Introduction:
The subject of my presentation for this conference is ear research / ear identification. It concerns not only the research into the adversity of ears but also the finding of earprints especially in relation to committed penal acts. My further reasoning will be separated into four parts.
1. A piece of history according to ear research and what is known about that subject in literature.2. The history of ear research in the Netherlands in which I will indicate the present state of affairs.
3. International developments (as far as I'm concerned).
4. The criminological value of earprints in the future, especially my views on the internationalization of earprint research, standard norms and co-operation.
At first a piece of history. In the 18th century already Lavater (who lived from 1741 till 1801) made reports about the individual design of the ear. A century later, concrete proposals for the application of this knowledge were developed in criminology abroad. In spite of the photografical equipment of the police forces these findings were not followed through, whilst the application of subject photografy and the taking of fingerprints, as well as the registration of body sizes became standard procedure at the criminal record offices. One person especially made a noise in this field the frenchman Bertillon. His "portrait parle" contained three photographs of a suspect in which the photograph "en profile" were appropriate for giving a clear uniform description of the ear.
The Prague doctor Imhofer also made remarkable recommendations in this field in 1906. He described the characteristic forms of the ear fully. His descriptions were a good directive for the use of earprints as a means of identification. He ascertained that the characteristic features of the human ear remain unchanged during the whole of our life.
In the United States of America Alfred Iannarelli has researched all aspects of the ear for more than 40 years. He also designed a useful classification system. His collective work "Ear Identification" is in my opinion a standard work in this domain. Iannarelli researched the stages of the existance of the ear and he ascertained that the development of the ear begins shortly after conception. Some parts of the ear are already recognisable by the 38th day after conception, yet the ear is not in the right place. The correct place will be reached at about the 56th day. At that moment the helix, anti-helix, the concha and the lobule amongst others are recognisable. After the 70th day the speed at which the ear develops is increased but important changes in the form of the ear cease to occur. Iannarelli ascertained that after the fourth month the mutual proportions of the ear do not change further. However, he discovered that although there are no further alteration in the mutual proportions of the ear, the ear continues to increase in size. He also researched the growth differences between races (whites, blacks and asiatics) and ascertained that growth differences of the ears existed between the races.
Research under auspices of the Karl Marx University of Leipzig concerned the size and the form of the ear. They definitely found a difference in the size of the ears between men and women, but it was ascertained that these differences are not useful for the identification process. Research was also carried out on the existence of certain aspects of ears in reference to form. The before mentioned IMHOFER also pointed out that the ears -with exception to the cartilage free earlobe - after the softer parts will be affected by decomposition. He also did research into the hereditary factors. Ancestry reports in forensic medical science in Western Germany have taken the characteristic features of the ear into account since the nineteen twenties. Scientific researchers of this aspect -amongst others professor Lange of the Goethe University in Franfurt am Main - show that in the concha region of the ear similarities in form exist between parents and their children.
In 1965 Hirchi (Bern-Switzerland) carried out a useful test in connection with a burglary in which an earprint of the criminal led to convincing argumentation. He compared the photographs of the auricle of 40 persons with the prints of these ears and discovered characteristic dissimilarities of form. Hirchi cites in his explanation over the method followed and the consulted literature amongst other things the following passages.
1. From the pen of Mr. A.A. Reiss, University of Lausanne, in his book "Portrait parle" (method Alphonse Bertillon): "The ear has the most characteristic feature elements of the human body thanks to the variation in height and depth of the form. It has such a great quantity of different forms that it is almost impossible to find two persons with parts that are absolutely identical. Besides that the form of the ear does not change from birth until death".
2. From Prof.Dr.A.Niceforo, lecturer at the University of Napels and Brussels in the magazine "Die Kriminalpolizei und ihre Hilfswissenschaften": "For description purposes the ear is the most important part, because this organ offers the most, and has the most essential variations. The ear is, for each human being, so different that the precise description, with all its characteristic features would already be enough to ascertain the identification".
3. Dr. Edmond Locard in his book "L'identification des recidivistes": "This organ, that is a part of the face which in present day is the least looked at, can be considered as one of the most important for police science because it contains the most characteristic feature parts. The ear has a double character, on the one side qua sizes and forms it is unchangeable from birth till death, and on the other appears to be so variated that it is almost impossible to find two identical ears".
In Western Germany earprints were at first described as large marks and were not recognized as earprints. However they helped on a number of occasions with the identification of the offender. Besides these cases, in the last few years there have been articles written in forensic magazines about individual cases in which earprints were found at crime scenes. In most cases these articles did not describe the recognized procedure to an identification and it is not known if the identification was taken into evidence by the court of the country concerned, or if a conviction was obtained on these grounds.
