Customer Reviews

Fingerprints: The Origins of Crime Detection and the Murder Case that Launched Forensic Science

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Thoroughly researched and engagingly written, this book is sure to appeal to people in the fingerprint profession, and to those who love history. The book centers around "The Shocking Tragedy at Deptford", the murder case which became the first in the United Kingdom which was solved through the use of fingerprint evidence. (There were earlier cases in other countries, and an account of one from Argentina is also included in the text).

After an account of the crime, the investigation and the suspects arrest, the author moves back in time to give an overview of the early criminal justice system. Identification of criminals was a problem, particularly attempting to identify repeat offenders. The author includes an account of the work done by the early pioneers in identification, including the struggle among them over who should get credit for the discovery of fingerprints. Some readers found this part of the book less interesting, but I was fascinated. The people who historically have been given credit for the origination of fingerprint identification, don't necessarily deserve it.

He then returns to the crime and gives an account of the trial. Fingerprints are now the most widely accepted proof of identity, but at that time the courts had not had this sort of evidence presented to them, so it was not an open and shut case by any means.

Colleagues of mine who are fingerprint examiners both enjoyed the book very much. They commented that, "It really shows that he's done his homework", and that "everyone should enjoy it".

I'd have to agree, this is quite simply the best book that I've read on the history of fingerprint identification.

Daryl W. Clemens, Editor, crimeandclues.com.

Unlike others who have read and praised this book I have had the opportunity to consult the original source materials, soon to be made available at galton.org. Beavan grossly misrepresents those he lists, and simply omits others with direct bearing on the origin of fingerprinting. His (ludicrous) allegation of a conspiracy between Galton and Herschel to denigrate Faulds is without foundation and supported only by quotation from Herschel with creative elipsis by Beavan, a process that borders on academic fraud. Beavan accuses Galton of writing an unsigned review (Nature, 1905) of Fauld's book on fingerprints, thereby "hiding behind the mask of anonymity" but the review is signed, as were all Galton's reviews in Nature, "F. G." - though few readers would now be able to check this. There are many other examples (e.g. Beavan accuses Galton of discarding a letter from Faulds to Darwin, which Darwin had forwarded to Galton, whereas Galton actually forwarded it to the Anthropological Society - but Beavan could not know this because he failed to consult the authoritative biography of Galton by Karl Pearson.)

Faulds actually had little role in the origin of fingerprinting, because he failed to put evidence together and publish it. Between 1880 and 1900 he published just two items about the subject, both of them informal letters and not even papers. The first (Nature, 1880) contained speculation based on just one year of experience in the area. The second (Nature, 1894) was an embarrasing tirade against William Herschel (who was the first to use fingerprints in practice), in which Faulds challenged Herschel to produce documents to substantiate the use of fingerprints in India some 20 years prior to Faulds' speculations. Herschel duly produced a critical document, which was published in Nature. Faulds then simply clammed up until 1905. The controversy between himself and Herschel would reappear in Nature in 1917, with similar results.

Faulds was a tireless self-promoter who was determined to be granted the scientific fame that had eluded him. After the use of fingerprints was well-established, using a classification scheme devised by Galton and adapted by Henry, and accepted by the courts, he did his utmost to write himself back into the picture. The truth is that, though some of the speculations in his 1880 letter later proved accurate, he gave no reasons for anyone to believe them, and never marshalled the evidence that was required. One year is not enough to establish the permanence of fingerprints over a lifetime, and an awful lot of data is required to establish uniqueness of fingerprints. Consequently, his letter was simply forgotten when it appeared, and he failed to produce anything more substantial until 1905, by which time his contributions were irrelevant. Fingerprints were only accepted when it was established through hard data that they were a. unique, b. unchanging and c. practically checkable by police. This work was done by Galton, not Faulds. With regard to first practical use of fingerprints, Herschel preceded Faulds by 20 years. Though Beavan continually insists that Galton et al "stole" Faulds research, there was really nothing to steal, and Galton simply forgot that Faulds existed until Bertillon's faulty anthropometrical system for identifying criminals brought him into the field 8 years later, in 1888.

Unfortunately Faulds has now been taken up the Scottish nationalists, in much the same way that the Soviets used to attribute every major invention to a Russian. It may gladden their hearts to discover that Galton was by direct descent a Barclay (in many lines) and a Cameron. If they are more interested in science than patriotic sentiment, they would do well to check the original sources themselves and not rely on Beavan's racy feature writing and creative quotation.

We are used to fingerprints as forensic evidence these days, but fingerprints have only been accepted for legal identification and detection for less than a century. In the prosecution of a particularly brutal murder in 1905, Scotland Yard introduced fingerprints to the courtroom, after decades of rejecting their use. The history of early fingerprinting makes surprisingly good reading in _Fingerprints: The Origins of Crime Detection and the Murder Case that Launched Forensic Science_ (Hyperion) by Colin Beavan.

