Alphonse M. Bertillon: His Life and the Science of ... · Bertillon is sometimes credited with significant involvement in es-tablishing the science of fingerprints, but, in fact,

References

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “NASA Tech Briefs” andpersonal correspondence, 1990-1991.

Media Cybernetics, “Image-pro” & “image-pro plus” User hfaterial~ andManuals, 1989-1991.

Castle man, K. R., Digital Image Processing, Prentice-Hall Inc., Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ, 1979.Gonzalez, R. C.; P. Wintz, Digital Image Processing, Addison-WesleyPublishing Co., Reading MA, 1987.

Federal Bureau of Investigation/Federal Forensic Laboratories Image Pro-cessing Working Group, “First Workshop on Digital Image Processing”,Handout materials and class notes (Swing, R., Wardlaw, R.), 1990.

Rabbani, M., “Digital Image Restoration’’Tutorial Short Course, SPIEConference, Los Anqeles, CA, 1989.

Watling, W. J., “Where is Forensic Digital Image Enhancement Today?”,IAI Conference, Pensacola, FL, 1989.Watling, W. J., “Digital Image Enhancement in Forensics”, Presentation at‘Spectrum 9 1‘, Detroit, MI, 1991.

J. Forensic Ident.58443 (6), 1993

Special Report

Alphonse M. Bertillon: His Life and theScience of Fingerprints

Carey L. Chapman

DEA/Southwest LaboratoryNational City, CA

Introduction

In most textbooks and writings describing the history of fingerprints,Alphonse M. Bertillon is inextricably associated with the developmentof methods for personal identification. He is credited with devising ascientific approach for the identification of criminals known as theBertillon System of Identification (Signaletic Instructions). Althoughthis system has not been used for almost a century, it was utilized bylaw enforcement agencies throughout the world in the late 1800s.Awkward in application and subject to error, Bertillion’s methods werenonetheless founded in the same spirit of science which permeatednineteenth century thinking. In Henry T. F. Rhodes’ biography, Al-phonse Bertillon: Father of Scientific Detection, the author notes:

“The science of identification could never have been appliedin practice had it not been possible to devise a system ofclassification and arrangement which was practically fool-proof and which made it possible to find the description re-quired with minimum loss of time. It is indisputable thatBertillon devised the first system of this type, and that theprinciples of classification he formulated were utilized in oneform or another by all his successors.”

J. Forensic Ident.43 (6), 1993\ 585

Bertillon is sometimes credited with significant involvement in es-tablishing the science of fingerprints, but, in fact, he opposed their useuntil his death in 1914. Yet his efforts to create a means for reliablepersonal identification did, indirectly, foster the development of finger-print identification.

The Early Years

Alphonse M. Bertillon (1853-1914) was born on April 24, to Dr.Louis-Adophe and Zoe Bertillon in Paris, France, the second of threesons. He was extremely fragile and sickly, and, although sufferingfrom no specific disease, his health was a constant source of anxiety tohis parents. In August, 1853, the Bertillon family, fearing another ofthe periodic scientific witch-hunts, fled to Montmorcency to avoid thepolitical police of Paris. Once the family was settled in Montmorcency,Alphonse’s health began to improve. It is reported that as soon as hecould speak, his scientific education began. The family then returnedto Paris in 1856.

While Alphonse remained home for some time, he proved to be sorebellious and undisciplined that his parents decided he must go toschool, and he was sent to Chaptal College. However, after one term,he was removed from school as a result of his behavioral difficulties.The Bertillons believed his health problems were responsible for hisanti-social behavior, and therefore, decided to educate Alphonse athome. A young German student was brought to the house to tutor him.This effort was useless. Alphonse was then sent to a boarding school,the Rossat Institution, which had a satisfactory reputation for handling“difficult” children.

A vivid portrait has been drawn of the boy (Alphonse), thirteenyears old, by his niece, Suzanne Bertillon:

He was a big boy, but slim to thinness, pale-complexionedwith arms too long and shoulders too wide. But it was ahandsome face framed by dark chestnut hair which curledclose against the head. He had gray eyes with mockery inthem. With his fine sense of the ridiculous which he couldexploit for amusement’s sake, he liked to play to the gallery at

cealed an acute sensitiveness and a fear of showing his feel-ings.

A frustrated Dr. Bertillon talked to Alphonse regularly about hisbehavior and education but the problems remained unsolved. In May,1866, Zoe Bertillon died, which only led to more rebellious behavior bythe teen-aged Alphonse. He was then sent to one more boardingschool, Imperial Lycee of Versailles, where once again he was ex-pelled. His expulsion was for creating a miniature kitchen in his desk,which he set on fire while making chocolate. This ended his formaleducation but he eventually earned his baccalaureate degree with tutor-ing from his maternal grandfather.

The family sent him to England where he became a school master;however, he was called back to France two years later for militaryservice. While in the military, he began to read a textbook on humananatomy. This decision, made out of boredom, would eventuallychange not only his life but the future of forensic science.

The Prefecture Clerk

At the conclusion of his military service, when Bertillon may stillhave been considering a return to the university, he was stricken withtyphoid fever. While recovering from his illness he saw his brothersand friends each pursuing a career and doing systematic work of somekind while he was without training and with no clear vision of a career.Bertillon seemed to possess nothing more solid than a vast, but vague,aspiration to be “a man of science”. Although unemployed, Bertilloncontinued to study anatomy, and was proposed and accepted as a mem-ber of the Anthropological Society.

In desperation concerning employment, Alphonse solicited the helpof his father, who had some influence in matters of minor officialappointments with the municipality. On March 15, 1879, he became aclerk in the premier bureau of the Prefecture of Police. His routine andrepetitive duties included copying forms containing photographs andpersonal descriptions of criminals. As he became familiar with thesedocuments, he determined they were virtually useless. Noting the ab-sence of a workable filing system, Bertillion realized that no one would.

the expensewhich could

J. Forensic Ident.586 /43 (6), 1993

of the stalls. But he had &~ a tem~erarnent be able to use the present records for identifying a deceitful person whobe sad and black and intensely irritable. It con- had been previously incarcerated.


Bertillon is sometimes credited with significant involvement in es-tablishing the science of fingerprints, but, in fact, he opposed their useuntil his death in 1914. Yet his efforts to create a means for reliablepersonal identification did, indirectly, foster the development of finger-print identification.

The Early Years

Alphonse M. Bertillon (1853-1914) was born on April 24, to Dr.Louis-Adophe and Zoe Bertillon in Paris, France, the second of threesons. He was extremely fragile and sickly, and, although sufferingfrom no specific disease, his health was a constant source of anxiety tohis parents. In August, 1853, the Bertillon family, fearing another ofthe periodic scientific witch-hunts, fled to Montmorcency to avoid thepolitical police of Paris. Once the family was settled in Montmorcency,Alphonse’s health began to improve. It is reported that as soon as hecould speak, his scientific education began. The family then returnedto Paris in 1856.

While Alphonse remained home for some time, he proved to be sorebellious and undisciplined that his parents decided he must go toschool, and he was sent to Chaptal College. However, after one term,he was removed from school as a result of his behavioral difficulties.The Bertillons believed his health problems were responsible for hisanti-social behavior, and therefore, decided to educate Alphonse athome. A young German student was brought to the house to tutor him.This effort was useless. Alphonse was then sent to a boarding school,the Rossat Institution, which had a satisfactory reputation for handling“difficult” children.

A vivid portrait has been drawn of the boy (Alphonse), thirteenyears old, by his niece, Suzanne Bertillon:

He was a big boy, but slim to thinness, pale-complexionedwith arms too long and shoulders too wide. But it was ahandsome face framed by dark chestnut hair which curledclose against the head. He had gray eyes with mockery inthem. With his fine sense of the ridiculous which he couldexploit for amusement’s sake, he liked to play to the gallery at

cealed an acute sensitiveness and a fear of showing his feel-ings.

A frustrated Dr. Bertillon talked to Alphonse regularly about hisbehavior and education but the problems remained unsolved. In May,1866, Zoe Bertillon died, which only led to more rebellious behavior bythe teen-aged Alphonse. He was then sent to one more boardingschool, Imperial Lycee of Versailles, where once again he was ex-pelled. His expulsion was for creating a miniature kitchen in his desk,which he set on fire while making chocolate. This ended his formaleducation but he eventually earned his baccalaureate degree with tutor-ing from his maternal grandfather.

The family sent him to England where he became a school master;however, he was called back to France two years later for militaryservice. While in the military, he began to read a textbook on humananatomy. This decision, made out of boredom, would eventuallychange not only his life but the future of forensic science.

The Prefecture Clerk

At the conclusion of his military service, when Bertillon may stillhave been considering a return to the university, he was stricken withtyphoid fever. While recovering from his illness he saw his brothersand friends each pursuing a career and doing systematic work of somekind while he was without training and with no clear vision of a career.Bertillon seemed to possess nothing more solid than a vast, but vague,aspiration to be “a man of science”. Although unemployed, Bertilloncontinued to study anatomy, and was proposed and accepted as a mem-ber of the Anthropological Society.

In desperation concerning employment, Alphonse solicited the helpof his father, who had some influence in matters of minor officialappointments with the municipality. On March 15, 1879, he became aclerk in the premier bureau of the Prefecture of Police. His routine andrepetitive duties included copying forms containing photographs andpersonal descriptions of criminals. As he became familiar with thesedocuments, he determined they were virtually useless. Noting the ab-sence of a workable filing system, Bertillion realized that no one would.

the expensewhich could


of the stalls. But he had &~ a tem~erarnent be able to use the present records for identifying a deceitful person whobe sad and black and intensely irritable. It con- had been previously incarcerated.


The methods of the French police in 1879 had changed very little inprinciple since 1832, when the nearly universal practice of brandingcriminals had ceased. Without a means of identification, corrupt offi-cers often induced prisoners to admit to previous crimes on a promiseof remuneration. Although the system was in complete disarray, offi-cers continued to fill out the description documents for which Bertillonbecame responsible.

Bertillon developed a hatred for these forms but later turned thisenergy into constructive measures. He began to cutup photographs andjuxtapose the isolated features of different individuals by mountingthem side by side on pieces of cardboard. He submitted a report to thePrefecture on October 1, 1879, outlining his findings.

His report reflected that it could be proven by means of a series ofmeasurements of the body that no two human individuals were exactlyalike. These measurements, which were reduced to formulae, could berecorded on a form which would be truly significant, because the essen-tial “portrait” of the person described could not belong to another. ThePrefecture, M. Louis Andrieux, a simple man who had obtained hisposition through political influence, reviewed Bertillon’s findings andfelt it was a practical joke.

A determined Bertillon submitted a second report containing evenmore detail. This time Andrieux decided to act. A disastrous meetingtook place between Bertillon and Andrieux, culminating in Andrieuxsending a letter to Alphonse’s father, Dr. Bertillon. The elder Bertillon,quite disturbed with his son over this situation, called and requestedcopies of the reports. After reviewing these documents, he advisedAlphonse that the reports were not a practical joke, but showed acertain level of genius. Outraged by the reaction of the Prefecture, Dr.Bertillon encouraged his son to continue to work on his system and toperfect it while waiting for a chance to implement it.

The winter of 1881 brought new hope for Bertillon when Andrieuxretired and a new Prefecture was appointed. The new Prefecture, JeanCamecasse, was influenced almost immediate y by Alphonse’s father.Alphonse was eventually able to meet with Camecasse and to obtainpermission to implement his system. He was given two assistants andthree months to identify recidivists using his method.

The Bertillon Signaletic System

The Bertillon System of Identification is divided into three parts,the Anthropometrical, the Descriptive or Morphological, and the Patho-logical Signalmen. Although Bertillon further refined the methodsafter 1881, his Anthropometrical Signalmen involved measuring, withutmost precision and under prescribed conditions, some of the mostcharacteristic dimensions of the bony structures of the body. Therewere a total of eleven measurements taken in three “stages”: 1 ) themeasurements of the body at large; 2) the head; and, 3) the limbs.

The measurements of the body at large included the height of anindividual standing barefoot, the reach (length of the outstretched armsfrom fingertip to fingertip), and the trunk (height of an individual whilesitting) (Figures 1-3). In the second stage the measurements wereobtained from the length and width of the head, and the length andwidth of the right ear (Figures 4-6). The final measurements were thoseof the limbs. Four measurements were taken, the lengths of the leftfoot, left middle finger, left little finger and left forearm (Figures 7-10).In addition, the Bertillon operator obtained descriptive informationabout the left eye, including shape and color, as well as hair color, thepresence or absence of facial hair, and complexion based upon thepigmentary coloration of the skin.

The instruments for obtaining these measurements ranged from spe-cifically designed stools and benches to vertical and horizontal measur-ing charts (Figure 11). The operator also used certain scientificinstruments, such as the caliper compass, or small and large slidingcompasses, normally utilized by anthropologists (Figures 12-14).These measurements were recorded on the face of the description card(Figures 15- 16). The card was approximately 146 mm by 142 mm(approximately 6 inches by 6 inches), and both the front and back of thecard were used.

The next stage was the Descriptive or Morphological Signalmen, anobservation of the body shape and movements along with noticeablecharacteristics of mental and moral qualities. Those characteristicshaving special headings on the signaletic card were the forehead, nose,ear and build (breadth and girth). The Bertillon operator first examinedthe forehead from four points of view: first, the degree of prominenceof the superciliary arches; second, the degree of inclination to the lineof its profile in relationship to an imaginary horizontal plane passingthrough the root of the nose; third, the height of the upper extremity of

J. Forensic Ident. J. Forensic Ident.588 /43 (6), 1993 43 (6), 1993\ 589

The methods of the French police in 1879 had changed very little inprinciple since 1832, when the nearly universal practice of brandingcriminals had ceased. Without a means of identification, corrupt offi-cers often induced prisoners to admit to previous crimes on a promiseof remuneration. Although the system was in complete disarray, offi-cers continued to fill out the description documents for which Bertillonbecame responsible.

Bertillon developed a hatred for these forms but later turned thisenergy into constructive measures. He began to cutup photographs andjuxtapose the isolated features of different individuals by mountingthem side by side on pieces of cardboard. He submitted a report to thePrefecture on October 1, 1879, outlining his findings.

His report reflected that it could be proven by means of a series ofmeasurements of the body that no two human individuals were exactlyalike. These measurements, which were reduced to formulae, could berecorded on a form which would be truly significant, because the essen-tial “portrait” of the person described could not belong to another. ThePrefecture, M. Louis Andrieux, a simple man who had obtained hisposition through political influence, reviewed Bertillon’s findings andfelt it was a practical joke.

A determined Bertillon submitted a second report containing evenmore detail. This time Andrieux decided to act. A disastrous meetingtook place between Bertillon and Andrieux, culminating in Andrieuxsending a letter to Alphonse’s father, Dr. Bertillon. The elder Bertillon,quite disturbed with his son over this situation, called and requestedcopies of the reports. After reviewing these documents, he advisedAlphonse that the reports were not a practical joke, but showed acertain level of genius. Outraged by the reaction of the Prefecture, Dr.Bertillon encouraged his son to continue to work on his system and toperfect it while waiting for a chance to implement it.

