UPDATES ON CLPEX.com
Updated the Fingerprint Interest Group web page with FIG #
25.
_________________________________________
we looked at an IAI fingerprint statement
regarding the Baltimore Maryland case.
we feature Pat Wertheim's
latent print report in the Van der Vyver case.
Permanent link:
http://www.clpex.com/Articles/VanDerVyver/VanDerVyverLPreport.htm
_________________________________________
Van der Vyver Report
by Pat Wertheim
Date: 15 August 2006
Subject of report: Evaluation of crime scene and fingerprint evidence
and examinations in the murder investigation of Inge Lotz; Special
attention to the analysis of “lift #1,” also known as “Folien #1,” and
comparison of latent fingerprints on lift #1 with the inked
fingerprints of Fred van der Vyver.
Items considered in conducting this examination:
1. Copies of crime scene photographs from the flat of Inge Lotz.
2. Copies of two foliens with latent fingerprints.
3. Copies of nine tape lifts with latent fingerprints and palm prints.
4. Original inked fingerprints and palm prints of Fred van der Vyver.
5. Copy of report of Daan Bekker to Adv. P. J. De Bruyn, 20 Feb 2006.
6. Copy of report of Director RH Botha, 19 Dec 2005.
7. Various drinking glasses used for experimentation.
8. Various DVD cases used for experimentation.
9. Various fingerprint equipment and supplies used for
experimentation.
Facts, observations, experiments, data, and conclusions:
1. I was employed by the Kerrville, Texas, Police Department from 1973
– 1975 and, after a six-month hiatus, again from 1976 – 1979. My job
duties in part consisted of examining evidence and scenes of crimes
for latent fingerprint marks. During the last three years of my
employment in Kerrville, my primary assignment was as Identification
Officer. I processed all major crime scenes, including photographing
and sketching the scenes, collecting evidence of all types, and
developing latent fingerprints at scenes of crimes and on evidence. I
also compared latent fingerprints to inked fingerprints. I first
testified to fingerprint identifications in 1978.
2. I was employed by the Plano, Texas, Police Department from 1980
through 1989. During all except the first two months of my employment,
my duties included photographing and sketching scenes of crimes,
collecting evidence of all types, and processing the scenes and
evidence for latent fingerprint marks. I also compared latent
fingerprints from scenes and evidence with the inked fingerprints of
known persons. From 1986 through 1989, I served as supervisor of the
Identification Unit for the department. My duties included supervising
and training identification technicians and property custodians. I
also taught courses in crime scene examination and fingerprint
comparison at the Tri-Cities Police Academy and at the North Central
Texas Regional
Police Academy. I testified numerous times to fingerprint
identifications and was frequently requested by the District Attorney
to examine fingerprints and testify in cases other than those of my
own agency.
3. I was employed by the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Southern Regional Crime Laboratory (SRCL) from 1989 through 1997. My
duties consisted of examining scenes of crimes and evidence for latent
fingerprint marks, comparing and identifying any latent prints found
with the inked prints of known persons, and testifying to my
conclusions. In addition, I instructed classes frequently in
fingerprint related matters and prepared proficiency tests for other
latent print examiners in the crime laboratory.
4. I was employed by Lightning Powder Company, Inc., from March 1997
through March 1999 as the company vice president. My primary job
functions were to create a training section for the company,
coordinate classes, and instruct in topics of fingerprint
identification to police agencies and officers throughout the United
States.
5. From April 1999 through July 2001 I was self employed as a trainer
in the subject of latent fingerprint comparison and identification. As
a self-employed instructor of fingerprint comparison, I taught classes
throughout the United States, as well as in the Caribbean, New
Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. In addition, I
served as an independent consultant in fingerprint matters.
6. From August 2001 to present I have been employed again by the
Arizona Department of Public Safety Southern Regional Crime Laboratory
in Tucson. My duties consist of examining evidence and scenes of
crimes for latent fingerprint marks, comparing and identifying any
marks found with the inked prints of known persons, and testifying to
my conclusions. In addition, I am occasionally asked to prepare
proficiency tests for other latent print examiners in the agency and
to instruct in fingerprint related matters.
7. I have attended all of the training courses in fingerprint
classification, comparison, and identification offered by the Texas
Department of Public Safety at their Training Academy in Austin,
Texas. I have also attended all of the training courses offered by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation in the comparison and identification
of latent fingerprint marks, both courses taught regionally and at the
FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. In addition, I have attended
numerous other training courses, conferences, and symposia related to
fingerprints.
8. I have taught numerous courses in advanced latent fingerprint
comparison and I am widely recognized as an expert in the comparison
and identification of fingerprints. I have also taught numerous
courses in crime scene examination and I am recognized as an expert in
that field, as well.
9. I have studied all of the available literature on fingerprint
forgery and fabrication and have conducted numerous experiments on
those topics dating from February 1992. I have published numerous
articles, given numerous talks, and taught numerous classes on the
topic of fingerprint forgery and fabrication. I am recognized as an
expert in the detection of forged and fabricated fingerprint evidence.
10. I was awarded status as a Certified Latent Print Examiner by the
International Association for Identification in 1981 and have
maintained my certification continuously since that time. I was most
recently tested and certified in December, 2005.
11. I was awarded status as a Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst by
the International Association for Identification in 1996 and served as
Chairman of that Certification Board for several years.
12. From time to time, I continue to teach advanced courses in
fingerprint related matters as a private instructor outside my
employment responsibilities at Arizona DPS. I also lecture and teach
workshops on fingerprint topics at regional and international
conferences. Since resuming full time employment at Arizona DPS in
2001, I have taught weeklong advanced courses independently in Wales
(UK), Australia, American Samoa, and several states in the United
States.
13. From time to time, I instruct in topics of crime scene
examination, crime scene photography, evidence collection, and other
crime scene related investigation techniques. Also, I am occasionally
called upon to advise police officers from other police agencies at
scenes of major crimes.
