The performance of 1,2-indanedione as a latent fingerprint reagent on some types of paper was found to exceed that of DFO, the leading fluorogenic fingerprint reagent. It even exceeds the performance of the sequence, DFO, followed by ninhydrin. No new prints could be observed when ninhydrin was applied after indanedione. On a large number of actual exhibits (used checks) indanedione developed 46% more identifiable prints than the sequence DFO-ninhydrin. A standard procedure for fingerprint development by indanedione is proposed. Best results are obtained with a 0.2% indanedione solution in HFE7100 solvent containing 7% ethyl acetate, but no acetic acid. It can be recommended to start using 1,2-indanedione, which is already commercially available, in actual fingerprint casework.
A number of vicinal cyclic diketones, most of them belonging to the 1,2-indanedione series, have been prepared and tested as potential reagents for latent fingerprint development. Unsubstituted 1,2-indanedione and a number of its mono- and dimethoxy- derivatives exhibited excellent properties as fluorogenic reagents for latent prints on paper. Structural modifications, such as substitutions at position 3, omission of the benzene ring or increase of the five-membered to a six-membered ring, considerably reduced this activity. Quite surprisingly, benzo[f]indane-1,2-dione, which was synthesized for the first time in this work, was significantly inferior to 1,2-indanedione as a fingerprint reagent. Even at this stage, before optimization of the reaction conditions, it can be said that some 1,2-indanediones are at least as sensitive as DFO. Their solubility in nonpolar solvents and relative case of preparation are further advantages. It is the authors' opinion that 1,2-indanedione itself may soon become a practical fingerprint reagent.
Two-dimensional dust shoeprints are often of very high resolution and contain unique features. Lifting these prints in the most effective method may contribute much to preserving these fine details. A research was conducted by experts from Israel and Switzerland to compare gelatin lifters and electrostatic lifters for lifting shoeprints. Several substrates were chosen, and on each material a set of dry dust shoeprints was made. A set of wet prints was made on paper as well. The shoeprints were approximately of the same quality, and the only variable was the nature of the material. On substrates indifferent to the method used, the preferable sequence was tested. Gelatin lifter was superior on most substrates and for wet prints. The superior sequence for using both methods is electrostatic lifting followed by gelatin lifter.
In recent years, there is a growing demand to fortify the scientific basis of forensic methodology. During 2016, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) published a report that states there are no appropriate empirical studies that support the foundational validity of footwear analysis to associate shoeprints with particular shoes based on specific identifying marks, which is a basic scientific demand from the field. Furthermore, meaningful databases that can support such studies do not exist. Without such databases, statistical presentation of the comparison results cannot be fulfilled either. In this study, a database of over 13,000 randomly acquired characteristics (RACs) such as scratches, nicks, tears, and holes, as they appear on shoe sole test impressions, from nearly 400 shoe soles was collected semiautomatically. The location, orientation, and the contour of each RAC were determined for all the RACs on each test impression. The statistical algorithm Statistic Evaluation of Shoeprint Accidentals (SESA) was developed to calculate a score for finding another feature similar to a particular scanned and digitized RAC in the same shape, location, and orientation as the examined one. A correlation was found between the results of SESA and the results of real casework, strengthening our belief in the ability of SESA to assist the expert in reaching a conclusion while performing casework. The score received at the end of the process serves the expert as a guiding number, allowing more objective and accurate results and conclusions.Recently, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (4) published a report that went much further in the scientific demands for forensic practice and specifically for the area of shoeprints. In the words of the committee:"PCAST finds there are no appropriate empirical studies to support the foundational validity of footwear analysis to associate shoeprints with particular shoes based on specific identifying marks." ([4], p. 93).The practical way of conducting pattern comparison is well demonstrated by the shoeprint examination process. Today, shoeprints revealed at crime scenes are compared manually against suspect shoes. The first step is to determine whether the class characteristics match. These include the sole pattern, size, 1 Questioned Documents Lab, DIFS, Israel Police, 1 Bar Lev Rd., Jerusalem, 91906, Israel . 2 Toolmarks and Materials Lab, DIFS, Israel Police, 1 Bar Lev Rd., Jerusalem, 91906, Israel. 3 R&D Unit, DIFS, Israel Police, 1 Bar Lev Rd.,
Benzo[f]ninhydrin was compared to ninhydrin for fingerprint development on paper. Overall, the performance of ninhydrin on exhibits was slightly better than that of benzo[f]ninhydrin. The significant advantages of the benzo[f]ninhydrain over ninhydrin were the much stronger fluorescence it gave after treatment with zinc salts and a slightly quicker reaction under ambient conditions. This fluorescence is, however, similar to that obtained with other reagents, such as DFO or ninhydrin analogs. These advantages apparently are not sufficient to justify regular usage of benzo[f]ninhydrin, especially when one considers its low solubility and high cost.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.