The winter of 1881 brought new hope for Bertillon when Andrieuxretired and a new Prefecture was appointed. The new Prefecture, JeanCamecasse, was influenced almost immediate y by Alphonse’s father.Alphonse was eventually able to meet with Camecasse and to obtainpermission to implement his system. He was given two assistants andthree months to identify recidivists using his method.

The Bertillon Signaletic System

The Bertillon System of Identification is divided into three parts,the Anthropometrical, the Descriptive or Morphological, and the Patho-logical Signalmen. Although Bertillon further refined the methodsafter 1881, his Anthropometrical Signalmen involved measuring, withutmost precision and under prescribed conditions, some of the mostcharacteristic dimensions of the bony structures of the body. Therewere a total of eleven measurements taken in three “stages”: 1 ) themeasurements of the body at large; 2) the head; and, 3) the limbs.

The measurements of the body at large included the height of anindividual standing barefoot, the reach (length of the outstretched armsfrom fingertip to fingertip), and the trunk (height of an individual whilesitting) (Figures 1-3). In the second stage the measurements wereobtained from the length and width of the head, and the length andwidth of the right ear (Figures 4-6). The final measurements were thoseof the limbs. Four measurements were taken, the lengths of the leftfoot, left middle finger, left little finger and left forearm (Figures 7-10).In addition, the Bertillon operator obtained descriptive informationabout the left eye, including shape and color, as well as hair color, thepresence or absence of facial hair, and complexion based upon thepigmentary coloration of the skin.

The instruments for obtaining these measurements ranged from spe-cifically designed stools and benches to vertical and horizontal measur-ing charts (Figure 11). The operator also used certain scientificinstruments, such as the caliper compass, or small and large slidingcompasses, normally utilized by anthropologists (Figures 12-14).These measurements were recorded on the face of the description card(Figures 15- 16). The card was approximately 146 mm by 142 mm(approximately 6 inches by 6 inches), and both the front and back of thecard were used.

The next stage was the Descriptive or Morphological Signalmen, anobservation of the body shape and movements along with noticeablecharacteristics of mental and moral qualities. Those characteristicshaving special headings on the signaletic card were the forehead, nose,ear and build (breadth and girth). The Bertillon operator first examinedthe forehead from four points of view: first, the degree of prominenceof the superciliary arches; second, the degree of inclination to the lineof its profile in relationship to an imaginary horizontal plane passingthrough the root of the nose; third, the height of the upper extremity of


T H E H E I G H T

Figure 1

Figure 3

THE OUTSTRETCHED .+ R> IS.WIDTH OF THE HEAD. RIGHT EIR

Figure 2

f?-, T

LEXGTH OF THE HEAD

Figure 4

Figure S

Figure 7

Figure 6

LEFT JIIDDLE FISGER

Figure 8


J. Forensic Ident.43 (6), 1993 \591

T H E H E I G H T

Figure 1

Figure 3

THE OUTSTRETCHED .+ R> IS.WIDTH OF THE HEAD. RIGHT EIR

Figure 2

f?-, T

LEXGTH OF THE HEAD

Figure 4

Figure S

Figure 7

Figure 6

LEFT JIIDDLE FISGER

Figure 8



Figure 9

ICI. 11( \l \lL\>l I.r

Hf. /I\ \ L \Ir A.LRr

-’,1 \, I

Figure 11


k(,

/

<; _–-+ .._ - ._—---- ----___

IIIT II)R[ \l. \f

Figure 10

u

SMALL SLIDING COMPASSES,

Figure 13

SLIDING COMPASSES

Figure 14

s,,,, ”,, “, .E5, R, PT!,,N ,., ” , , , , , ” 0 , ,(F.’c,

I

----d“%.

c.4LlpER cOhfpASSES,

Figure 12 Figure 15 Figure 16


Figure 9

ICI. 11( \l \lL\>l I.r

Hf. /I\ \ L \Ir A.LRr

-’,1 \, I

Figure 11


k(,

/

<; _–-+ .._ - ._—---- ----___

IIIT II)R[ \l. \f

Figure 10

u

SMALL SLIDING COMPASSES,

Figure 13

SLIDING COMPASSES

Figure 14

s,,,, ”,, “, .E5, R, PT!,,N ,., ” , , , , , ” 0 , ,(F.’c,

I

----d“%.

c.4LlpER cOhfpASSES,

Figure 12 Figure 15 Figure 16


Figure /7

Figure ] ~


Figure 18

‘NLAFLAX C? T!IE E.4E

Figure 20

the same line plane; fourth, its width measured transversely from tem-ple to temple (Figures 17- 18). Measurements of these characteristicswere classified as small, medium, or large.

Three areas were examined on the nose: the root, tip, and nostril.The root of the nose is the transverse concavity which also exists at thetop of the nose between the eyes and the base of the forehead. The tipof the nose is that point where the lobule begins to turn back towardsitself. The last observation was of the nostril at the point of attachmentof the nostril to the cheek. The headings of this area of observationwere divided into very small, small, medium, large, and very large(Figure 19).

Next, a description of the ear was noted. The areas viewed were theborder, lobe. antitragus, and the fold (Figure 20). The border of the earstarts in the middle of the central depression called the shell or contra(above the auditory conduit), reaches the periphery, and then “borders”,as with a gutter, on the upper two thirds of the ear. Measurements ofthe border were designed as posterior (small), original (medium), orsuperior (large). The lobe is the soft rounded protuberance which ter-minates at the circumference of the pavilion. The lobe was consideredby three relationships noted as the contour, degree of adherence, andthe model. The antitragus is opposite the auditory conduit as well asseparated by it. The observations made about this portion of the earwere determinations of horizontal, intermediate, or oblique. The lastarea of analysis on the ear was the fold. The fold is divided into twobranches called the superior and median. The superior is at the rear ofthe depression and the median is the area where the helix rejoins abovethe ridge in which it originates. Measurements concerning the fold ofthe ear were divided into concave, intermediate, and convex.

The measuring device used for this phase was customarily made bythe operator. The instrument consisted of a thick brass wire 10 cm inlength that had, at 4 mm from the end. a small projection, 4 mm high,and made of wire only half as thick as the base, soldered at right anglesto the first (Figure 2 1). Actual measurements were taken and recordedon the signaletic card. Although different terms could be used whenobtaining measurements of the ear, they were generally divided intosmall. medium. and large.

The last area of analysis conducted was on the build (breadth andgirth). The build, or corpulence, signified the general volume of the


Figure /7

Figure ] ~


Figure 18

‘NLAFLAX C? T!IE E.4E

Figure 20

the same line plane; fourth, its width measured transversely from tem-ple to temple (Figures 17- 18). Measurements of these characteristicswere classified as small, medium, or large.

Three areas were examined on the nose: the root, tip, and nostril.The root of the nose is the transverse concavity which also exists at thetop of the nose between the eyes and the base of the forehead. The tipof the nose is that point where the lobule begins to turn back towardsitself. The last observation was of the nostril at the point of attachmentof the nostril to the cheek. The headings of this area of observationwere divided into very small, small, medium, large, and very large(Figure 19).

Next, a description of the ear was noted. The areas viewed were theborder, lobe. antitragus, and the fold (Figure 20). The border of the earstarts in the middle of the central depression called the shell or contra(above the auditory conduit), reaches the periphery, and then “borders”,as with a gutter, on the upper two thirds of the ear. Measurements ofthe border were designed as posterior (small), original (medium), orsuperior (large). The lobe is the soft rounded protuberance which ter-minates at the circumference of the pavilion. The lobe was consideredby three relationships noted as the contour, degree of adherence, andthe model. The antitragus is opposite the auditory conduit as well asseparated by it. The observations made about this portion of the earwere determinations of horizontal, intermediate, or oblique. The lastarea of analysis on the ear was the fold. The fold is divided into twobranches called the superior and median. The superior is at the rear ofthe depression and the median is the area where the helix rejoins abovethe ridge in which it originates. Measurements concerning the fold ofthe ear were divided into concave, intermediate, and convex.

The measuring device used for this phase was customarily made bythe operator. The instrument consisted of a thick brass wire 10 cm inlength that had, at 4 mm from the end. a small projection, 4 mm high,and made of wire only half as thick as the base, soldered at right anglesto the first (Figure 2 1). Actual measurements were taken and recordedon the signaletic card. Although different terms could be used whenobtaining measurements of the ear, they were generally divided intosmall. medium. and large.

The last area of analysis conducted was on the build (breadth andgirth). The build, or corpulence, signified the general volume of the


Figure 21

body in proportion to the height, with a determination made by thewidth of the shoulders and the distance around the stomach. Therewere no special headings for complementary descriptions of the profile,face, and general characteristics, nor for sundry information, such asobservations of the neck, inclination of the line of shoulders, and theattitude of an individual. The individual’s demeanor, voice, language,and habiliments were not documented by the operator.

The third and final stage was the Signalmen by Peculiar .Marks, orPathological Si,gnalment. This was the observation of the peculiaritiesoccurring on the surface of the body resulting from disease, accident,deformity, or artificial disfigurement, such as moles, warts, scars, andtattooing. The human body was broken down into four faces - anterior,posterior, and two lateral - for analysis. The anterior represented thefront of the chest, the posterior was the entire region of the back, andthe lateral faces were the left and right sides of the body. The descrip-tion of any observed marks were in terms of Nature, Form and Open-ing, Dimensions, and Direction.

Nature referred to any cicatrix (a distinct scar) which might havecome from a knife wound, a gunshot, or simply from a boil, abscess, orbirthmark. Form and Opening noted any linear scar resembling a line(a mark without thickness), and the shape would be qualified either as


rectilinear or, in the more simple and most encountered cases, ascurved. Dimension was the measurement, in centimeters, for theserecorded individual signs. Direction was divided into three categories -vertical, oblique, and horizontal.

Distinguishing marks on the body utilizing vertical, oblique andhorizontal direction were determined by having the subject stand, fac-ing the operator, arms at the sides, palms facing in. The description ofthe peculiar signs was performed according to special designations ofthe different parts of the body as follows:

I. Left upper arm and forearm, then left upper hand.II. Right upper arm and forearm, then right upper hand.

HI. Face and front of neck.IV. Chest, front of shoulders, part of stomach situated at the

waist and of the trousers.v. Back of neck and the region of the back.

VI. The other parts of the body where there are anyanomalies to be noted.

Abbreviations were used to describe the different parts of the bodyrelated to the six areas. These abbreviations, in conjunction with otherterms, were noted on the back of the description card. Standard abbre-viations were as follows:

I and 11 Upper Limb (Left and Right)

bicep bcp.elbow cb.wristfinger /g::palmbase of thumb or pollex b;!:

III Face and Front of Neck

facehairforeheadfrontal bosseyebroweyelidangle (of the eye)nostril

Vs,g.chvx.

fr.bs. fr.

src.PP.gl.nr.


Figure 21

body in proportion to the height, with a determination made by thewidth of the shoulders and the distance around the stomach. Therewere no special headings for complementary descriptions of the profile,face, and general characteristics, nor for sundry information, such asobservations of the neck, inclination of the line of shoulders, and theattitude of an individual. The individual’s demeanor, voice, language,and habiliments were not documented by the operator.

The third and final stage was the Signalmen by Peculiar .Marks, orPathological Si,gnalment. This was the observation of the peculiaritiesoccurring on the surface of the body resulting from disease, accident,deformity, or artificial disfigurement, such as moles, warts, scars, andtattooing. The human body was broken down into four faces - anterior,posterior, and two lateral - for analysis. The anterior represented thefront of the chest, the posterior was the entire region of the back, andthe lateral faces were the left and right sides of the body. The descrip-tion of any observed marks were in terms of Nature, Form and Open-ing, Dimensions, and Direction.

Nature referred to any cicatrix (a distinct scar) which might havecome from a knife wound, a gunshot, or simply from a boil, abscess, orbirthmark. Form and Opening noted any linear scar resembling a line(a mark without thickness), and the shape would be qualified either as


rectilinear or, in the more simple and most encountered cases, ascurved. Dimension was the measurement, in centimeters, for theserecorded individual signs. Direction was divided into three categories -vertical, oblique, and horizontal.

Distinguishing marks on the body utilizing vertical, oblique andhorizontal direction were determined by having the subject stand, fac-ing the operator, arms at the sides, palms facing in. The description ofthe peculiar signs was performed according to special designations ofthe different parts of the body as follows:

I. Left upper arm and forearm, then left upper hand.II. Right upper arm and forearm, then right upper hand.

HI. Face and front of neck.IV. Chest, front of shoulders, part of stomach situated at the

waist and of the trousers.v. Back of neck and the region of the back.

VI. The other parts of the body where there are anyanomalies to be noted.

Abbreviations were used to describe the different parts of the bodyrelated to the six areas. These abbreviations, in conjunction with otherterms, were noted on the back of the description card. Standard abbre-viations were as follows:

I and 11 Upper Limb (Left and Right)

bicep bcp.elbow cb.wristfinger /g::palmbase of thumb or pollex b;!:

III Face and Front of Neck

facehairforeheadfrontal bosseyebroweyelidangle (of the eye)nostril

Vs,g.chvx.

fr.bs. fr.

src.PP.gl.nr.


cheekbonetragusmouthjaw-bonelarynx

IV Chest

pmt.trg.bc.

mx.lrx.

fork frc.clavicle Clv.teat tt.sternum str.

making 27 groups. The last subdivision was for the left little finger,which was also divided into small, medium, and large, producing a totalof 81 groups. A cabinet with 81 drawers, nine horizontal and ninevertical rows, could accommodate the descriptions of many thousandsof individuals. However, this did not complete the filing aspect of thesystem. Bertillon ensured that his system could be arranged so therewere an equal number of cards in all the drawers. He diddevising arbitrary limits of minimum, average, and maximumthe groups could be balanced equally.

this bysize, so

naval mbl. The Dupont Casemedian md.

Other terms used which were given abbreviations are as follows:

amputatedscarcircularboilfrecklesscrofulatattooingtriangleearroot of nose

amp.tic.

clrc.fur.

rouss.scrof.

tat.trigl.

or].rat.

One additional item was obtained from a subject and attached to thesignaletic card. A full fice photograph and a profile or three quartersprint from the right side, reproducing the details of the ear, was taken.This concluded the analysis of a subject. After all necessary informa-tion from a subject was obtained, the Signaletic card would be filed.