14. From time to time, I also serve as an independent consultant in
fingerprint matters. I do so as a private individual and not as an
agent of DPS. Such consultations take place outside of the facilities
of the DPS and are done on my own time. Any conclusions I reach in any
such consultation are mine alone and do not represent any official
position of DPS. DPS assumes no responsibility for any conclusions I
might reach in any such consultation. This report is prepared as a
result of private consultation and is in no way supported or
sanctioned by DPS. The views and conclusions presented in this report
are mine and have not been reviewed or sanctioned by DPS.
15. A copy of my curriculum vitae has been provided for inspection.
(Appendix A.)
16. Fingerprint “forgery” is the planting of a fingerprint on a
surface so that the fingerprint appears to have been left by the
finger or fingers of the person to whom it can be identified. In a
forgery, the person who is represented by the fingerprint has never
actually touched the surface on which his fingerprint has been planted
or “forged.” Forgery implies the planting of a fingerprint on a
surface by a criminal in an attempt to mislead the police. In reality,
fingerprint forgery is so rare as to be virtually nonexistent.
17. Fingerprint “fabrication” is the fabrication of evidence by
police. In a case of fingerprint fabrication, the fingerprint never
actually existed on the surface from which it is alleged to have come.
Unfortunately, fingerprint fabrication by police is not so rare.
Latent fingerprint fabrications by police have been detected and
reported since the 1920s. Of the hundreds of reported cases of
fingerprint fabrication I have studied, all fabrications fall into one
of the three following categories: 1. Fingerprints lifted from inked
or known fingerprints and represented as having come from evidence; 2.
Staged photographs in which fingerprints appear to be on surfaces
where they do not actually exist; and 3. Mislabeled fingerprint lifts
in which the fingerprints were lifted from different surfaces than
those claimed by the police.
18. In fingerprint forgery, a fingerprint actually does exist at the
scene of a crime or on a piece of evidence although the person whose
print it is never actually touched the evidence at all. In fingerprint
fabrication, the fingerprint never existed on the evidence in the
first place but came from a different surface and has been
misrepresented by the police.
19. A copy of my in depth article, “Forgery and Fabrication of Latent
Fingerprint Evidence,” originally published in the Journal of Forensic
Identification in the May/June 1994 issue has been provided for
inspection. (Appendix B.)
20. A copy of a second article I wrote, “Latent Fingerprint
Fabrication,” written in 1997 for submission to numerous regional
newsletters and trade publications and published in a number of forums
including the internet, has also been provided for inspection.
(Appendix C.)
21. Photographs, notes, and reports of the South Africa Police Service
(SAPS) regarding the murder of Inge Lotz were studied as part of the
examination in this case. The murder was very brutal and excessive
force was used by the killer. Clubbing and stabbing appears to have
continued after the death of Ms Lotz. Blood appears to have been
dripped and smeared in areas and in rooms other than where the murder
occurred. This would indicate that the killer spent considerable time
in the flat and would probably have left substantial evidence of
identity.
22. The initial crime scene examination by SAPS leaves much to be
desired. In regard to the processing of surfaces for latent
fingerprints, it seems highly likely there would have been more than
eleven identifiable fingerprints on surfaces inside the flat. The fact
that only eleven lifts were taken indicates either that the flat and
all contents were phenomenally clean or that only a superficial effort
was made to locate fingerprints. The extremely low number of surfaces
examined and lifts taken implies the latter.
23. In a review of the crime scene work of the SAPS, a blatant
deficiency was noted in the quantity and quality of the crime scene
photographs made available to me. Good crime scene photography
consists of three levels of photographs, all taken before any evidence
is moved or fingerprinting begun. First, overall photographs of the
scene should be taken that overlap each other and show the entire
scene, even things believed at that time to be of no evidentiary
value. Overall photographs begin outside a building or crime scene,
proceed in through the doors and hallways, and arrive at the actual
scene with a series of views that a person entering the scene would
see. Overall photographs then move around each room that might be part
of the crime scene in the building and are taken in overlapping
fashion. Second, midrange photographs should be taken that show all
items of evidence with attention to inclusion of background, other
pieces of evidence, and overall relationships between the scene and
the specific items of evidence. Third, close up photographs should be
taken of each and every piece of evidence in its original position
from at least one direction, more if appropriate. Included in the
close up photographs should be photographs of the latent prints prior
to lifting. In a major crime such as murder, film is cheap but
evidence is priceless. A good series of photographs that includes
overall photographs, midrange photographs, and close up photographs is
indispensable to a continuing, thorough investigation. Such a series
of well done photographs tells a complete story – the story of the
crime. Taking too few pictures in the first stage of the investigation
leaves unanswerable questions after items of evidence have been moved.
Such is the situation in this case.
24. Although it appears no photographs were taken of any latent
fingerprints prior to lifting, photographs of the eleven lifts (two
foliens and nine tape lifts) were provided for examination. The latent
prints disclosed by the SAPS are listed as follows:
#1 – A photograph of a folien (black gel lifter) containing two latent
fingerprints of value for comparison, believed to have been dusted
with aluminum powder. An additional photograph was provided in tone
and position reversal. The back side of the folien states the lift was
taken “. . . from a DVD disk Holder which was found on coffee table in
lounge and show’s sideway to the left . . .”
#2 – A photograph of a folien containing several latent prints of
value for comparison; a photograph was also provided in tone and
position reversal. The back side of the folien states the lift was
taken “. . . from water glass which was found on coffee table and
show’s upwards . . .”
#3 – A photograph of a lift believed to have been powdered with black
powder, lifted with clear cellophane tape, and placed on a white or
light colored lift card, containing one latent palm print of value for
comparison. The back side of the lift states the lift was taken “. . .
from wash basin in bathroom and show’s upwards and is ± 0.700 mm from
floor . . .”
#4 – A photograph of a lift believed to have been powdered with black
powder, lifted with clear cellophane tape, and placed on a white or
light colored lift card, containing one latent print of value for
comparison. The back side of the lift states the lift was taken “. . .
from security gate telephone in kitchen and show’s upwards . . .”
