.339 So can you talk about the fingerprints that were taken, 0:05:30.339 --> 0:05:33.250 how they were identified and where they were taken from? 0:05:33.870 --> 0:05:37.049 The fingerprints that were taken, or a key fingerprint that 0:05:37.050 --> 0:05:40.710 was recovered from the crime scene, according to police, was 0:05:40.710 --> 0:05:45.179 that there was a fingerprint that was linked to Fred, 0:05:45.450 --> 0:05:49.230 her then boyfriend found on the DVD case. So it's 0:05:49.230 --> 0:05:52.350 important when we think about this type of evidence, is 0:05:52.350 --> 0:05:57.480 that we can't specifically date when a fingerprint is deposited. 0:05:57.930 --> 0:06:00.599 We don't have that technology to be able to do that. 0:06:00.600 --> 0:06:04.710 So sometimes we need to use additional information around the 0:06:04.710 --> 0:06:09.210 context of the case to help us recreate events or 0:06:09.210 --> 0:06:13.320 understand what happened during the events of a crime. And so, 0:06:13.320 --> 0:06:18.060 because he had been there earlier that day, recovering a 0:06:18.060 --> 0:06:21.659 fingerprint at the house could be explained away, is that 0:06:21.660 --> 0:06:26.070 it was deposited before the crime. Uh, it was just 0:06:26.070 --> 0:06:29.220 their usual, you know, activities that they were doing together. 0:06:29.250 --> 0:06:31.560 You expect to find them on the bathroom door or 0:06:31.650 --> 0:06:32.910 a sink, maybe? 0:06:32.910 --> 0:06:35.580 Yeah. Just. I mean, we touch a whole bunch of 0:06:35.580 --> 0:06:39.029 things when we enter rooms. If we see that tables, 0:06:39.180 --> 0:06:42.360 we do it completely unconsciously. So the key part here 0:06:42.360 --> 0:06:46.140 was that because she had gone to the video store 0:06:46.140 --> 0:06:50.550 that afternoon and rented that specific DVD, recovering a fingerprint 0:06:50.550 --> 0:06:54.719 that matched Fred on the DVD case, put him in 0:06:54.720 --> 0:06:59.969 that apartment in that afternoon, and it was indicating that 0:06:59.970 --> 0:07:05.549 he was there after the initial fight and disagreement in 0:07:05.550 --> 0:07:09.150 the morning, and then also her day at university at lunchtime. 0:07:09.150 --> 0:07:11.970 And he'd been denying being in the house since then. 0:07:11.970 --> 0:07:14.970 Yes, absolutely. So it was, uh, was putting him in 0:07:14.970 --> 0:07:18.600 her apartment that afternoon and it went against what his 0:07:18.690 --> 0:07:19.620 story was. 0:07:19.920 --> 0:07:24.239 So when the fingerprint is go in, what is their 0:07:24.240 --> 0:07:27.540 process to take fingerprints and what do they target. 0:07:27.900 --> 0:07:30.600 With any sort of examination? The first thing that we 0:07:30.600 --> 0:07:33.870 would always do is do an optical examination. So we 0:07:33.870 --> 0:07:38.580 will do a light search. So using very basic colored torches, 0:07:38.580 --> 0:07:41.280 the crime scene investigators will do a search. Now the 0:07:41.280 --> 0:07:44.040 areas that they're going to focus on usually are around 0:07:44.040 --> 0:07:47.760 points of entry or places where it's likely that there's 0:07:47.760 --> 0:07:51.570 been contact with someone's hand. So door frames not so 0:07:51.570 --> 0:07:55.740 much door handles just because they tend to be curved 0:07:55.740 --> 0:07:59.940 and really tightly curved surfaces are hard for us to 0:07:59.940 --> 0:08:00.360 image and. 0:08:00.360 --> 0:08:01.860 Recover even though they're metal. 0:08:01.860 --> 0:08:04.590 Yeah, even though they're metal. Whereas if you open a door, 0:08:04.590 --> 0:08:06.960 you'll often push the handle down and then use your 0:08:06.960 --> 0:08:09.630 other hand to to push the door open. So usually 0:08:09.630 --> 0:08:14.580 around shoulder height is where they'll they'll focus specifically around 0:08:14.580 --> 0:08:18.150 window frames, particularly at the base of the frame. If 0:08:18.150 --> 0:08:21.240 somebody is climbing through a window, they'll put their hands 0:08:21.240 --> 0:08:24.270 on the frame and then lift themselves up to get 0:08:24.270 --> 0:08:28.140 inside or to exit. And it's usually just those places 0:08:28.140 --> 0:08:32.370 where it's suspected of high touch. But then where the 0:08:32.370 --> 0:08:38.309 likelihood of recovering a usable fingerprint is going to be high. And. 0:08:39.050 --> 0:08:43.370 Focusing also on items of interest when they do their 0:08:43.370 --> 0:08:46.370 initial examination. There is if we go and try to 0:08:46.550 --> 0:08:51.290 develop everything, we're going to create a big mess, but 0:08:51.290 --> 0:08:55.040 we're also going to create, if there are fingerprints that 0:08:55.040 --> 0:08:58.910 we recover, is it going to be useful? So there 0:08:58.910 --> 0:09:02.179 is a bit of hypothesis formation that the crime scene 0:09:02.179 --> 0:09:06.470 examiners will do, and asking questions of where looking at 0:09:06.470 --> 0:09:09.500 the scene, looking at the the type of crime that occurred, 0:09:09.500 --> 0:09:13.850 where is the most likely place to recover a usable fingerprint. 0:09:14.580 --> 0:09:18.120 So what are you actually using to recover the fingerprints? 0:09:18.390 --> 0:09:21.750 So at a crime scene, the most common development method 0:09:21.750 --> 0:09:25.980 that we will use is powdering. And powdering is where 0:09:25.980 --> 0:09:28.890 we would use a very fine powder. In a lot 0:09:28.890 --> 0:09:32.340 of cases we have black fingerprint powder, which is a 0:09:32.340 --> 0:09:36.390 form of activated charcoal which is really useful for surfaces 0:09:36.390 --> 0:09:40.770 like metal, like glass, anything that's light in color. 0:09:41.190 --> 0:09:42.240 Because you get a contrast. 0:09:42.240 --> 0:09:44.790 Yeah, you can image it. You have your your white 0:09:44.790 --> 0:09:48.300 light and you can image it with your digital cameras very, 0:09:48.300 --> 0:09:53.760 very easily. If the surface is dark or it's reflective, 0:09:53.760 --> 0:09:57.900 if it's got background, we might use other more specialized powders. Um, 0:09:57.900 --> 0:09:59.670 they might just be a white powder. So one we 0:09:59.670 --> 0:10:04.230 use is titanium dioxide. Or we will use what we 0:10:04.230 --> 0:10:09.089 call fluorescent or luminescent powders. And this is where using 0:10:09.090 --> 0:10:12.900 the colored lights and special filters on the camera, we'll 0:10:12.900 --> 0:10:17.309 be able to remove any interference from the surface to 0:10:17.309 --> 0:10:18.750 enhance the contrast. 0:10:19.170 --> 0:10:22.860 So you remove reflection and other confounding variables. 