Chapter XVI · Proof of Positive Identification—the Finger Print.

Crime is developing at a great rate, yet but comparatively few police departments have provided themselves with the necessary instruction and equipment to successfully combat it. A vast majority of the police departments in this enlightened age continue to pin their faith to the flint-lock musket of a by-gone day, while the lawbreaker eludes and evades and convictions grow fewer and farther between.

The greatest factor in the detection of crime—the one indisputable incriminating evidence of guilt—the present tell-tale imprint of the finger, is more often overlooked than it is pressed into service in bringing the guilty to the bar of justice.

Perhaps one of the greatest chief reasons for the lack of a world-wide use of the simplest known method of directly connecting the criminal with his crime is the misconception of the utter simplicity of securing such evidence and the certainty of it.

The following are a few of the great number of crimes committed in which the finger print alone played the important part and furnished proof of identification.

JENNINGS CASE.

On September 19, 1910, Clarence B. Hiller, who lived at 1837 104th Street, Chicago, Illinois, was murdered in his home, evidently by a burglar.

The following morning Capt. Michael Evans and his son, Wm. M. Evans, of the Chicago Bureau of Identification, went to the Hiller residence to look for finger prints. They found three on the newly painted porch railing. The rail was sawed off and taken to headquarters, where the prints were photographed.

Certain circumstances pointed to a negro, named Thomas Jennings, as the murderer, and he was arrested and his finger prints taken. They corresponded exactly with those found on the porch rail.

Jennings was brought to trial before Judge Marcus A. Kavanaugh, at Chicago, and was convicted November 11th.

Jennings’ attorney fought against the admission of finger prints as evidence and argued that, as a means of identification, finger prints were unsubstantial. He was overruled by Judge Kavanaugh and four experts testified to the many points of similarity that existed between the prints found on the porch rail and those taken from Jennings’ fingers.

One of the jurymen said, after Jennings had been convicted: “The finger prints, and the finger prints alone, convinced us that Jennings was guilty.”

The case was taken to the Supreme Court of Illinois on appeal, but the verdict was upheld. In handing down their decision the justices of the Supreme Court said:

“When photography was first introduced, it was seriously questioned whether pictures thus created could properly be introduced as evidence. But this method of proof, as well as by means of X-ray and the microscope, is now admitted without question.

“We are disposed to hold, from the evidence of the four witnesses who testified and from the writings we have referred to on this subject, that there is a scientific basis for the system of finger print identification and that the courts are justified in admitting this class of evidence.

“Such evidence may or may not be of independent strength, but it is admissible, with other proof, tending to make out a case. If references as to the identity of persons based on the voice, the appearance or age, are admissible, why does not this record justify the admission of finger print testimony under common law rules of evidence.”

Jennings was hanged on February 16 1912, at Chicago.

THE CHARLES CRISPI CASE.

In the winter of 1911, the loft of H. M. Bernstein and Brothers, 1701 Wooster street, manufacturers of ladies’ garments, was burglarized in the early morning. Finger prints found in the burglary were discovered to be those of Cesare J. Selle, alias Charles Crispi, who, upon this identification, was arrested and indicted for the crime of burglary, in the second degree, second offense. At first, Selle’s attorneys proceeded with the trial on a plea of not guilty, but after Joseph Faurot, the finger print expert, had testified the attorneys for the defense withdrew the plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to the crime of burglary. Judge Rosalsky after the plea had been taken said to Selle:

“I want you to make a full confession. I can assure you that no indictment will be found against you or any witness who testified in your behalf in the course of your trial for perjury, but it is more for the interest of justice and science that you tell the truth. It is invaluable for us to know whether or not the expert testimony given during your trial was correct or otherwise. The finger print experts are of the opinion that the science of identification, by means of finger prints, is more exact than the Bertillon System of photography. Did you remove the pane of glass, in evidence here, from the door of the loft of H. M. Bernstein and Brothers?”

The defendant answered that he did. In view of the fact that he had assisted the officers in helping to establish the authenticity of the finger print identification he was given a sentence of only six months.

In the year of 1910, two men broke into a home in Flatbush; they were discovered and one of them shot a member of the household. One of the burglars was also shot, and his injury led to the arrest of the other. Finger prints of both were taken, but the New York Finger Print Files contained no record of the injured burgler. He insisted that he had never been arrested before and that he had, by chance, been induced to take part in the Flatbush burglary. Captain Faurot researched his files, but could find no duplicate of his finger print card; still there was something strangely familiar with one of his prints. Suddenly it came to him. Some months before, there had been a burglary in Brooklyn, and upon a cut glass rose jar one of the thieves had left a thumb print, and a large photograph of this print was on file at the identification bureau. This photograph was compared with the impression of the wounded man, and found to agree with the print of his left thumb. Going directly to the hospital where the man was confined, Captain Faurot said to him: “When you broke into that house on Park Slope, three months ago, why did you not take that cut glass rose bowl?” “It was too heavy to carry away,” replied the man.

In the Coppersmith case in Chicago, Russell Pethick, a grocery delivery boy, who murdered Mrs. Coppersmith and her baby boy, endeavored to put the officers on the wrong trail by giving the description of a man he saw going into the Coppersmith home about the time of the murder, and when taken to the Bureau of Identification in that city, through a ruse, his finger prints were obtained and afterwards fourteen points of comparison were found in two fingers and on the bloody handle of the hammer with which he killed Mrs. Coppersmith. When confronted with his finger prints he pleaded guilty and is now serving a life sentence in the Illinois penitentiary at Joliet.

Another case of more recent date comes to my mind, where a clever identification was made. In San Francisco an expert burglar robbed several rooms in the St. Francis, the leading hotel of San Francisco. Among the people robbed was Miss “Billie” Burke, the celebrated actress, from whose room was taken about ten thousand dollars worth of valuable jewelry. There was no possibility of getting identification as to the thief; but a few days later an officer of the San Francisco police department arrested a man while attempting to dispose of some of the stolen jewelry. This man was a Swede or Norwegian named Peter Johansen, and he positively refused to give any information regarding himself. Through the kindness of Chief White of the San Francisco Police Department several copies of the man’s photograph were obtained and sent to Europe for identification, together with his finger prints, as it was the opinion that this man, who had only been in this country but a short time, had come from Europe for the purpose of operating in San Francisco during the progress of the World’s Fair. Chief White also wrote to Europe, enclosing pictures and finger prints of him, and we both got copies from Superintendent McCarthy at Scotland Yard identifying the man, not alone by his photograph, but positively by his finger prints. He gave a long criminal history of Johansen, where he had served time in England, Sweden, South Africa and Australia. I consider this a marvelous case of identification, as the finger prints in all of these different countries compared with those taken in San Francisco.