The horrid murder serves as introduction to the book, and its resolution by fingerprint is the climax. In between is a fascinating story that involves legal philosophy as well as science and history. For instance, throughout most legal history, the only evidence allowed in court was eyewitness testimony; even now, the words of an eyewitness are thought by the public to be especially weighty, although it has become clear especially in the last decades that memories are malleable and that eyewitness testimony is often worse than useless. Physical evidence was held to be too likely to be manipulated; juries relied on hearing what people remembered seeing with their own eyes rather than what experts said they could deduce by objective methods. Science had wrought the changes of the industrial revolution, but had not touched the judiciary.

There was a system that had been invented by a Frenchman, Alphonse Bertillon, consisting of numerous, minute body measurements, such as finger and forearm lengths. This was the competition to fingerprinting, whose advantages were less obvious. A Scotland-born doctor, Henry Faulds, while in Japan as a missionary, noticed that there were finger impressions in ancient pottery, and began to study fingerprints as unique identifiers. It was he who discovered that fingerprints did not change as people aged, and that using sandpaper, razor, or acid to obliterate fingerprints made no difference, as when healed, the prints grew back exactly in the previous manner. Here was an easy way to identify people permanently. But Faulds was robbed of credit for his research, mostly by the brilliant snob Francis Galton. He died in 1930, still not even a footnote in the fingerprint story. This book corrects the oversight. _Fingerprints_ tells a good deal about the scientific infighting for credit for fingerprinting, and the process by which it became a forensic endeavor. It mentions a few modern aspects of the science, such as the new FBI computer that can compare 65 million fingerprint sets, and the new capacity to lift prints from paper or even human skin. Best of all, it uses several crime dramas from the turn of the last century to tell an engrossing story of how fingerprinting, in which no policeman had confidence, started on its way to becoming the most important police identification technique.

Perhaps the most startling thing we learn in this terrific book by Colin Beavan is that fingerprint identification was not originally developed in order to figure out who had committed crimes, but to help police figure out who they had actually arrested. Seems that in the 19th Century, criminals would routinely avoid the stiffer penalties for repeat offenders by simply lying about who they were. Their deceptions were only exposed if beat cops, specifically stationed in courtrooms and jailhouses for the purpose, happened to recognize them and expose their real identities. It's details like this, and the fascinating ways in which developing ideas about penology intertwined with modern forensic techniques that really lift this book a cut above most true crime fodder.

In addition, Beavan is able to draw upon a cast of characters--seemingly out of Dickens or Wilkie Collins or even Sherlock Holmes--and a wide array of dramatic situations--bureaucratic infighting, gruesome murders, a tragic case of mistaken identity and false imprisonment, academic fraud and courtroom drama--to keep the story humming along like a good Victorian thriller. At the center of the story is Dr. Henry Faulds, who did more than any other man to develop and proselytize for fingerprinting, but who was cheated out of the glory for this innovation by Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin, who was born to the manor and felt no compunction about claiming credit for the good work of "lesser" men. And the whole story is framed by a "shocking tragedy at Deptford," a 1905 robbery and double-murder in which the only piece of evidence was a single bloody fingerprint found on a cashbox at the scene.

Colin Beavan, who has previously written for magazines like Esquire and Atlantic Monthly, handles the wide cast of characters deftly and explains the underlying science clearly. There are also numerous helpful illustrations and a pretty good website companion to the book (http://www.fingerprintbook.com/). The book is being marketed as similar to Longitude and The Professor and the Madman, and though that is high company, it's entirely worthy of the comparison.

GRADE : A

Colin Beavan wrote and asked me if he could give a presentation to the attendees of the 86th Annual International Association for Identification (IAI) Educational Conference about "Why the Discover of Fingerprinting Hated Scotland Yard." This was something I never really understood so my curiosity kicked in, and additionally I wanted to be sure if Colin really did his research before I allowed him to speak before forensic investigators. The publishers forwarded a copy of the publishers draft and upon receiving it the first pages I looked at were the references. Once I saw where he had researched his material, I was hooked. I threw the book in my computer bag, carried it on a plane, and started reading. Some time later the person sitting in the window seat asked if I was planning in getting off the plane since we had reached our destination.

Reviews before this one have described the book in skillful detail that I agree with. Once you get started with this book, it becomes a mini obsession until you finish reading it so have some time set aside you will not be disappointed. The manner and detail with which Colin describes the history and the science of fingerprints will become as clear to the novice as it does for the expert. Maybe those who are now questioning our science should have read this book before penning one of their own.

All levels of readers will find this an easy read following the criminal cases that were involved in this fascinating science, and understanding why fingerprints are still the best positive means of identification known to man today.

Good work Colin.