#5 – A photograph of a lift believed to have been powdered with black
powder, lifted with clear cellophane tape, and placed on a white or
light colored lift card, containing two latent fingerprints of value
for comparison. The back side of the lift states the lift was taken “.
. . from security gate at front door and show’s sideway’s to the right
and is ± 0.900 mm from floor inside . . .”
#6 – A photograph of a lift believed to have been powdered with black
powder, lifted with clear cellophane tape, and placed on a white or
light colored lift card, containing one latent fingerprint of value
for comparison. The back side of the lift states the lift was taken “.
. . from security gate at front door and show’s sideway’s to the left
and is ± 0.900 mm from floor inside . . .”
#7 – A photograph of a lift believed to have been powdered with black
powder, lifted with clear cellophane tape, and placed on a white or
light colored lift card, containing one latent fingerprint of value
for comparison. The back side of the lift states the lift was taken “.
. . from security gate at front door and show’s sideway’s to the left
and is ± 1.000 m from the floor outside . . .”
#8 – A photograph of a lift believed to have been powdered with black
powder, lifted with clear cellophane tape, and placed on a white or
light colored lift card, containing friction ridge detail. The back
side of the lift states the lift was taken “. . . from security gate
at lounge Balcony door and show’s sideway’s to the right and is ±
0.500 mm from the floor outside . . .”
#9 – A photograph of a lift believed to have been powdered with black
powder, lifted with clear cellophane tape, and placed on a white or
light colored lift card, containing two latent fingerprints of value
for comparison. The back side of the lift states the lift was taken “.
. . from security gate at lounge Balcony door and show’s sideway’s to
the right and is ± 0.800 mm from floor outside . . .”
#10 – A photograph of a lift believed to have been powdered with black
powder, lifted with clear cellophane tape, and placed on a white or
light colored lift card, containing friction ridge detail. The back
side of the lift states the lift was taken “. . . from security gate
at lounge Balcony door and show’s sideway’s to the right and is ±
0.900 mm from floor outside . . .”
#11 – A photograph of a lift believed to have been powdered with black
powder, lifted with clear cellophane tape, and placed on a white or
light colored lift card, containing friction ridge detail. The back
side of the lift states the lift was taken “. . . from security gate
at lounge Balcony door and show’s downwards and is ± 1.200 mm from
floor inside . . .”
25. Photographs of the eleven lifts are not best evidence because the
detail is somewhat blurred under magnification. The latent prints in
photographs of lifts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are suitable for
comparison. Ridge detail is visible in lifts 8 and 11 which may be
suitable for comparison in the original lifts, but is not suitable in
the photographs. A comprehensive examination would have to be made of
the original lifts to determine actual suitability of the latent
prints for comparison purposes.
26. These eleven lifts were taken from only six surfaces in the flat.
The six reported surfaces were a DVD case, a water glass, the bathroom
wash basin, the security gate telephone in the kitchen, the security
gate at the front door, and the security gate at the lounge balcony
door. It is hardly conceivable that these were the only six surfaces
in the flat that would have yielded latent fingerprints. It can only
be concluded that other surfaces suitable for latent fingerprints were
simply not examined or were overlooked altogether.
27. It is alarming that in a brutal murder such as the murder of Inge
Lotz, no more than eleven lifts were taken. This fact leaves a number
of questions unanswered. Was the kitchen examined for latent
fingerprints? Was the bedroom examined for latent fingerprints? Were
items in the rubbish bins examined for latent fingerprints? Was any
telephone other than the security gate telephone examined for latent
fingerprints? Were any of the doors and door frames in the flat
examined for latent fingerprints? Were the water faucets on the
various sinks and shower examined for fingerprints? Were both
bathrooms examined thoroughly for latent prints? Another important
question is whether there were any lifts other than these eleven taken
and, if so, what has become of them? Are there other lifts in
existence that have not been disclosed? Have any lifts been destroyed,
thus denying the defense the opportunity of examining them?
28. Latent fingerprints on lifts #1, #3, and #7 are marked as having
been identified to Fred van der Vyver. The designated latent prints on
these three lifts were compared to the inked prints provided for Fred
van der Vyver and the identifications were verified as follows:
Lift #1 – Identified as having been made by the left index finger
(finger #7).
Lift #3 – Identified as having been made by the right palm (RP).
Lift #7 – Identified as having been made by the left index finger
(finger #7).
29. In addition to the identifications marked by the SAPS as having
been identified to Fred van der Vyver, one additional latent print on
lift #1 was identified as having been made by the right thumb of Fred
van der Vyver.
30. It should be noted that latent prints of value for comparison
exist on at least lifts 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10, but these latent prints
remain unidentified. Might some of these latent prints have been left
by persons who never had legitimate access to the flat? We do not know
what effort has been made to identify these latent prints. To whose
known fingerprints have these latent prints been compared?
31. The latent partial palm print in lift #3 purports to have been
taken from the edge of the wash basin in the bathroom. Examination of
the crime scene photograph of the wash basin provides sufficient
consistency of background to support this wash basin as the substrate
from which the lift was taken. (NOTE: Photographs reproduced in this
report are presented for context only and may lack fine details. For
examination of the finer details in these photographs, the original
lifts and lift photographs should be consulted.)

LIFT3
3.7MB
Lift3-Original.bmp (to download the full res version, right-click
the link and "save target as" to your computer)
32. At least two spots of liquid were splashed
onto the partial palm print in lift #3. In these two areas of splashed
liquid the ridges have been washed away, indicating the liquid was
splashed onto the latent print at some time after the print was
deposited. The liquid had dried before the print was powdered
(dusted). The composition of the liquid cannot be determined but no
evidence of reddish tint is present that might visibly indicate blood.
If blood was present in the liquid, there may be sufficient biological
material in the lift itself to profile the DNA of the blood donor.
