Rating: 
Summary: Fingerprinting History Brought to Life!
Review: As a lover of crime stories and detective novels in general, I was very interested in this book. Although I don't usually read history books as they are often too dense and dry for my tastes, this book captured my imagination from the start.Mr. Beavan's vivid characterizations, natural storytelling, and his ability to weave historical detail into a riviting, fast-paced tale made this book exciting and fun to read. The way he crafted this story made the complexity of fingerprinting accessible, understandable and interesting. I especially loved the way he brought his characters to life and painted a compelling portrait of their personalities, allowing me to feel as if I was actually meeting the men who discovered and developed this incredible and intricate science. I highly recommend this book!
Rating: 
Summary: The Sceince of Fingerprints Stands in History
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Light, Enjoyable Book on the Tips of the Fingers
Review: Fingerprints (The Origins of Crime Detection and the Murder Case That Launched Forensic Science), by Colin Beavan, is another in the recent spate of books looking at a particular scientific discovery and its effects. Like all of these books, it is laboured with a sub-title that is a little too large for its small size. The book is most interesting when it focuses on fingerprinting rather than when it is trying to expand the topic to crime detection in general. Nevertheless, this a bright, breezy, easy read with a cast of bitter, feuding scientists, a few well-placed murders strewn throughout, and a climatic court room battle. This book possesses no great depth, but it skims the surface beautifully and makes for an enjoyable ride.
Rating:
Summary: A well written history of pre-fingerprint jurisprudence
Review: 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
Rating:
Summary: fascinating
Review: 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
Rating:
Summary: The controversy continues...
Review: The controversy over who did what, who did it first, and the Scots vs. the English, people do not want to let lie. Conspiracy makes for good reading and brain teasing.
Since 1983 I have had a keen interest in Henry Faulds. I located where he is buried (England, not Scotland), along with his wife and their 2 daughters. I located living relatives of Dr. Faulds, which led others to parts of his missing fingerprint collection. At the time I was a Fellow of the Fingerprint Society. I could go on about my experience with Faulds, Hershell, and Galton, but this is about the book.
Dr. Faulds was not a scientist or scientific researcher. He was a medical doctor, and a very dedicated one. William Hershell was neither a scientist nor doctor. He was a public administrator for the English in India, overseeing payment of government funds.
Dr. Faulds was the first to submit the theory that fingerprints could be used to identify a person who had committed a crime. Hershell responded that he had been using fingerprints longer than Faulds to identify fraud. Dr. Faulds deserves credit for suggesting fingerprints from a crime scene could identify the suspect. Hershell deserves credit for realizing that using an inked impression of a finger could deter fraud.
Realizing that neither Faulds nor Hershell were scientists, English authorities requested Galton, recognized by his peers as an academic and scientific researcher, look into the claims of Faulds and Hershell. Edward Henry and his classification system came later.
Galton's findings resulted in further research by others, leading eventually to the introduction of the use of fingerprints as a means of identifying people, both from scenes of crimes and from inked impressions.
The personalities and politics of the people and time in history help make this book interesting reading. Faulds, for reasons we can only guess, did testify for the defense that a print from a crime scene was not that of the accused, in direct conflict with the prosecution and opinion of the fingerprint branch.
The print in question was obtained by the Fingerprint Society in the 1980's, and observed by many experts, and myself, to clearly match that of the accused. Faulds was wrong, and I think he knew it. Why he did what he did is known only to him. But it does not change the fact that he deserves credit for being the first to submit to a scientific journal that prints from a crime scene could be used to identify criminals. In this, Beavan is right on the mark. But Hershell and Galton are also due recognition for their different and separate contributions.
I recommend this book, it is one person's view of this part of history. It is accurate in many details, and the conclusions drawn are not new. Others felt the same before this author.
Faulds, Hershell, Galton and likely a number of people in India at the time, are all due credit for the birth and delivery of fingerprints as a means of identification.
Rating:
Summary: much more than just fingerprints
Review: The most interesting thing I learned from this book: Eugene Vidocq, a highly-skilled felon (whose initial crime was forging a poor peasant's pardon) traveled France, living life on the lam -- a cycle of crime, capture, escape. When Josephine's (wife of Napolean) valuable emerald necklace was stolen, French police were at a loss and sought out Vidocq's assistance in recovering the jewels, offering Vidocq immunity for his help. Vidocq found the jewelry & the thief within three days. Napolean, impressed, appointed Vidocq to a police post. As a police appointee, Vidocq posed as a fugitive on the run to maintain his access to the criminal element, but in fact, he was acting as an undercover agent. Apparently the first to employ undercover techniques, Vidocq "singlehandedly launched police procedure out of the Middle Ages and into the nineteenth century." Les Mis fans, does this sound at all familiar? Vidocq became popular in French cultural circles (I'm not sure how this happened, given his undercover status), becoming friends with the famous writers of the day, including Victor Hugo, who based both Inspector Javert and his nemesis, Jean Valjean, on Vidocq. In addition to providing literary trivia, this book does an excellent job of detailing the evolution of criminal identification techniques, such as anthropometric measurements, the development of fingerprinting techniques, and the eventual union of the two at the turn of the century. Modern fingerprinting arose in colonial India, not as a crime-fighting technique, but as a means of providing a definitive "signature" on lease agreements. This book is very readable, with many true-crime stories and anecdotes of early police methodologies that made me cringe. There is considerable development of the conflict over who should be credited with the application of fingerprinting to criminal identification. One of the early developers and proponents of fingerprinting actually testified for the defense at the first criminal trial during which fingerprint evidence was introduced -- largely because the prosecution's witness had essentially taken credit for the other man's achievements. No doubt the ego-driven disputes over who should get credit for "inventing" modern fingerprinting techniques delayed the widespread implementation of fingerprinting as a criminal identification methodology.
Rating:
Summary: Thoroughly researched and engagingly written.
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Highly inaccurate and poorly researched
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Putting Their Fingers On It
Review: 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.
|