That is where I come to the second part of my lecture:
Ear research in the Netherlands: In the Netherlands, on the 23d of December 1985, at the technical investigation of a raid on a banker and his wife in Oostvoorne -a small village in the area of Rotterdam- the print of a left and a right ear were found on a door. This door, leading from the house to the garden, was forced by the hostage taker. The offenders were two men who ran off with a considerable amount of money and equipment. Besides the earprints small artificial pieces of the butt of an alarm pistol were found.
Almost a month later the police were investigating the house of a suspect in relation to armed robberies, when they found besides firearms also a gas alarm pistol with a damaged butt. In association with the television program "Crime watch" both cases were connected and the artificial pieces, previously found, appeared to fit the damaged butt. The suspect, confronted with these matters during the interrogation, denied the raid on the banker and his wife and said that he had bought the alarm pistol some days before at a bar in Rotterdam from an unknown person.
Now the earprints are the only traces that can lead to the identity of offender. The suspect co-operates in a comparising investigation and produces some prints of the left as well as the right ear. The investigation that follows was carries out by the scene-of-crime officers Nico Dubois and Frand de Groen. They involved throat/nose and ear doctors as well. The investigation leads to the conclusion that the prints are identical to those that were found at the place of the raid.
At the investigations hundreds of prints of right and left ears, put at police disposal by employees of the police forces in the neighborhood of Dordrecht were also used. The conclusion in relation to those prints was, that none of the prints were identical or showed strong similarities with the prints found on the place of the offense. This was brought up before the court in Dordrecht, after which a conviction of the suspect (who kept denying) was obtained on grounds of the earprints.
The suspect appealed at a higher court in The Hague. This court also made a conviction, but mostly on the grounds of the small artificial part of the gas alarm pistol. The higher court found the explanation given by the suspect, that he bought the pistol some days before his house search incredible.
With my appointment to the branch section techniques at the Dutch College for Criminal Investigation and Crime Control in Zutphen, I had to teach in four courses for scene of crime officers. Apart from that I received instruction to study everything concerning the metrical and morphological aspects of the human body, especially those pointing towards identification possibilities. In my orientation, pointed in first instance to literature research, I came rather quickly to the conclusion that there are different parts in which a further study and qualification can lead to more possibilities to identify an offender according to the traces left behind.
From here I will limit myself to what has been developed in the field of earprints. In literature research I found, that amongst others, Fritz Hirschi, a Swiss researcher in the Bern police force (I mentioned him before), had investigated the relationship between the height of appearance of an earprint and the length of the offender. Besides other studies, at first instance I threw myself into this research.
During a period, that eventually lasted three years, I made photographs of both ears from students, co-operators and visitors and noted down the sizes concerning the length of the body, the distance between the upper-side of the skull and the middle of the auditory canal. I also researched the extent to which people bent forward in order to listen at a window or door. The outcome of this research will give, in my opinion, a possibility to support, under certain circumstances, the mutual research about earprints and will give during the investigation perhaps a direction which must or can be followed.
In this research I collected many earprints and an investigation was carried out on form abnormalities of the ears and the changes, that take place in the form of the ears by putting them under pressure. The photographs of the ear (about 1200) were a good help in the study for the uniqueness of an ear. After some years of research I started to make known the possibilities of ear-research and the possibilities of ear-identification.
In one of the courses at our College time was taken to give information over comparative researches to body aspect, in which earprints took most of the time. Some months later people began to send me earprints. It appeared that earprints at the place of the offense were more often found than was previously thought. Especially at burglaries in flats and houses with portico's, where crimes were committed mostly in broad daylight in the afternoon and in which the front door was broken into or was opened with the aid of a plastic card, it turned out that, besides the well known fingerprints and toolmark traces, earprints were found.
As soon as scene of crime officers started to look for earprints the number of cases involving earprints increased. This tendency to the finding of earprints took place in many police regions. In Amsterdam, Rotterdam and other smaller places in that area there was an enormous increase in the amount of earprints found. It was bound to happen that suspects would be manifest.
Nevertheless was my first case in the Netherlands an earprint found in a small village in the province of Limburg. The print was found on the kitchen window pane of a detached house that had a wall around it. The suspect denied ever having committed a burglary. The earprint found and a test print of the ears of the suspect were put at my disposal. I identified the print found at the place of the burglary, as equal to the earprint of the suspect. In court the suspect kept denying the burglary. When the judge asked about the earprint found at the scene of the crime, the suspect reacted by saying, that he could remember having listened at the window pane on the request of a friend, to hear if the inhabitants were at home. However, after that he had left the premises and did not commit burglary. Nevertheless the judge in Maastricht convicted the accused of the burglary.
