|
|
|
Ridgeology, The Book --— An Overview (This article is reprinted from the October 1998 issue of FINGERPRINT WHORLD Vol 24 No 94, pp 153--157. Thanks to Tom Jones, Kern County, for sharing this review of a very significant work.)
Presented by GRAHAM HUGHES F.F.S. Ridgeology stirs up many feelings in fingerprint officers; fear, trepidation, cynicism, skepticism, apathy, interest, awareness, realization, learning. Misconceptions are plentiful, from a method to take over from a numerical standard to the requirement to use high power magnification, and to acquire previously unknown ideas on how to use poroscopy and edgeoscopy in order to make identifications. I was once accused of “...being seduced by the mavericks who wish to change the 16 Point Standard”, and charged with being a “Theorist”; I was told that I was “confusing people with things that they do not need to know” — and that “you can know too much.” It was put to me that, “we work on eight ridge characteristics in coincident sequence to make identifications.” Firstly, I have never been seduced in my life, unfortunately (he says wistfully!), and I choose my friends and acquaintances very carefully. I am not a theorist as these are not my theories, I have only read and understood them. When people take the time to read what is involved in Ridgeology then they realize that they need not be confused and these are things that they should know; they are also very much a part of what they have done, are doing, and will do in the future. A “professional” should always aim to acquire knowledge in the pursuit of doing a better job; and I am very well aware of the importance of being sound in decisions on identity by the friction ridge system. It is interesting that those who put such charges before me have not taken the time to read this most important work. Over recent months, I have sent abstracts on the subject to various people who wanted to know more about Ridgeology. One was an expert with over thirty years experience who said to me that he now understands where it is coming from (Ridgeology) and it needs to be taught and read. Another expert stated that it was mind--boggling stuff and although he thought that he knew what he had been doing for fifteen years, it came as a great surprise to find out why and how he was able to do it; it was something that has got him interested in fingerprints, again ! So, what is Ridgeology? What it is not — is a one--stop identification process. It is not just Poroscopy;. it is just not Edgeoscopy. Ridgeology is more than that. It is an understanding of, and an awareness of what an examiner does, how, and why, and it is all underpinned by science. It is a concept of understanding and explaining the process of what we do, how we do it, and why we can do it. Now, it has a name. Ridgeology began life as a set of notes for a half day seminar on fingerprint identification techniques given by David Ashbaugh to trainees in the discipline. The term Ridgeology was first coined in 1983. As a word it is like a brand name, Spam, Kleenex, each is instantly recognizable with the product and method they serve. As a brand name, Ridgeology works, although the more precise and truer title is, The Quantitative--Qualitative Method of Friction Ridge Analysis -- how much and how good is the detail available in the comparison. Ridgeology as Dave Ashbaugh states, is “The study of the uniqueness of friction ridge structures and their use for personal identification.” So, just what is the problem? The fact is that somebody has actually put a name to the identification process, researched into the sciences which are involved in giving us an ability to identify people by the friction ridge system of the body -- and called it all Ridgeology. The uniqueness afforded to each individual is given by nature in various biological and genetic processes and we, through certain physiological abilities, can determine individuality by using a quantitative -- qualitative analysis of the friction ridge system. Yet many examiners find it difficult to understand just how and why. Ridgeology explains it all and constantly refers back to the science that is at the foundation of the process. Dave Ashbaugh states in his work that experience can only be gained through practice -- and practice only counts as experience when it is carried out from a position of knowledge, and gaining knowledge is the purpose of the book. The catalyst to the concept of Ridgeology as a work was undoubtedly the 1973 International Association for Identification's Resolution:
This change in doctrine appeared to be only a minor adjustment in philosophy yet it was not fully understood and the statement caused confusion and uncertainty to many examiners in the USA. Many paid lip service to the resolution and would never admit as true what the Committee's decision said. Prior to this, the standard in North America was around ten or twelve points in agreement as past observations in the profession showed that this was enough detail in agreement to feel safe that an error could not be made. This statement has since been superseded by the Ne'urim Declaration taken in Israel in 1995: “No scientific basis exists for requiring that a predetermined number of friction ridge features must be present in two impressions in order to establish positive identification.” This latest statement is, in fact, the opposite to what we have always been used to believing; it is the truth about the friction ridge system. There cannot ever be the possibility of any ridge feature being exactly the same as another. Scientific research and understanding of the friction ridge system dictates that each and every ridge characteristic is as unique as the next and that a predetermined number of ridge features does not determine identity. The key to all this is, clarity. When this is not available then a