0:10:22.860 --> 0:10:26.040 Yeah. So if something is very highly patterned or textured, 0:10:26.040 --> 0:10:29.880 if you have a regular black or white powder, the 0:10:29.880 --> 0:10:34.260 background that that finger mark was deposited on can sometimes interfere. 0:10:34.410 --> 0:10:36.360 And the goal here is to try and get the 0:10:36.360 --> 0:10:39.329 highest quality finger mark so that we have the best 0:10:39.330 --> 0:10:43.980 chances of making an identification. And so by using fluorescent 0:10:43.980 --> 0:10:48.120 or luminescent powders, we can reduce the interference from the 0:10:48.120 --> 0:10:53.220 background and then produce a mark of hopefully identifiable quality. 0:10:53.760 --> 0:10:56.730 Do any of those techniques ruin the items? 0:10:57.270 --> 0:10:59.880 The ones that we use at the crime scene can 0:10:59.880 --> 0:11:03.540 be cleaned very easily. There are usually just wiped down 0:11:03.540 --> 0:11:07.680 with some disinfectant and spray and wipe. But if we're 0:11:07.679 --> 0:11:12.210 collecting samples to then analyze at the laboratory. So certain 0:11:12.210 --> 0:11:15.420 types of evidence we can't develop with powders. So we 0:11:15.420 --> 0:11:17.880 would have to collect it and take it to the laboratory. 0:11:17.880 --> 0:11:20.939 And in a lot of the cases for the laboratory 0:11:20.940 --> 0:11:26.130 development methods, they're damaged beyond repair or they're exposed to 0:11:26.130 --> 0:11:30.449 chemicals which are hazardous, that we wouldn't feel comfortable returning 0:11:30.450 --> 0:11:33.900 back to individuals because it may not be safe for 0:11:33.900 --> 0:11:35.130 them to to use them. 0:11:35.460 --> 0:11:38.130 So in this scene, I mean, the first thought I 0:11:38.130 --> 0:11:41.309 had for a DVD case is they're generally generic. This 0:11:41.309 --> 0:11:43.950 was a generic DVD case, so the person at the 0:11:43.950 --> 0:11:46.829 store just grabs the next one that's empty. So it's 0:11:46.830 --> 0:11:49.410 not specific. So you can't then go back. Who who 0:11:49.410 --> 0:11:53.670 borrowed that DVD before you, and how many fingerprints on 0:11:53.670 --> 0:11:56.189 earth would be on a DVD case that had been 0:11:56.190 --> 0:12:00.930 hired out repeatedly, and chances are not wiped down very frequently? 0:12:01.679 --> 0:12:03.660 I just thought it was interesting that they targeted a 0:12:03.660 --> 0:12:06.960 DVD case, and they may not have known necessarily when 0:12:07.320 --> 0:12:09.300 that was rented. 0:12:09.840 --> 0:12:14.970 Yeah, it definitely raised some questions, but it helped the 0:12:14.970 --> 0:12:17.730 story that the police were wanting to. 0:12:18.330 --> 0:12:19.349 Fit it. 0:12:19.350 --> 0:12:23.309 Exactly because it put Fred in that location in that 0:12:23.309 --> 0:12:27.330 afternoon where he didn't have an alibi or his story 0:12:27.330 --> 0:12:30.570 didn't match up. So it was very much a gotcha 0:12:30.570 --> 0:12:34.020 type piece. It was what they would call a smoking gun, 0:12:34.020 --> 0:12:37.500 I guess, because it it put him in that apartment 0:12:37.500 --> 0:12:41.010 that afternoon and it could not be explained. He'd already 0:12:41.010 --> 0:12:43.290 given his story and said he wasn't there, but this 0:12:43.290 --> 0:12:46.710 was seen as well. According to the evidence that we've recovered, 0:12:46.710 --> 0:12:50.220 you were there. You're lying. That implies some level of guilt. 0:12:51.090 --> 0:12:55.770 So you'd like DNA. People assume that that's, um, incontrovertible 0:12:55.770 --> 0:13:00.660 that that that is the absolute gotcha moment. So why 0:13:00.660 --> 0:13:02.910 was that challenged in this case? 0:13:03.540 --> 0:13:07.590 Yeah. So there was a few interesting things with this 0:13:07.590 --> 0:13:11.790 particular fingerprint. So the first one was that the evidence 0:13:11.790 --> 0:13:16.350 that the police submitted, there was no recorded image of 0:13:16.350 --> 0:13:21.360 the fingerprint on the DVD case. So when we would 0:13:21.360 --> 0:13:23.550 go to a crime scene, if we develop a fingerprint 0:13:23.550 --> 0:13:26.849 at the crime scene, we will always take an image 0:13:26.850 --> 0:13:30.300 of that fingerprint, because that is a direct indication that 0:13:30.300 --> 0:13:34.350 we have recovered and developed that fingerprint on that particular surface. 0:13:34.350 --> 0:13:36.390 It's shareable, it's reproducible. 0:13:36.390 --> 0:13:40.380 It's it's trackable. It's it's will have an individual number. 0:13:40.380 --> 0:13:42.750 And we can then add that into any sort of 0:13:42.750 --> 0:13:46.470 crime scene reconstructions that we do. It helps us understand 0:13:46.470 --> 0:13:47.280 what happened. 0:13:47.280 --> 0:13:48.780 And you have a fixed chain of evidence. 0:13:48.780 --> 0:13:51.810 Exactly. We have a chain of custody and the image 0:13:51.809 --> 0:13:56.280 is recorded. It's linked to that particular evidence item. Timed times. Yep. 0:13:56.309 --> 0:14:01.890 Time stamped everything. So it's trackable. Essentially, once we image 0:14:01.890 --> 0:14:05.400 that fingerprint at the scene, what would happen is in 0:14:05.400 --> 0:14:09.510 some cases they might take a lift. So using either 0:14:09.510 --> 0:14:13.920 a gelatin lift or a special type of of tape adhesive, they. 0:14:14.010 --> 0:14:18.090 It will take that powdered finger mark or fingerprint and 0:14:18.090 --> 0:14:20.850 lift it off the surface to then take back to 0:14:20.850 --> 0:14:23.460 the laboratory if they wanted to do any further imaging 0:14:23.460 --> 0:14:27.900 or analysis in case there was, you know, an issue 0:14:27.900 --> 0:14:31.680 at the crime scene with the photography. So in this 0:14:31.680 --> 0:14:35.010 particular case, there was no recorded image of the developed 0:14:35.010 --> 0:14:38.220 fingerprint at the crime scene. There was only an image 0:14:38.220 --> 0:14:44.270 of the tape lift. And that in itself introduced some 0:14:44.270 --> 0:14:47.060 doubt into that piece of evidence. 0:14:47.300 --> 0:14:51.410 Questioning from what? Was that actual fingerprint lifted? Yeah. 0:14:51.410 --> 0:14:53.870 So the police were reporting that it was recovered from 0:14:53.870 --> 0:14:57.080 the DVD case, but without an actual image of that 0:14:57.080 --> 0:14:59.840 develop marked on the DVD case, it could have come 0:14:59.840 --> 0:15:00.770 from anywhere. 0:15:01.400 --> 0:15:05.450 Is there a way of differentiating whether this was taken 0:15:05.450 --> 0:15:10.730 from a DVD case versus another item in the apartment? 