33. The lift in #7 is purportedly from a security bar or gate. Nothing
in the lift suggests otherwise. The background in the lift is
consistent with a security bar or gate component.

LIFT 7
34. Lift #1 (also referred to as folien #1 and
hereafter referred to occasionally only as “#1”) was examined with
special attention to consistency with the substrate designated by
SAPS. The back of #1 states “. . . lifted from a DVD disk Holder which
was found on coffee table in lounge and show’s sideway to the left. .
.” (NOTE: Photographs reproduced in this report are presented for
context only and may lack fine details. For examination of the finer
details in these photographs, the original photographs should be
consulted.)

LIFT 1
3.3MB
Lift1-Original.bmp (to download the full res version, right-click
the link and "save target as" to your computer)
35. It is inconceivable that in a
murder investigation, a critical item of evidence of negligible
monetary value should be returned to the store from which it was
rented by the victim in one of her last living acts. In this case,
many pieces of evidence are no longer available for examination. The
crime scene itself was not protected between the several examinations
by various investigators. Contamination of the scene cannot be refuted
by the police because the crime scene was not maintained in a secure
fashion. People not associated with the investigation were allowed
into the scene to remove things. These people were not trained in
crime scene procedures and were not supervised by police personnel.
Others may have entered the scene unknown to the police before the
final examination by the police.
36. Elements of lift #1 include the following:
A – Two distinct apparent edges of the substrate, parallel
approximately 80 mm apart and slightly curved.
B – The side of a fingerprint with an apparent pattern of left slope
loop (identified
in paragraph 28 above as the left index finger of Fred van der Vyver).
The relationship
between the first and second phalanges shows a degree of curvature.
C – Two adjacent latent prints lacking sufficient value for
comparison, but having physical characteristics consistent with
simultaneous impressions of fingers #8 and #9
deposited contemporaneously with #7 of Fred van der Vyver (no firm
conclusion of
simultaneity could be supported through identification of the
fingerprints themselves).
D – A latent fingerprint that has the characteristics of a right thumb
located
“below” the latent adjacent to van der Vyver #7, pointing in the same
general direction as the other latent prints and subsequently
identified as the right thumb of Fred van der Vyver as reported in
paragraph 29 above.
E – An elongated semi-elliptical latent mark without ridge detail that
appears to have been deposited while wet or damp, but was dry at the
time it was powdered, adjacent to the latent identified as van der
Vyver #7 and parallel to the curved edge of the substrate. This latent
mark, deposited while wet or damp, is consistent in size, shape, and
location with a lip print.
F – Assorted other fragments of ridge detail lacking sufficient
quantity and quality to be of value for comparison.
G – At least two areas approximately one centimeter across, one of
which overlaps the latent identified as having been made by Fred van
der Vyver, finger #7, appear to have been wet at the time the surface
was powdered (dusted) for fingerprints.
The two areas are completely occluded with powder and show striations
bordering the areas that most likely represent brushing by the fibers
of the brush used to apply the fingerprint powder. The conclusion is
that there were at least two drops of liquid on the substrate at the
time it was powdered for fingerprints. If the drops were
contemporaneous with deposition of the latent prints, this would
indicate that the latent print was powdered and lifted a relatively
short time after deposition of the prints.
H – While there are the two spots where there were apparently wet
droplets of water at the time the surface was powdered for lift #1,
there are also several shapes in the lift that are conclusive for
completely dried droplets on the surface at the time it was powdered.
I – There was little deposition of powder in the general background of
the lift between areas of specific development, such as the edges of
the substrate, the latent fingerprints, and the apparent drops of wet
and dried liquid. This indicates a very clean surface with no
propensity to attract or hold powder on its own.
37. Several major points of concern were recognized in the analysis of
#1 with respect to the purported substrate.
A – First, and of primary importance, there is no photograph of a
fingerprint on the DVD case itself. There is not even a sketch showing
the location of the latent print on the DVD case. Was it on the
outside surface of the cover? Was it on the inside? It is implied by
the SAPS and I will assume for purposes of this report the latent
print was developed on the outside of the DVD case. It should be noted
that there is not even a good crime scene photograph showing any
detail of the DVD case on the coffee table.
B – Parallel edges of the substrate are visible in the lift. These
parallel edges are curved, not straight as one would expect to see on
a lift from a DVD case.
C – The distance between the parallel curved edges of the substrate is
approximately 80 mm, not a dimension present on any known DVD case.
Both edges of the substrate are more heavily developed than the
interior of the lift from the substrate, indicating a solid edge of
the substrate rather than a mere edge of the contact between the
folien and the surface.
D – The edge of a DVD case is stamped and has a groove running along
the edge, which produces a black line (absence of powder) in a lift on
a folien. No such line representative of the grove at the edge of a
DVD case is noted in lift #1.
E – The latent fingerprint in #1 identified as having been made by the
left index finger of Fred van der Vyver is on the side of the finger
outside of the delta and has a general curvature of the latent, both
traits normally produced in the handling of a curved surface but
inconsistent with having been deposited on a flat surface such as a
DVD case. The adjacent latent print demonstrating consistency with
simultaneity also shows curvature consistent with having been
deposited on a curved surface.
F – In particular, it is highly unusual for a flat surface to record
the side of the fingerprint, as on a flat surface the central portion
of the finger usually presses against the surface. Likewise, it is
unusual for the fingerprint to be curved in its entirety as whole
prints of fingers are usually straight on a flat surface. A print
showing curvature of the finger and the side of it are almost always
associated with curved surfaces. I have lifted many hundreds of latent
fingerprints from both flat surfaces such as flat window glass and
from curved surfaces such as coffee mugs and bottles under controlled
circumstances in the preparation of training exercises. The latent
print of the index finger on lift 1 is not consistent with a flat
surface, but is consistent with having come from a curved surface.
