J Forensic Sci, September 2014, Vol. 59, No.

5
doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12438
Available online at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com

PAPER
CRIMINALISTICS

Ido Hefetz,1 M.Sc.; Amit Cohen,2 M.Sc.; Yaron Cohen,3 M.Sc.; and Alan Chaikovsky,4 B.Sc.

Development of Latent Fingermarks from

Rocks and Stones

ABSTRACT: Since the beginning of recorded history, stones have been used in the commission of crimes due to their widespread availability.

Stones can be used as a lethal weapon that sometimes might be the only evidence in a serious case. The common perception, even in professional
fingermark circles, is that stones do not yield identifiable latent fingermarks. The authors of this research paper examined the feasibility of developing fingermarks from seven types of stones using three latent fingermark techniques: magnetic powder, cyanoacrylate fuming, and ninhydrin.
The paper will demonstrate that by classifying stones and rocks according to their natural properties (porosity, permeability, and the nature of surface area), even application of the simplest development techniques can produce good results. In conclusion, chert and limestone yielded the most
qualitative and quantitative results using magnetic powder. The time factor is also important in recovering latent fingermarks on stones and rocks.

KEYWORDS: forensic science, latent fingerprints, stone, rock, cyanoacrylate, ninhydrin, porosity

Since the beginning of recorded time, stones have been used

in the commission of crimes due to their widespread availability. Even today, stones are frequently used in burglaries, and
assault and battery cases. It is not uncommon to see stones
used in riots against police and military forces. Furthermore,
stones can be used as a lethal weapon that sometimes is the
sole evidence in a felony case. Thus, it is surprising that the
professional literature regarding fingermark development from
stones is very scant (1,2). This is probably because stones are
considered a surface that is not suitable for examination of
latent fingermarks, and efforts generally do not yield productive
results. Yet, a few experiments have shown that stones can be
treated for fingermark development if they have an impervious
surface (2).
Matching the appropriate development technique to a surface to
detect maximum fingermarks is a major field of interest in forensic
research (3,4). One of the most important questions in determining
which development technique to use is whether the surface is porous or nonporous, as fingermarks penetrate porous surfaces (5).
In this study, the authors examined the feasibility of latent fingermark development from stones both natural rocks and
1
Fingerprint Identification Laboratory, Division of Identification and
Forensic Science (DIFS), Israel Police, National Headquarters, Haim Bar-Lev
Rd., Jerusalem 91906, Israel.
2
Mobile Laboratory for Serious Crime Scenes, Division of Identification
and Forensic Science (DIFS), Israel Police, 5 Tuviyaho Blv., Beer Sheva
8424305, Israel.
3
Latent Fingerprint Laboratory, Division of Identification and Forensic
Science (DIFS), Israel Police, National Headquarters, Haim Bar-Lev Rd.,
Jerusalem 91906, Israel.
4
Digital Evidence Laboratory, Division of Identification and Forensic
Science (DIFS), Israel Police, National Headquarters, Haim Bar-Lev Rd.,
Jerusalem 91906, Israel.
Received 7 Jan. 2013; and in revised form 10 May 2013; accepted 2 June
2013.

1226

bricks and also looked into the optimal development technique

that should be applied for different stones according to their
characteristics.
Rocks differ one from another in their historic formation,
composition, color, texture, and structure. The study area lithology contains a variety of common rocks as listed below (6):
Granite: A granulose plutonic rock composed mainly of felspars, plagioclase, and quartz minerals. Granite has a massive
structure with a grainy and crystalline appearance.
Basalt and Scoria: A hard, dense, dark volcanic rock composed primarily of plagioclase, pyroxene, and olivine. It can
be of massive, scoriaceous, or pillow structure usually with
fine grain size. Scoria is the pyroclastic texture of the
basalt.
Limestone: A biogenic rock composed primarily of calcite,
sometimes with dolomite from skeletal fragments of marine
organisms; it is characterized by a compact, fine grain size
texture with occasional fossils.
Chert: A chemicalbiogenic compact texture rock composed
primarily of microcrystalline quartz mineral.
Marl: A clastic or mixed sedimentary rock. It is a mixture of
carbonate with a variable amount of clays minerals, creating
a very fine grain size texture. Marl is considered to be an
impermeable rock.
In general, the internal structure of natural rock is not totally
solid; hence, all kinds of rocks are absorbent to some degree.
The amount of absorption is highly related to the porosity and
permeability of the rock (Table 1).
The porosity of a rock u VVVT is the relationship of the volume of space between the solid particles of the rock (VV) to the
total rock volume (VT). The space includes all pores, cracks,
vugs, and inter- and intracrystalline spaces.
Porosity is expressed either as a fraction varying between 0 and 1
or a percentage varying between 0% and 100%.

2014 American Academy of Forensic Sciences

Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the U.S.A.

HEFETZ ET AL.
TABLE 1Porosity, permeability, and water absorption for different rock
types (610).