0:15:11.240 --> 0:15:15.260 Yeah. So in this particular case, because of that initial doubt, 0:15:15.260 --> 0:15:19.970 Fred's defense team reached out to a range of international 0:15:19.970 --> 0:15:26.090 fingerprint experts because there were some interesting artifacts that couldn't 0:15:26.090 --> 0:15:30.740 be clearly explained by police on the on the lift. 0:15:30.770 --> 0:15:35.570 In those particular cases, the lifted print had a thin 0:15:35.570 --> 0:15:40.400 white line at the top and a smudging that occurred 0:15:40.490 --> 0:15:44.390 on that same line. The other point that was curious, 0:15:44.390 --> 0:15:50.480 but could potentially be explained, was the fingerprint orientation was 0:15:50.480 --> 0:15:55.940 slightly curved, and there were just some questions about how 0:15:55.940 --> 0:15:58.340 this could have happened or how this could have been 0:15:58.340 --> 0:16:01.910 recovered from a DVD case. So the fingerprint experts went 0:16:01.910 --> 0:16:06.170 about and conducted a series of experiments using a range 0:16:06.170 --> 0:16:10.610 of DVD cases, different types of plastics, different types of shapes. 0:16:10.610 --> 0:16:12.620 Which are flat DVD cases. 0:16:12.620 --> 0:16:15.920 Which which are flat, and then try different orientations of 0:16:15.920 --> 0:16:18.800 how they held the DVD case, the positions that they 0:16:18.800 --> 0:16:19.340 held it in. 0:16:19.880 --> 0:16:20.330 Yeah. 0:16:20.390 --> 0:16:23.660 And did an experiment and did a scientific experiment to 0:16:23.660 --> 0:16:27.680 try and reproduce those three factors. The thin white line, 0:16:27.830 --> 0:16:31.460 the smudge that occurred on the white line and the 0:16:31.460 --> 0:16:35.060 curvature of the finger. And throughout all of their experiments, 0:16:35.060 --> 0:16:40.280 they were not able to reproduce those three artifacts in 0:16:40.280 --> 0:16:44.930 a repeatable and consistent manner in any of the circumstances 0:16:44.930 --> 0:16:49.430 that they conducted the experiment. And it wasn't until they 0:16:49.430 --> 0:16:53.090 trialed other types of surfaces that they were able to 0:16:53.090 --> 0:16:57.260 reproduce some of those characteristics, and the one where they 0:16:57.260 --> 0:17:01.460 were able to successfully reproduce those characteristics was by lifting 0:17:01.460 --> 0:17:04.190 a fingerprint off a glass. 0:17:04.760 --> 0:17:06.470 A rounded glass, a. 0:17:06.470 --> 0:17:07.910 Drinking glass, yes. 0:17:07.910 --> 0:17:12.709 So why is a fingerprint on a rounded glass so 0:17:12.710 --> 0:17:13.700 very different? 0:17:14.119 --> 0:17:18.110 Well, it's to do with the characteristics of the surface 0:17:18.109 --> 0:17:21.350 that we deposit the fingerprint on. So as you mentioned earlier, 0:17:21.350 --> 0:17:25.400 a DVD case is a very flat and smooth surface. 0:17:25.400 --> 0:17:28.369 There is the, the edges of the of the case, 0:17:28.369 --> 0:17:31.490 but then the edges are also quite rounded and they're 0:17:31.490 --> 0:17:35.630 not a thin sort of edge. It's more yeah, just 0:17:35.630 --> 0:17:39.139 a bit more of a curved edge. Whereas the drinking 0:17:39.140 --> 0:17:43.010 glasses that we have, well, they're quite curved in their nature. 0:17:43.010 --> 0:17:46.850 And the lip of the glass is also quite thin. 0:17:46.850 --> 0:17:51.020 So the structure of these items are very, very different. 0:17:51.020 --> 0:17:54.740 And how we handle them, how we use them will 0:17:54.740 --> 0:17:57.500 leave different types of impressions when we touch them. 0:17:58.270 --> 0:18:01.480 And from different parts of the fingers as well. 0:18:01.480 --> 0:18:04.510 Yeah, if we think about how we hold certain items. 0:18:04.510 --> 0:18:07.420 So if we're holding a DVD case, we might put 0:18:07.420 --> 0:18:09.670 our thumb on the front and have our four fingers 0:18:09.670 --> 0:18:12.399 at the back and our fingers will be quite straight 0:18:12.400 --> 0:18:15.220 along the straight edge. Whereas if we think about how 0:18:15.220 --> 0:18:17.800 we hold a glass again, we might have that same 0:18:17.800 --> 0:18:20.409 position where our thumb is at the front, but the 0:18:20.410 --> 0:18:23.199 curvature of our fingers as it wraps around the glass 0:18:23.200 --> 0:18:26.680 is going to be different. The parts of our finger 0:18:26.680 --> 0:18:29.050 that are in contact with the glass will also be 0:18:29.050 --> 0:18:32.770 slightly different. Our fingers tend to curve slightly upwards when 0:18:32.770 --> 0:18:37.119 we have curved surfaces, particularly the the index finger compared 0:18:37.119 --> 0:18:42.179 to the other fingers that we have and. If we 0:18:42.180 --> 0:18:46.320 take it off, we'll see more of the towards the palm. 0:18:47.359 --> 0:18:50.030 Because that's what we we don't normally trust for the 0:18:50.030 --> 0:18:54.649 drinking vessel. If it's glass. We normally take the weight 0:18:54.650 --> 0:18:56.960 in our palm. Yeah. Rather than rely on a couple 0:18:56.960 --> 0:18:58.340 of fingers to hold it. 0:18:58.340 --> 0:19:02.149 Yeah, exactly. So when they did this experiment, they lift, 0:19:02.150 --> 0:19:06.619 they powdered the fingerprint off the glass. Uh, they then 0:19:06.619 --> 0:19:09.590 lifted it. And what they found was the thin white 0:19:09.590 --> 0:19:13.400 line at the top was actually the lip of the glass, 0:19:13.550 --> 0:19:16.790 because there would be some powder developing, just sort of 0:19:16.790 --> 0:19:19.160 sticking to the edge. Usually when we drink, there's some 0:19:19.160 --> 0:19:23.810 moisture there. And powder fingerprint powders are adhering to moisture. 0:19:23.810 --> 0:19:27.890 It's not a chemical reaction that's occurring specifically with the fingerprint. 0:19:27.890 --> 0:19:31.550 It's just sticking to the sweat and oils or just 0:19:31.550 --> 0:19:35.480 any moisture that it can get into contact with. So 0:19:35.480 --> 0:19:39.320 there was some thin powder being developed on the lip 0:19:39.320 --> 0:19:42.500 of the glass. And then that that smudge that was 0:19:42.500 --> 0:19:46.100 occurring across the thin white line was actually a lip 0:19:46.100 --> 0:19:50.180 print that had been developed because as you drink a glass, 0:19:50.180 --> 0:19:53.900 you take your lip to the edge and you're leaving behind, 0:19:53.900 --> 0:19:59.150 not as identifiable as a fingerprint, but still able to 0:19:59.150 --> 0:20:00.770 be developed with with powder. 