Edmund Locard said that whenever two objects come into contact with each other, 
there will be an exchange between the two objects. This principle led to Locard 
being referred to as the “Father of Forensics.” Whenever someone touches an 
object, that person will leave behind a fingerprint. This fingerprint may be visible 
or it may be latent (invisible). Not only do people leave fingerprints everywhere they
go, but also, no two people have the same fingerprints; not even identical twins. 
(Although identical twins do have the same DNA) Before this was discovered, 
the only real evidence that could be presented in a court would have been 
eyewitness testimony and hearsay. Once fingerprints were discovered to be 
unique to each person, this all changed.

    For years there has been some argument over who was the first person to suggest 
the use of fingerprints for criminal identification. Today, Henry Faulds is known as 
the “Father of Fingerprinting,” however he went to his grave without receiving this 
recognition. It was not until the late 20th century that Faulds was given credit for his 
work with fingerprints. When the new science of fingerprinting came into being in the 
late 19th century, there were a few people who made significant contributions. 
However, Faulds was the first person to publish an article suggesting that everyone 
has different fingerprints, and that they could be used to identify criminals. He published 
this article in Nature, in October 1890. Sir William Herschel, who claimed to have 
discovered fingerprinting before Faulds, published an article in response to the 
article written by Faulds, in  Nature, in November 1890.

    Two men became interested in the use of fingerprinting after Faulds suggested it.
On man was Sir Edward Henry, and the other was Sir Francis Galton. 
(Galton was Charles Darwin’s cousin). Although the system used to classify 
fingerprints is called the Henry System today, both of these men helped to create it. 
However, Henry was the one interested in identifying criminals, Galton was more 
interested in trying to see if fingerprints could be used to determine desirable 
characteristics in people, in hopes of finding the key to the ‘Master Race.’

    Alphonse Bertillon had developed a system of identifying criminals that used 
measurements of the human body (over 200 measurements), about 10 years before 
fingerprinting came into effect. However, after the Stratton Brothers case, the case 
that first used fingerprints to convict someone of murder in a court of law, the Bertillon
system was abandoned, as fingerprints were superior. The Bertillon system was to 
vast and cumbersome. Fingerprinting was much more efficient. 

    Today, thanks to the work of earlier scientists, fingerprinting is the most common 
method of identification. The FBI has a database of over 60 million fingerprints…none 
of them the same. Although there are many aspects to forensic science, 
fingerprinting was the one that started it all.

   Now take a look at the murder that led to the trial that saw the use of fingerprints
become embedded in the crimainl justice system forever...

BACK TO TOP

William Herschel
Herschel claimed to be the first person to suggest
the use of fingerprints for identifying criminals,
however it was later discovered that Faulds
was the first. Herschel published an artilcle
in NATURE, on Nov. 25, 1890...almost
one month after Henry Faulds' article.
SEE HERSCHEL'S ARTICLE HERE
 

    On the morning of March 27th, 1905, William Jones went to work at 8:30 a.m. 
William worked at a paint shop in London. When he arrived at the paint shop, he 
found that the door was locked. William knew that it was very rare for his boss, 
Thomas Farrow, to not have the store open by the time he got there each morning. 
Mr. Farrow was the manager of the paint shop, and he lived in the apartment above 
the store with his wife, Ann. Unable to open the door, William looked through a 
window and saw that there were chairs knocked over. William knew that this day, 
Monday, was the day that Mr. Farrow brought the money, collected in the store from 
the previous week, to the bank. William thought that there might be trouble, so he ran 
for help. When he returned with Louis Kidman, a local who worked at a nearby store, 
they forced their way into the paint shop. Once inside, they found Mr. Farrow on the 
ground, lying in a pool of blood, and Ms. Farrow upstairs in her bed, in a pool of blood. 
William immediately sent for the doctor and the police. Mr. Farrow was pronounced 
dead by the doctor, but Ms. Farrow was still alive, although badly injured, and was 
taken to the hospital, unconscious. The police found that there was no forced entry, 
and the cash box was empty. Sergeant Albert Atkinson saw the cash box, and pushed 
it aside with his bare hands, so that the doctor would not trip over it. The police could 
find no clues that could suggest who the murder or murders were.