Bertillon utilized and adopted the anthropological methods of classi-fication he learned from his f%ther. As revealed in the descriptions ofthe three sections, the body and its parts were expressed in terms oflarge, medium, or small. Therefore. the cards were first divided intothree groups based the length of the head, which could be large, me-dium, or small. These three groups were then further subdivided interms of large, medium, and small for the width of the head, makingnine groups in all. These nine groups were again subdivided accordingto distinctions of small, medium, and large for the left middle finger,


During February, 1883, Bertillon was approaching the end of thethree month trial period for his system. With two weeks remaining andno real success, he was deeply discouraged when he began to measurethe sixth Dupont of the day. When he looked at that particular Dupont,Bertillon felt he had seen his fdce before.

Bertillon began his analysis on this particular subject, and recordedthe length of the head as 187 millimeters, width, 156 millimeters,middle finger, 114 millimeters, left little finger, 89 millimeters... It wasreported that when he went to the cabinet to check these measurementshe was trembling violently. A search of the files revealed an individualnamed Martin, convicted on December 15, 1882, whose measurementsmatched those he had just taken. Not yet satisfied, he studied bothcards carefully before determining they were the same individual. Con-fronting Dupont with this information, Dupont confessed to being“Martin”. In celebration, Alphonse drove to his father’s bedside. Dr.Bertillon died moments after hearing of his son’s success.

In March of 1883, another recidivist was identified using thismethod. In July, August, and September, there were 15 more identifi-cations, and in the last quarter there were 26. During that year 7,336measurements were taken, recorded, and filed. By 1888, his methodhad proven itself so successful that a new Department of Judicial Iden-tity was founded at the Prefecture. Bertillon, naturally, was named itsnew head.

In 1892, Bertillon identified a notorious anarchist named Ravachol.Ravachol, perhaps the most celebrated French criminal of the day, wassuspected of bombing restaurants and the home of a judge in addition tomurdering several people. The case brought Bertillon international


cheekbonetragusmouthjaw-bonelarynx

IV Chest

pmt.trg.bc.

mx.lrx.

fork frc.clavicle Clv.teat tt.sternum str.

making 27 groups. The last subdivision was for the left little finger,which was also divided into small, medium, and large, producing a totalof 81 groups. A cabinet with 81 drawers, nine horizontal and ninevertical rows, could accommodate the descriptions of many thousandsof individuals. However, this did not complete the filing aspect of thesystem. Bertillon ensured that his system could be arranged so therewere an equal number of cards in all the drawers. He diddevising arbitrary limits of minimum, average, and maximumthe groups could be balanced equally.

this bysize, so

naval mbl. The Dupont Casemedian md.

Other terms used which were given abbreviations are as follows:

amputatedscarcircularboilfrecklesscrofulatattooingtriangleearroot of nose

amp.tic.

clrc.fur.

rouss.scrof.

tat.trigl.

or].rat.

One additional item was obtained from a subject and attached to thesignaletic card. A full fice photograph and a profile or three quartersprint from the right side, reproducing the details of the ear, was taken.This concluded the analysis of a subject. After all necessary informa-tion from a subject was obtained, the Signaletic card would be filed.

Bertillon utilized and adopted the anthropological methods of classi-fication he learned from his f%ther. As revealed in the descriptions ofthe three sections, the body and its parts were expressed in terms oflarge, medium, or small. Therefore. the cards were first divided intothree groups based the length of the head, which could be large, me-dium, or small. These three groups were then further subdivided interms of large, medium, and small for the width of the head, makingnine groups in all. These nine groups were again subdivided accordingto distinctions of small, medium, and large for the left middle finger,


During February, 1883, Bertillon was approaching the end of thethree month trial period for his system. With two weeks remaining andno real success, he was deeply discouraged when he began to measurethe sixth Dupont of the day. When he looked at that particular Dupont,Bertillon felt he had seen his fdce before.

Bertillon began his analysis on this particular subject, and recordedthe length of the head as 187 millimeters, width, 156 millimeters,middle finger, 114 millimeters, left little finger, 89 millimeters... It wasreported that when he went to the cabinet to check these measurementshe was trembling violently. A search of the files revealed an individualnamed Martin, convicted on December 15, 1882, whose measurementsmatched those he had just taken. Not yet satisfied, he studied bothcards carefully before determining they were the same individual. Con-fronting Dupont with this information, Dupont confessed to being“Martin”. In celebration, Alphonse drove to his father’s bedside. Dr.Bertillon died moments after hearing of his son’s success.

In March of 1883, another recidivist was identified using thismethod. In July, August, and September, there were 15 more identifi-cations, and in the last quarter there were 26. During that year 7,336measurements were taken, recorded, and filed. By 1888, his methodhad proven itself so successful that a new Department of Judicial Iden-tity was founded at the Prefecture. Bertillon, naturally, was named itsnew head.

In 1892, Bertillon identified a notorious anarchist named Ravachol.Ravachol, perhaps the most celebrated French criminal of the day, wassuspected of bombing restaurants and the home of a judge in addition tomurdering several people. The case brought Bertillon international


attention and. as a result, other European countries adopted his systemof identification. A long list of visiting dignitaries came to Paris tomeet this person who was then labeled a genius. However, Bertillon’striumph blazed but briefly, for in Argentina and England, the beginningof the end of Bertillonage had taken place.

Bertillon and Fingerprints

In spite of Bertillion’s efforts to maintain support for his methods,the discoveries of Vucetich, Galton, and Henry eventually removed theneed for an anthropometric measurement system to establish personalidentification. During his career Bertillon did not avoid fingerprints,and was largely responsible for a murder conviction based solely on afingerprint he identified. However, it seems he never accepted SirFrancis Galtons’ theory of fingerprints being permanent and individu-ally unique. Bertillon wrote the following in his typical, candid fash-

niece Suzanne Bertillon regarding a meeting between Alphonse andJuan Vucetich:

Vucetich, enjoying his own successes, was traveling the worldin an effort to obtain further information on identificationsystems. These efforts led him to Bertillon. He arrived onemorning evidently expecting to be received immediately withopen arms. He had to wait in an outer office, which was kindof a guardroom of the Holiest, and it has been stated that hehad to wait a very long time. Suddenly the door leading toBertillon’s office was flung open and the Chief of Servicestood on the threshold. He treated his visitor to a holisticscrutiny which slowly passed from head to foot. “Sir,” hesaid, “you have tried to do me a great deal of harm.” Heslammed the door in the face of Vucetich and it was the firstand last time the two of them met.

ion:

“My system has been used for over twenty years. We haveaccumulated millions of cards. If fingerprints were to be usedto the full tens of millions would be necessary because itcannot have its full value unless a ‘single fingerprint” systemis used. This would require ten extra cards for each person . . . .It is not a question of my own system being replaced little bylittle by the new classification; supposing, of course, that theAdministration would give me the necessary accommodationand personnel. It would be labor lost if the new classificationswere not found upon a clear, precise and rational ‘singlefingerprint’ classification. All my colleagues’ classificationdepend upon a system wherein ten prints appear on the samecard. It is very much less instructive for the police who havein their possession under this system only two or three finger-prints which are not fully descriptive of the suspected person.”

Two years prior to his death he wrote an article which was found

Conclusion

On February 13, 1914, at the age of 60 and suffering from perniciousanemia, Bertillon slipped into a coma and died at 11:00 p.m. Threedays later he was buried, with national honors, before a huge crowd ofadmirers. A short street in Paris’ Fifteenth Arrondissement bears thename Rue Alphonse Bertillon.

Dr. Edmond Locard, one of Bertillon’s students, felt he was a geniusbecause he had put the police in the path of applied science. Locardfurther revealed, however, that Bertillon’s reputation never fully recov-ered from the events of the Dreyfus affair. In 1894, Captain AlfredDreyfus, a French military officer, was arrested and accused of passingmilitary secrets to German enemies. An important piece of evidenceused against him was a treasonous document purportedly in his hand-writing. When Bertillon examined the document, he stated Dreyfuswas the author. Dreyfus was convicted and sentenced to life imprison-

ing ment at Devil’s Island.the archives of Lacassagne which purported to show that the points ofresemblance between two fingerprints of different origin might in cer-tain circumstances show an apparent correspondence. These state-ments reveal the doubts Bertillon had concerning the efficiency of theidentifications by fingerprints. The most revealing evidence regardingBertillon’s views on fingerprints is described in the following by his

The Dreyfus matter attracted world-wide attention when Emile Zola,as well as others, maintained the conviction was based upon faultyevidence, and accused the government and its witnesses of participatingin an anti-semetic conspiracy against Dreyfus. Bertillon was indeedproven wrong when the real author confessed four years later, and



attention and. as a result, other European countries adopted his systemof identification. A long list of visiting dignitaries came to Paris tomeet this person who was then labeled a genius. However, Bertillon’striumph blazed but briefly, for in Argentina and England, the beginningof the end of Bertillonage had taken place.

Bertillon and Fingerprints

In spite of Bertillion’s efforts to maintain support for his methods,the discoveries of Vucetich, Galton, and Henry eventually removed theneed for an anthropometric measurement system to establish personalidentification. During his career Bertillon did not avoid fingerprints,and was largely responsible for a murder conviction based solely on afingerprint he identified. However, it seems he never accepted SirFrancis Galtons’ theory of fingerprints being permanent and individu-ally unique. Bertillon wrote the following in his typical, candid fash-

niece Suzanne Bertillon regarding a meeting between Alphonse andJuan Vucetich:

Vucetich, enjoying his own successes, was traveling the worldin an effort to obtain further information on identificationsystems. These efforts led him to Bertillon. He arrived onemorning evidently expecting to be received immediately withopen arms. He had to wait in an outer office, which was kindof a guardroom of the Holiest, and it has been stated that hehad to wait a very long time. Suddenly the door leading toBertillon’s office was flung open and the Chief of Servicestood on the threshold. He treated his visitor to a holisticscrutiny which slowly passed from head to foot. “Sir,” hesaid, “you have tried to do me a great deal of harm.” Heslammed the door in the face of Vucetich and it was the firstand last time the two of them met.

ion:

“My system has been used for over twenty years. We haveaccumulated millions of cards. If fingerprints were to be usedto the full tens of millions would be necessary because itcannot have its full value unless a ‘single fingerprint” systemis used. This would require ten extra cards for each person . . . .It is not a question of my own system being replaced little bylittle by the new classification; supposing, of course, that theAdministration would give me the necessary accommodationand personnel. It would be labor lost if the new classificationswere not found upon a clear, precise and rational ‘singlefingerprint’ classification. All my colleagues’ classificationdepend upon a system wherein ten prints appear on the samecard. It is very much less instructive for the police who havein their possession under this system only two or three finger-prints which are not fully descriptive of the suspected person.”

Two years prior to his death he wrote an article which was found

Conclusion

On February 13, 1914, at the age of 60 and suffering from perniciousanemia, Bertillon slipped into a coma and died at 11:00 p.m. Threedays later he was buried, with national honors, before a huge crowd ofadmirers. A short street in Paris’ Fifteenth Arrondissement bears thename Rue Alphonse Bertillon.

Dr. Edmond Locard, one of Bertillon’s students, felt he was a geniusbecause he had put the police in the path of applied science. Locardfurther revealed, however, that Bertillon’s reputation never fully recov-ered from the events of the Dreyfus affair. In 1894, Captain AlfredDreyfus, a French military officer, was arrested and accused of passingmilitary secrets to German enemies. An important piece of evidenceused against him was a treasonous document purportedly in his hand-writing. When Bertillon examined the document, he stated Dreyfuswas the author. Dreyfus was convicted and sentenced to life imprison-

ing ment at Devil’s Island.the archives of Lacassagne which purported to show that the points ofresemblance between two fingerprints of different origin might in cer-tain circumstances show an apparent correspondence. These state-ments reveal the doubts Bertillon had concerning the efficiency of theidentifications by fingerprints. The most revealing evidence regardingBertillon’s views on fingerprints is described in the following by his

The Dreyfus matter attracted world-wide attention when Emile Zola,as well as others, maintained the conviction was based upon faultyevidence, and accused the government and its witnesses of participatingin an anti-semetic conspiracy against Dreyfus. Bertillon was indeedproven wrong when the real author confessed four years later, and



became tainted by the scandal. Dreyfus was eventually pardoned. Theextent of Bertillon’s involvement in manufacturing the case againstDreyfus may never be fully known.

Alphonse M. Bertillon, in relative obscurity and enduring tremen-dous resistance, began a revolution that dramatically altered and im-proved police practices. This same man, later recognized and admiredthroughout the world, became the resistance to an even better revolu-tion. In spite of the ceremony surrounding his funeral, everyone whowas concerned with the advancement of criminology in France musthave breathed a sigh of relief, for when he died, the Bertillon System ofIdentification died with him. History could at last start moving again.

For further information, contact:

Carey L. ChapmanDEA/Southwest Laboratory410 West 35th StreetNational City, CA 9]950

(6 19) 498-0005

Bibliography

Bertil ion, A., The Berti[lon System of ldentificution: Signuletic ln.rtruc-tions including the theor! and practice (!fAtlthr(~pc)mett-i(ul Identification,Werner Company, Chicago, 1896.

Joyce, C.; E. Stover, Witnesses from the Gra~’e, Ballantine Books, NewYork. 1992.

Muller, G., Alphonse Bertillon ’s in.~truction,fi)r Descriptions for the iden-tification of Criminuls and Others by the means of A nthropometric l}ldica -tions, AMS Press Inc., New York, 1977.

Rhodes, H. T. F., Alpho}lse Bertillon, Abelard-Schuman Inc., New York,1956.

Wi 1 son, C., Written ill Blood:Detecti\e.\ atzd Deception. Warner Books,New York, 1989.

. .—“... —

—.

. .

.

became tainted by the scandal. Dreyfus was eventually pardoned. Theextent of Bertillon’s involvement in manufacturing the case againstDreyfus may never be fully known.

Alphonse M. Bertillon, in relative obscurity and enduring tremen-dous resistance, began a revolution that dramatically altered and im-proved police practices. This same man, later recognized and admiredthroughout the world, became the resistance to an even better revolu-tion. In spite of the ceremony surrounding his funeral, everyone whowas concerned with the advancement of criminology in France musthave breathed a sigh of relief, for when he died, the Bertillon System ofIdentification died with him. History could at last start moving again.


Carey L. ChapmanDEA/Southwest Laboratory410 West 35th StreetNational City, CA 9]950

(6 19) 498-0005

Bibliography

Bertil ion, A., The Berti[lon System of ldentificution: Signuletic ln.rtruc-tions including the theor! and practice (!fAtlthr(~pc)mett-i(ul Identification,Werner Company, Chicago, 1896.

Joyce, C.; E. Stover, Witnesses from the Gra~’e, Ballantine Books, NewYork. 1992.

Muller, G., Alphonse Bertillon ’s in.~truction,fi)r Descriptions for the iden-tification of Criminuls and Others by the means of A nthropometric l}ldica -tions, AMS Press Inc., New York, 1977.

Rhodes, H. T. F., Alpho}lse Bertillon, Abelard-Schuman Inc., New York,1956.