No joke, this is one of the best books I have ever read. It is a facinating read for anyone who enjoys watching the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, and Unsolved Mysteries as much as I do. Ever want to go inside the mind of the person who came up with the idea of using fingerprints to find a killer? I know I have. And this book takes you there AND MORE ! Great stuff from an author with a great future

Colin Beavan has written an interesting and scholarly narrative of the early history of the use of fingerprints by law enforcement. Two factors compelled me to purchase and read Fingerprints: (1) I didn't know anything about fingerprinting and its history, and (2) it was extremely discounted. I am always amazed at the insights that can be gained by choosing my reading based just upon availability -- the magnitude of my ignorance is such that I don't need to spend much money or time to find something new and engaging.

Beavan begins his story with a crime. In fact, it is the first crime in England where fingerprints were used as evidence by a juror to send a murderer to the hangman. After introducing the scene, though, the author jumps back to the Middle Ages to begin the timeline of how fingerprints came to be used as evidence. What better place to begin that a time when physical evidence had no bearing on civil and criminal judgments? Beavan presents a brief ontogeny of the Western legal system, beginning with appeals to God and ending with an expectation that reason and data should be involved in life and death matters.

One of Beavan's objectives for this book is to present the human drama behind the origin of fingerprinting, especially to set the record straight regarding Henry Faulds. Faulds was one of the pioneers of the field, but because of english politics, he was unable to get the credit he deserved until after his death. The author describes the roles that Faulds, William Herschel, Alphonse Bertillon, Francis Galton, Edward Henry, Azizul Haque and others played in the origin of objective methods to identify recidivists and tie suspects to crime scenes.

Fingerprints is a quick read and I recommend it. If you know as little as I knew about fingerprinting, then Colin Beavan's book will nicely caulk up that hole. If you want to be able to use fingerprinting yourself, this is not a manual. However, an extensive bibliography and index is provided.

This is a truly engaging work -- fascinating history and a great plot, which are topped only by Mr. Beavan's captivating writing style. As issues of DNA and scientific evidence in our criminal justice system garner the headlines, it seems particularly timely to get back to the root of it all. But, this is hardly a book for crime novel lovers or those interested in forensic sciences only. It is, instead, a book for anyone who loves a good story and great writing. I am recommending it to all of my friends. I cannot wait for future works by Mr. Beavan -- with his voice and style, he is one to watch.

What an extraordinary tale. This riveting, superbly written, and meticulously-researched account of the birth of forensic science is a literary firecracker, filled with mystery, suspense, and a stunning and unexpected conclusion. The book centers on the first murder case to be solved with fingerprints, but in the process Beavan reveals the plight of Henry Faulds, the lowly, unknown scientist who discovered fingerprints and who was ultimately cheated out of the credit by the far more powerful, and socially superior Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin. Along the way we see the horrors of a criminal justice system that was based on fickle, eyewitness accounts instead of scientific fact. Before the advent of fingerprints, countless, misidentified innocents spent decades behind bars, while career criminals were set loose with the help of fake aliases. Peppered with lively details, such as the practice of cons cutting off their fingertips to avoid detection when the system was first introduced, the book is a must read for any lover of literary nonfiction.

It is amazing that in today's world of writers seeking editors, that this lucky author had as much help as he indicates in his acknowledgments. But it is so. Perhaps this indicates that the story of Henry Faulds, who actually invented the fingerprint idea as was so discredited by unkind people, was cosmically waiting in the wings for the right vessel. Colin Beavan, a writer for magazines and New York resident, seems to have been the perfect choice as author for this story, which needed to be told.

Up to the twentieth century, criminals were caught based on eyewitness accounts alone. Of course, many hapless victims were hung or had their lives ruined by some overzealous accuser. They weren't even allowed a defense. Dr. Henry Faulds, a modest Scottish doctor, tried to convince Scotland Yard for years that he had come up with the perfect solution; fingerprint analysis. But his discovery was overshadowed by Francis Galton, an elite scientist, and his friend, William Herschel, who used fingerprinting in India to help identify documents. Galton eventually formed a sort of conspiracy to prevent Faulds from gaining notoriety for his discovery:

"Galton's social elitism explained his outrage at Henry Faulds' eventual claims for the respect and credit Faulds was due. Each man was everything the other was not. Galton was rich; Faulds was poor. Galton did not receive his physician's licenciate; Faulds did. Galton was an atheist; Faulds was religious. Galton resided at the center of society; Faulds was an outsider. Most important, much of what Francis Galton got in life, he never had to work for, while much of what Faulds worked for, thanks in part to Galton, he never got."

Fingerprints is a well written history of pre-fingerprint jurisprudence in England and France. Beavan manages to stir up interest in a subject that could be judged as being deadly dull, but, in fact, is the centerpiece of the origins of Western justice. He pays particular attention to the men involved, their philosophies, and weaves this into a sociological treatise of the development of criminal justice. In short, Fingerprints is the tale of how we got from hanging the "usual suspects" to today's forensic science. Beavan uses a lively writing style to humanize a subject that is, at its heart, the origin of today's crime solving techniques.

Shelley J. Glodowski, Reviewer