G – Putting lift #1 aside for the moment, all latent prints from all
surfaces in the flat were lifted with tape except the water glass on
the coffee table. Since a DVD holder is a flat, smooth surface, tape
would have been the most economical and efficient means of taking a
lift from it. Foliens, because of expense and because of less control
and visibility during the lifting process, would be expected to be
reserved for use on curved surfaces, convoluted surfaces, or textured
surfaces.
38. Factors listed in 36 and 37 above appear to be inconsistent with
the lift having come from a DVD case as reported by SAPS.
39. The reports of Daan Bekker and Director RH Botha were studied. Mr.
Bekker’s analysis is logical and his conclusions are valid. The
experiments Mr. Bekker relates and demonstrates with photographs in
his report support his conclusions. The report is transparent and well
documented with photographs. I repeated Mr. Bekker’s experiments and
conducted further experiments of my own, which will be discussed in
detail later in this report. I concur with Mr. Bekker’s conclusions as
set forth in his report.
40. Mr. Botha’s report seems to ignore facts and reaches unsupportable
conclusions as follow:
A – In section 4.1.2. of the Botha report, a claim is made that a new
or clean DVD case does not have static electricity that would cause
aluminium powder to coat the surface, thus a lift or folien taken from
a new or clean DVD case powered with aluminium would appear clean, as
if lifted from glass. I conducted experiments with DVD cases and
aluminium powder, using both very clean DVD covers and well handled
DVD cases, and using both tape and foliens to make lifts. There was
little discernable difference in the background coating of aluminium
powder between the lifts from clean DVD cases and well handled DVD
cases. My experience with many surfaces over thirty years in the
business is that some surfaces, especially certain types of plastic,
always have a tendency to hold a thin coat or layer of powder,
possibly due to static electricity or possibly due to chemical
components of the plastic. The experiments I conducted with aluminium
powder and DVD cases leads me to conclude that the clear plastic cover
of DVD cases is a material that will retain such a thin coat of powder
as background noise, and such a thin background coat on a lift is a
characteristic consistent with a DVD case. A lift or folien without
this thin coat as background noise is inconsistent with having come
from a DVD case.
B – Sections 4.1.3 through 4.1.9 of the Botha report present a rather
convoluted theory of how water condensation from a drinking glass
dripped onto a magazine cover and, without soaking into the magazine
paper, was transferred to the DVD cover when it was placed onto the
magazine. According to this theory of Mr. Botha, there was tight
contact between the DVD cover and the magazine, which prevented the
water droplets from evaporating. Somehow, although unexplained, is the
fact that, if this theory is true, the water droplets did not soak
into the paper of the magazine cover, but stayed as wet droplets
pressed between the plastic and the magazine. Then when the DVD cover
was
powdered with aluminium, the water droplets were smeared, resulting in
the smears in the lift that are attributed to water. In my experience,
this sequence of events is highly unlikely and the explanation for
water droplets on the surface from which the prints were lifted is
highly improbable.
C – Of additional and related concern is the fact that if Mr. Botha’s
theory of the wet droplets of water is true, then it would have been
unlikely that some of the droplets would have dried while others
remained wet. Yet there are dried droplets in lift #1 along with the
wet droplets. If Mr. Botha’s theory were true, then either all of the
droplets should have been wet or they all should have been dry. The
presence of both wet and dry droplets argues against his theory.
D – In section 4.2 of the Botha report, it is stated that the width of
the lift on the folien, approximately 80 mm, is because there was a
first lift from the DVD cover that narrowed the width from which
powder could be measured in the second lift. That second lift,
according to the Botha report, is lift #1 in this case. If this is so,
what happened to the lift taken first, before lift #1? If a lift was,
in fact, taken before lift #1, why is there no reference to it in the
notes and, more importantly, why was it not saved? Perhaps it had no
fingerprints in it, but then why was it lifted? Even if this
theoretical lift had no fingerprints of value for comparison in it,
other lifts were saved that also lack fingerprints of value for
comparison. There is no record of this theoretical first lift, much
less the lift itself to show that it ever existed.
E – But there is a fundamental flaw in Mr. Botha’s first lift theory.
If there had been a first lift and if one edge of the second lift
represents the boundary with the first lift, then there would not have
been a heavier line of powder deposition along that boundary
representing the edge of the first lift. The boundary with the
hypothetical first lift would be a simple absence of powder without a
heavier line of demarcation. A heavy line at the edge of a lift
represents an edge of the surface from which the lift was taken. The
heavy lines on both sides of lift #1 are completely inconsistent with
one edge of the lift having been a boundary with Mr. Botha’s
theoretical first lift. In lift #1, there is a heavy line on both
sides of the 80 mm strip of the lift, a clear and solid indication
that the surface itself was 80 mm across and the two lines represent
the two parallel curved edges of the surface that was powdered.
F – Section 4.3 of the Botha report states, in effect, that a lift
taken from a flat surface with a straight edge will have a curved edge
when the tape or folien is wrapped around the edge. This is
preposterous. A straight edge reproduces as a straight edge. Wrapping
the folien around the edge or pressing it against the edge in the
manner Mr. Botha hypothesizes may yield a thicker edge line in that
part of the lift, but it cannot turn a straight edge into a curved
edge. The curvature on the two edges of lift #1 is completely
inconsistent with wrapping the tape around the edge of a DVD case.
These curved edges on both sides of the 80 mm strip of latent print
lift are consistent only with the lift having come from a curved
surface.
G – In section 4.5 of his report, Mr. Botha states, in effect, that
the obvious foreshortening and curvature of the latent print in lift
#1 is a result of heavy pressure of the finger on the surface at the
time it was deposited. Again, this is preposterous. Pressure such as
described by Mr. Botha would result in smudging and smearing of a
fingerprint on a flat surface, not in the foreshortening and curving
of the print of the finger. Such foreshortening and curvature is the
result of the finger being wrapped around a curved surface. The
shortness and curvature of the total fingerprint identified as Fred
van der Vyver’s right index finger is consistent and would be expected
from a print lifted from a curved surface. This shortening and
curvature is completely inconsistent with a latent print deposited and
lifted from a flat surface such as a DVD cover.