Wi 1 son, C., Written ill Blood:Detecti\e.\ atzd Deception. Warner Books,New York, 1989.

. .—“... —

—.

. .

.

Special Report

Alphonse Bertillon and Dactyloscopy

C. Champed

C. Lennard

P. Margot

Institut de Police Scientifique et de CriminologieL.ausanneSwitzerland

Introduction

In 1989, British fingerprint experts were engaged in a debate overtheir 16-point numerical standard for fingerprint identification [ 1-2]. Inmeetings organized under the direction of the Association of ChiefPolice Officers, a special “review team” headed by I. W. Evett and R.L. Williams argued that insisting on any minimum number of points isnot an adequate means of ensuring quality. To justify their position, thecommittee indicated that, historically, the British numerical standardfollowed from an inaccurate interpretation of a fingerprint comparisonpresented by Alphonse Bertillon in 1912. Bertillon had put forwardtwo fingerprints from two different persons showing 16 “concurring”minutiae [3].

Evett and Williams subsequently proposed a unified scheme oftraining and quality management to guarantee the highest possible pro-fessional standards in the fingerprint services. They concluded that a

fingerprint identification is a matter of personal expert opinion and thatif a system ensures that each expert is operating above a minimum levelof competence then there is no need for a national numerical pointsstandard.

Evett presented the review team’s viewpoint in Adelaide at the 12thMeeting of the International Association of Forensic Sciences in 1990,using photographic reproductions of the fingerprints presented byBertillon in 1912, These reproductions had been obtained from theInstitut de Police Scientifique et de Criminologie in Lausanne, whereBertillon’s original article may be found. These photos were furtheremployed by Margot and Champed in 1991 for a presentation regard-ing the need for a European standard for fingerprint identification [4].It was recommended by these authors that numerical standards be aban-doned in Europe in favor of the 1973 resolution of the InternationalAssociation for Identification which stated that there was not, at thatparticular time, a basis for deciding on a particular minimum number ofpoints to guarantee an identification.

The 1912 article by Bertillon, together with the photos published atthe time, are therefore of great interest at the present moment. It isworth noting that the observations made by Bertillon in 1912 have laiddormant for nearly 80 years and that very few present-day authors makemention of this work [5-7].

In this article, an accurate translation is presented of the severalparagraphs written by Bertillon in 1912 on the evidential value offingerprints, together with good quality reproductions of the photo-graphs he used to illustrate his observations. Bertillon’s article is thendiscussed from two viewpoints: firstly, with regard to the debate at thetime between anthropometrists and dactyloscopists which finally led tothe acceptance of dactyloscopy, and secondly, in terms of the currentdebate concerning the identification process and the question of a mini-mum numerical standard.

Fingerprints — General Considerations on the Identification Valueof Fingerprint Fragments Found at the Crime Scene

by A. Bertillon

[Free translation from the original French article, “Les empreintesdigitales — Consid&rations g6n6rales sur la valeur signal~tique desfragments d’empreintes digitales retrouv~es sur les lieux de crime”,Archives d’anthropologic criminelle, de mkdecine lkgale et de psy-chologies normale et pathologique, 27(2 17), 1912, pp 40-49. NB: Thefigure numbers relate to those used in the original article.]


Special Report

Alphonse Bertillon and Dactyloscopy

C. Champed

C. Lennard

P. Margot

Institut de Police Scientifique et de CriminologieL.ausanneSwitzerland

Introduction

In 1989, British fingerprint experts were engaged in a debate overtheir 16-point numerical standard for fingerprint identification [ 1-2]. Inmeetings organized under the direction of the Association of ChiefPolice Officers, a special “review team” headed by I. W. Evett and R.L. Williams argued that insisting on any minimum number of points isnot an adequate means of ensuring quality. To justify their position, thecommittee indicated that, historically, the British numerical standardfollowed from an inaccurate interpretation of a fingerprint comparisonpresented by Alphonse Bertillon in 1912. Bertillon had put forwardtwo fingerprints from two different persons showing 16 “concurring”minutiae [3].

Evett and Williams subsequently proposed a unified scheme oftraining and quality management to guarantee the highest possible pro-fessional standards in the fingerprint services. They concluded that a

fingerprint identification is a matter of personal expert opinion and thatif a system ensures that each expert is operating above a minimum levelof competence then there is no need for a national numerical pointsstandard.

Evett presented the review team’s viewpoint in Adelaide at the 12thMeeting of the International Association of Forensic Sciences in 1990,using photographic reproductions of the fingerprints presented byBertillon in 1912, These reproductions had been obtained from theInstitut de Police Scientifique et de Criminologie in Lausanne, whereBertillon’s original article may be found. These photos were furtheremployed by Margot and Champed in 1991 for a presentation regard-ing the need for a European standard for fingerprint identification [4].It was recommended by these authors that numerical standards be aban-doned in Europe in favor of the 1973 resolution of the InternationalAssociation for Identification which stated that there was not, at thatparticular time, a basis for deciding on a particular minimum number ofpoints to guarantee an identification.

The 1912 article by Bertillon, together with the photos published atthe time, are therefore of great interest at the present moment. It isworth noting that the observations made by Bertillon in 1912 have laiddormant for nearly 80 years and that very few present-day authors makemention of this work [5-7].

In this article, an accurate translation is presented of the severalparagraphs written by Bertillon in 1912 on the evidential value offingerprints, together with good quality reproductions of the photo-graphs he used to illustrate his observations. Bertillon’s article is thendiscussed from two viewpoints: firstly, with regard to the debate at thetime between anthropometrists and dactyloscopists which finally led tothe acceptance of dactyloscopy, and secondly, in terms of the currentdebate concerning the identification process and the question of a mini-mum numerical standard.

Fingerprints — General Considerations on the Identification Valueof Fingerprint Fragments Found at the Crime Scene

by A. Bertillon

[Free translation from the original French article, “Les empreintesdigitales — Consid&rations g6n6rales sur la valeur signal~tique desfragments d’empreintes digitales retrouv~es sur les lieux de crime”,Archives d’anthropologic criminelle, de mkdecine lkgale et de psy-chologies normale et pathologique, 27(2 17), 1912, pp 40-49. NB: Thefigure numbers relate to those used in the original article.]


“It has been known for some time that the patterns left by thepapillary ridges of the fingertips are an infallible identificationelement if the patterns formed by the ten fingers are availableas on the anthropometric form.

“The print from just one finger, or even of a part of the finger,is sufficient for the identification of a subject among a hundredthousand others. This is under the condition that the pattern issufficiently clear and extensive so as to reproduce either thecenter (point or line) or one of the points of lateral bifurcationcalled “delta points” and, furthermore, a certain number ofparticularities of which the topography must be identical onthe two documents. At the same time, one must note the totalabsence of dissimilarities in the clearly visible parts of theprints.

“The number of particularities necessary to ensure an identifi-cation naturally varies, following the degree of originality ofthe pattern. We estimate that from ten to fifteen particularitiesare sufficient to give the conclusions a degree of probabilityclose to certainty.

“It is important to note that we sometimes see with brothers,and especially twin brothers, fingerprints which show, over acertain surface, a number of common particularities that mayreach or exceed this numbers. The only way to completelyeliminate this hypothesis, in the case where the accused has abrother who may also be a suspect, is to record the brother’sfingerprints and check that his prints do not show all theparticularities found in the evidential marks. This would al-most certainly be the case as such a group of coincidencesbetween brothers is only encountered in exceptional cases.

“Nevertheless, such coincidences of form can exist. Here is astriking example: the two fingerprint fragments reproduced inFigure 5 show a significant general resemblance accompaniedby sixteen common particularities. Yet one of these prints isfrom the middle finger of one subject and the other belongs tothe ring finger of another subject, unrelated to the first. Need-less to say that if we consider a larger zone then decisivedifferences would appear which would prohibit a conclusion

Figure 5 Figure 6

Fragments of fingerprints from two individuals showing 16common particularities. (Left print: right little finger of C...,born in 1869. Right print: right middle jinger of M..., born in1855.)

Fingerprint A. Samples offingerprints A and B (see Figure 7)presenting considerable analog) and which may be presumedto be from two individuals of the same family.



“It has been known for some time that the patterns left by thepapillary ridges of the fingertips are an infallible identificationelement if the patterns formed by the ten fingers are availableas on the anthropometric form.

“The print from just one finger, or even of a part of the finger,is sufficient for the identification of a subject among a hundredthousand others. This is under the condition that the pattern issufficiently clear and extensive so as to reproduce either thecenter (point or line) or one of the points of lateral bifurcationcalled “delta points” and, furthermore, a certain number ofparticularities of which the topography must be identical onthe two documents. At the same time, one must note the totalabsence of dissimilarities in the clearly visible parts of theprints.

“The number of particularities necessary to ensure an identifi-cation naturally varies, following the degree of originality ofthe pattern. We estimate that from ten to fifteen particularitiesare sufficient to give the conclusions a degree of probabilityclose to certainty.

“It is important to note that we sometimes see with brothers,and especially twin brothers, fingerprints which show, over acertain surface, a number of common particularities that mayreach or exceed this numbers. The only way to completelyeliminate this hypothesis, in the case where the accused has abrother who may also be a suspect, is to record the brother’sfingerprints and check that his prints do not show all theparticularities found in the evidential marks. This would al-most certainly be the case as such a group of coincidencesbetween brothers is only encountered in exceptional cases.

“Nevertheless, such coincidences of form can exist. Here is astriking example: the two fingerprint fragments reproduced inFigure 5 show a significant general resemblance accompaniedby sixteen common particularities. Yet one of these prints isfrom the middle finger of one subject and the other belongs tothe ring finger of another subject, unrelated to the first. Need-less to say that if we consider a larger zone then decisivedifferences would appear which would prohibit a conclusion

Figure 5 Figure 6

Fragments of fingerprints from two individuals showing 16common particularities. (Left print: right little finger of C...,born in 1869. Right print: right middle jinger of M..., born in1855.)

Fingerprint A. Samples offingerprints A and B (see Figure 7)presenting considerable analog) and which may be presumedto be from two individuals of the same family.



—.. ..~

Figure 7

Fingerprint B. Samples of two fingerprints B and A (see Fig-ure 6) presenting considerable analogy and which may bepresumed to be from two individuals of the same family.

of identification. The same may be said for Figures 6 and 7where the number of common particularities has reached fifty.

“These examples illustrate among other things the importanceof specifying, when possible, the designation of the finger thatproduced the print under examination.

“It often happens that several fingers are developed simulta-neously, produced by the grip of the same hand. In this case, itis relatively easy to determine which hand, left or right, wasinvolved and, of course, which finger produced each print.

“This knowledge, which limits the number of comparisonsneeded with control prints, greatly increases the value of theconclusions drawn from similarities of general form. In thisway, in the preceding example, it is obvious that all that needbe known is that the compared prints are from two differentfingers to arrive at a conclusion of non-identity.

Figure 8

Fingerprints from two individuals who had exchanged namesand been identified by means of anthropometric measure-ments. Note the general resemblance of the last four fingers:index, middle, ring, and little.

—-— —. — —.

Figure 9

Finget-print.y sho~ving a general resemblance and comingfrom tvto sisters (not twins).

—.. ..~

Figure 7

Fingerprint B. Samples of two fingerprints B and A (see Fig-ure 6) presenting considerable analogy and which may bepresumed to be from two individuals of the same family.

of identification. The same may be said for Figures 6 and 7where the number of common particularities has reached fifty.

“These examples illustrate among other things the importanceof specifying, when possible, the designation of the finger thatproduced the print under examination.

“It often happens that several fingers are developed simulta-neously, produced by the grip of the same hand. In this case, itis relatively easy to determine which hand, left or right, wasinvolved and, of course, which finger produced each print.

“This knowledge, which limits the number of comparisonsneeded with control prints, greatly increases the value of theconclusions drawn from similarities of general form. In thisway, in the preceding example, it is obvious that all that needbe known is that the compared prints are from two differentfingers to arrive at a conclusion of non-identity.

Figure 8

Fingerprints from two individuals who had exchanged namesand been identified by means of anthropometric measure-ments. Note the general resemblance of the last four fingers:index, middle, ring, and little.

—-— —. — —.

Figure 9

Finget-print.y sho~ving a general resemblance and comingfrom tvto sisters (not twins).

“Here are another two examples that show that generallikenesses in form do not count for a great deal in the searchfor identity:

“The two sets of fingerprints shown in Figure 8 are, in effect,from two individuals with the same surname but unrelated.Similarly, Figure 9 shows sets of prints from two sisters (nottwins). Apart from the thumbs, the general fingerprint pat-terns are very similar.

“Itcanbeseent hat by appropriate cut-outs, it would bepossi-ble, through the consultation of numerous documents, toob-tain fairly extensive fingerprint zones that show a certainnumber of common particularities without any notable dis-similarities. However, it is evidently unlikely that portions offingerprints left at random by a criminal would precisely re-produce such artificially chosen zones.

“It is also necessary to add that these patterns, which appear sosimilar after a preliminary observation, would not stand up toa meticulous comparison. It may be possible to find, for ex-ample, an equal number of ridges separating two singularpoints, but the direction, separation, thickness, and curvatureof these lines will not be absolutely identical from one finger-print to another.

“From these considerations, it can be seen that an identifica-tion by fingerprint evidence must, for absolute certainty, besupported by a detailed expert’s report.

“The two examples of deceiving similarities that have justbeen presented show that the assertion of identity relies less onthe number of common particularities than on the undoubtedabsence of dissimilarities. It is therefore, in the end, an induc-tion based on a negative result.

“However, from a point of view purely philosophical, suchconclusions are generally unconvincing. Their value isuniquely derived from the accepted and already proven com-petence of the expert. It is totally personal, whereas a non-identity may be shown without discussion by the finding ofobvious dissimilarities that may be verified by anyone.”

(end of translation)

Bertillon and Anthropometry

The problem of identification dominates the whole criminal justicesystem. In this respect, following the abolition in France of the mark-ing of prisoners in 1832, nothing was as difficult as the identification ofhabitual offenders. The police recorded descriptions of individualswhich, due to a lack of language standardization, singled out onlyextreme cases with any precision. The majority of individuals wereclassified as either “average” or “ordinary”. Forensic photographyremedied some of the weaknesses through the establishment of photo-graphic records. This was certainly progress but, without any adequatemeans of classification, the system rapidly fell prey to the ever increas-ing population of delinquents [8].

Alphonse Bertillon, employed in 1879 as a ledger clerk at the PoliceHeadquarters in Paris, immediately became annoyed with this deplor-able situation [9]. Inspired by anthropometrical methods employed atthe time (Quetelet, Broca, Topinard, etc...), Bertillon proposed the useof certain somatic measurements, particularly invariable at full devel-opment (>20 years of age), as discriminating characteristics for theidentification of habitual offenders [ 10- 12]. After three years of con-stant struggle against a stubborn administration, and thanks to supportfrom a well-known and influential father, the first “Bertillon System”,the anthropological description of individuals, was finally put to thetest. In 1882, M. Camescasse, chief of police in Paris at the time,inaugurated the first anthropological bureau.

