Water-soaked porous evidence: a comparison of processing methods

Rory K. Simmons, Paul Deacon, Kevin J. Farrugia

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    3 Citations (Scopus)
    248 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    This study compared the U.K. Home Office formulation for physical developer (PD) against Oil Red O (ORO) and a modified formulation of physical developer (MPD) that uses Tween 20 instead of Synperonic-N for enhancing fingermarks. Three different donors deposited fingermarks on porous surfaces (white paper, leaflets, and cardboard), with aging periods varying from 7 to 28 days. None of the techniques that were tested provided enhancement of latent fingermarks on leaflets, whereas poor-quality enhancement was observed on cardboard. In contrast, all techniques were more successful on white paper surfaces. The results obtained on white paper suggested that PD and MPD performed similarly, with PD detecting 82.3% of the deposited fingermarks and MPD detecting 86.5% of the deposited fingermarks. PD yielded a higher percentage (38.5%) of fingermarks with fine ridge detail (i.e., those with grade 2 or above) than MPD (35.4%). ORO, however, yielded poor results, enhancing only 4.5% of latent fingermarks, but showed no ridge detail in any of the enhancements (i.e., only showed grade 1 enhancements.)
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)157-173
    Number of pages17
    JournalJournal of Forensic Identification
    Volume64
    Issue number2
    Publication statusPublished - 2014

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Water-soaked porous evidence: a comparison of processing methods'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this