www.derby.ac.uk

Who am I?

• BSc (Hons) Forensic Science Student

• Graduate in July with predicted 1st Class (hopefully!)

• Aspirations for a career in the Wildlife Crime sector

• Combination of my two passions: Forensic Science & Wildlife!

• Particular interest in protecting birds of prey

• Lifelong member of the RSPB and Norfolk Wildlife Trust

www.derby.ac.uk

• Red and Green magnetic fluorescent fingerprint powders deemed most suitable for feathers• Black magnetic powder most suitable for the surface of the eggs

Previous Research

www.derby.ac.uk

Definitions• Research focused on the visualisation of latent fingermarks

– Latent: Generally difficult to visualise (invisible); Principle component is sweat;

Vast majority of all fingermarks

• Fingermark or Fingerprint?– Fingermark: Impression left by the friction ridges of a human finger

(Non-Fingerprint Experts)

– Fingerprint: Impression left by the friction ridges of a human finger (Qualified Fingerprint Experts Only!)

• Ridge Detail: ridge flow and specific ridge characteristics

www.derby.ac.uk

Methods• Fingerprint powders and Superglue fuming

• Powders observed using different wavelengths of light and their corresponding filters

• Superglue fuming followed by Basic Yellow 40 staining

• Fluorescent observed under blue light (430-470nm)

• Used a grading scale to determine the quality of the developed print

www.derby.ac.uk

Results

Feathers• Red magnetic powder enhanced

88.6% of fingermarks

• Green magnetic powder enhanced 84.3% of fingermarks

• Mainly low grade marks (some ridge detail present)

• Finer weave count of feather = better quality ridge detail

• Least Successful: White magnetic powder and aluminium powder

Eggs• Black magnetic powder enhanced

95.8% of fingermarks

• High number of high grade fingermarks developed

• High grade marks = more ridge detail present

• 100% enhancement on raptor eggs (Goshawk, Barn & Long-Eared Owl)

• Least successful on raptor eggs: aluminium powder

www.derby.ac.uk

Our Research• Replicated techniques

• Deposited fingermarks on the top, underside and quill tip of the feather

• Tested more colours of fluorescent fingerprint powder

• Trialled the combinations of powder and wavelength of light to determine the best contrast

• Used Superglue fuming followed by two types of stain

• New methodology

• Examined efficiency of Ninhydrin & DFO

• Additionally tested the effect of Small Particle Reagent (SPR)

• Looked at the effect of separation/repair

• Ensured each fingermark was deposited with the same amount of sweat and pressure

www.derby.ac.uk

Results – Magnetic powderGreen Powder + UV light: Dark Feather

Green Powder + UV light: Waterfowl Feather

Combination worked well on three feather types:

• A white, waterfowl feather

• A patterned Tawny Owl feather

• A dark, banded feather

The darker the feather, the better the contrast!

www.derby.ac.uk

Results – Superglue Ninhydrin & DFO

• Waterfowl Feathers– Basic Yellow 40 Stain –

Enhanced 7 out of 8 marks under blue light (430-470nm)

– Saffranin Stain – One mark (no ridge detail) under blue light

• Tawny Owl Feathers– Basic Yellow 40 Stain – No

enhancement– Yellow SPR – One mark, no ridge

detail– Green Fingerprint Powder + UV –

Enhanced all marks

• Concluded an unsuccessful “wet” treatment

• Chosen due to being fingermark development techniques for porous surfaces

• Feathers were dyed by the Ninhydrin reagent (purple) with no fingermark development

• No fingermarks were developed under DFO

• Concluded as unsuccessful development techniques for feathers

www.derby.ac.uk

Results – Small Particle Reagent (SPR)

• Liquid reagent caused problems with non-waterproof feathers

• Feathers needed to be re-spread and dried prior to examination

• Developed low grade prints (limited ridge details)

SPR + White Light: Tawny feather

SPR + UV Light: Tawny feather

www.derby.ac.uk

Effects of Separation• Two methods tested:

– Depositing a mark followed by separation of the feather – Separating the feather followed by depositing the mark

• Marks were enhanced with green fingerprint powder and SPR

• Detail was lost if mark separated after SPR enhancement

• Green fingerprint powder could be separated

• Separation and subsequent repair dependent on the texture of the feather

www.derby.ac.uk

Developed Mark, Separated Mark & Repaired Mark

www.derby.ac.uk

Conclusion

• Green magnetic fingerprint powder examined under UV light (350-380nm) most successful technique

• Small Particle Reagent most successful “wet” treatment

• Location of the mark on the feather is an important factor– Further from quill = clearer, more detailed fingermarks

• Texture of the feather effected enhancement and separation– Softer, “fluffier” feathers = less clear fingermarks– Thicker barbs of feather = more likely to be separated and repaired