Bertillon followed up on this work, completing his anthropologicaldescription system with characteristics including iris coloration, nosemorphology and particular markings, thus forming the basis of theportrait par14, a standardized language for the description and thediffusion of information between different police services [ 13- 17].

For the efficient use of an identification system for habitual offend-ers, it is essential to be able to classify each file. Bertillon stated that:

“The solution to the problem of forensic identification consistsless in the search for new characteristic elements of the indi-vidual than in the discovery of a means of classification.” (freetranslation [1 8], page 15j

“Here are another two examples that show that generallikenesses in form do not count for a great deal in the searchfor identity:

“The two sets of fingerprints shown in Figure 8 are, in effect,from two individuals with the same surname but unrelated.Similarly, Figure 9 shows sets of prints from two sisters (nottwins). Apart from the thumbs, the general fingerprint pat-terns are very similar.

“Itcanbeseent hat by appropriate cut-outs, it would bepossi-ble, through the consultation of numerous documents, toob-tain fairly extensive fingerprint zones that show a certainnumber of common particularities without any notable dis-similarities. However, it is evidently unlikely that portions offingerprints left at random by a criminal would precisely re-produce such artificially chosen zones.

“It is also necessary to add that these patterns, which appear sosimilar after a preliminary observation, would not stand up toa meticulous comparison. It may be possible to find, for ex-ample, an equal number of ridges separating two singularpoints, but the direction, separation, thickness, and curvatureof these lines will not be absolutely identical from one finger-print to another.

“From these considerations, it can be seen that an identifica-tion by fingerprint evidence must, for absolute certainty, besupported by a detailed expert’s report.

“The two examples of deceiving similarities that have justbeen presented show that the assertion of identity relies less onthe number of common particularities than on the undoubtedabsence of dissimilarities. It is therefore, in the end, an induc-tion based on a negative result.

“However, from a point of view purely philosophical, suchconclusions are generally unconvincing. Their value isuniquely derived from the accepted and already proven com-petence of the expert. It is totally personal, whereas a non-identity may be shown without discussion by the finding ofobvious dissimilarities that may be verified by anyone.”

(end of translation)

Bertillon and Anthropometry

The problem of identification dominates the whole criminal justicesystem. In this respect, following the abolition in France of the mark-ing of prisoners in 1832, nothing was as difficult as the identification ofhabitual offenders. The police recorded descriptions of individualswhich, due to a lack of language standardization, singled out onlyextreme cases with any precision. The majority of individuals wereclassified as either “average” or “ordinary”. Forensic photographyremedied some of the weaknesses through the establishment of photo-graphic records. This was certainly progress but, without any adequatemeans of classification, the system rapidly fell prey to the ever increas-ing population of delinquents [8].

Alphonse Bertillon, employed in 1879 as a ledger clerk at the PoliceHeadquarters in Paris, immediately became annoyed with this deplor-able situation [9]. Inspired by anthropometrical methods employed atthe time (Quetelet, Broca, Topinard, etc...), Bertillon proposed the useof certain somatic measurements, particularly invariable at full devel-opment (>20 years of age), as discriminating characteristics for theidentification of habitual offenders [ 10- 12]. After three years of con-stant struggle against a stubborn administration, and thanks to supportfrom a well-known and influential father, the first “Bertillon System”,the anthropological description of individuals, was finally put to thetest. In 1882, M. Camescasse, chief of police in Paris at the time,inaugurated the first anthropological bureau.

Bertillon followed up on this work, completing his anthropologicaldescription system with characteristics including iris coloration, nosemorphology and particular markings, thus forming the basis of theportrait par14, a standardized language for the description and thediffusion of information between different police services [ 13- 17].

For the efficient use of an identification system for habitual offend-ers, it is essential to be able to classify each file. Bertillon stated that:

“The solution to the problem of forensic identification consistsless in the search for new characteristic elements of the indi-vidual than in the discovery of a means of classification.” (freetranslation [1 8], page 15j

He therefore elaborated a classification system based on a tripartitedivision of the measurements obtained (large, medium, small) whichcould be modified at any time in order to obtain the most even distribu-tion of forms between the different filing cabinets. This ideal classifi-cation potential constituted one of the major advantages of the Bertillonsystem.

Over a number of years, Bertillon developed a very methodicalsystem of measurement, description, and classification of the data ob-tained, thus solving the problem of the detection of habitual offenders.Bertillon became famous and, in 1887, was nominated Head of theIdentification Service at the Police Headquarters in Paris [19].

In an endeavor to achieve the best performance from his system,Bertillon further completed his anthropometric form in its descriptivesection and assembled, for each recidivist, five documents: body mea-surements (including head, arms and legs), iris coloration, photography,portrait parl&, and a description of individual particularities (including4 fingerprints) [18]. The Bertillon method spread to most countries,with Parisian anthropometry becoming the standard search and identifi-cation technique for habitual offenders at the end of the 19th century.

1888: Dactyloscopy in France

In 1888, Galton presented the fingerprint method and, together withthe work of Faulds and Herschel, the papillary patterns were qualifiedas being individual, immutable, and an ideal means of personal identifi-cation [20]. This publication would modify a good number of researchprojects started by the medico-legal school in Lyon. under the directionof Professor Lacassagne. Following on from several projects concern-ing trace evidence [2] -23], Fr6con commented on Galton’s article in

his thesis [24], pre-empting future projects by Galton on the subject ofsecondary classification (which he did not publish until 1895) by writ-ing:

“From a first classification by measurements, one could then

compare fingerprints from the same series and make furthersubdivisions. [... ] All in all, the method of this author [Galton]offers a great analogy with that instituted at the anthropomet-ric service by Mr. Bertdlon. It even seems that it would beadvantageous to unite the two systems: one would only needto place, on the identity form of each prisoner, the person’s

thumbprint next to the photo which is already displayed.” (freetranslation [24], page 35)

Forgeot, two years later, revealed the whole importance of the detec-tion of fingerprints on evidential objects and published a thesis on latentfingerprint development [25-26]. He also revealed the difficulties ofpapillary pattern classification if a blind search of a suspect papillarymark was envisaged. In this respect, he favored other visible character-istics in the revealed fingerprint, such as pathological and occupationaldeformities, for a more rapid search. This view was entirely shared bythe illustrious Hans Gross (Gratz, Austria) [27].

The article that Galton published in Philosophical Transactions in1891 presented, for the first time, a primary classification of the papil-lary patterns which was largely diffused by the French scientific com-munity [28-30]. This diffusion lead to the work by Vucetich inArgentina [31 ] .

After the publication of his two books regulating the primary andsecondary classification systems, Galton was convinced of the superi-ority of dactyloscopy over anthropometry [32, 33]. However, it wasnot until 1901 that the English government recognized the advantagesof fingerprints, due mainly to the efforts of Henry [34, 35].

In France, following this British decision, dactyloscopy entered infull competition with Bertillon’s anthropometrical technique. How-ever, the debate was not restricted to the comparison of anthropometrywith English dactyloscopy, often described as complex, as the researchconducted in South America by Vucetich had also to be considered.With the Vucetich system, the fingerprint forms were classified by asimpler method [36].

In 1903. Locard, working as an assistant to Professor Lacassagne inLyon and who would become one of the specialists in dactyloscopicclassification systems, admitted to being hesitant with regard to thedirections taken in England and in Argentina; dactyloscopy was a new-born science facing an established anthropometric system that had ful-filled all of its ambitions. Locard suggested abandoning certaincomplicated anthropometric measurements in favor of the use of papil-lary patterns, the Bertillon system being useful for identification pur-poses mainly through its description of particularities rather than

J. Forensic Ident.612/43 (6), 1993


He therefore elaborated a classification system based on a tripartitedivision of the measurements obtained (large, medium, small) whichcould be modified at any time in order to obtain the most even distribu-tion of forms between the different filing cabinets. This ideal classifi-cation potential constituted one of the major advantages of the Bertillonsystem.

Over a number of years, Bertillon developed a very methodicalsystem of measurement, description, and classification of the data ob-tained, thus solving the problem of the detection of habitual offenders.Bertillon became famous and, in 1887, was nominated Head of theIdentification Service at the Police Headquarters in Paris [19].

In an endeavor to achieve the best performance from his system,Bertillon further completed his anthropometric form in its descriptivesection and assembled, for each recidivist, five documents: body mea-surements (including head, arms and legs), iris coloration, photography,portrait parl&, and a description of individual particularities (including4 fingerprints) [18]. The Bertillon method spread to most countries,with Parisian anthropometry becoming the standard search and identifi-cation technique for habitual offenders at the end of the 19th century.

1888: Dactyloscopy in France

In 1888, Galton presented the fingerprint method and, together withthe work of Faulds and Herschel, the papillary patterns were qualifiedas being individual, immutable, and an ideal means of personal identifi-cation [20]. This publication would modify a good number of researchprojects started by the medico-legal school in Lyon. under the directionof Professor Lacassagne. Following on from several projects concern-ing trace evidence [2] -23], Fr6con commented on Galton’s article in

his thesis [24], pre-empting future projects by Galton on the subject ofsecondary classification (which he did not publish until 1895) by writ-ing:

“From a first classification by measurements, one could then

compare fingerprints from the same series and make furthersubdivisions. [... ] All in all, the method of this author [Galton]offers a great analogy with that instituted at the anthropomet-ric service by Mr. Bertdlon. It even seems that it would beadvantageous to unite the two systems: one would only needto place, on the identity form of each prisoner, the person’s

thumbprint next to the photo which is already displayed.” (freetranslation [24], page 35)

Forgeot, two years later, revealed the whole importance of the detec-tion of fingerprints on evidential objects and published a thesis on latentfingerprint development [25-26]. He also revealed the difficulties ofpapillary pattern classification if a blind search of a suspect papillarymark was envisaged. In this respect, he favored other visible character-istics in the revealed fingerprint, such as pathological and occupationaldeformities, for a more rapid search. This view was entirely shared bythe illustrious Hans Gross (Gratz, Austria) [27].

The article that Galton published in Philosophical Transactions in1891 presented, for the first time, a primary classification of the papil-lary patterns which was largely diffused by the French scientific com-munity [28-30]. This diffusion lead to the work by Vucetich inArgentina [31 ] .

After the publication of his two books regulating the primary andsecondary classification systems, Galton was convinced of the superi-ority of dactyloscopy over anthropometry [32, 33]. However, it wasnot until 1901 that the English government recognized the advantagesof fingerprints, due mainly to the efforts of Henry [34, 35].

In France, following this British decision, dactyloscopy entered infull competition with Bertillon’s anthropometrical technique. How-ever, the debate was not restricted to the comparison of anthropometrywith English dactyloscopy, often described as complex, as the researchconducted in South America by Vucetich had also to be considered.With the Vucetich system, the fingerprint forms were classified by asimpler method [36].

In 1903. Locard, working as an assistant to Professor Lacassagne inLyon and who would become one of the specialists in dactyloscopicclassification systems, admitted to being hesitant with regard to thedirections taken in England and in Argentina; dactyloscopy was a new-born science facing an established anthropometric system that had ful-filled all of its ambitions. Locard suggested abandoning certaincomplicated anthropometric measurements in favor of the use of papil-lary patterns, the Bertillon system being useful for identification pur-poses mainly through its description of particularities rather than



through its anthropometry section [37]. Locard would engage the med-ico-legal school of Lyon in new comparative research.

Anthropometry versus Dactyloscopy

Alphonse Bertillon

Bertillon, following Galton’s visit to Paris, conceded that dactylos-copy was an ideal identification method. but doubted the large scaleclassification of dermatoglyphes. As a result, in 1893, he suppliedinformation concerning papillary patterns as a one-page annex to hisidentifying system instructions. He proposed that the fingerprints takenfrom four fingers be placed on the anthropometric form. However,Bertillon gave preference to his highly flexible classification systemand wrote:

“Certainly, I do not contest, to speak only of the Chineseprocedure, that the arabesques which present the epidermis ofthe front surface of the thumb are not only fixed for oneindividual, but are extraordinarily variable from one individ-ual to another and that each individual possesses a type oforiginal and highly personalized stamp. Unfortunately, it isalso undeniable, despite the ingenious research conducted byMr. Francis Galton in England, that these patterns do notpresent, in themselves, elements of variability sufficiently dis-tinct to serve as a basis for a catalogue of many hundreds ofthousands of cases.” (free translation [ 18], pages 25-26)

On the other hand, from 1896, Bertillon was perfectly aware of thepossibilities offered by papillary traces revealed at the scene of crimeand he developed, in an empirical manner, the powdering technique forthe detection of latent fingerprints [6, 9]. Bertillon’s success in thedactyloscopic identification of Reibel in the Scheffer case ( 1902) wasan exceptional example of his efficiency and open-mindedness [38].

To make up for deficiencies in his anthropometric system with re-gard to female offenders and minors, Bertillon developed a dactylo-scopic classification method for these two categories. Even thoughBertillon claimed authorship for this ten-print system, the analogy withthat proposed by Vucetich must be noted [39].

Bertillon never admitted that the dactyloscopic system could replaceanthropometry as a basic means of classification. However, up to hisdeath in 1914, the number of fingerprints recorded on the anthropomet-ric forms of males slowly increased and Bertillon used fingerprints as asub-classification criterion [40]. His anthropometric education and hisprevious work naturally lead him to prefer his metric measurementsystem (in use in the majority of countries at the time) which had givenhim and his students such brilliant results [41 ] .

The Medico-Legal School at Lyon

In his thesis work suggested by Locard, Yvert highlighted the defi-ciencies of anthropometry faced with the qualities of certitude, and theease of use and classification offered by dactyloscopy. Yvert suggestedthe replacement of anthropometry by dactyloscopy while maintainingthe portrait parld, judged to be particularly useful for investigationpurposes [42].

Despite the obvious advantages of dactyloscopy, the lack of consen-sus regarding the system of classification largely delayed its develop-ment in France. The two predominant systems, Galton-Henry andVucetich, were too much opposed. The first, despite complicationsrelated to ridge counting and tracing, permitted a more even distribu-tion in the classification, while the second, much simpler, exhibited allits limitations as the fingerprint file increased in size. As a result, thedifferent identification bureaus separately elaborated their own hybridten-print systems, mixing the two existing classification methods tobest suit their needs. In 1909, Locard presented the most completecomparative work at the time regarding the different ten-print systems[43 ]. Locard indicated, in conclusion, that a standard dactyloscopicmethod could replace Parisian anthropometry which, he now believed,was a questionable universal identification technique. The criminalistfrom Lyon was largely followed in his opinion by Stockis in Belgium,who proposed a standard dactyloscopic form at the international level,greatly simplified in its anthropometrical content [44,45].

