A Noninvasive and Speculative Method of Visualizing Latent Fingerprint Deposits on Thermal Paper

Latent fingerprint deposits on thermal paper have been visualized noninvasively at visible wavelengths when illuminated with a UV‐A light source (peak 365 nm). A higher intensity UV source (250 W/m² at 0.38 m) gave superior fingerprint visibility when compared with a 60 W/m² (at 0.4 m) source. Removing the visible (blue) component of the light source emission did not adversely affect the visibility of the fingerprint. Sample fingerprints from 100 donors, when examined 24 h after deposition, produced identifiable fingerprints from nearly 34% of fingerprint deposits. A mechanism for the observed visibility is proposed based on low emission of visible wavelengths from areas of thermal paper coincident with the fingerprint deposit, when illuminated with UV. This is likely due to a weak color change in the thermal paper dye arising from protonated amino acid components of the sweat. This effect was not observed on nonthermal paper.     

Response Assessment of Thermal Papers from Four Continents to Fingerprint Development by Heat

Latent fingerprint deposits on thermal paper sourced from the U.S., China, the U.K., and Australia have been visualized by heating. U.S. and Chinese sourced paper produced two distinct types of fingerprint development. In one type (type 1), the paper dye colors where the deposit is present (as previously reported) and in the other type (type 2) the ‘inverse’ of this gives paper coloring only in areas not coincident with the deposit. Both development types gave identifiable fingerprints, the majority fading within 24 h of heating. Fingerprint development from U.K. and Australian sourced paper was exclusively type 1 and resistant to fading. Temperatures for fingerprint visualization were higher for U.S. paper (64–71°C) and Chinese paper (75–95°C) than for U.K. and Australian sourced paper (43–50°C). Particularly for Chinese sourced paper, these temperatures were within a few degrees of the normal paper color temperature. A mechanism for type 2 fingerprint development is proposed.     

Can the RUVIS Reflected UV Imaging System Visualize Fingerprint Corrosion on Brass Cartridge Casings Postfiring?

Comparisons are made between the visualization of fingerprint corrosion ridge detail on fired brass cartridge casings, where fingerprint sweat was deposited prefiring, using both ultraviolet (UV) and visible (natural daylight) light sources. A reflected ultraviolet imaging system (RUVIS), normally used for visualizing latent fingerprint sweat deposits, is compared with optical interference and digital color mapping of visible light, the latter using apparatus constructed to easily enable selection of the optimum viewing angle. Results show that reflected UV, with a monochromatic UV source of 254 nm, was unable to visualize fingerprint ridge detail on any of 12 casings analyzed, whereas optical interference and digital color mapping using natural daylight yielded ridge detail on three casings. Reasons for the lack of success with RUVIS are discussed in terms of the variation in thickness of the thin film of metal oxide corrosion and absorption wavelengths for the corrosion products of brass.     

Capturing Finger and Palm Impressions Using a Hand Cream and Thermochromatic Paper

An inkless set of finger and palm impressions has been obtained on thermochromatic paper by incorporating the protic solvent butylene glycol into a base hand cream mixture, which is rubbed into the hands for 30 sec before donation. This requires no washing of the hands before or after donation, removing many of the difficulties associated with inked impressions. In a random trial of 50 male and 50 female participants (mean age 41 years), 96 found the hand cream pleasant and easy to use and all produced identifiable finger and palm impressions. Following donation, participants continued to rub the hand cream into their hands. Impressions were visible immediately after donation and have not exhibited fading 2 years after being taken. 10% of participants produced impressions that captured third‐level detail, the variation between participants being thought to be associated with the amount of pressure applied during donation.