    Melville Macnaughten, Scotland Yard’s Assistant Commissioner was leading the 
investigation. Macnaughten was told of the empty cash box, and chose to examine it. 
He noticed that on the inside of the cash box, there was a greasy smudge. Macnaughten 
was aware of the use of fingerprints, as Scotland Yard had adopted the use of fingerprints
 in 1901; however, fingerprints had never been used to convict anyone of murder. 
Macnaughten was sure that the greasy smudge was a fingerprint, and he surmised that it 
may have been left by the murder. Macnaughten had the box wrapped in paper, and 
brought to Detective-Inspector Charles Collins, who was the Head of the fingerprinting 
branch of Scotland Yard. Collins compared the smudge on the box to Mr. and Ms. Farrow,
 as well as Sergeant Atkinson, who had touch the box with his bare hands earlier, and 
found that the fingerprint did not belong to any of these people. Macnaughten and Collins 
both suspected that the fingerprint, on the box was, left there by the killer. Collins, using 
the Henry classification system for fingerprints, also determined that the fingerprint on the 
cash box, did not match any of the 80, 000 fingerprints on file at Scotland Yard, therefore, 
the police would need to suspect to compare the fingerprint to. If they could find the person 
that left the fingerprint, they would have their killer. Macnaughten hoped that Ms. Farrow 
would regain consciousness in the hospital and identify her attacker, but she died as a result 
of her injuries. 

    After interviewing witnesses who saw two men leaving the Farrow’s paint shop around 
7:30 a.m., Macnaughten had one good lead. Ellen Stranton, a local girl, saw two men leaving 
the shop, and she recognized one of them as Alfred Stratton. Although Alfred did not have a 
criminal record, he was known to police as being a ‘vagabond,’ who frequently associated with
 known criminals. Macnaughten also knew Alfred’s younger brother Albert, and both men fit 
the description given by witnesses. Alfred and Albert were arrested six days after the murder. 
Collins knew that the print on the cash box was a thumbprint, probably from someone’s right 
hand. He compared the fingerprints of Alfred and Albert Stratton, and he concluded that the 
fingerprint on the cash box, matched the right thumbprint of Alfred Stratton exactly. The two 
brothers, Alfred and Albert were charged with murder and the trial date was set for May 5th, 1905.           

Now take a look at the Stratton Brothers Trial. This was the first trial to use fingerprints
to convict anyone of murder...

BACK TO TOP

Sir Edward Henry
Henry invented a system for classify fingerprints
in the late 1890's. This system is still used today.

See the newpaper article of the Stratton Brothers trial. The article is from the London Times, Monday May 8th 1905. 
The article is on two pages, click HERE for page 1, and HERE for page 2.

    Macnaughten and Collins knew that the trial of Alfred and Albert Stratton could make or break fingerprinting. Richard Muir, the prosecutor had his work cut of for him. The Defense was pulling out all the stops. Henry Faulds, the first man to suggest the use of fingerprinting in criminal investigations, would be testifying for the defense. Why would the “Father of Fingerprinting” want to testify against the use of fingerprinting in the legal system? Faulds was weary of the fact that the police only had one fingerprint, and he did not want his life’s wok used to put innocent men in jail. Not that he believed the Stratton brothers were innocent. He just did not want a single fingerprint to send them to the gallows. Faulds was convinced that no two people had the same ten fingerprints, but the prosecution did not have ten fingerprints. They had one. Also testify for the defense was Dr. John Garson, Inspector Collins mentor. Also in attendance was Edward Henry, the man you devised a system of fingerprint classification that is still used today. This trial would set the precedence for the use of fingerprints in a court of law, and everyone was curious of the result. 

    Richard Muir wanted to establish first that Alfred and Albert were in the vicinity of the crime at the time of the murders, that they had the tools to break into the paint shop and that they had more money than they could account for. After Muir did this, then he intended to put Collins on the stand show the judge and the jury that the fingerprint was positive identification of the killer. 

    The prosecution called over 40 witnesses to the stand. One of the witnesses was Kate Wade, Albert Stratton’s girlfriend. Wade said that Albert was not with her on the night of the murder, and he usually stayed with her. Three other witnesses said they saw to men leaving the paint store on the morning of the murder and they all described the two men as wearing the same clothes. One witness, Ellen Stranton identified one of the men as Alfred Stratton. When the Doctor who examined the bodies of Thomas and Ann Farrow testified, he said that the injuries that killed the Farrows’, were caused by a weapon similar to tool that were owned by the defendants. This witnesses all presented circumstantial evidence, and the defense council for the Strattons, H.G. Rooth, and Harold Morris, did very well to point this fact out to the jury, and offer alternative explanations for the events in question. One of the stronger witnesses for the prosecution, Annie Cromarty, who was Alfred’s girlfriend, testified that two nights before the murder, she and Alfred did not have money for food, and when she awoke in the morning, Alfred had come home with money an he did not explain where he got it. She also said that after the murders, Alfred threw out clothes that he owned when he saw the descriptions of the murders in the paper. Annie also testified that Alfred to her to tell the police, or anyone else that asked, that he was with her the night of the murder. All of the evidence, up to this point, made it seem that it was quite probable that the Stratton brother committed the murder. However, the defense countered each piece of evidence with an alternative explanation. It did not look good for the prosecution, and the defense felt confident enough to call Alfred Stratton to the stand. Alfred said that on the night in question, Albert came knocking on the door at 2:30 a.m. and asked for money because he could not afford a place to stay that night. Alfred went to check to see how much money he had. He had no money, and when he returned, he found Albert was gone. Alfred went in search of his brother. He found him and told him that he had no money, but he could stay on the floor in his room. This was Alfred’s story and it explained the reason some of the witnesses saw them out late at night. 