After this cases followed in quick succession. In a series of burglaries in the neighborhood of Rotterdam I involved besides the prints also the height of findings in my research. On the grounds of the before mentioned research, I could, according to the height of the earprint found, establish the body length of the offender. This length had to be between 161half and 165 centimeters. The average height appeared to be 163 cm. The offender appeared to have a body length of exactly 163 centimeters. Also in these cases a conviction was made by the court.
An other case concerned a series of burglaries in the agglomeration of cities in the western part of the Netherlands, the area between Amsterdam, Utrecht, Rotterdam and The Hague. On the grounds of an ear investigation carried out, I could indicate a suspect arrested in Amsterdam on suspicion of house burglaries as the offender of seven cases. A fellow suspect who was arrested could be pointed out as the offender in twelve cases. This second suspect confessed all the cases he was charged with. The first suspect denied two cases, he was charged with, in which earprints were the only technical proof against him having committed the crimes. He even said that one place was unknown to him and he had never been in the other one.
Up till now, two courts (the court of justice in first instance and the higher court in appeal) have dealt with the cases and the suspect was convicted both times on grounds of the ear identification. In both cases I gave evidence in court as an expert to explain ear identification. The council for the defendant appealed to the highest court in the Netherlands, the Supreme Court. Only a couple of days before time ran out the council for the defendant withdrew the appeal. With this the sentence has become irrevocable.
Concerning the burglaries there are, regarding the offenders, an obvious group to indicate. In the Netherlands these are mainly Algerians, Maroccans, Israelites, Turks and people from former Yugoslavia. Roughly spoken people from the area around the Mediterranean.
For the searching and securing of prints we use the normal methods in the Netherlands, as they count for fingerprint identification. I prefer the use of grey fingerprint identification powder (special silver or concentrated silver) to make the prints visible, whereby the trace is taken off with a black gelatin foil.
The trace is authenticated on the spot, the height of the findings of the trace will also be noted down, whereas for my length research I take the place of the tragus as a starting - point to establish the body length. For comparison purposes I need at least three standards or test-prints from a suspect. I prefer that the suspect listens himself at a smooth surface. Every time the pressure has to be different. The first time the pressure applied has to be gentle, the second print has to be done with normal pressure and the third print is taken by applying much more pressure. This way of taking prints will be used for the right as well as the left ear. In all cases a photograph of the right and the left ear will be taken, whereby the camera is held at an angle of 90 degrees corresponding to the head.
For non-co-operating suspects five prints of each ear must be made, whereby the prints have to be taken by putting variable pressure on the ear. Therefore it is necessary to prevent that one part of the ear (upper, lower, front or back side) getting extra pressure, because this will give an extra deformation of that part of the ear.
For the identification of the prints the following issues have to be taken into consideration:
1. General anatomical features the purpose is to make clear , which parts / features the ear has and which parts / features are visible on the found trace.
2. Make a comparison of the features of the found trace with the test trace the purpose is to mention the mutual characteristic features (pressure points) and the measuring of the prints.
In the framework of this lecture it would take too long to relate in detail the process of identification. However, I would like to explain that the method, followed by me in the first instance, is based on a resemblance between the pressure points, caused through the tragus, the antitragus, the crus of helix and the form of the anti-helix. After that a consideration of the possible other characteristic features of the ear follows.
In the comparative investigation differences may arise between the found traces at the place of the crime and the test prints made of the ears of the suspect. Therefore it is necessary to consider the research, that Von Neubert, a German researcher, carried out in his final examination for a degree. He investigated the form deformation caused by pressure. His research was directed specially on the changes, that will occur by listening with light or strong pressure of the ear against a glass plate. In his research he found amongst other things that:
a: With strong pressure on the ear against a glass plate the changes related to the length and the breadth were bigger than with light pressure. The increase of the length of the ear with strong pressure against the glass plate was on average 4 millimeter, whilst the breadth was on average 2.5 millimeter.
b: The form of the earlobe showed great variety. The explanation was: there is no cartilage in the earlobe and it moves very easily.
c: As soon as the earlobe was visible in the print the change in the print was bigger in the breadth than in the length.
d: If the so called "knob of Darwin" was visible, this could be seen very clearly.