Stone Type
Basalt (unfractured)
Limestone (unfractured)
Granite (unfractured)
Shell
Chert (unfractured)

Porosity / (%)

Permeability
j (Darcy)

Water
Absorption (%)

0.11
520
0.51.5
1030
0.55

102104
1051
108105
108103
Impermeable

0.34.0
0.320.0
0.13.0
Very low

Permeability is the ability of a rock to receive, hold, or pass fluid

materials (oil, water, and gas) by nature of the interconnections of
its internal porosity. That is expressed by Darcys law:

LATENT FINGERMARKS FROM ROCKS

1227

kA Pb  Pa
l
L

k Permeability (m2~1012darcy), Q discharge or flow rate

(m3/sec), (PaPb) pressures drop (Pa), A area (m2),
l dynamic viscosity (Pa sec), L length (m).
Measured water absorption in rocks typically ranges from
<1% for granites and crystalline rocks to 1012% for more
porous sedimentary rocks (such as sandstone and limestone).
Crystalline rocks such as granite and quartzite typically have
absorptions of <1% as shown in Table 1.
As the level of porosity and permeability of a rock determines
its absorbent ratio (which varies from stone to stone), the authors

FIG. 1Lithology and sampling: (1) Limestone; (2) Scoria; (3) Basalt; (4) Chert; (5) Marl; (6) Granite; (7) Curbstone.

1228

JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

TABLE 2Water absorption rate of the examined stones.

Stone Type

Dry Weight (kg)

Wet Weight (kg)

Average Absorption (%)

Scoria
Basalt
Curbstone
Limestone
Granite
Marlstone
Chert

3
7.2
2.7
4.9
4.3
5.5
6.2

3.82
7.72
2.72
4.93
4.32
5.51
6.2

27.6
1.1
1.1
0.6
0.5
0.2
0

The technique recommended by the HOSDB Manual (U.K.

Home Office Scientific Development Branch) for nonporous surfaces (such as glass, paint, varnish, or plastic moldings) is to
powder followed by the application of superglue; for porous surfaces (such as raw wood), the recommendation is to powder
followed by applying ninhydrin (11).
Experiment

examined whether it can influence the appearance of a fingerprint impression, and whether there is a relationship between the
absorbent degree of a rock and the best development technique
to be applied for optimum latent fingermark results.

A set of seven different types of stones representing the lithology of Israel was collected for this study: Limestone, basalt, and
scoria, chert, marl, granite, and curbstone (brick) (Fig 1).
Water absorption (WT%) of the sampled stones was measured
according to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

FIG. 2Results of latent fingermark quality 1 h after imprinting and

applying powder (a), cyanoacrylate (b), and ninhydrin (c).

FIG. 3Results of latent fingermark quality 24 h after imprinting and

applying powder (a), cyanoacrylate (b), and ninhydrin (c).

HEFETZ ET AL.

LATENT FINGERMARKS FROM ROCKS

1229

FIG. 4Latent fingermarks results in good quality after 1 h and 24 h.

TABLE 3Total number of identifiable fingermarks developed from limestone and chert using powder, cyanoacrylate, and ninhydrin 1 h and 24 h
after imprinting.
1h
Development
Technique
Powder
Ninhydrin
Cyanoacrylate

FIG. 5Results of latent fingermark from limestone and chert after 1 h.

24 h

Stone Type

Poor

Fine

Good

Poor

Fine

Good

Limestone
Chert
Limestone
Chert

18
9
24
20

12
11
7
5

20
29
4
0

22
10
13
5

3
0
3
0

12
0
3
0

After determining water absorption, the stones were dried

once again for 24 h and imprinted.
Examination was performed in two stages:
Stage 1 Preliminary Test

FIG. 6Results of latent fingermark from limestone and chert after 24 h.

standards; that is, all stones were placed in a heating chamber

(80C) for 24 h to dry out free fluids. They were weighed and then
put in a water bath for 24 h. The weight was measured again.

Four donors, two males and two females aged 2030, fingermarked each of the stones with natural fingermarks (with no special treatment).
One set of stones was developed 1 h after fingermarking, and
the other set, after 24 h. Latent fingermarks were developed using
the standard methods for all stones in the usual manner as recommended by the HOSDB with black magnetic powder, cyanoacrylate fuming, and dipping in ninhydrin (HFE 7100 formulation 3M,
Electronics Markets Materials Division, St. Paul, MN).
Rocks were treated with magnetic powder postcyanoacrylate
fuming only when the results were insufficient; however, this
did not yield better results.
The quality of latent fingermarks was assessed according to a
scale from 0 to 3:
0, None no fingermark developed.
1, Poor fingermark with a few visible ridges.
2, Fine fingermark comparable with suspect.
3, Good fingermark sufficient for AFIS.