    Muir called one more witness before he called Collins to the stand. He called William Gittings, an assistant jailer. Gittings was working in the jail while Alfred and Albert were in custody awaiting trial. Gittings told the court of a conversation he had with Albert Stratton. Albert said to Gittings, “I reckon he (Alfred) will get strung up and I shall get about ten years…He has led me into this.” The prosecution hoped that the jury would see this statement as a confession. Now it was time to called Charles Collins to the stand.

    Muir’s plan was to first have Collins’s expertise in the field of fingerprinting established for the jury, so they knew that Collins was in fact an expert. Then Muir would have Collins explain to the jury, in laymen’s terms, how the science of fingerprinting worked. After Muir did this, then he would have Collins discuss the fingerprint involved in the case. Collins’s expertise was established, and he explained very thoroughly how fingerprinting worked. He showed the jury the fingerprint found on the cash box at the scene of the crime, and he showed them the print he had taken from Alfred Stratton’s right thumb. Muir then asked Collins how confident he was that the fingerprint on the cash box, was that of Alfred Stratton. Collins said that he was 100% confident that the two fingerprints were exact matches. The jury had all they needed. The plan for the defense was to called Dr. Garson to the stand. Dr. Garson was Collins teacher at one point, so if the defense could establish that Garson was more of an expert, then his testimony would discredit Collins’s testimony. Muir had a plan for Garson. On his cross-examination, Muir called into evidence two letters, each written by Dr. Garson. One letter was to Muir, and the other was to the Defense council. Each letter said that Garson would be willing to testify for either side in the trial, depending on who would pay him more. This completely discredited the testimony of Garson that suggested the two fingerprints were not from the same hand. This was the final blow to the defense. The defense decided not to call Henry Faulds as a witness just in case Muir was able to discredit him as well. Now it was up to the jury. If they understood and accepted the testimony of Charles Collins, then they would have to accept the evidence presented by Muir and convict the Strattons. If not, Alfred and Albert would go free. The fate of fingerprints rested on the shoulder of twelve English jurors in London, in 1905. After only two hours of deliberation, the jury found Alfred and Albert Stratton guilty of the murder of Thomas and Ann Farrow, and sentenced them to death. The Stratton brothers were both hanger on Tuesday, May 23rd, 1905. They were sent to their death by a greasy smudge on a cash box. This was the case that launched forensic science. 

A Drawing of a hanging..

Now take a look at Fingerprinting in Canada...

BACK TO TOP

    Thomas Alfred Edward Foster joined the Dominion Police Force in Canada in 1890. He first learned of the use of fingerprinting for criminal identification in 1904 while attending meetings of the International Association of Police Chiefs, in St. Louis. Foster decided to study fingerprinting in hopes that it would be implemented in Canada. Foster was convinced that fingerprints were superior to the Bertillon system of criminal identification. Foster was a major contributor to the establishment of a National Fingerprint Bureau in Canada in 1905. Although this new bureau was established in 1905, it was not until 1908 that an Order in Council was passed, sanctioning the use of fingerprints to identify criminals; however, this bureau was not officially established until 1911. It was not until 1910 when convict Joseph Chartrand escaped from Kingston penitentiary, that fingerprinting realized it need in Canada. Joseph Chartrand was convicted of murder in 1904. His fingerprints were not taken, as Foster had not yet brought the science of fingerprinting to Canada yet. After Chartrand escaped, he was recaptured eight days later. However, he almost fooled the authorities into thinking he was not Joseph Chartrand. Had the use of fingerprints been implemented, the authorities would have identified Chartrand immediately. After this, Canada began training fingerprint specialists, and Foster led the way. That is why Edward Foster is known as the “Father of Fingerprinting in Canada.”

To see a copy of the Identification of Criminals Acts, click HERE. 

To learn more about Edward Foster, visit this website http://www.rcmp.ca/pdfs/foster_e.pdf

BACK TO TOP

C. Beaven (2001): Fingerprints: The origin of crime detection and the murder case that launched forensic science; Hyperion Publishing.
N.E. Genge (2002): The Forensic Casebook; The Ballantine Publishing Group.
C. Evans (1996): The Casebook of Forensic Detection ; John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

INTERNET REFERENCES

http://www.met.police.uk/so/100years/presspack.htm
http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/Exhibitions/Myst/en/timeline/
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/ident.pdf

BACK TO TOP

BACK TO HOMEPAGE