Von Neubert also came to the conclusion, that none of the ears researched was equal with those from somebody else. In my own research with numerous test persons, what Von Neubert indicated in his publication, was affirmed. It was also found that the form of the ear and the parts, that became visible at slight and strong pressure, hardly differed. It is true, the parts printed were more dominant ( broader and sometimes also longer), but in hardly any of the cases did many more parts of the ear become visible. Also the main form of the print did not change.
As far as my research shows at this moment (and also that, which has been researched by others), the results lead in my opinion to the following starting points for ear investigation:
at first - the form of the ear remains unchanged during the whole life time;
second - the mutual relations between the inside ear (concha) and the outside ear do not change anymore from the fourth month after birth until the decomposition.
third - Ears are, according to their form and size, so different, that there are not two people in the whole world who's ears are totally alike. fourth - ears can be classified.
After further research I would also add: fifth - earprints can be recognized and classified by a neural network.
International developments.
Since autumn 1996 I'm involved in the investigation of a murder-case in both the United States of America and Great Brittain. The murder-case in the United States of America took place in December 1994 in Clark County, Vancouver in Washington-state. In his house a man was beaten to death and an attempt had been made to do the same to his 12 year old son. During the crime-scene investigation an earprint was found on the master bedroom door in the house. This trace appeared to be the only physical piece of evidence.
In may 1996 a man was arrested who was suspected to be the offender. He denied and told the police that he had never been in the house. Since the earprint was the only piece of evidence, the prosecutor wanted to take this into account. That's were the council for the defense asked for a FRYE-hearing. In this type of hearing the judge has to decide whether or not the earprint may be used and shown to the jury. In this trial there were a number of questions to be answered.
For instance:
- Are ears unique?
- Is earprint comparison generally excepted by the forensic science community?
- Is the comparison method generally excepted?
After five-and-a-half day of interrogation of several forensic experts of various deciplines, including me, the judge allowed the prosecutor to use the earprint in court. After this hearing I have seen the original evidence for the first time and I was asked to do the comparison in the case. Besides the earprint which is in my opinion equal to the test prints that were made from the suspect, a piece of the cheek and the hairline are visible.
I made my report for the prosecutor and have been cross-examined by the defense. The process has been delayed twice up till now and will start in the beginning of July. I will have to testify on july 7 1997.
The English case concerned a murder-case as well. This case took place in may 1996. On the windowpane on the outside of the house prints of a left ear were found as well as purple fibers on the curtain inside the house. Other traces pointing in the direction of a suspect are not available. This ear comparison which includes 12 possible offenders is carried out by Peter Vanezis, professor of medicine of the university of Glasgow, John Kennerley, head of the fingerprint department of the Lancashire Constabulary and myself.
During a visit in November 1996 the windowpane that had been secured was shown to me. I discovered a earprint of a right ear that had not been seen up till then. In this case one of the twelve suspects could be identified as the one that left both right and left prints behind.
That is where I come to the last part:
The future: I expect for the ear investigation and the possibilities (from a criminalistic point of view) to identify persons on the hand of their earprints quite good possibilities. Besides fingerprints and DNA investigation the mutual ear investigation can give a possibility to identify a person.
For a broad support of the possibilities of ear investigation it is in my opinion necessary to do further research, to work together and to reject on an international scale. At this moment our Dutch College has made arrangement for co-operation with the National Training Centre for Scientific Support to Crime Scene Investigation in Durham. It's our aim to start a international course on earprint identification in 1998.
Besides that it is in my opinion necessary to agree on international directives for the collection, classification and storing of earprints. Also international directives for the collection of test prints of suspects must be framed. Hereby I want to point at the Forensic Technical Standards, that have been developed since some years in the Netherlands. These standards are eventually made to improve the communication and the investigation possibilities of materials in relation between the investigator on the place of the offense and the forensic laboratory, but have become generally accepted standards for the scene of crime officers and other people, involved in the investigation, to carry out certain activities.
This steering committee is a co-operation with between the Forensic Laboratory, the Dutch College for Criminal Investigation and Crime Control and the National Contact of scene of crime officers. These days, also the Police Traffic Institute and the Criminal Investigation Department, section fingerprint identification, take part. I think that the making of international standards can make a contribution to a standard process for the collection of test prints.
Finally it is important to make international directives and appointments for the mutual investigation of earprints, whereby also attention should be paid to a standard way of reporting. In the Netherlands we are open for international co-operation and we invite everybody to contribute his mite.
I thank you for your attention.
Mr. Cor van der Lugttel: +31-575-590200
fax: +31-575-590235
Rechercheschool
Voorsterallee 25
7203 DN Zutphen
The Netherlands
| Next > |
|---|