Rei\s (Lau.Yanne, Switzerland)

At the dawn of dactyloscopy, R. A. Reiss was not of the opinion thatthis new technique would be called upon to permanently replace an-thropometrical measurements; he believed that fingerprints, by theirindividuality, only offered a supplementary guarantee in the identifica-



through its anthropometry section [37]. Locard would engage the med-ico-legal school of Lyon in new comparative research.

Anthropometry versus Dactyloscopy

Alphonse Bertillon

Bertillon, following Galton’s visit to Paris, conceded that dactylos-copy was an ideal identification method. but doubted the large scaleclassification of dermatoglyphes. As a result, in 1893, he suppliedinformation concerning papillary patterns as a one-page annex to hisidentifying system instructions. He proposed that the fingerprints takenfrom four fingers be placed on the anthropometric form. However,Bertillon gave preference to his highly flexible classification systemand wrote:

“Certainly, I do not contest, to speak only of the Chineseprocedure, that the arabesques which present the epidermis ofthe front surface of the thumb are not only fixed for oneindividual, but are extraordinarily variable from one individ-ual to another and that each individual possesses a type oforiginal and highly personalized stamp. Unfortunately, it isalso undeniable, despite the ingenious research conducted byMr. Francis Galton in England, that these patterns do notpresent, in themselves, elements of variability sufficiently dis-tinct to serve as a basis for a catalogue of many hundreds ofthousands of cases.” (free translation [ 18], pages 25-26)

On the other hand, from 1896, Bertillon was perfectly aware of thepossibilities offered by papillary traces revealed at the scene of crimeand he developed, in an empirical manner, the powdering technique forthe detection of latent fingerprints [6, 9]. Bertillon’s success in thedactyloscopic identification of Reibel in the Scheffer case ( 1902) wasan exceptional example of his efficiency and open-mindedness [38].

To make up for deficiencies in his anthropometric system with re-gard to female offenders and minors, Bertillon developed a dactylo-scopic classification method for these two categories. Even thoughBertillon claimed authorship for this ten-print system, the analogy withthat proposed by Vucetich must be noted [39].

Bertillon never admitted that the dactyloscopic system could replaceanthropometry as a basic means of classification. However, up to hisdeath in 1914, the number of fingerprints recorded on the anthropomet-ric forms of males slowly increased and Bertillon used fingerprints as asub-classification criterion [40]. His anthropometric education and hisprevious work naturally lead him to prefer his metric measurementsystem (in use in the majority of countries at the time) which had givenhim and his students such brilliant results [41 ] .

The Medico-Legal School at Lyon

In his thesis work suggested by Locard, Yvert highlighted the defi-ciencies of anthropometry faced with the qualities of certitude, and theease of use and classification offered by dactyloscopy. Yvert suggestedthe replacement of anthropometry by dactyloscopy while maintainingthe portrait parld, judged to be particularly useful for investigationpurposes [42].

Despite the obvious advantages of dactyloscopy, the lack of consen-sus regarding the system of classification largely delayed its develop-ment in France. The two predominant systems, Galton-Henry andVucetich, were too much opposed. The first, despite complicationsrelated to ridge counting and tracing, permitted a more even distribu-tion in the classification, while the second, much simpler, exhibited allits limitations as the fingerprint file increased in size. As a result, thedifferent identification bureaus separately elaborated their own hybridten-print systems, mixing the two existing classification methods tobest suit their needs. In 1909, Locard presented the most completecomparative work at the time regarding the different ten-print systems[43 ]. Locard indicated, in conclusion, that a standard dactyloscopicmethod could replace Parisian anthropometry which, he now believed,was a questionable universal identification technique. The criminalistfrom Lyon was largely followed in his opinion by Stockis in Belgium,who proposed a standard dactyloscopic form at the international level,greatly simplified in its anthropometrical content [44,45].

Rei\s (Lau.Yanne, Switzerland)

At the dawn of dactyloscopy, R. A. Reiss was not of the opinion thatthis new technique would be called upon to permanently replace an-thropometrical measurements; he believed that fingerprints, by theirindividuality, only offered a supplementary guarantee in the identifica-



tion process. Reiss wrote in favor of a complete system combininganthropometry and, as a subsidiary, dactyloscopy, much in the sameline of thinking as Bertillon. The illustrious criminalist from Lausanneemphasized the value of the flexible classification system offered byanthropometry which gave an ideal distribution of files, something thatno standard ten-print classification system could propose at the time.Reiss underlined the low probability of finding a fingerprint at a crimescene of sufficient quality to permit an easy search in a ten-finger(decadactyloscopic) filing system. In order to get the most out offingermarks found at the scene, a single-finger (monodactyloscopic)classification method was required [46-48].

1914: An International Congress on Identification

From 1906, Reiss deplored the lack of uniformity in the work per-formed by the different fingerprint bureaus; an international congresswas required in order to correct this situation and favor the spread ofdactyloscopy [49, 50]. Locard was in full agreement with Reiss in thisrespect [51, 52]. Pressure from various sources led to the organizationof the first international police congress in April 1914 in Monaco,ironically just after the death of Bertillon. In the meantime, single-fin-ger classification systems began to appear around Europe [41] .

During his presentation, Reiss proposed the conservation of all ofthe details contained in the Parisian filing system given the importanceof the identification procedure and the proven usefulness of descriptiveinformation in criminal investigations. However, in view of the prog-ress of dactyloscopy, he proposed that this information should now beclassified by the dactyloscopic system as developed by Vucetich (thesimpler and more widespread method) [53, 54].

The identification services decided on a standard dactyloscopicidentification form, while conserving certain notions of the portraitparl+. Bertillon and “Bertillonage” were both dead. Unfortunately, theevents of World War I reduced to nothing these efforts at standardiza-tion and each country went its own way, developing ad hoc dactylo-scopic systems and identification forms.

The Debate on Fingerprint Identification Principles

The First Fingerprint Identifications

Historically, the first convictions on the basis of fingerprints go backto the turn of the century, in the cases Rojas (Vucetich*, Argentina,1892), Jackson (Collins, Great Britain, 1902), and Scheffer (Bertillon,France, 1902). The number of corroborating minutiae permitting anidentification were notably 10 for the Jackson case, and from 3 to 12(depending on the finger) for the Scheffer case [35, 38]. In this latteraffair, Bertillon had detected five fingerprint fragments on a brokenwindow pane at the scene of a murder. He was able to associate all ofthese prints with the suspect, Scheffer. Although many more minutiaewere clearly visible in the evidential prints, Bertillon was satisfied toemploy only a limited number to demonstrate his identification.

Locard ’s Opinion

In France, the first rules specifying the number of minutiae neces-sary for an identification date back to Locard in 1911:

“It must be considered that identity is not certain with less thantwelve characteristic points per fingerprint. In all cases, onesingle divergent point implies, in an absolute fashion, non-identity.” (free translation [55], pages 109- 110)

In 1912, while presenting his work on poroscopy, Locard qualifiedhis position on the rigidity of the “12-point rule” by introducing thenotion of evaluation of the papillary trace:

“In reality, five or six points of striking form or peculiar dispo-sition, well grouped at the center of the figure or towards atriangle [delta], are infinitely more precious than eighteen ortwenty bifurcations disseminated in the peripheral parts of afingerprint, being both scattered and unclear. Therein lies acase of evaluation.” (free translation [56], pages 2-3)

* Although Vucetich is given credit for the Rojas identification by many sources, the fin-gerprint in blood was identified by Inspector Alvarez (Chapman, C., “Dr. Juan Vucetich:His Contributions to the Science of Fingerprints”, JFI, 42 (4), 1992) - Ed.

J. Forensic Ident. J. Forensic Ident.616/43 (6), 1993 43 (6), 1993 \617

tion process. Reiss wrote in favor of a complete system combininganthropometry and, as a subsidiary, dactyloscopy, much in the sameline of thinking as Bertillon. The illustrious criminalist from Lausanneemphasized the value of the flexible classification system offered byanthropometry which gave an ideal distribution of files, something thatno standard ten-print classification system could propose at the time.Reiss underlined the low probability of finding a fingerprint at a crimescene of sufficient quality to permit an easy search in a ten-finger(decadactyloscopic) filing system. In order to get the most out offingermarks found at the scene, a single-finger (monodactyloscopic)classification method was required [46-48].

1914: An International Congress on Identification

From 1906, Reiss deplored the lack of uniformity in the work per-formed by the different fingerprint bureaus; an international congresswas required in order to correct this situation and favor the spread ofdactyloscopy [49, 50]. Locard was in full agreement with Reiss in thisrespect [51, 52]. Pressure from various sources led to the organizationof the first international police congress in April 1914 in Monaco,ironically just after the death of Bertillon. In the meantime, single-fin-ger classification systems began to appear around Europe [41] .

During his presentation, Reiss proposed the conservation of all ofthe details contained in the Parisian filing system given the importanceof the identification procedure and the proven usefulness of descriptiveinformation in criminal investigations. However, in view of the prog-ress of dactyloscopy, he proposed that this information should now beclassified by the dactyloscopic system as developed by Vucetich (thesimpler and more widespread method) [53, 54].

The identification services decided on a standard dactyloscopicidentification form, while conserving certain notions of the portraitparl+. Bertillon and “Bertillonage” were both dead. Unfortunately, theevents of World War I reduced to nothing these efforts at standardiza-tion and each country went its own way, developing ad hoc dactylo-scopic systems and identification forms.

The Debate on Fingerprint Identification Principles

The First Fingerprint Identifications

Historically, the first convictions on the basis of fingerprints go backto the turn of the century, in the cases Rojas (Vucetich*, Argentina,1892), Jackson (Collins, Great Britain, 1902), and Scheffer (Bertillon,France, 1902). The number of corroborating minutiae permitting anidentification were notably 10 for the Jackson case, and from 3 to 12(depending on the finger) for the Scheffer case [35, 38]. In this latteraffair, Bertillon had detected five fingerprint fragments on a brokenwindow pane at the scene of a murder. He was able to associate all ofthese prints with the suspect, Scheffer. Although many more minutiaewere clearly visible in the evidential prints, Bertillon was satisfied toemploy only a limited number to demonstrate his identification.

Locard ’s Opinion

In France, the first rules specifying the number of minutiae neces-sary for an identification date back to Locard in 1911:

“It must be considered that identity is not certain with less thantwelve characteristic points per fingerprint. In all cases, onesingle divergent point implies, in an absolute fashion, non-identity.” (free translation [55], pages 109- 110)

In 1912, while presenting his work on poroscopy, Locard qualifiedhis position on the rigidity of the “12-point rule” by introducing thenotion of evaluation of the papillary trace:

“In reality, five or six points of striking form or peculiar dispo-sition, well grouped at the center of the figure or towards atriangle [delta], are infinitely more precious than eighteen ortwenty bifurcations disseminated in the peripheral parts of afingerprint, being both scattered and unclear. Therein lies acase of evaluation.” (free translation [56], pages 2-3)

* Although Vucetich is given credit for the Rojas identification by many sources, the fin-gerprint in blood was identified by Inspector Alvarez (Chapman, C., “Dr. Juan Vucetich:His Contributions to the Science of Fingerprints”, JFI, 42 (4), 1992) - Ed.

J. Forensic Ident. J. Forensic Ident.616/43 (6), 1993 43 (6), 1993 \617

In this manner, Locard, while discovering identification byporoscopy, came to fully realize the duality between quantitative andqualitative aspects of fingerprint identification [57].

Bertil[on ’s Opinion

With regard to the process of identification, Bertillon shared theopinions expressed by Locard (see translation of Bertillon’s 1912 arti-cle). Bertillon was less refined than Locard in this respect, but nonethe-less noted the importance of the type of fingerprint pattern and itsclarity in the final determination of the number of points necessary foran identification [3]. Bertillon emphasized the possibility of increasingthis number in the case of fingerprints from brothers or identical twins.This argument was illustrated by the presentation of fingerprints fromtwo persons, probably from the same family, totaling 51 similar points(see Figures 6 and 7).

Bertillon appealed for cautiousness in the unique consideration ofconcurring points. He underlined the importance of the absence ofdissimilarities by exhibiting fingerprints of different persons which, bycareful masking and some touching up, showed sixteen concurringpoints (see Figure 5). Well aware of the limitations of his examples,the Parisian anthropometrist clarified that it was highly improbable thata suspect at a crime scene would leave a fingerprint with such a cut-outform. The first dissimilarity (otherwise hidden by the masks inBertillon’s case) would permit the exclusion of the common-originhypothesis. Bertillon himself indicated that patterns so similar at a firstglance would not stand up to a rigorous comparison and would bedifferentiated by qualitative criteria such as direction, separation, thick-ness and curvature of the papillary ridges.

In this context, Bertillon’s conclusions clearly illustrate his positiveintentions towards dactyloscopy (see translation). Bertillon was there-fore perfectly conscious of the doubtful nature of his presentation. Hisonly ambition was to stress the need for a total absence of dissimilarit-ies in the identification process, associated with the consideration ofqualitative (rather than quantitative) criteria. He therefore questioned,in much the same way as Locard, the value of quantitative aspects as aunique indication of identity.

In the same year, Bertillon’s presentation was discussed by contem-porary dactyloscopists. The authors agreed with the views expressedby Bertillon regarding the importance of the lack of dissimilarities.


They raised the point that the cut-out zones in the Bertillon prints wereartificial and unrealistic, and that certain points indicated as “concur-ring” would in fact have excluded identity by actual divergences. Thecorrespondences indicated by Bertillon could only be described as ex-tremely crude and approximate, not supported by even a superficialexamination, with certain points even being obviously fabricated [58-60].

Locard’s Final View (1914)

In 1914, based on his long practical experience and on that of all theidentification services around the world (and additionally on the scien-tific work of Galton [32], Ramos [61] and Balthazard [62]), Locard putforward a tripartite rule where, finally, the number of concurring minu-tiae (quantitative factor) was considered as an element to be combinedwith a number of qualitative considerations [60].

Here, in a few lines, is a free translation of the tripartite directiveproposed by Locard [60]:

1. There are more than 12 concurring points; the fingerprintis sharp; the certainty of identity is unquestionable.

2. There are from 8 to 12 points, borderline case; the cer-tainty is a function of

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

the sharpness of the fingerprint;

the rarity of its type;

the presence of the center of the figure [core] and thetriangle [delta] in the decipherable part of the print;

the presence of pores [poroscopy];

the perfect and obvious identity regarding the widthof the papillary ridges and valleys, the direction ofthe lines, and the angular value of the bifurcations[ridgeology/edgeoscopy] .

In these instances, certainty is not reached until after dis-cussion of the case between two or more competent andexperienced specialists.

There are few characteristic points: in this case, the finger-print cannot provide certainty, but only a presumptionproportional to the number of points and their sharpness.


In this manner, Locard, while discovering identification byporoscopy, came to fully realize the duality between quantitative andqualitative aspects of fingerprint identification [57].