number of ridge characteristics will have a part to play in the identification process and any decision regards identity will be based on experience together with all the factors of the comparison being taken into account. The book, of which I have a draft, is divided into six parts: Introduction -- History -- The Friction Ridge Medium -- The Identification Process -- Poroscopy -- Friction Ridge Analysis Report. Only Poroscopy is not completed at the present time but it is worth briefly looking at the first four sections in order to get an idea of what the book is about. The Introduction The introduction includes The First Steps to Quantitative -- Qualitative Analysis. This mentions the 1973 IAI statement and discusses the “number of points philosophy”. We look at ridge characteristics and sequence but we do not fully understand that something else is taking place in the comparison. Our failure to understand this is explained as Ashbaugh says, “I know it's an ident but....” or rather, “My brain tells me it's an ident but I lack sufficient knowledge of how skin forms and why, and an in depth understanding of the identification process that would permit me to defend that decision.” Again the key to all this is — clarity. As clarity increases the opportunity to discern other details also increases; this interrelationship is the key to quantitative — qualitative analysis. As a discussion paper the Introduction is a thought--provoking exercise as is the short “The Ridgeology Revolution,” also included in the Introduction, which in its own way explains the reasons why this “new” method ought to be studied. History The history of friction ridge identification is divided into three sections: Primitive Knowledge: Early Pioneers: and Scientific Researchers. The first two are pretty much standard training lessons on fingerprint history, but the latter is of far more importance for it is here that science makes itself known in the scheme of friction ridge identification. Here we learn that the ridges are unique and are so through differential growth. To mention four important researchers, Whipple (although much of her work has been superseded), Wilder, Cummins, and Hale. Amongst other things, Dr. Inez Whipple found that all mammals have the same morphological arrangements on the hands and feet. She further explains the evolutionary process of friction ridges and explained the growth of ridge units, that patterns were affected by external forces and pressure from neighboring developing ridges. She found that ridges form at right angles to the possible direction of a contact surface and its shape. From Whipple's work, we are taken to Harris Hawthorne Wilder who found the relationship between friction ridges and the volar pads. He describes the ridge units which are subjected to differential growth and as a result, are unique. Harold Cummins was a Professor of Anatomy at Tulane University, USA. He discovered that volar pad regression takes place at the same time as ridge formation and that disease or birth defects may interfere with pad development, and may also affect friction ridges. Cummins stated, “...the alignments of these ridges are as responsive to stresses in growth as are the alignments of sand to sweeping by wind or wave.” Alfred Hale was an associate of Cummins and wrote an important paper “Morphogenesis of Volar Skin in the Human Fetus” in which he explains differential growth, the stresses of which condition the alignment and fusion of the ridge units, thereby establishing the primary ridge which also appears as a genetically controlled phenomenon; ridges grow in a totally random fashion. Add to this research, papers by Okajima and others, and more recently by Karen Holbrook, and we come into the realms of why science plays such an important part in our identification process; this is knowledge that every examiner should know and have access to in order to strengthen their expertise -- especially when giving evidence. There is an abundance of scientific research on epidermal skin which has hitherto been neglected by the fingerprint service most likely because identification techniques and science have never before met. The issue regarding uniqueness does not come any clearer than from these scientific researchers. The Friction Ridge Medium Briefly touching on The Friction Ridge Medium; this is where David Ashbaugh explains the structure of skin, ridge breadth, ridge units and pores, subsidiary ridges, and gives a description of skin layering. He explores the growth of ridges and makes constant reference to the scientific researchers and states that it is an accepted scientific fact that friction ridge skin is unique and differentiated in a very small area. The hypothesis of uniqueness is tested and proven to a very great degree with the vast number of comparisons over the years. This section is a fairly comprehensive one that explains easily the various parts of friction ridges that we are all used to seeing. The Identification Process Moving on to the next topic, “The Identification Process.” This is similarly divided into subsections: The Premises of Friction Ridge Identification: Philosophy; Human Sight; and Methodology. David Ashbaugh states that there are three premises of ridge identification: they develop before birth: persist throughout life: are unique and can never be repeated. Each premise is referenced with the scientific research spoken about earlier on in the book and therefore strengthened. These statements will be known and accepted by examiners as they have been taught them at a very basic level in their training but Ashbaugh brings them to a higher level by their unbreakable links to science. The Philosophy is set down by Ashbaugh as, “Friction ridge identification is established through the agreement of friction ridge formations, in sequence, and having sufficient uniqueness