41. One of the primary considerations in evaluating a latent print
when there are suspicions it may not have come from the surface on
which it was purportedly developed is the consideration of “normal
handling.” In this case, Mr. Botha states section 5.7 of his report
that it is the “typical position” to hold one’s index finger flat
against the side of a DVD case and along the edge while opening it.
This, again, is preposterous. “Normal handling” (or, to use Mr.
Botha’s phrase, “typical position” of the fingers while opening a DVD
case) would be to put one’s thumbs into the slot on the front edge of
the cover and one’s other eight fingers along the back spine of the
cover with one hand on the front of the DVD case and the other hand on
the back. This has the fingers across the back of the DVD case, not on
the face of the case parallel with the front edge of the case. With
maximum efficiency, one can open the DVD cover in the manner for which
it was designed. To open it any other way is unnatural, clumsy, and
difficult. Latent fingerprints across the spine of the DVD case would
be consistent with normal handling of a DVD case. The latent
fingerprints in lift #1 are completely inconsistent with the normal
opening or handling of a DVD case.
42. After consideration of the reports of Mr. Bekker and Mr. Botha, a
series of experiments was designed to test the hypotheses of both.
43. Four DVD cases were provided for experimentation purposes. These
DVD cases were brought from South Africa and were represented to be
similar in materials and manufacture to the DVD case from the scene of
the crime. Two of these DVD cases were dusted with aluminum powder and
lifts were taken using foliens. The other two DVD cases were dusted
with black magnetic powder and lifts were taken with clear frosted
tape and placed on normal 8½ X 11 inch white printer paper. Black
magnetic powder was used because, of the various powders available for
experimentation, it is metallic flake powder most closely resembling
aluminum powder in its sensitivity.
44. All four test lifts from DVD cases reproduced straight edges on
the sides of the DVD covers. No curvature of the edges could be
induced onto the lift through pressure differences in pressing the
foliens or the tapes onto the DVD covers.
45. All four lifts from DVD cases showed significant background
development in areas between areas of specific development. Mr. Bekker
states that such general background development may result from a
charge of static electricity on the surface of the plastic DVD cover.
Another possibility is that the general background is a result of
chemicals in the plastic holding the aluminium powder. Whatever the
reason, it is a fact that on a plastic surface such as a DVD case,
there is a thin general background coating of aluminium powder. This
background noise is a characteristic of a lift from a DVD case. The
absence of this background is inconsistent with a lift from a DVD
case.
46. All four lifts from DVD cases showed numerous latent fingerprints
apparently resulting from repetitive handling by different people
without cleaning between times. Most latent fingerprints represented
straight touches in the center of the pattern areas of the fingers
rather than the sides of the fingers.
47. The parallel curved lines on the substrate in lift #1 are most
closely associated with a curved surface. Such edge lines occur on
lifts from items in the shape of a truncated cone. The substrate would
not have been a straight cylinder, as the lines on the top and bottom
would have been straight and parallel, not curved. The substrate would
not have been spheroidal, as such a shape also produces curved creases
in the lift, which were completely absent in #1. A common item
possessing a conical shape that would produce a substrate image such
as that in #1 is a drinking glass with straight sides, slightly
tapered from top to bottom.
48. Ten assorted drinking glasses were procured with heights
(measurement along the exterior side of the glass from top to bottom)
on the order of 80 mm. The ten drinking glasses had varying degrees of
conical aspect, ranging from a straight cylindrical glass to a very
sharply cone shaped glass. The ten glasses had a variety of top and
bottom diameters. This assortment of glasses was chosen for the
purpose of experimenting with foliens and lifts to give a range of
dimensions and edge curvature in the resulting lifts. The objective of
such experimentation was to approximate the dimensions and curvature
of the edges of the substrate as demonstrated in #1. The ten drinking
glasses in order of assigned numbers are shown herewith:

49. The approximate dimensions in millimeters (± 2 mm)
of the ten glasses are as follows:
|
|
Height |
Top Diameter |
Bottom Diameter |
|
Glass #1 |
82 |
74 |
67 |
|
Glass #2 |
82 |
79 |
64 |
|
Glass #3 |
82 |
77 |
59 |
|
Glass #4 |
90 |
92 |
53 |
|
Glass #5 |
81 |
50 |
35 |
|
Glass #6 |
80 |
75 |
69 |
|
Glass #7 |
90 |
75 |
64 |
|
Glass #8 |
80 |
71 |
45 |
|
Glass #9 |
85 |
52 |
40 |
|
Glass #10 |
71 |
70 |
36 |
50. A series of initial experiments were done on the ten glasses. It was
noted that in the normal method of picking a drinking glass up with the left
hand, the left index finger is placed a short distance below the top rim of
the glass. It is normally curved and rolled slightly to the outside.
51. An experiment was conducted to demonstrate the position of the left
index finger holding a glass of water with the left hand. Drinking glass #6
was filled with water. The glass was grasped with the left hand and the
index finger was observed and photographed through the water. It was noted
that the finger is slightly curved, the distal phalange (pattern area or
finger tip) contacts the glass on the outer side of the finger, and a
compressed region of the finger tip runs diagonally across the pattern and
through the delta. (NOTE: Photographs reproduced in this report are
presented for context only and may lack fine details. For examination of the
finer details in these photographs, the original photographs should be
consulted.)

52. In lift #1, a slight smudge line is noted running diagonally through the
delta and across the latent print identified as the left index finger of
Fred van der Vyver. In the photographs taken of a left index finger holding
a glass of water, taken by focusing on the finger through the water, it is
interesting to observe that a slight line of distortion that might result in
smudging of the latent print is observed in the friction ridge skin itself.
If lift #1 were taken from a drinking glass, this line of distortion in the
skin is consistent with the actual smudge noted in lift #1.
53. While the presence of both wet water drops and dry drops on a DVD case
under the theory presented by Mr. Botha is highly unlikely, the presence of
both wet and dry droplets of water on a drinking glass is common. The
appearance of both droplets on lift #1 is inconsistent with having come from
a DVD case but is consistent with having come from a drinking glass.