1230

JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

Stage II Secondary Test

The rocks which yielded the best results with correspondence
to the development techniques (limestone and chert) were fingerprinted in this stage by 50 donors for each set.
The stones were divided into four sets, and the donors were
asked to lift the stones from the ground into a basket; then,
fingermark development proceeded as follows:
Set 1 Limestone, magnetic powder.
Set 2 Limestone, ninhydrin.
Set 3 Chert, magnetic powder.
Set 4 Chert, cyanoacrylate.
Fingermark development was applied in two time periods
(1 and 24 h) for all sets.
Results and Discussion
The stone absorption percentage as presented in Table 2 is
consistent with typically measured absorption in the literature
(Table 1).
The authors found that scoria, basalt, and marl stones examined in this study showed negative latent fingermark results.
Latent fingermarks were obtained on limestone, chert, granite,
and curbstone as presented in Figs 24.
In the second stage, sufficient results (fine and good)
were obtained on limestone and chert using black magnetic powder. It also became clear that applying ninhydrin on limestone
and cyanoacrylate on chert yielded sufficient results 1 h after
imprinting, but there was a lower rate of success after 24 h as
presented in Figs 5 and 6 and summarized in Table 3.
The authors attempt to correlate the development method
with the nature of the rock showed that, despite the efficiency of
the magnetic powder, the nature of the rock must be considered.
Sequential examination on limestone (applying magnetic powder followed by ninhydrin), however, did not yield better results.
It was found that stones and rocks can be categorized according to: (i) their porosity and (ii) the application of fingermark
development methods used.
Permeable limestone yields identifiable fingermarks after development with ninhydrin, magnetic powder, and cyanoacrylate;
nonpreamble chert, however, yields no fingermarks using ninhydrin. This observation suggests that the rocks offer a new and wide
variety of surfaces to examine to improve detection techniques for
immersed fingermarks.
The time elapsed from fingermarking was found to be a significant factor. Bobev (12) suggest that the time after initial impression causes the fat to diffuse and saturates the entire surface and
the amino acids to dissociate in acid or alkaline medium. This may
explain 64% identifiable latent fingermarks developed after 1 h
(32 of 50), but only 30% after 24 h (15 of 50) for limestone; corresponding results for chert are from 80% to 10%.
Conclusions
This study demonstrates that rocks can be divided into groups
according to their physical properties. Therefore, to obtain best
results, the fingermarks development technique employed should
take into account the nature of the surface of the rock.
Success in developing identifiable quality latent fingermarks
on rocks by applying the most common and simple development

techniques was possible after correlating the developing method

with the surface.
Limestone and other compact permeable rocks should be
examined with the development techniques that apply to porous
surfaces.
Chert and other nonpermeable compact/fine grain rocks should
be examined using development techniques for nonporous surfaces.
The conclusion is that porous and nonporous (permeable and
nonpermeable) surfaces react differently to the type of developer
applied.
Magnetic powder was found to be an adequate method for
most of the rocks examined.
The time factor is crucial. The development should be made
as soon as possible after the impression is made.
Results indicate that rocks and stones remain complex and
challenging surfaces for latent fingermark development. This
study, however, focuses only on basic and common development
methods that are easy to use on rocks and stones with different
physical characteristics and do not require advanced laboratory
intervention. Applying advanced development techniques may
yield a better result.
Development of latent fingermarks on rough and furrowed
rocks probably will not provide good results regardless of the
development technique applied or the absorbent degree of the
rock. In these cases, other forensic methods should be used.
References
1. Lee HC, Gaensslen RE. Advances in fingerprint technology, 2nd edn.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2001.
2. Donche A, Loyan S. Development of latent fingerprints on stones.
J Forensic Indet 1996;46(5):54255.
3. Champod C, Lennard C, Margot P, Stoilovic M. Fingerprints and other
ridge skin impressions. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2004.
4. Becue A, Egli N, Champod C, Margot PA. Fingermarks and other
impressions left by the human body, Review: 20072010. In: Daeid NN,
editor. 16th International Forensic Science Symposium; 2010 Oct 58;
Lyon, France. Lyon, France: Interpol, 2010.
5. Almog J, Azoury M, Elmaliah Y, Berenstein L, Zaban A. Fingerprints
third dimension: the depth and shape of fingerprints penetration into
paper cross section examination by fluorescence microscopy. J Forensic Sci 2004;49(5):98185.
6. Prinz M, Harlow G, Peters J, editors. Simon and Schusters guide to
rocks and minerals. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1978.
7. Shroff AV. Soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Lisse, PA:
A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2003.
8. Dimri VP, Srivastava RP, Vedanti NV. Fractal models. In exploration
geophysics: applications to hydrocarbon reservoirs. In: Helbig K, Treitel
S, editors. Handbook of geophysical exploration, Vol. 41. Amsterdam,
the Netherlands: Elsevier, 2012;89118.
9. Quick G. Selective guide to the specification of dimension stone.
Discover Stone, Austral Stone Advisory Assoc 2001;1:821.
10. Sieveking GdeG, Hart MB, editors. Scientific study of flint and chert: Proceedings of the Fourth International Flint Symposium; 1983 April 1015;
Brighton, U.K. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
11. Kent T, editor. Manual of fingerprint development techniques, 2nd edn.
Sandridge, U.K.: Home Office, 1998.
12. Bobev K. Fingerprints and factors affecting their condition. J Forensic
Ident 1995;45(2):17683.
Additional information and reprint requests:
Amit Cohen, M.Sc.
Mobile Serious Crime Unit
Israel Police
5 Tuviyaho Blv. Beer Sheva
Israel
E-mail: amit.haliva@gmail.com