to individualize.” In this statement we are asked to recognize familiar aspects of our task. Friction Ridge formations — types — patterns — ridges and growth. The sequence is accumulative and in being able to understand uniqueness we must understand the role played by clarity in the comparison process. Sufficient uniqueness is subjective which depends on ability, knowledge in, and experience of the scientific basis for identification. What will appear as new is the issue of clarity when it is explained in three levels. The first is the overall pattern which does not contain sufficient detail to make an identification. The second level takes in the ridge paths and can be identified mainly by a numerical philosophy of identification. Here, David Ashbaugh makes the point that a numerical philosophy only works on this second level of clarity and does not consider all the information that may be available in the next level, the third level of clarity. At this stage, we would expect to see a very clear print containing first and second level clarity but which also contains detail in the ridges, shape, and pores. As science decrees a uniqueness in the ridge system, there does not have to be a certain number of ridge formations present in order to identify. The point, here, is that we must take into consideration all the information and based on our knowledge and experience, we can make an informed decision. Clarity is, without doubt, a subjective issue but demonstrated and explained well can show the differences available in the comparison. This is an aspect of identification that we have not been used to applying to our methods so far and it is one which is, therefore, all the more difficult to explain alongside a number of points philosophy. We all experience some idea of clarity and appreciate its place in an identification but we seldom understand the full impact that it can have in a comparison. Again, once we have grasped the importance of clarity, the message of Ridgeology will become “clearer,” although some will argue that this is even more of a dangerous area to enter when giving decisions on identity; it is safer to hold onto a number. The concept may well be difficult for some to come to terms with because of the presence of a number of points philosophy which has been around for so long. It is important to remember that David Ashbaugh accepts that without a greater clarity, a dependency on a number of points will prevail; the true test of an expert is to recognize the difference and decide accordingly. How long this will take is in turn dependent upon further research and training. Human Sight Describes the mental processes of the brain in conjunction with how we visualize what we are looking at. We are led through the steps that our brain takes to organize the information sent to it by the impulses received from the eye. How we interpret things is governed by our own physiology. As fingerprint examiners, we use this relationship between the eye and the brain to compare. We know it works because we have often said that we have made an identification long before we have gone on to satisfy the points methodology. David Ashbaugh gives examples of how the eyes and brain combine to interpret the information involved in what we see. Methodology We now turn to the Methodology. This is the practical side of identification in that the mark is analyzed for pattern, finger, distortion, and pressure. The surface and subsequent treatment of it are analyzed and a consideration of how clarity is affected. Then comes comparison. At this stage there are three aspects to look at; overall pattern, ridge characteristics, and the shapes of ridges and pore locations. With a third level of detail being available the brain is stimulated into making an identification, or not as the case may be. Following this, Ashbaugh mentions evaluation as the next step but concedes that this is sometimes the same as the comparison process. In any event, it is the overall evaluation of the identification. There is an interesting observation made here in the same way as it is made earlier on in the book, that is, “the numerical standard has a disadvantage because it is a black or white situation. All points are compared at second level detail whether there are sufficient numbers or not and clarity plays a minor role in the ident.” In the verification stage, we verify the process as well as the objectivity which enables us to check the results. In the above steps, there may well be a disagreement in the definitions used but we will agree that we use all processes along the path to identification, they may not be in strictly the same order but, nevertheless, they are there. Summary In summary, this has only been a brief outline of the book but the Quantitative--Qualitative Method of Friction Ridge Analysis is what we do, albeit for many of us, because of adherence to a numerical standard, we do to a lesser extent than is believed possible mainly for safety considerations. It is not a “process” to which we can turn to make an identification; it is much more than that. For many, many years, we have made identifications based solely on the number of ridge characteristics in the comparison and we have only looked to a number in order to we make an identification without error; we have never looked at the characteristics to come to the same decision. We can now appreciate that there is more to what we do, more to what we see, and more to what we can achieve given that we do our task from a position of knowledge. Ridgeology is an invaluable work that should be read by all those involved in the friction ridge identification process. It is a process that must be studied, taught, understood, and researched further in order that we, as fingerprint examiners, can do our profession justice.
This article was printed in “THE PRINT” |