54. In a series of experiments with the drinking glass, it was confirmed
that the elliptical shape referred to in paragraph 36.E. above was
consistent with a lip print on the glass. More experiments were conducted by
drinking from glasses, then lifting the lip prints. Test lip prints
deposited in the manner of normal drinking, then powdered and lifted, showed
consistency with the elliptical shape on #1.
55. A series of experiments were done in which each of the glasses were held
with the left hand while water was poured into the glass from a pitcher held
in the right hand. In each experiment, the glass and the water pitcher were
then put down. The glass was then picked up with the right hand and the
water was drunk from the glass. The glass was once again put down.
56. Each glass was then processed with aluminum powder. In each case, a lift
was then taken with clear tape and placed on a black lift card.
57. The lifts taken from the ten glasses after handling in the manner
described in paragraph 55 above were compared with folien #1. All ten
experimental lifts showed the same relative position of the left index
finger print, the right thumb print, and the lip print. The curvature and
separation of the edge lines in folien #1 most closely matched the curvature
and separation of the edge lines in the lift from glass #2.
58. More experiments were conducted with glass #2. It should be noted that
glass #2 has an etched leaf or flower petal design around the circumference
of the glass approximately 21 mm to 35 mm from the top lip of the glass.
This design can be seen on glass #2 in the photograph of the ten glasses in
paragraph 48 above. This etched design is clearly visible as background
noise in all lifts taken from glass #2 but does not materially affect the
relative positions of the fingerprints or the lip prints, either on the
glass itself or in the lifts taken from the glass. The etched design merely
adds background noise that differentiates lifts from this glass with lifts
from other glasses.
59. In the additional experiments on glass #2, handling and drinking was
done in the manner described in paragraph 55. The glass was powdered with
aluminum powder and lifts were made with foliens. An uninterrupted video
clip was made of one performance of this experiment and is available for
review.
60. A close inspection of the edges of test lifts from DVD holders shows a
black line near the edge of the surface. This black line was produced by a
grove along the edge of the DVD holder. These lines are present in test
lifts taken from DVD holders with both tape and with foliens. These lines
are missing from both lift #1 test lifts on a drinking glass.

LIFT COMPARISONS
.2 MB
LiftFromGlass-Original.jpg
.5 MB
LiftFromDVDcover-Original.jpg
61. These test foliens from glass #2 were compared to folien #1. The
relative positions of the left index finger, the right thumb, and the lip
print with respect to each other and with respect to the top and bottom
edges of the glass are completely consistent between the test lifts from
glass #2 and the actual lift in folien #1.
62. The relative locations of the critical elements of lift #1 and an
experimental lift from glass #2 are shown in the two photographs below. The
curved upper and lower edges are not marked in the photographs but are
clearly visible. The left index fingerprint in each lift is marked in green,
the right thumb print is marked in red, the lip print is marked in blue, and
the presumed left middle, ring, and little fingers are marked in yellow.
(NOTE: Photographs reproduced in this report are presented for context only
and may lack fine details. For examination of the finer details in these
photographs, the original photographs should be consulted.)

.3MB LiftShapeCompare.jpg
63. This sequence of the latent print components in lift #1, matching the
exact sequence of similar components in the test folien on glass #2,
combined with the curved edges of the top and bottom of the glass, is the
strongest of proof that police folien #1 (lift #1) came from a drinking
glass and NOT from a DVD case. The series of actions leading to the
deposition of the right thumb print, the left index fingerprint, the lip
print, and the simultaneously deposited traces of the left middle, ring, and
little finger prints is a completely natural and very common series of
actions. Any series of actions leading to a similar series of latent print
components on a DVD case is definitely NOT normal handling.
64. Note relative positions of left index finger print, right thumb print,
lip print, curved top edge of glass, curved bottom edge of glass, and even
left middle, ring, and little fingerprints when present, in photographs
below representing two repeats of the experiment of pouring liquid into a
glass, then drinking from the glass. (NOTE: Photographs reproduced in this
report are presented for context only and may lack fine details. For
examination of the finer details in these photographs, the original
photographs should be consulted.)

65. As discovered by research I have conducted and reported in articles I
have written, there are a number of common characteristics of fabricated
fingerprint evidence. As related to mislabeled latent print lifts, these
common characteristics include background noise inconsistent with the
surface from which the latent print is reported to have been lifted, latent
fingerprints deposited in a manner inconsistent with normal handling, and
the absence of supporting documentation to corroborate the evidence.
66. Supporting documentation corroborating the source of the lift might
include some of the following:
A – Photographs of the latent print in situ prior to lifting.
B – Thorough, complete crime scene notes taken contemporaneously with the
lifts from a crime scene that include every surface examined, all of the
methods of development used on each surface, and the results of the
examination for each surface.
C – Witnesses to each lift, whose signature or initials appear on each lift
they observed being developed and lifted.
D – Artificial background noise, such as the fingerprint officer’s initials,
date, and lift number placed on the surface prior to lifting so that the
writing is visible in the lift and remains on the surface as well.
E – Prenumbered lift cards or foliens with unique serial numbers, used in
order and recorded in the crime scene notes, which prevents substitution of
different lifts at a later date.
F – Preservation of the latent print on the surface, normally accomplished
by fuming with cyanoacrylate (Super Glue) prior to dusting and lifting.
G – Review, either technical or administrative, by a supervisor soon after
completion of the scene processing.
67. In this case, every characteristic of a mislabeled lift is present in
lift #1 on the folien reportedly taken from a DVD case. Every observable
fact related to the lift is inconsistent with a latent print from a DVD
case. Every observable fact in lift #1 is completely consistent with the
lift having been taken from a drinking glass approximately 80 mm in height
and slightly wider at the top than at the bottom.