0:20:01.790 --> 0:20:03.859 So if that was found in the apartment and the 0:20:03.859 --> 0:20:06.770 police allegedly took it from a glass, not from the 0:20:06.770 --> 0:20:10.100 DVD case, then that blows a massive hole in their 0:20:10.100 --> 0:20:14.750 prosecutors and story. In terms of glasses in houses, does 0:20:14.750 --> 0:20:18.590 a dishwasher remove every fingerprint? Does rinsing remove fingerprints? What 0:20:18.590 --> 0:20:22.280 is likely to be still there after things have been washed. 0:20:22.280 --> 0:20:26.540 In fingerprint science? There's there's two sort of divisions. There's 0:20:26.660 --> 0:20:31.790 what we call non-porous surfaces. So these are things like metal, glass, uh, 0:20:31.790 --> 0:20:35.540 ceramic tiles where when we touch that surface, the sweats 0:20:35.540 --> 0:20:39.320 and oils from our fingerprints will just sit on the 0:20:39.320 --> 0:20:43.939 surface and it won't seep into that surface, so they're 0:20:43.940 --> 0:20:48.679 not well protected. So if we wash that glass or 0:20:48.680 --> 0:20:51.920 that item, we would not be able to recover a 0:20:51.920 --> 0:20:55.850 fingerprint afterwards because the sweats and oils have been washed 0:20:55.850 --> 0:20:56.869 away completely. 0:20:56.930 --> 0:20:59.030 Unless that person puts it in the draining tray or 0:20:59.030 --> 0:21:00.770 puts it in the cupboard again. So then you've got 0:21:00.770 --> 0:21:01.220 contact again. 0:21:01.220 --> 0:21:04.189 Yeah, since the last contact. And then the other area 0:21:04.190 --> 0:21:08.359 of fingerprints is looking at the other area of surfaces 0:21:08.359 --> 0:21:12.290 is the porous. And this is things like paper and cardboard. 0:21:12.290 --> 0:21:16.580 Now in these particular surfaces the sweats and oils will 0:21:16.580 --> 0:21:20.600 seep into the surface and get trapped in the paper 0:21:20.600 --> 0:21:25.130 or cardboard fibers. And in those instances they're protected. So 0:21:25.130 --> 0:21:30.020 we're actually able to recover fingerprints from documents for up 0:21:30.020 --> 0:21:35.270 to 70 years using specialized chemical detection techniques. So in 0:21:35.270 --> 0:21:38.300 those instances, if you wash it in water, if you 0:21:38.300 --> 0:21:40.490 throw it in a sink and try and wash it 0:21:40.490 --> 0:21:42.950 up and then dry it later, some of the components 0:21:42.950 --> 0:21:46.460 of the fingerprint will be washed away, but some components 0:21:46.460 --> 0:21:50.630 will still remain, and we can choose different development techniques 0:21:50.630 --> 0:21:52.550 to target specific components. 0:21:53.530 --> 0:21:56.889 This was a big, big trial with lots of international 0:21:56.890 --> 0:21:58.810 experts involved, which is unusual. 0:21:58.869 --> 0:21:59.679 Absolutely. 0:22:00.040 --> 0:22:06.190 So what happened when these international experts reproduced and challenged 0:22:06.190 --> 0:22:08.710 whether or not that fingerprint was on the DVD? 0:22:09.100 --> 0:22:13.540 Yeah. So it created enough doubt in the case for 0:22:13.540 --> 0:22:18.200 a mistrial to proceed because. The police were not able 0:22:18.200 --> 0:22:22.460 to produce that image of the fingerprint being recovered or 0:22:22.460 --> 0:22:25.520 the fingerprint being developed on the DVD case. And so 0:22:25.520 --> 0:22:28.219 when the police were asked to provide this piece of 0:22:28.220 --> 0:22:32.959 evidence and they were not able to that particular evidence, 0:22:32.960 --> 0:22:38.179 the fingerprints was stricken from the the proceedings and could 0:22:38.180 --> 0:22:42.290 not be considered in the judgment. And without that timing 0:22:42.290 --> 0:22:45.020 of the fingerprint being on the DVD case in that 0:22:45.020 --> 0:22:49.370 particular afternoon, other elements became a little bit more circumstantial. 0:22:49.369 --> 0:22:52.820 It could be explained away. And so it created enough 0:22:52.820 --> 0:22:55.850 doubt in the minds of the judge and the jury 0:22:55.850 --> 0:22:59.060 that it was not able to move to a conviction. 0:22:59.420 --> 0:23:01.910 We should probably mention what happened to the DVD case. 0:23:01.910 --> 0:23:03.740 Why was that not held in evidence? 0:23:04.580 --> 0:23:09.770 So there's two minds here in that the DVD case 0:23:09.770 --> 0:23:15.440 in question either wasn't initially powdered and there wasn't any 0:23:15.800 --> 0:23:19.939 finger mark recovered on there, or it was powdered and 0:23:19.940 --> 0:23:22.520 followed the particular proceedings, but there was no usable or 0:23:22.520 --> 0:23:27.230 identifiable fingerprints developed. And that couldn't specifically link to Fred because, 0:23:27.230 --> 0:23:30.109 as you've mentioned, if you pick up a DVD from 0:23:30.109 --> 0:23:33.710 a video store, it's very unlikely to have been cleaned earlier. 0:23:33.710 --> 0:23:37.879 So there may be a lot of background fingerprints on there. 0:23:37.880 --> 0:23:40.459 So there may have been evidence that he touched it, 0:23:40.460 --> 0:23:45.350 but it wasn't enough. There wasn't enough identifiable information to 0:23:45.350 --> 0:23:48.410 confirm that it was Fred's. So this was seen as 0:23:48.410 --> 0:23:52.610 a way to assure an outcome by having an identifiable 0:23:52.609 --> 0:23:56.120 fingerprint that they said came from the DVD case, which 0:23:56.119 --> 0:24:00.170 would then corroborate the story that the prosecution were wanting 0:24:00.170 --> 0:24:00.980 to put forward. 0:24:01.130 --> 0:24:04.610 One of the things that I found incomprehensible in this 0:24:04.609 --> 0:24:08.990 case was that apparently the police handed back the DVD 0:24:09.020 --> 0:24:11.810 case to the DVD shop. 0:24:12.950 --> 0:24:18.320 Yeah. We talked earlier about evidence integrity and chain of custody. Yes. 0:24:18.320 --> 0:24:21.470 And that's obviously an example of what not to do. 0:24:21.470 --> 0:24:25.639 And in particular, it's probably because just to speculate that 0:24:25.640 --> 0:24:28.580 they didn't think it was important or it didn't have 0:24:28.580 --> 0:24:30.920 value at that particular point in time. 0:24:30.920 --> 0:24:33.890 Presumably if they had dusted it, they would have had 0:24:33.890 --> 0:24:37.520 to have cleaned it before returning it to the DVD store. Yeah. 0:24:37.520 --> 0:24:42.410 So the whole story really does fall apart, doesn't it? 0:24:42.410 --> 0:24:47.030 In terms of credibility and plausibility on the part of 0:24:47.030 --> 0:24:48.409 the police's behaviour? 