Bertil[on ’s Opinion

With regard to the process of identification, Bertillon shared theopinions expressed by Locard (see translation of Bertillon’s 1912 arti-cle). Bertillon was less refined than Locard in this respect, but nonethe-less noted the importance of the type of fingerprint pattern and itsclarity in the final determination of the number of points necessary foran identification [3]. Bertillon emphasized the possibility of increasingthis number in the case of fingerprints from brothers or identical twins.This argument was illustrated by the presentation of fingerprints fromtwo persons, probably from the same family, totaling 51 similar points(see Figures 6 and 7).

Bertillon appealed for cautiousness in the unique consideration ofconcurring points. He underlined the importance of the absence ofdissimilarities by exhibiting fingerprints of different persons which, bycareful masking and some touching up, showed sixteen concurringpoints (see Figure 5). Well aware of the limitations of his examples,the Parisian anthropometrist clarified that it was highly improbable thata suspect at a crime scene would leave a fingerprint with such a cut-outform. The first dissimilarity (otherwise hidden by the masks inBertillon’s case) would permit the exclusion of the common-originhypothesis. Bertillon himself indicated that patterns so similar at a firstglance would not stand up to a rigorous comparison and would bedifferentiated by qualitative criteria such as direction, separation, thick-ness and curvature of the papillary ridges.

In this context, Bertillon’s conclusions clearly illustrate his positiveintentions towards dactyloscopy (see translation). Bertillon was there-fore perfectly conscious of the doubtful nature of his presentation. Hisonly ambition was to stress the need for a total absence of dissimilarit-ies in the identification process, associated with the consideration ofqualitative (rather than quantitative) criteria. He therefore questioned,in much the same way as Locard, the value of quantitative aspects as aunique indication of identity.

In the same year, Bertillon’s presentation was discussed by contem-porary dactyloscopists. The authors agreed with the views expressedby Bertillon regarding the importance of the lack of dissimilarities.


They raised the point that the cut-out zones in the Bertillon prints wereartificial and unrealistic, and that certain points indicated as “concur-ring” would in fact have excluded identity by actual divergences. Thecorrespondences indicated by Bertillon could only be described as ex-tremely crude and approximate, not supported by even a superficialexamination, with certain points even being obviously fabricated [58-60].

Locard’s Final View (1914)

In 1914, based on his long practical experience and on that of all theidentification services around the world (and additionally on the scien-tific work of Galton [32], Ramos [61] and Balthazard [62]), Locard putforward a tripartite rule where, finally, the number of concurring minu-tiae (quantitative factor) was considered as an element to be combinedwith a number of qualitative considerations [60].

Here, in a few lines, is a free translation of the tripartite directiveproposed by Locard [60]:

1. There are more than 12 concurring points; the fingerprintis sharp; the certainty of identity is unquestionable.

2. There are from 8 to 12 points, borderline case; the cer-tainty is a function of

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

the sharpness of the fingerprint;

the rarity of its type;

the presence of the center of the figure [core] and thetriangle [delta] in the decipherable part of the print;

the presence of pores [poroscopy];

the perfect and obvious identity regarding the widthof the papillary ridges and valleys, the direction ofthe lines, and the angular value of the bifurcations[ridgeology/edgeoscopy] .

In these instances, certainty is not reached until after dis-cussion of the case between two or more competent andexperienced specialists.

There are few characteristic points: in this case, the finger-print cannot provide certainty, but only a presumptionproportional to the number of points and their sharpness.


The French criminalist’s resolutely modern approach was followedby the principal dactyloscopists of the start of the century who transmit-ted this knowledge to their contemporaries [63-66].

4.

Conclusions

One can only be surprised that the Bertillon prints, published in1912 [3], stirred up such a controversy amongst the English dactylosco-pists, as Bertillon himself clearly underlined the limitations in his dem-onstration. His goal was not to weaken fingerprint identification, but tosimply emphasize that an identification is not just the simple countingof concurring points. This view was perfectly understood by the emi-nent dactyloscopists of the time and led Locard towards a more evolvedunderstanding of the identification process.

The first two principles proposed by Locard in 1914 [60] may befound, in a more modern context, in the directives given by the Interna-tional Association of Identification (IAI) in 1973 [67].

It is interesting to note that the third point of Locard’s tripartite rulewas disregarded by Steinwender in his widely published articles onfingerprint identification [68-70] and was notably absent from the mea-sures taken by the IAI in 1980 [71].


C. ChampedInstitut de Police Scientifique et de CriminologiePlace du Chateau 3, CH- 1005Lausanne, Switzerland

+41 21 3163881, Voice+41213163891, Fax

5,

6.

7.

8.

9.

10

Margot, P. A.; Champed, C., “Fingerprint Identification: Is There Need fora European Standard?” (meeting abstract), Journal of the Forensic ScienceSociety, 32(1 ), 1992, pp 77-78.

Locard, E., Trait&de crirninalistigue, Volumes 1 to 7, Joann&s Desvigne &fils, Lyon, 1931.

Rhodes, H. T. F., Alphonse Bertillon — Father of Scientific Detection, G.G. Harrap & Co. Ltd., London, 1956.

Kingston, C. R.; Kirk, P. L., “La ‘R&gle des 12 points’ clans l’identificationpar les empreintes: historique et valeur”, Revue international de policecriminelle, 186, 1965, pp 62-69.

Reiss, R. A., La photographic judiciaire, C. Mendel, Paris, 1903.

Borgerhoff, T., “Alphonse Bertillon”, Reprinted from Bulletin de la Soci-4t4 d ‘Anthropologic de Bruxelles, 33, 1914, Hayez imprimeur, Bruxelles.

Bertillon, A., “Une application pratique de l’anthropometrie sur un pro-c6d6 d’ identification”, Reprinted from Annales de dkmographie interna-tional, 1881, G. Masson, Paris.

11. Bertillon, A., “Identification anthropom4trique”, Reprinted from Annalesde dkmographie international, 1882, G. Masson, Paris.

12. Bertillon, A., “L’identit6 des rdcidivistes et la loi de relegation”, Reprintedfrom Annales de dkmographie international, 1883, G. Masson, Paris.

13. Bertillon, A., Identification anthropomktrique — Instructions signal-4tiques, Typographic-lithographic administrative, Melun, 1885.

14. Bertillon, A., “La couleur de l’iris”, Reprinted from Annales de d4-mographie international, 1886, G. Masson, Paris.

15. Bertillon, A., Du classement phon~tique, Soci<t6 d’6ditions scientifiques,Paris, 1886.

16. Bertillon, A., “De l’identification par Ies signalements anthropo-metriques”, Reprinted from Archives de 1 ‘anthropologic criminelle et des

References sciences pknales, 1886, G. Masson, Paris.

1. Editorial, Fingerprint Whorld, 15(59), 1990, p 72.17. Bertillon, A., “De la morphologic du nez”, Revue d’anthropo~ogie, 2(3),

2. Luff, K., “The 16-point Standard”, Fingerprint Whorld, 15(59), 1990, pp 1887, pp 158-169.

73-74.18. Berti non, A., Identi$cation anthropomktrique — Instructions signal-

3. Bertillon, A., “Les empreintes digitalis”, Archives d ‘anthropologic crimi- Ltiques, 2nd Edition, Imprimerie administrative, Melun, 1893.nelle, de mkdecine lkgale et de psychologies normale et pathologique,27(217), 1912, Pp 36-52. 19. Bertillon, A., Sur le fonctionnement du service des signalements anthropo-

mdtriques, A. Storck, Lyon, 1888.

J. Forensic Ident. J. Forensic Ident.f37fl I A!l (6\ 1 QQ3 43 (6), 1993 \621

The French criminalist’s resolutely modern approach was followedby the principal dactyloscopists of the start of the century who transmit-ted this knowledge to their contemporaries [63-66].

4.

Conclusions

One can only be surprised that the Bertillon prints, published in1912 [3], stirred up such a controversy amongst the English dactylosco-pists, as Bertillon himself clearly underlined the limitations in his dem-onstration. His goal was not to weaken fingerprint identification, but tosimply emphasize that an identification is not just the simple countingof concurring points. This view was perfectly understood by the emi-nent dactyloscopists of the time and led Locard towards a more evolvedunderstanding of the identification process.

The first two principles proposed by Locard in 1914 [60] may befound, in a more modern context, in the directives given by the Interna-tional Association of Identification (IAI) in 1973 [67].

It is interesting to note that the third point of Locard’s tripartite rulewas disregarded by Steinwender in his widely published articles onfingerprint identification [68-70] and was notably absent from the mea-sures taken by the IAI in 1980 [71].


C. ChampedInstitut de Police Scientifique et de CriminologiePlace du Chateau 3, CH- 1005Lausanne, Switzerland

+41 21 3163881, Voice+41213163891, Fax

5,

6.

7.

8.

9.

10

Margot, P. A.; Champed, C., “Fingerprint Identification: Is There Need fora European Standard?” (meeting abstract), Journal of the Forensic ScienceSociety, 32(1 ), 1992, pp 77-78.

Locard, E., Trait&de crirninalistigue, Volumes 1 to 7, Joann&s Desvigne &fils, Lyon, 1931.

Rhodes, H. T. F., Alphonse Bertillon — Father of Scientific Detection, G.G. Harrap & Co. Ltd., London, 1956.

Kingston, C. R.; Kirk, P. L., “La ‘R&gle des 12 points’ clans l’identificationpar les empreintes: historique et valeur”, Revue international de policecriminelle, 186, 1965, pp 62-69.

Reiss, R. A., La photographic judiciaire, C. Mendel, Paris, 1903.

Borgerhoff, T., “Alphonse Bertillon”, Reprinted from Bulletin de la Soci-4t4 d ‘Anthropologic de Bruxelles, 33, 1914, Hayez imprimeur, Bruxelles.

Bertillon, A., “Une application pratique de l’anthropometrie sur un pro-c6d6 d’ identification”, Reprinted from Annales de dkmographie interna-tional, 1881, G. Masson, Paris.

11. Bertillon, A., “Identification anthropom4trique”, Reprinted from Annalesde dkmographie international, 1882, G. Masson, Paris.

12. Bertillon, A., “L’identit6 des rdcidivistes et la loi de relegation”, Reprintedfrom Annales de dkmographie international, 1883, G. Masson, Paris.

13. Bertillon, A., Identification anthropomktrique — Instructions signal-4tiques, Typographic-lithographic administrative, Melun, 1885.

14. Bertillon, A., “La couleur de l’iris”, Reprinted from Annales de d4-mographie international, 1886, G. Masson, Paris.

15. Bertillon, A., Du classement phon~tique, Soci<t6 d’6ditions scientifiques,Paris, 1886.

16. Bertillon, A., “De l’identification par Ies signalements anthropo-metriques”, Reprinted from Archives de 1 ‘anthropologic criminelle et des

References sciences pknales, 1886, G. Masson, Paris.

1. Editorial, Fingerprint Whorld, 15(59), 1990, p 72.17. Bertillon, A., “De la morphologic du nez”, Revue d’anthropo~ogie, 2(3),

2. Luff, K., “The 16-point Standard”, Fingerprint Whorld, 15(59), 1990, pp 1887, pp 158-169.

73-74.18. Berti non, A., Identi$cation anthropomktrique — Instructions signal-

3. Bertillon, A., “Les empreintes digitalis”, Archives d ‘anthropologic crimi- Ltiques, 2nd Edition, Imprimerie administrative, Melun, 1893.nelle, de mkdecine lkgale et de psychologies normale et pathologique,27(217), 1912, Pp 36-52. 19. Bertillon, A., Sur le fonctionnement du service des signalements anthropo-

mdtriques, A. Storck, Lyon, 1888.

J. Forensic Ident. J. Forensic Ident.f37fl I A!l (6\ 1 QQ3 43 (6), 1993 \621

20. Galton, F., “Personal Identification and Description II.”, Nature, 28, 1888,pp 201-202.

21. Florence, A., Les taches de sung, leur signification en mkdecine judiciaire,Thesis No. 256, Lyon, 1885.

22. Florence, A., “Les taches de sang, leur signification, leur importance enm6decine judiciaire”, Annales d ‘anthrcpdogie criminelle et des sciencespknales, 19, 1889.

23. Coutagne, H.; Florence, A., “Les empreintes clans les expertise judi-ciaires”, A rchi~es d ‘anthropologic crimine[le et des sciences p~nales,4(19), 1889, pp 25-56.

24. Fr6con, A., Des empreintes en g&z~ral, Thesis, Biblioth~que d’anthro-pologie criminelle et des sciences pdnales, Imprimerie Storck, Lyon, 1889.

25. Forgeot, R., Les empreintes digitales ktudikes au point de vue m4dico-l&gale, Thesis, Lyon, 1891.

26. Forgeot, R., “Etude m6dico-16gale des empreintes peu visibles ou invisi-bles et r6v616es par des proc6d6s sp6ciaux”, Archives de 1 ‘anthropologiccriminelle et des sciences pknales, 6(34), 1891, pp 387-404.

27. Gross, H., Manuel pratique d’instructiorz judiciaire, Marchal & BilladParis, 1899.

28. Galton, F., “The Pattern in Thumb and Fingers--On their Arrangementinto Naturally Distinct Classes, the Permanence of the Papillary Ridgesthat Make Them, and the Resemblance of their Class to Ordinary Genera”,Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 182, 1891, pp1-23.

29. De Varigny, H., “Les empreintes digitales d’apr?s Galton”, Re~weScient@que, 17(1), 1891, pp 557-562.

30. Fere, C., “Notes sur les empreintes des doigts et du gros orteil”, Comptesrendus hebdomudaires des stances et mkmoires de la Soci4t4 de Biologic,3(9), 1891, Pp 497-506.

31. Alamandos, L. R., Dactylojcopia Argentina, Tallere~ Griificos de JoaquinSes6, La Plata, 1909.

32. Galton, F., Fingerprints, Macmillan& Co., London, 1892. Reprinted byDa Capo Pre$s, New York. 1965.

33. Galton, F., Fi/zgerprint Directories, Macmillan& Co., London, 1895.

34. Henry, E. R., Cla.\.~(ficatiot~ and Uses of Finger Prints, 5th Edition,Darling & Sons, London, 1913.


35. Lambourne, G. T. C., The Fingerprint Sto~, Harrap Ltd., London, 1984.

36. Vucetich, J., Dactyloscopia comparada, Establecimiento TipogrificoJacobo Peuser, La Plata, 1904.

37. Locard, E., “La dactyloscopie: Identification des recidivists par Iesempreintes digitales”, Mkmoires de 1 ‘Acadkmie des sciences, Belles-[ettreset Arts de Lyon, 3(7), 1903, pp 147-161.

38. Sannid, C., “Alphonse Bertillon et la dactyloscopie. L’affaire Scheffer”,Revue international depolice criminel[e, 5(4 1), 1950, pp 255-262.