A – The background noise (curved edges of the lift, 80 mm width of the lift)
is inconsistent with a lift from a DVD case, but is completely consistent
with a lift from a drinking glass with dimensions described above.
B – The distinctive black line along the edge of the surface of a DVD case,
which was present in all lifts taken from DVD cases, is missing in lift #1.
Such a black line never appeared in test lifts from glasses. The absence of
that line in lift #1 is inconsistent with a lift from a DVD case, but is
consistent with a lift from a drinking glass.
C – Shape of the latent (curved, on its side, and foreshortened) is
inconsistent with a lift from a DVD case, but is completely consistent with
a lift from a drinking glass with dimensions described above.
D – The blotch overlapping the latent print of Fred van der Vyver’s left
index finger is inconsistent with a simple damp spot on a DVD case, but is
completely consistent with a damp lip print on the edge of a glass.
E – While there have been reported cases of lip print identifications based
on the fine skin wrinkles in the lip, such latent lip prints require a moist
but not wet lip print that reproduces those fine wrinkles in the latent lip
print. The blotch in lift #1 is consistent with a lip print but because of
excessive moisture on the lip at the time of deposition that prevented the
latent lip print from reproducing the fine wrinkle marks, it cannot be
positively identified as the lip print of Fred van der Vyver.
F – The location of the latent left index fingerprint, the location of the
latent right thumb print, and the blotched area recognized in all
probability as a lip print, all three fall into virtually the exact
positions of the left index finger, right thumb print, and lip print on the
test glasses used in the experiments conducted. The relative positions of
several additional latent prints lacking sufficient detail for positive
identification are also consistent and in agreement for the left middle,
ring, and little fingers.
G – The experiments conducted by picking up drinking glass #2 with the left
hand and pouring liquid into the glass with the right hand, then drinking
from the glass, all resulted in consistent position of the lip print in
relation to the left index finger. When the glass was put down and released
from the left hand, then picked up with the right hand to drink, the lip
print overlapped the latent print from the left index finger. The position
of the wet smudge in lift #1 also overlaps the latent left index
fingerprint. This overlap is consistent with a lift from a drinking glass,
but has no equivalent in normal handling of a DVD case and is inconsistent
with a lift from a DVD case.
68. A summary of the observed characteristics of lift #1 and a comparison of
the consistency with either a DVD case or a drinking glass is presented in
the table below:
Observed characteristics in Lift #1 (Folien #1)
|
|
Observed characteristics in Lift #1 (Folien #1) |
CONSISTENT |
|
with
DVD? |
with Glass? |
|
1. |
Two parallel lines
80 mm apart representing edges of surface |
NO |
YES |
|
2. |
Curvature to the
lines that represent the edges of the surface |
NO |
YES |
|
3. |
Absence of thin
black lines just inside the edges of the surface |
NO |
YES |
|
4. |
Clean areas absent
presence of powder between elements of lift |
NO |
YES |
|
5. |
Presence of both
wet and dry droplets of liquid |
NO |
YES |
|
6. |
Angle of finger
(rolled onto its side) |
NO |
YES |
|
7. |
Curvature of finger
from joint to joint |
NO |
YES |
|
8. |
Position of finger
relative to edge of object |
NO |
YES |
|
9. |
Line of slippage in
fingerprint |
NO |
YES |
|
10. |
Possible lip print
over left index fingerprint |
NO |
YES |
|
11. |
Relative positions
of all fingers to each other and to lip print |
NO |
YES |
69. After a thorough examination of the photographs of the folien, lift #1,
after reading and evaluating the reports of Mr. Daan Bekker and Mr. Botha,
and after numerous experiments with DVD cases and drinking glasses, it is my
firm scientific conclusion that lift #1 did not come from a DVD case, but
could only have come from a drinking glass. Every characteristic examined is
utterly inconsistent with a lift from a DVD case but every one of these
characteristics is absolutely consistent with a lift taken from a drinking
glass 80 mm high and slightly wider at the top than at the bottom.
70. If there were a latent print lift in this case that was consistent with
having come from a DVD case but mislabeled as having come from a drinking
glass, we might accept that the two lifts were simply mixed up and cross
labeled. But in the absence of any such lift that may have in reality come
from a DVD case, we can only conclude that the presentation of lift #1 as
having come from a DVD case is an intentional fabrication of evidence.
71. In summary, after a thorough analysis of lift #1, the folien represented
as having been lifted from a DVD case, after evaluating lift #1 in light of
the reports of Mr. Bekker and Mr. Botha, and after numerous experiments on a
variety of drinking glasses, it is my conclusion that lift #1 was taken from
a drinking glass and was intentionally mislabeled as having come from a DVD
case. Lift #1 has all of the characteristics of fabricated fingerprint
evidence and, in my opinion, is intentionally fabricated fingerprint
evidence.
Respectfully submitted,
Pat A. Wertheim
P. O. Box 23629
Tucson, AZ 85734
USA
_________________________________________
Feel free to pass The Detail along to other
examiners. This is a free newsletter FOR latent print examiners, BY
latent print examiners.
With the exception of weeks such as this week, there
are no copyrights on The Detail content. As always, the website is
open for all to visit!
If you have not yet signed up to receive the
Weekly Detail in YOUR e-mail inbox, go ahead and
join the list now so you don't miss out! (To join this free e-mail
newsletter, enter your name and e-mail address on the following page:
http://www.clpex.com/Subscribe.htm
You will be sent a Confirmation e-mail... just click on the link in that
e-mail, or paste it into an Internet Explorer address bar, and you are
signed up!) If you have problems receiving the Detail from a work
e-mail address, there have been past issues with department e-mail filters
considering the Detail as potential unsolicited e-mail. Try
subscribing from a home e-mail address or contact your IT department to
allow e-mails from Topica. Members may unsubscribe at any time.
If you have difficulties with the sign-up process or have been inadvertently
removed from the list, e-mail me personally at
kaseywertheim@aol.com and I will try
to work things out.
Until next Monday morning, don't work too hard or too little.
Have a GREAT week!