0:24:48.410 --> 0:24:52.730 Yeah, absolutely. It really put a spotlight on the police 0:24:52.730 --> 0:24:57.530 conducting that investigation and for good reason, because fingerprints are 0:24:57.530 --> 0:25:00.710 an important piece of evidence in a lot of criminal investigations, 0:25:00.710 --> 0:25:04.640 and they carry a significant amount of weight because they 0:25:04.640 --> 0:25:07.820 can be used to identify an individual when we use 0:25:07.820 --> 0:25:11.030 it appropriately and for the purposes that they are intended. 0:25:11.210 --> 0:25:15.900 They are an incredible, useful tool. But they can be 0:25:15.900 --> 0:25:22.350 manipulated or used inappropriately to achieve a particular outcome that 0:25:22.350 --> 0:25:28.170 benefits a party. And when we use science in that way, 0:25:28.170 --> 0:25:32.100 or use evidence like fingerprints or DNA, it's where we 0:25:32.100 --> 0:25:36.270 get cases like this and it brings the entire forensic 0:25:36.270 --> 0:25:41.250 discipline into disrepute and dis, you know, disregard. So it 0:25:41.250 --> 0:25:44.790 just really highlights the value that forensic science is an 0:25:44.790 --> 0:25:48.900 important tool in criminal investigation, but it always comes down 0:25:48.900 --> 0:25:51.900 to who wields it and what their intentions are. And 0:25:52.020 --> 0:25:55.770 as a forensic scientist, you need to be unbiased in 0:25:55.770 --> 0:25:59.310 what you do. And while in some cases you assist 0:25:59.490 --> 0:26:04.080 police in investigations, you're not there to achieve a particular 0:26:04.080 --> 0:26:08.130 outcome or get a specific conviction. That's not not our role. 0:26:22.800 --> 0:26:24.840 It seems to me it's a lot in some way. 0:26:24.840 --> 0:26:28.080 There are parallels with the OJ Simpson case in that 0:26:28.080 --> 0:26:30.390 part of the evidence found, as I understand it in 0:26:30.390 --> 0:26:35.399 OJ's trial, was that someone had deposited a bit of blood, 0:26:35.400 --> 0:26:39.960 but it actually had the preservative from a blood tube taken, 0:26:40.380 --> 0:26:44.820 and to have done that is beyond my comprehension. But 0:26:44.820 --> 0:26:48.840 it then absolutely tainted all of the evidence, because if 0:26:48.840 --> 0:26:53.520 one bit of evidence was fraudulently placed, what else was 0:26:53.520 --> 0:26:57.510 rigged and and incorrect and inaccurate and what else was 0:26:57.510 --> 0:26:59.940 a fed up? So you can see why a jury 0:26:59.940 --> 0:27:02.280 would suddenly doubt the science. 0:27:02.520 --> 0:27:05.100 Yeah, absolutely. And I think the parallel to the OJ 0:27:05.100 --> 0:27:08.340 Simpson case is is accurate. It's important. And it raises 0:27:08.340 --> 0:27:12.870 another point in that the crime scene is an important 0:27:12.869 --> 0:27:17.570 part of the investigations that we do. And. It's not 0:27:17.570 --> 0:27:21.410 something that we can go back to and retrial or 0:27:21.410 --> 0:27:23.900 re if we make a mistake at the crime scene, 0:27:23.900 --> 0:27:27.409 that mistake carries all the way through the investigation, and 0:27:27.410 --> 0:27:30.530 we will only get one shot to do things appropriately. 0:27:30.530 --> 0:27:33.650 And by, uh, you know, by the standards that we 0:27:33.650 --> 0:27:37.460 have and in the OJ Simpson case as well, there 0:27:37.460 --> 0:27:40.730 was quite a lot of issues around the crime scene 0:27:40.730 --> 0:27:45.080 investigation and how that was investigated. And once you make 0:27:45.080 --> 0:27:48.050 those mistakes, the genie's out of the bottle. You can't 0:27:48.050 --> 0:27:50.960 put it back in. And it's the same in the 0:27:50.960 --> 0:27:56.659 Engelhardt case where. That initial crime scene was questionable in 0:27:56.660 --> 0:28:01.250 that investigation. And while it may be that Fred was 0:28:01.520 --> 0:28:05.149 guilty of that particular crime because they didn't follow the 0:28:05.150 --> 0:28:08.090 right procedures, didn't do as they should have, they wanted 0:28:08.090 --> 0:28:12.020 a particular outcome or a focused decision. They've messed up 0:28:12.020 --> 0:28:15.170 their chance to now go back and give justice. 0:28:15.650 --> 0:28:18.590 He was acquitted. So he can never be tried again. 0:28:18.619 --> 0:28:22.250 Yes, absolutely. And to this day, it's still it's an 0:28:22.250 --> 0:28:24.080 unsolved case. And there's no. 0:28:24.080 --> 0:28:27.590 But it's closed. Yeah, it's a closed case, but it's unsolved. 0:28:27.619 --> 0:28:30.320 I find that really sad for the family. And apparently 0:28:30.320 --> 0:28:35.990 the family did try to sue Fred VanDerveer in civil court, 0:28:36.290 --> 0:28:40.160 but it just became too traumatic for the parents. 0:28:40.940 --> 0:28:44.450 Yeah, it's absolutely heartbreaking that all of the other evidence 0:28:44.450 --> 0:28:47.600 that you've mentioned indicate that it was Fred. There's no 0:28:47.600 --> 0:28:51.200 other suspects in this particular case, but it was just 0:28:51.200 --> 0:28:53.750 that one fingerprint and how it was used in this 0:28:53.750 --> 0:28:58.130 particular case that created enough doubt in the judge and 0:28:58.130 --> 0:29:01.280 jury's mind that the only outcome that they could proceed 0:29:01.280 --> 0:29:04.250 with through the legal system was an acquittal, because of 0:29:04.250 --> 0:29:07.190 the misuse of that particular piece of evidence. 0:29:07.580 --> 0:29:10.850 And the defense's job is really to just raise reasonable doubt, 0:29:11.270 --> 0:29:16.100 but the prosecutor has to prove beyond reasonable doubt. So 0:29:16.100 --> 0:29:19.040 if you muck up any of the forensic science, you've 0:29:19.040 --> 0:29:24.500 left this gaping hole in the entire case, and intelligent 0:29:24.500 --> 0:29:29.330 defense and objective scientists hopefully will be able to raise 0:29:29.330 --> 0:29:32.270 those questions that should have been asked initially. 0:29:32.300 --> 0:29:36.800 Yeah, absolutely. And I think that's the importance of science 0:29:36.800 --> 0:29:41.000 in in the courtroom and being objective, because if we 0:29:41.000 --> 0:29:45.020 flip it in an instance where an individual may have 0:29:45.020 --> 0:29:49.040 been innocent and that particular item is misused and we 0:29:49.040 --> 0:29:52.459 don't cast a reasonable doubt, that item remains, then we 0:29:52.460 --> 0:29:57.170 have instances where people are imprisoned unjustly. Exactly. 0:29:57.200 --> 0:30:00.650 In terms of other ways of getting fingerprints in a 0:30:00.650 --> 0:30:04.490 crime scene like that. Having lots. Could there have been 0:30:04.490 --> 0:30:07.969 any fingerprints on her? On her body, on her throat. 0:30:07.970 --> 0:30:09.800 Neck where she was assaulted? 