Dermatoglyphics Report

As I investigate between the different possible suspects of who took the relic from the museum, I've narrowed it down to one suspect, C12. Beyond a reasonable doubt this suspect took the artifact because of the correlation between both the suspect's fingerprints and the artifact's fingerprints, when both qualitative and quantitative were identified. By taking this data, I was able to dispute other suspects. As one who studies dermatoglyphics, it is incumbent upon me to "testify in the language of absolute certainty" in identifying the culprit because that is what the law requires. Therefore, below you will become aware of my findings, and know that these are valid statements.

Starting with the artifact, there were three digits on each hand that possessed unique characteristics. These digits are the index finger, ring finger, and thumb. All three possessed a series of whorls, loops, and/or arches. For instance, in the index finger, there were a series of 2 whorls, 1 loop, and 3 arches, in that order from bottom to top, respectively. The ring finger possessed a series of 5 whorls, and 2 loops respectively throughout the entire finger. The thumb had 6 loops, and 2 whorls respectively throughout the entire finger. By taking this information, I was able to throw out several suspects because they did not possess these unique characteristics.

The suspects that were left, 3 in total, I had to now look at the quantitative data that I found off of the artifact and compare my results. Therefore, by scrutinizing the pattern displays of those same three sets of fingers in the qualitative method I used earlier, I looked at the steepness of the arches from base to top, the elongation of the loops, and the size of the whorls. The arches were about 2-3 mm in length in its steepness, the elongation of the loops were about 1-2mm in length, and the size of the whorls where about 3-4mm in diameter. In comparing this analysis to the other sets of fingerprints that were left,...