39. Bertillon, A., “Notice sur les empreintes digitales et la mdthode de classifi-cation adopt6e pour les repertoires anthropomdriques du service del’identitd judiciaire”, Archives de 1 ‘lP.SC, 1902.

40. Locard, E., “L’oeuvre d’Alphonse Bertillon”, Archives d’anthropologiccriminelle, de rnkdecine lkgale et de psychologies normale et pathologique,29(243), 1914, pp 167-186.

41. Stockis, E., “Alphonse Bertillon”, Archives Internationals de M4decineL&gale, 5(2), 1914, pp 186-191.

42. Yvert, A., L ‘identification par les empreintes digitales palmaires (Ladactyloscopie), A. Storck, Lyon, 1904.

43. Locard, E., L ‘identification des rkcidivistes, A. Maloine, Paris, 1909.

44. Stockis, E., “La dactyloscopie et l’identification judiciaire”, Reprintedfrom Annales de la Societi de Mkdecine [&gale de Belgique, 1908, I m -primerie Maison Piette, Charlerol.

45. Stockis, E., “L’identification judiciaire et Ie signalement international”,Reprinted from Revue de Droit Pknal et de Criminologie, 1908, VeuveFerdinand Larcier, Bruxelles.

46. Reiss, R. A., “Les mdhodes modernes d’identification de criminels “,Wissen und Leben, January(8), 1909, pp 338-345.

47. Reiss, R. A., “Les methodes modernes d’identification de criminels. H. Lafiche dactyloscopique”, Wissen und Leben, February(9), 1909, pp 385-389.

48. Reiss, R. A., “Les mdthodes modernes d’identification de criminels. III.Le portrait parld.”, Wissen und Leben, February( 10), 1909, pp 439-452.

49. Reiss, R. A., “Les mdthodes scientifiques clans les enqu&es judiciaires etpolicieres”, Archi~es d ‘anthropologic criminelle, de mkdecine lkgale et depsycholugie normale etpathologique, 21 ( 156), 1906, pp 857-876.


20. Galton, F., “Personal Identification and Description II.”, Nature, 28, 1888,pp 201-202.

21. Florence, A., Les taches de sung, leur signification en mkdecine judiciaire,Thesis No. 256, Lyon, 1885.

22. Florence, A., “Les taches de sang, leur signification, leur importance enm6decine judiciaire”, Annales d ‘anthrcpdogie criminelle et des sciencespknales, 19, 1889.

23. Coutagne, H.; Florence, A., “Les empreintes clans les expertise judi-ciaires”, A rchi~es d ‘anthropologic crimine[le et des sciences p~nales,4(19), 1889, pp 25-56.

24. Fr6con, A., Des empreintes en g&z~ral, Thesis, Biblioth~que d’anthro-pologie criminelle et des sciences pdnales, Imprimerie Storck, Lyon, 1889.

25. Forgeot, R., Les empreintes digitales ktudikes au point de vue m4dico-l&gale, Thesis, Lyon, 1891.

26. Forgeot, R., “Etude m6dico-16gale des empreintes peu visibles ou invisi-bles et r6v616es par des proc6d6s sp6ciaux”, Archives de 1 ‘anthropologiccriminelle et des sciences pknales, 6(34), 1891, pp 387-404.

27. Gross, H., Manuel pratique d’instructiorz judiciaire, Marchal & BilladParis, 1899.

28. Galton, F., “The Pattern in Thumb and Fingers--On their Arrangementinto Naturally Distinct Classes, the Permanence of the Papillary Ridgesthat Make Them, and the Resemblance of their Class to Ordinary Genera”,Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 182, 1891, pp1-23.

29. De Varigny, H., “Les empreintes digitales d’apr?s Galton”, Re~weScient@que, 17(1), 1891, pp 557-562.

30. Fere, C., “Notes sur les empreintes des doigts et du gros orteil”, Comptesrendus hebdomudaires des stances et mkmoires de la Soci4t4 de Biologic,3(9), 1891, Pp 497-506.

31. Alamandos, L. R., Dactylojcopia Argentina, Tallere~ Griificos de JoaquinSes6, La Plata, 1909.

32. Galton, F., Fingerprints, Macmillan& Co., London, 1892. Reprinted byDa Capo Pre$s, New York. 1965.

33. Galton, F., Fi/zgerprint Directories, Macmillan& Co., London, 1895.

34. Henry, E. R., Cla.\.~(ficatiot~ and Uses of Finger Prints, 5th Edition,Darling & Sons, London, 1913.


35. Lambourne, G. T. C., The Fingerprint Sto~, Harrap Ltd., London, 1984.

36. Vucetich, J., Dactyloscopia comparada, Establecimiento TipogrificoJacobo Peuser, La Plata, 1904.

37. Locard, E., “La dactyloscopie: Identification des recidivists par Iesempreintes digitales”, Mkmoires de 1 ‘Acadkmie des sciences, Belles-[ettreset Arts de Lyon, 3(7), 1903, pp 147-161.

38. Sannid, C., “Alphonse Bertillon et la dactyloscopie. L’affaire Scheffer”,Revue international depolice criminel[e, 5(4 1), 1950, pp 255-262.

39. Bertillon, A., “Notice sur les empreintes digitales et la mdthode de classifi-cation adopt6e pour les repertoires anthropomdriques du service del’identitd judiciaire”, Archives de 1 ‘lP.SC, 1902.

40. Locard, E., “L’oeuvre d’Alphonse Bertillon”, Archives d’anthropologiccriminelle, de rnkdecine lkgale et de psychologies normale et pathologique,29(243), 1914, pp 167-186.

41. Stockis, E., “Alphonse Bertillon”, Archives Internationals de M4decineL&gale, 5(2), 1914, pp 186-191.

42. Yvert, A., L ‘identification par les empreintes digitales palmaires (Ladactyloscopie), A. Storck, Lyon, 1904.

43. Locard, E., L ‘identification des rkcidivistes, A. Maloine, Paris, 1909.

44. Stockis, E., “La dactyloscopie et l’identification judiciaire”, Reprintedfrom Annales de la Societi de Mkdecine [&gale de Belgique, 1908, I m -primerie Maison Piette, Charlerol.

45. Stockis, E., “L’identification judiciaire et Ie signalement international”,Reprinted from Revue de Droit Pknal et de Criminologie, 1908, VeuveFerdinand Larcier, Bruxelles.

46. Reiss, R. A., “Les mdhodes modernes d’identification de criminels “,Wissen und Leben, January(8), 1909, pp 338-345.

47. Reiss, R. A., “Les methodes modernes d’identification de criminels. H. Lafiche dactyloscopique”, Wissen und Leben, February(9), 1909, pp 385-389.

48. Reiss, R. A., “Les mdthodes modernes d’identification de criminels. III.Le portrait parld.”, Wissen und Leben, February( 10), 1909, pp 439-452.

49. Reiss, R. A., “Les mdthodes scientifiques clans les enqu&es judiciaires etpolicieres”, Archi~es d ‘anthropologic criminelle, de mkdecine lkgale et depsycholugie normale etpathologique, 21 ( 156), 1906, pp 857-876.


50. Reiss. R. A., “Contribution a l’6tude de la police scientifique”, Archivesd ‘anthropologic criminelle, de mkdecine lkgale et de psychologies normaleetpathologique, 21( 151-153), 1906, pp 569-576.

Locard, E., “Chronique Latine: Le prochain congres de police et le prob-l~me de l’identit<. L’6volution des syst~mes identificateurs. La dactyl-oscopie en Belgique, en Serbie, au Br6sil.”, Archives d ‘anthropologiccriminelle, de mkdecine lkgale et de psychologies normale et pathologique,23(58), 1908, pp 865-873.

Locard, E., “Note sur un proc6d6 nouveau de classement des empreintesdigitales par la mesure de la ligne de Galton”, Bulletin de la Soci4t4d’Anthropologic de Lyon, 30, 1911, PP 129-137.

d-l. Roux, J. A., Actes du premier congris de police judiciaire international,Marchal & Billard, Paris, 1926.

54. Reiss, R. A., Contribution u la rkorganisation de la police, Payot & Cie,Paris, 1914.

55. Locard, E., “Les laboratoires de Police”, Archives lnternationa~es deM4decine L&gale, 2( 1 and 2), 1911, pp 105-117.

56. Locard, E., “L’identification des criminels par l’examen des glandessudoripares”, Reprinted from Province midicale, 23(3), 1912, A. Poinat,Paris.

57. Locard, E., “La poroscopie — Identification des criminels par les tracesdes orifices sudoripares”, Archives d ‘anthropologic criminelle, de m4d-ecine lkgale et de psychologies normale et pathologique, 28(235), 1913, pp528-546.

58. Welsch, H.; Lecha-Marzo, A., Manuel pratique de dact~’loscopie. Sur leslieux, duns le laboratoire et clans les services d ‘identification, ImprimerieH. Vaillant-Carmanne SA, Liege, 1912.

59. De Rechter, “A propos de l’identification des empreintes par superposit-ion”, Archives international de mkdecine lkgale, 3(1), 1912, pp 354-364.

60. Locard, E., “La preuve judiciaire par les empreintes digitalis”, Archi~’esd ‘anthropologic criminelle, de mkdecine lkgale et de psychologies normaleetpathologique, 29(245), 1914, PP 321-348.

61. Ramos, G., Da Identficagdo, Thesis, Rio de Janeiro, 1906.

62. Balthazard, V., “De l’identification par les empreintes digitales”, Comptesrendus des skances de 1 ‘Acadkmies des Sciences, 152, 1911, pp 1862-1864.

63. Sodermann, H.; O’Connell, J. H., Modern Criminal Investigation, Funk&Wagnalls Co., New York, 1935.

64. Heindl, R., System und Praxis der Daktyloskopie, Dritten Auflage, WalterDe Gruyter & Co., Vereinigung Wissenschaftlicher Verleger, Berlin &Leipzig, 1927.

65. Sorrentino, U., “La preuve dactyloscopique devant les magistrate”, Revuede Criminologie et de Police technique, 2( 1 ), 1948, pp 15-16.

66. Gayet, J., ABC de police scientifique, Payot, Paris, 1973.

67. McCann, P. D., “IAI Committee Completes Part 1 of 1970 Assignment:Sets No Minimum Number of ‘Points’ for Ridge Match”, Fingerprint andldentfication Magazine, 55(4), 1973, pp 11-16.

68. Steinwender, E., “L’identification dactyloscopique”, Revue internationaiede Criminologie et de Police technique, 12(2), 1958, pp 128-140.

69. Steinwender, E., “Der Dactyloskopische Identitiitsnachweis”, Kriminal-istik, 12(5), 1958, pp 186-194.

70. Steinwender, E., “Dactyloscopic Identification”, Fingerprint a~zd Identifi-cation Magazine, 41( 10), 1960, pp 3-16.

71. Anonymous, “Resolution VII Amended”, Identification New’s, 30(8),1980, p 3.


50. Reiss. R. A., “Contribution a l’6tude de la police scientifique”, Archivesd ‘anthropologic criminelle, de mkdecine lkgale et de psychologies normaleetpathologique, 21( 151-153), 1906, pp 569-576.

Locard, E., “Chronique Latine: Le prochain congres de police et le prob-l~me de l’identit<. L’6volution des syst~mes identificateurs. La dactyl-oscopie en Belgique, en Serbie, au Br6sil.”, Archives d ‘anthropologiccriminelle, de mkdecine lkgale et de psychologies normale et pathologique,23(58), 1908, pp 865-873.

Locard, E., “Note sur un proc6d6 nouveau de classement des empreintesdigitales par la mesure de la ligne de Galton”, Bulletin de la Soci4t4d’Anthropologic de Lyon, 30, 1911, PP 129-137.

d-l. Roux, J. A., Actes du premier congris de police judiciaire international,Marchal & Billard, Paris, 1926.

54. Reiss, R. A., Contribution u la rkorganisation de la police, Payot & Cie,Paris, 1914.

55. Locard, E., “Les laboratoires de Police”, Archives lnternationa~es deM4decine L&gale, 2( 1 and 2), 1911, pp 105-117.

56. Locard, E., “L’identification des criminels par l’examen des glandessudoripares”, Reprinted from Province midicale, 23(3), 1912, A. Poinat,Paris.

57. Locard, E., “La poroscopie — Identification des criminels par les tracesdes orifices sudoripares”, Archives d ‘anthropologic criminelle, de m4d-ecine lkgale et de psychologies normale et pathologique, 28(235), 1913, pp528-546.

58. Welsch, H.; Lecha-Marzo, A., Manuel pratique de dact~’loscopie. Sur leslieux, duns le laboratoire et clans les services d ‘identification, ImprimerieH. Vaillant-Carmanne SA, Liege, 1912.

59. De Rechter, “A propos de l’identification des empreintes par superposit-ion”, Archives international de mkdecine lkgale, 3(1), 1912, pp 354-364.

60. Locard, E., “La preuve judiciaire par les empreintes digitalis”, Archi~’esd ‘anthropologic criminelle, de mkdecine lkgale et de psychologies normaleetpathologique, 29(245), 1914, PP 321-348.

61. Ramos, G., Da Identficagdo, Thesis, Rio de Janeiro, 1906.

62. Balthazard, V., “De l’identification par les empreintes digitales”, Comptesrendus des skances de 1 ‘Acadkmies des Sciences, 152, 1911, pp 1862-1864.

63. Sodermann, H.; O’Connell, J. H., Modern Criminal Investigation, Funk&Wagnalls Co., New York, 1935.

64. Heindl, R., System und Praxis der Daktyloskopie, Dritten Auflage, WalterDe Gruyter & Co., Vereinigung Wissenschaftlicher Verleger, Berlin &Leipzig, 1927.

65. Sorrentino, U., “La preuve dactyloscopique devant les magistrate”, Revuede Criminologie et de Police technique, 2( 1 ), 1948, pp 15-16.

66. Gayet, J., ABC de police scientifique, Payot, Paris, 1973.

67. McCann, P. D., “IAI Committee Completes Part 1 of 1970 Assignment:Sets No Minimum Number of ‘Points’ for Ridge Match”, Fingerprint andldentfication Magazine, 55(4), 1973, pp 11-16.

68. Steinwender, E., “L’identification dactyloscopique”, Revue internationaiede Criminologie et de Police technique, 12(2), 1958, pp 128-140.

69. Steinwender, E., “Der Dactyloskopische Identitiitsnachweis”, Kriminal-istik, 12(5), 1958, pp 186-194.

70. Steinwender, E., “Dactyloscopic Identification”, Fingerprint a~zd Identifi-cation Magazine, 41( 10), 1960, pp 3-16.

71. Anonymous, “Resolution VII Amended”, Identification New’s, 30(8),1980, p 3.


Documents

Alphonse M. Bertillon: His Life and the Science of ... · Bertillon is sometimes credited with significant involvement in es-tablishing the science of fingerprints, but, in fact,