To determine the specific digit (finger) a print came from, no set minimum amount of the fingerprint is universally required; rather, examiners need a sufficient quantity and quality of unique features, known as minutiae, to make a reliable determination. These fine details or minutiae include ridge endings, bifurcations (where a ridge splits), short ridges, and enclosures. The location and relationship of these points help determine the digit. There are as many as 150 ridge characteristics (points) in the average fingerprint.
However, there is no universally set minimum number to qualify as a match, and it is up to the examiner to make the decision. The term used in forensic science when comparing fingerprints to determine a match is identification, dactyloscopy, or ridgeology. The process involves looking for "points of similarity" or "points of identification" in the unique ridge details, formally known as minutiae. In fingerprint comparison, similarity refers to the level of agreement in features between two impressions, while dissimilarity refers to observable differences. The core process, known as friction ridge identification, involves assessing and comparing these features to determine if the prints originated from the same source.
In other words, for William J. Hamlet to declare a "similarity" in the fingerprints retrieved from the "Little List" letter and the outside front passenger door handle of Paul Stine's taxicab, he had to observe "sufficient quantity AND quality of unique features, known as minutiae", not "sufficient quantity OR quality of unique features, known as minutiae". What is important here, is that William J. Hamlet wasn't comparing fingerprints from two random crime scenes to determine if one perpetrator was responsible for both, he was announcing a "similarity" between two "crime scenes" we know for certain that the Zodiac Killer was responsible for. We absolutely know that the Zodiac Killer touched the outside front passenger door handle of the taxicab where a bloody fingerprint was found, and we know he touched the pages of the writing pad he used when writing and mailing the "Little List" letter.
If the left ring fingerprint from the "Little List" letter was observed on any of the inner pages (2, 3, 4 and 5), who else would have deposited this fingerprint other than the Zodiac Killer, who presumably wrote this communication using five consecutive pages of a machine-produced writing pad, which should realistically be fingerprint free on its inner pages? Especially when we know that elimination prints were taken from San Francisco Chronicle employees and law enforcement. In fact, once San Francisco Chronicle staff realised it was a potential Zodiac Killer letter after reading "This is the Zodiac speaking" on page one, they should have proceeded no further. Law enforcement, at this point in time (July 27th 1970 when the letter was received), almost certainly would have had the common sense not to touch any part of a possible Zodiac communication with ungloved hands.
However, there is no universally set minimum number to qualify as a match, and it is up to the examiner to make the decision. The term used in forensic science when comparing fingerprints to determine a match is identification, dactyloscopy, or ridgeology. The process involves looking for "points of similarity" or "points of identification" in the unique ridge details, formally known as minutiae. In fingerprint comparison, similarity refers to the level of agreement in features between two impressions, while dissimilarity refers to observable differences. The core process, known as friction ridge identification, involves assessing and comparing these features to determine if the prints originated from the same source.
In other words, for William J. Hamlet to declare a "similarity" in the fingerprints retrieved from the "Little List" letter and the outside front passenger door handle of Paul Stine's taxicab, he had to observe "sufficient quantity AND quality of unique features, known as minutiae", not "sufficient quantity OR quality of unique features, known as minutiae". What is important here, is that William J. Hamlet wasn't comparing fingerprints from two random crime scenes to determine if one perpetrator was responsible for both, he was announcing a "similarity" between two "crime scenes" we know for certain that the Zodiac Killer was responsible for. We absolutely know that the Zodiac Killer touched the outside front passenger door handle of the taxicab where a bloody fingerprint was found, and we know he touched the pages of the writing pad he used when writing and mailing the "Little List" letter.
If the left ring fingerprint from the "Little List" letter was observed on any of the inner pages (2, 3, 4 and 5), who else would have deposited this fingerprint other than the Zodiac Killer, who presumably wrote this communication using five consecutive pages of a machine-produced writing pad, which should realistically be fingerprint free on its inner pages? Especially when we know that elimination prints were taken from San Francisco Chronicle employees and law enforcement. In fact, once San Francisco Chronicle staff realised it was a potential Zodiac Killer letter after reading "This is the Zodiac speaking" on page one, they should have proceeded no further. Law enforcement, at this point in time (July 27th 1970 when the letter was received), almost certainly would have had the common sense not to touch any part of a possible Zodiac communication with ungloved hands.
FROM THE BAYOMETRIC WEBSITE. CLICK ABOVE IMAGE TO VISIT.
Imagine that the "Little List" letter and taxicab fingerprints exhibited overall "similarity" and only had five recognisable corresponding minutiae points such as the ones shown above (one of which was determined to be from the left ring finger). For example, one from the taxicab door handle of the murdered Paul Stine, and one from page 4 of the "Little List" letter. This number wouldn't be regarded as conclusive for a certain match, but when we factor in that both of the fingerprints were lifted from surfaces that we know were handled by the Zodiac Killer, how does this affect our evaluation? If William J. Hamlet had pointed out five minutiae points that corresponded between the fingerprints lifted from the "Little List" letter and taxicab door handle, it may not identify the Zodiac Killer, but it could certainly rule "suspects" out.
If none of Arthur Leigh Allen's 10 digit impressions (or any other individual investigated) had any of these five corresponding minutiae on any of their fingers relative to one another, from two surfaces we know the Zodiac Killer touched (one with blood from the victim), then what are the chances that Arthur Leigh Allen murdered Paul Stine, or any of the other four victims for that matter? The answer is practically zero. Particularly when we have additional bloody fingerprints on the left side dividing panel (B-pillar) of the taxicab, that correspond to the eyewitness testimony of the Robbins children who placed Zodiac at the driver side door that night. A body part of the taxicab where responding personnel had no reason to touch..
The key thing to remember here, is that it's not just about a "similarity" noted between two fingerprints plucked from anywhere - it's about a "similarity" between two fingerprints being lifted from two surfaces that the Zodiac Killer had every reason to touch. If our killer lived within a mile radius of the Springs & Tuolumne payphone in July 1969 in a permanent residence - and the basic characteristics of the murderer had been used to narrow the search - it shouldn't have been too difficult to check the fingerprints of the limited pool of individuals, to either implicate or eliminate the said person to the murders in the Bay Area.
If none of Arthur Leigh Allen's 10 digit impressions (or any other individual investigated) had any of these five corresponding minutiae on any of their fingers relative to one another, from two surfaces we know the Zodiac Killer touched (one with blood from the victim), then what are the chances that Arthur Leigh Allen murdered Paul Stine, or any of the other four victims for that matter? The answer is practically zero. Particularly when we have additional bloody fingerprints on the left side dividing panel (B-pillar) of the taxicab, that correspond to the eyewitness testimony of the Robbins children who placed Zodiac at the driver side door that night. A body part of the taxicab where responding personnel had no reason to touch..
The key thing to remember here, is that it's not just about a "similarity" noted between two fingerprints plucked from anywhere - it's about a "similarity" between two fingerprints being lifted from two surfaces that the Zodiac Killer had every reason to touch. If our killer lived within a mile radius of the Springs & Tuolumne payphone in July 1969 in a permanent residence - and the basic characteristics of the murderer had been used to narrow the search - it shouldn't have been too difficult to check the fingerprints of the limited pool of individuals, to either implicate or eliminate the said person to the murders in the Bay Area.
RSS Feed