0:30:10.220 --> 0:30:13.310 Um, so it is possible the challenge for us, from 0:30:13.310 --> 0:30:17.390 a forensic science perspective, is there is no reliable method 0:30:17.390 --> 0:30:21.260 for us to recover fingerprints on the surface of other 0:30:21.260 --> 0:30:25.370 people's skin. And the reason is, is that the components 0:30:25.370 --> 0:30:29.030 that we target, whether it's just general moisture with powdering 0:30:29.030 --> 0:30:32.180 or whether it's the sweats and oils from our skin, 0:30:32.180 --> 0:30:34.700 where they're going to be present on other people's skin 0:30:34.700 --> 0:30:38.719 as well. And so when we try to use those 0:30:38.720 --> 0:30:42.530 same methods and techniques, we we are going to be 0:30:42.530 --> 0:30:46.970 more developing that individual's sweats and oils as opposed to 0:30:46.970 --> 0:30:50.510 the person who might have touched them that have had 0:30:50.510 --> 0:30:53.510 done it. So that's always a challenge for us. And 0:30:53.510 --> 0:30:56.090 that recovering fingerprints from the surface of someone's skin is 0:30:56.090 --> 0:30:58.550 something that we're just not able to do at this 0:30:58.550 --> 0:31:00.050 point in time, reliably. 0:31:00.050 --> 0:31:02.660 Yeah, exactly. And even a fingerprint on blood is more 0:31:02.660 --> 0:31:06.560 likely to be smeared, or certainly not a definite definitive. 0:31:06.890 --> 0:31:10.100 There's my fingerprint. I've put it down and lifted it up. 0:31:10.130 --> 0:31:13.130 Yeah. And even a fingerprint in blood is an example. 0:31:13.160 --> 0:31:15.500 There are different types of ways that that can happen. 0:31:15.500 --> 0:31:18.320 You can have a fingerprint in blood where there's a 0:31:18.320 --> 0:31:21.830 blood puddle on a surface and you put it in there, 0:31:21.830 --> 0:31:24.710 depending on whether it's dry, whether it's still wet, that 0:31:25.010 --> 0:31:28.160 fingerprint might be removed. We can have it where we 0:31:28.160 --> 0:31:30.980 deposit something and we deposit our finger first and then 0:31:30.980 --> 0:31:36.140 blood goes through that. So that's a fingerprint under blood. 0:31:36.290 --> 0:31:41.780 And then there's fingerprints in blood where we touch a surface. 0:31:41.780 --> 0:31:43.910 Get some blood transfer to the surface of our fingers 0:31:43.910 --> 0:31:46.460 and then touch another surface on top. 0:31:46.670 --> 0:31:48.560 That would be the most ideal I think. 0:31:48.560 --> 0:31:48.860 Yeah. 0:31:48.860 --> 0:31:52.310 And because and then they become visible prints for us 0:31:52.310 --> 0:31:54.470 because we would be able to see them with the 0:31:54.470 --> 0:31:58.100 naked eye. We're not we don't need to use methods 0:31:58.100 --> 0:32:01.910 like powdering to see them. If we want to enhance contrast, 0:32:01.910 --> 0:32:06.979 we might use special blood enhancing reagents that will again 0:32:06.980 --> 0:32:11.090 give us a better chance at recovering an identifiable finger mark. 0:32:11.180 --> 0:32:13.430 But we should be able to see them. And again, 0:32:13.430 --> 0:32:16.459 that helps us understand the events that led up to 0:32:16.460 --> 0:32:20.420 the crime, because in that particular instance, somebody has touched blood. 0:32:20.420 --> 0:32:22.430 There has to have been blood there for them to. 0:32:22.430 --> 0:32:23.240 Touch and. 0:32:23.240 --> 0:32:24.740 Identify whose blood that was. 0:32:24.740 --> 0:32:27.260 Yep. And we can do, you know, DNA or blood 0:32:27.260 --> 0:32:30.140 screening to find out whose blood that was. Is it 0:32:30.140 --> 0:32:32.720 the victim? Is it the suspect? And then we can 0:32:32.720 --> 0:32:37.190 use those traces to recreate or understand the events that occurred. 0:32:37.880 --> 0:32:42.140 So what is new in fingerprint analysis? Do you see 0:32:42.140 --> 0:32:44.570 it as something that's stagnant, or is there something that 0:32:44.570 --> 0:32:49.730 is evolving scientifically to improve, being able to detect and 0:32:49.730 --> 0:32:53.510 lift and collect evidence that's of value? 0:32:53.660 --> 0:32:56.870 Um, so while we might think that it's an old 0:32:56.870 --> 0:33:00.320 school technique, it has been around since the early 1900s. 0:33:00.440 --> 0:33:03.469 In fact, in New South Wales in 1904, we were 0:33:03.470 --> 0:33:07.700 one of the first police jurisdictions to use fingerprint identification. 0:33:07.700 --> 0:33:11.150 So it's very well established how a lot of our 0:33:11.150 --> 0:33:14.840 methods have come about is through other fields of science 0:33:14.840 --> 0:33:17.810 or other avenues. So in fact, one of the methods 0:33:17.810 --> 0:33:21.500 that we use. It's called physical developer actually came out 0:33:21.500 --> 0:33:25.670 of photographic development. So when the police were developing their 0:33:25.670 --> 0:33:28.790 crime scene photos in the dark rooms, they were finding 0:33:28.790 --> 0:33:32.270 that if they handled certain pieces of paper that they 0:33:32.270 --> 0:33:35.180 were using to develop the photos, they would also recover 0:33:35.180 --> 0:33:38.480 their fingerprints as well as develop the photo. So a 0:33:38.480 --> 0:33:41.280 lot of our methods have come out of, you know, either. Biology, 0:33:41.280 --> 0:33:46.650 chemistry or other areas. And because we we found that 0:33:46.650 --> 0:33:50.430 they work we we will use them. So fingerprint research 0:33:50.430 --> 0:33:54.240 now it's moved into two main areas. So the first 0:33:54.240 --> 0:33:57.750 area is around identification. So this is where we will 0:33:57.750 --> 0:34:03.500 have trained fingerprint experts trying to understand. How they identify 0:34:03.500 --> 0:34:07.100 an individual, what's their thought processes, as well as the 0:34:07.100 --> 0:34:10.640 algorithms that we use. When we recover a print we 0:34:10.640 --> 0:34:13.489 might upload it to, we would call it an alias. 0:34:13.489 --> 0:34:18.020 So the Australian Fingerprint Identification System, to work on better algorithms, 0:34:18.020 --> 0:34:20.060 to be more confident with. 0:34:20.150 --> 0:34:23.779 How many points of identification, things like how many similarities. 0:34:23.780 --> 0:34:24.140 Yeah. 0:34:24.140 --> 0:34:27.890 Yeah. So and also what are the elements that factor 0:34:27.890 --> 0:34:30.740 into an expert making a decision as to whether it's 0:34:30.739 --> 0:34:35.149 identifiable or not? So you mentioned the number of points 0:34:35.150 --> 0:34:37.820 in a fingerprint. A lot of countries have moved away 0:34:37.820 --> 0:34:40.940 from trying to reach. So in some jurisdictions they will 0:34:40.940 --> 0:34:45.290 say if there are 12 points of identification then that's 0:34:45.290 --> 0:34:48.200 a they're fairly confident that that is a match. But 0:34:48.200 --> 0:34:53.629 now most countries in the world try to contextualize that information. 