1. www.derby.ac.uk
Who am I?
• BSc (Hons) Forensic Science Student
• Graduate in July with predicted 1st Class (hopefully!)
• Aspirations for a career in the Wildlife Crime sector
• Combination of my two passions: Forensic Science & Wildlife!
• Particular interest in protecting birds of prey
• Lifelong member of the RSPB and Norfolk Wildlife Trust

2. www.derby.ac.uk
• Red and Green magnetic fluorescent fingerprint powders deemed most suitable for feathers
• Black magnetic powder most suitable for the surface of the eggs
Previous Research

3. www.derby.ac.uk
Definitions
• Research focused on the visualisation of latent fingermarks
– Latent: Generally difficult to visualise (invisible);
Principle component is sweat;
Vast majority of all fingermarks
• Fingermark or Fingerprint?
– Fingermark: Impression left by the friction ridges of a human finger
(Non-Fingerprint Experts)
– Fingerprint: Impression left by the friction ridges of a human finger
(Qualified Fingerprint Experts Only!)
• Ridge Detail: ridge flow and specific ridge characteristics

4. www.derby.ac.uk
Methods
• Fingerprint powders and Superglue fuming
• Powders observed using different wavelengths of light and their
corresponding filters
• Superglue fuming followed by Basic Yellow 40 staining
• Fluorescent observed under blue light (430-470nm)
• Used a grading scale to determine the quality of the developed print

5. www.derby.ac.uk
Results
Feathers
• Red magnetic powder enhanced
88.6% of fingermarks
• Green magnetic powder enhanced
84.3% of fingermarks
• Mainly low grade marks (some ridge
detail present)
• Finer weave count of feather = better
quality ridge detail
• Least Successful: White magnetic
powder and aluminium powder
Eggs
• Black magnetic powder enhanced
95.8% of fingermarks
• High number of high grade
fingermarks developed
• High grade marks = more ridge
detail present
• 100% enhancement on raptor eggs
(Goshawk, Barn & Long-Eared Owl)
• Least successful on raptor eggs:
aluminium powder

6. www.derby.ac.uk
Our Research
• Replicated techniques
• Deposited fingermarks on the top,
underside and quill tip of the feather
• Tested more colours of fluorescent
fingerprint powder
• Trialled the combinations of powder
and wavelength of light to determine
the best contrast
• Used Superglue fuming followed by
two types of stain
• New methodology
• Examined efficiency of Ninhydrin & DFO
• Additionally tested the effect of Small
Particle Reagent (SPR)
• Looked at the effect of separation/repair
• Ensured each fingermark was deposited
with the same amount of sweat and
pressure

7. www.derby.ac.uk
Results – Magnetic powder
Green Powder + UV light:
Dark Feather
Green Powder + UV light:
Waterfowl Feather
Combination worked well on
three feather types:
• A white, waterfowl
feather
• A patterned Tawny
Owl feather
• A dark, banded
feather
The darker the feather, the
better the contrast!

8. www.derby.ac.uk
Results – Superglue Ninhydrin & DFO
• Waterfowl Feathers
– Basic Yellow 40 Stain –
Enhanced 7 out of 8 marks under
blue light (430-470nm)
– Saffranin Stain – One mark (no
ridge detail) under blue light
• Tawny Owl Feathers
– Basic Yellow 40 Stain – No
enhancement
– Yellow SPR – One mark, no ridge
detail
– Green Fingerprint Powder + UV –
Enhanced all marks
• Concluded an unsuccessful “wet”
treatment
• Chosen due to being fingermark
development techniques for porous
surfaces
• Feathers were dyed by the Ninhydrin
reagent (purple) with no fingermark
development
• No fingermarks were developed under DFO
• Concluded as unsuccessful development
techniques for feathers

9. www.derby.ac.uk
Results – Small Particle Reagent (SPR)
• Liquid reagent caused
problems with non-
waterproof feathers
• Feathers needed to be
re-spread and dried prior
to examination
• Developed low grade
prints (limited ridge details)
SPR + White Light:
Tawny feather
SPR + UV Light:
Tawny feather

10. www.derby.ac.uk
Effects of Separation
• Two methods tested:
– Depositing a mark followed by separation of the feather
– Separating the feather followed by depositing the mark
• Marks were enhanced with green fingerprint powder and SPR
• Detail was lost if mark separated after SPR enhancement
• Green fingerprint powder could be separated
• Separation and subsequent repair dependent on the texture of the feather

11. www.derby.ac.uk
Developed Mark, Separated Mark & Repaired Mark

12. www.derby.ac.uk
Conclusion
• Green magnetic fingerprint powder examined under UV light (350-380nm)
most successful technique
• Small Particle Reagent most successful “wet” treatment
• Location of the mark on the feather is an important factor
– Further from quill = clearer, more detailed fingermarks
• Texture of the feather effected enhancement and separation
– Softer, “fluffier” feathers = less clear fingermarks
– Thicker barbs of feather = more likely to be separated and repaired