0:34:53.630 --> 0:34:57.560 Or just because we if you try to get 12, 0:34:57.590 --> 0:35:00.080 you're trying to assure an outcome when that outcome may 0:35:00.080 --> 0:35:04.460 not be. Accurate or appropriate given the evidence that you. 0:35:04.460 --> 0:35:05.359 Have on. 0:35:05.360 --> 0:35:07.430 CSI. We've always seen them superimpose. 0:35:07.820 --> 0:35:10.730 That classic one. Yeah. And then the. 0:35:10.730 --> 0:35:14.510 Green matches up and yeah, it looks great for TV, 0:35:14.870 --> 0:35:19.100 but not necessarily a good outcome for us. So the 0:35:19.100 --> 0:35:22.100 identification side is one side and then the other side 0:35:22.100 --> 0:35:25.910 is around detection. So ultimately the goal when we are 0:35:25.910 --> 0:35:30.259 trying to develop or detect a fingerprint, we are trying 0:35:30.260 --> 0:35:33.830 to get the best possible image or the best possible 0:35:33.830 --> 0:35:37.250 developed mark, because the better the mark that we have developed, 0:35:37.250 --> 0:35:39.890 the more likely that we'll be able to more accurately 0:35:39.890 --> 0:35:45.379 and confidently identify a person based on their fingerprint. And 0:35:45.380 --> 0:35:48.200 so the way that we do that is through new 0:35:48.200 --> 0:35:51.319 techniques or new methods. Um, so this might be using 0:35:51.320 --> 0:35:56.030 new technologies or new types of fluorescent powders, uh, new 0:35:56.030 --> 0:35:59.810 types of chemical detection methods. But then the other side 0:35:59.810 --> 0:36:05.089 is trying to understand and the fingerprint chemistry itself, so 0:36:05.090 --> 0:36:06.560 that when we do want to come up with a 0:36:06.560 --> 0:36:09.710 new method, what are we actually targeting? How does it 0:36:09.710 --> 0:36:14.420 work and how can we inform better practice moving forward 0:36:14.420 --> 0:36:16.670 by understanding what we're trying to detect. 0:36:17.210 --> 0:36:19.700 And then to use that you need to do multiple 0:36:19.700 --> 0:36:24.320 studies have peer review. It's not just a eureka moment. 0:36:25.010 --> 0:36:29.030 No. Exactly. Uh, quite a while ago, forensic science was 0:36:29.030 --> 0:36:33.500 brought into put under the spotlight through two reports from 0:36:33.500 --> 0:36:36.290 the US. So there was the National Academy of Sciences 0:36:36.290 --> 0:36:41.990 report in 2009 and the Pcast report in 2016. And 0:36:41.989 --> 0:36:45.680 in both of those reports, it really highlighted that in 0:36:45.680 --> 0:36:48.799 a number of forensic disciplines, there was a lack of 0:36:48.800 --> 0:36:52.489 scientific underpinning to the work that was going on, and 0:36:52.489 --> 0:36:56.480 that particular types of evidence should not be used in 0:36:56.480 --> 0:37:00.860 a court of law without fundamental studies to underpin the 0:37:00.860 --> 0:37:03.710 decisions or the outcomes that they were making. So an 0:37:03.710 --> 0:37:07.669 area was in bite marks, for instance, so that one, 0:37:07.670 --> 0:37:10.460 as a forensic discipline, has been told to go back 0:37:10.460 --> 0:37:15.050 to the lab and confirm what you've said is gospel 0:37:15.050 --> 0:37:19.279 is is appropriate and with some scientific studies. And so 0:37:19.280 --> 0:37:22.549 fingerprints didn't have the same degree of spotlight on them. 0:37:22.550 --> 0:37:26.270 But it's always important that we are able to stand 0:37:26.270 --> 0:37:29.030 by what we do, how we do it, and why 0:37:29.030 --> 0:37:31.520 we do it. And the way that we do that 0:37:31.520 --> 0:37:35.960 is through scientific research and peer reviewed studies. 0:37:37.070 --> 0:37:40.100 In terms of fingerprints, it's the biggest thing that people 0:37:40.100 --> 0:37:42.140 talk about. No one has the same two fingerprints. And 0:37:42.140 --> 0:37:45.410 I'm always asked by people, but what about identical twins? 0:37:45.710 --> 0:37:48.020 Would you like to finally address that one, please? 0:37:48.020 --> 0:37:48.500 I would. 0:37:48.500 --> 0:37:53.089 Love to. Um, so identical twins, when we talk about fingerprints, 0:37:53.090 --> 0:37:56.630 there are two levels of how we would identify somebody. 0:37:56.810 --> 0:37:59.390 The first is what we would call the general pattern. 0:37:59.390 --> 0:38:01.580 So this is the pattern that we can see on 0:38:01.580 --> 0:38:05.720 the surface of our fingers. And there are three main 0:38:05.719 --> 0:38:09.259 types of these general patterns. There are what we call whorls. 0:38:09.260 --> 0:38:12.680 And these look like little circles with larger circles coming 0:38:12.680 --> 0:38:15.890 from the center. There are loops where we have the 0:38:15.890 --> 0:38:19.009 fingerprint ridges coming from one side of our finger. They 0:38:19.010 --> 0:38:22.130 get close to the center, do a U-turn and come 0:38:22.130 --> 0:38:25.070 out the same side. And then we have arches, and 0:38:25.070 --> 0:38:27.140 this is where the ridges will start. On one side 0:38:27.140 --> 0:38:29.480 of our finger, hit a little bit of a speed 0:38:29.480 --> 0:38:33.110 bump and continue out to the opposite side of the finger. 0:38:33.320 --> 0:38:37.880 Now these general fingerprint patterns are passed down by genetics, 0:38:37.880 --> 0:38:43.010 so identical twins may have the same type of pattern 0:38:43.010 --> 0:38:45.860 on the same fingers as each other. It's the same 0:38:45.860 --> 0:38:48.080 as if your brother and sister. You might also find 0:38:48.080 --> 0:38:49.820 if you look at your your fingers, you might have 0:38:49.820 --> 0:38:51.860 the same. I've got a loop on my thumb, you've 0:38:51.860 --> 0:38:54.350 got a loop on your thumb. And so that's a 0:38:54.350 --> 0:38:58.130 way that we can classify people or group people into 0:38:58.130 --> 0:39:02.480 certain areas and exclude people from investigations. If we recover 0:39:02.480 --> 0:39:05.810 a well at a crime scene and our particular suspect 0:39:05.810 --> 0:39:09.500 only has loops, well, we can exclude them from further 0:39:09.500 --> 0:39:13.850 investigation without going through a full identification process. But what 0:39:13.850 --> 0:39:16.580 we use to identify people is that while that general 0:39:16.580 --> 0:39:21.980 pattern is one of those three categories, there's actually smaller 0:39:21.980 --> 0:39:25.850 minute details that make up this fingerprint pattern. And we 0:39:25.850 --> 0:39:31.730 call it fingerprint minutiae. Now, why these are very individualizing 0:39:31.730 --> 0:39:34.610 or why we can say with some degree of confidence 0:39:34.610 --> 0:39:37.460 that we can identify a person with them, is that 0:39:37.460 --> 0:39:41.629 they're actually form randomly. So at the ninth to 10th 0:39:41.630 --> 0:39:45.620 week of gestation, as our fingers begin to form at 0:39:45.620 --> 0:39:49.010 that point, they're not fingers, they're the shoulder pads. And. 0:39:49.739 --> 0:39:53.310 When I begin to form, we will be moving around 0:39:53.310 --> 0:39:56.340 in the womb and there will be some random interactions 0:39:56.340 --> 0:39:59.009 with the inside of the womb with ourselves. Or if 0:39:59.010 --> 0:40:01.740 you have an identical twin, your twin next to you. 0:40:01.830 --> 0:40:06.540 And it's the random pressures as your fingers are developing 0:40:06.540 --> 0:40:10.830 that create these imperfections on the surface of the volar pads. 0:40:10.830 --> 0:40:12.450 So it's not blood supply. 0:40:12.780 --> 0:40:15.510 Yeah, no, it's to do with how they move around. 0:40:15.510 --> 0:40:19.680 And and it's these random imperfections that create these minutia 0:40:19.770 --> 0:40:23.190 that make people, for want of a better term, unique. 0:40:23.640 --> 0:40:26.009 Even if we cut ourselves or if we, you know, 0:40:26.010 --> 0:40:28.950 fall over and scrape our hands, the fingerprint ridges will 0:40:28.950 --> 0:40:32.010 grow back in their original, original patterns if we want 0:40:32.010 --> 0:40:35.340 to cause permanent damage. We've got to cut several millimeters 0:40:35.340 --> 0:40:36.540 deep into the skin. 0:40:36.540 --> 0:40:39.630 That's incredible. So in terms of gestation, a premature bulb 0:40:40.080 --> 0:40:41.880 may not have fingerprints evident. 0:40:41.880 --> 0:40:43.979 It's very early on. So around that ninth to 10th 0:40:43.980 --> 0:40:46.410 week of gestation is when that's starting to form. Yeah. 0:40:46.410 --> 0:40:49.469 And so the information will be there by about week 12. 0:40:49.469 --> 0:40:51.780 And then it stays that way. And so your fingerprints 0:40:51.780 --> 0:40:54.690 will stay the same from when you are born all 0:40:54.690 --> 0:40:58.050 the way until you pass away. They'll get bigger because 0:40:58.050 --> 0:41:00.420 your fingers will grow over time, but the pattern will 0:41:00.420 --> 0:41:01.469 remain the same. 0:41:01.800 --> 0:41:05.820 So if you have familial patterns, we've heard about familial 0:41:05.820 --> 0:41:10.200 DNA linking people to crime scenes. Is it possible in 0:41:10.200 --> 0:41:13.140 the future that you could actually link familial fingerprints? 0:41:13.350 --> 0:41:16.590 Uh, so that's not necessarily something that you could do. 0:41:16.590 --> 0:41:20.400 So while the genetic information will give you that general pattern, 0:41:20.730 --> 0:41:23.969 as I mentioned, there's only at most eight of these 0:41:23.969 --> 0:41:27.870 general patterns. And so it's not enough information to say 0:41:27.870 --> 0:41:31.050 with confidence that we could identify a particular person or 0:41:31.050 --> 0:41:35.580 even group them into a familial sort of similarities. Yeah, 0:41:35.580 --> 0:41:38.520 there are similarities, but yeah, there just isn't enough information 0:41:38.520 --> 0:41:42.210 at that general level to say with a degree of 0:41:42.210 --> 0:41:46.140 confidence that that person belongs to that family, because you 0:41:46.140 --> 0:41:48.330 can go down the street and there'll be people with 0:41:48.330 --> 0:41:51.330 loops and whorls all on the same fingers that you have, 0:41:51.330 --> 0:41:52.859 and they won't be related to you. 0:41:53.190 --> 0:41:58.380 Does hand sanitizer remove fingerprints of objects? 0:41:58.590 --> 0:42:01.020 Uh, yeah, that's a very interesting question. And in a 0:42:01.020 --> 0:42:03.750 post-Covid world, it was part of our daily life, always 0:42:03.750 --> 0:42:04.620 hand sanitizing. 0:42:04.620 --> 0:42:06.960 And it was it is for some of us. Exactly. 0:42:07.020 --> 0:42:11.340 Uh, it's a question that we had actually before the pandemic. Uh, 0:42:11.340 --> 0:42:15.390 and so we conducted an experiment to see whether different 0:42:15.390 --> 0:42:21.270 types of hand sanitizers would impact the developed fingerprint, because 0:42:21.420 --> 0:42:25.680 what we're targeting is often chemical residues. And depending if 0:42:25.680 --> 0:42:29.430 we have a alcoholic non-alcoholic, the techniques we use can 0:42:29.430 --> 0:42:33.780 be quite sensitive. So introducing something else might dilute or 0:42:33.780 --> 0:42:38.160 potentially damage the fingerprint. So through our work, we took 0:42:38.160 --> 0:42:43.950 some non-alcoholic hand sanitizers and some alcoholic hand sanitizers and 0:42:43.950 --> 0:42:48.420 compared uh, we got them to apply the hand sanitizer 0:42:48.570 --> 0:42:53.040 deposit fingerprints after a certain period of time and then 0:42:53.040 --> 0:42:55.020 develop them with a range of techniques. And what we 0:42:55.020 --> 0:43:00.600 actually found was that hand sanitizer has no negative impact 0:43:00.600 --> 0:43:05.729 on developed fingerprints. And in fact, non-alcoholic hand sanitizers will 0:43:05.730 --> 0:43:09.930 actually improve the development for a number of the techniques 0:43:09.930 --> 0:43:11.940 that we have, and it will actually make it easier 0:43:11.940 --> 0:43:15.390 for us to recover fingerprints on certain surfaces. 0:43:16.730 --> 0:43:18.500 Well. That solved. Yeah. 0:43:19.370 --> 0:43:20.330 Myth. Busted. 0:43:20.420 --> 0:43:24.170 Myth. Busted. Awesome. Thank you, Scott, so much for joining 0:43:24.170 --> 0:43:28.700 us today. This has been so fascinating. And fingerprints, everybody 0:43:28.700 --> 0:43:30.320 seems they know everything about them because I've seen a 0:43:30.320 --> 0:43:33.529 crime show once and they know they go back to 0:43:33.560 --> 0:43:38.270 another century. But I just think applying them and learning 0:43:38.270 --> 0:43:42.680 how you further researching and the science is evolving is fascinating. 0:43:42.680 --> 0:43:44.690 So thank you so much for joining us today. 0:43:44.840 --> 0:43:46.580 My pleasure. It was great to be here. Thank you. 0:43:54.760 --> 0:43:59.230 Crime Insider's Forensics is a listener. Original production. It's hosted 0:43:59.230 --> 0:44:02.530 by me, Catherine Fox, and is produced by Ed Gordon. 0:44:02.980 --> 0:44:05.650 Sound Design and imaging is by Link Kelly.