Fingerprints

[Myster]

Or for 'guests' who can't see attachments, right click and save to your own PC then magnify in your own image viewer...

[Holly Goodhead]

Ooooo thanks Myster 

What am I supposed to be looking at ?

To my eyes, and I'm no fingerprint expert, the images in black frames look identical and the other two images look identical too.

[Myster]

Ooooo thanks Myster 

What am I supposed to be looking at ?

To my eyes, and I'm no fingerprint expert, the images in black frames look identical and the other two images look identical too.

They're exactly the same fingerprint images, but I've placed one pair side by side and the same pair one above the other so that you can choose which is the easiest to view for you.

[Myster]

Brilliant.  Thank you Myster.


My eyesight is not what it was, but there seem to be a number of small differences.   I dont how how acceptable minor differences between repeated images of fingerprints is the norm..


Unhappily the areas which would more readily indicate any differences are missing off the one image.   The more I look, the more I think that the images are of a different finger ... and the cutting off of the one image at a certain two areas, is rather suspicious IMO. 

I refer to :

-  the splitting of the ridges just in from the bottom RH corner which is missing from the one image (cut off?)

-  On the same image, the LH side has a sudden change of direction for all the ridges (that wouldn't be to hide something, would it?)

    I am suddenly finding the actual original finger print rather interesting

1. In the case of the bottom RH corner, I think the finger wasn't pressed hard enough on the frame to register the split ridges.

2. On the LH side, it looks like another different fingerprint has been superimposed on top of the original.

[sadie]

Or for 'guests' who can't see attachments, right click and save to your own PC then magnify in your own image viewer...

Brilliant.  Thank you Myster.


My eyesight is not what it was, but there seem to be a number of small differences.   I dont how how acceptable minor differences between repeated images of fingerprints is the norm..


Unhappily the areas which would more readily indicate any differences are missing off the one image.   The more I look, the more I think that the images are of a different finger ... and the cutting off of the one image at a certain two areas, is rather suspicious IMO. 

I refer to :

-  the splitting of the ridges just in from the bottom RH corner which is missing from the one image (cut off?)

-  On the same image, the LH side has a sudden change of direction for all the ridges (that wouldn't be to hide something, would it?).   The area is missing from the other fingerprint.



    I am suddenly finding the actual original finger print rather interesting

[Myster]

I think they're from the same person (assuming no jiggery-pokery).  Following and examining each green line pointer slowly to where they end, there are about 12 or 13 similarities in my view.

[sadie]

I think they're from the same person (assuming no jiggery-pokery).  Following and examining each green line pointer slowly to where they end, there are about 12 or 13 similarities in my view.

I appreciate what you are saying, but I can see minor differences which I dont think are within the realms of normality

I wish my printer was working then I could print off copies and use old fashioned dividers to check exact dimensions.  We engineers work to a thousand of an inch and can be penickety with regard to exactness, but sometimes the answer is in the detail.


I accept that it is possible that it is normal that photos of fingerprints may vary a little as skin is stretched, but I dont think that is the case here.


I would love some giant enlargements of certain areas of the finger prints to compare.   I think there is at least one extra loop and wider ridge spacing etc on the one finger print

[Robittybob1]

The report commenting on the report from Interpol mentions 3 vestiges yet the fingerprint that was identified as "da Costa's" is just one print.   The vestige that came from the woman or youth could be one of the other two of which we have no photographs (showing things clearly) to work with. 

[Holly Goodhead]

The report commenting on the report from Interpol mentions 3 vestiges yet the fingerprint that was identified as "da Costa's" is just one print.   The vestige that came from the woman or youth could be one of the other two of which we have no photographs (showing things clearly) to work with.

I'm pretty certain OG will be in a position to obtain either from the files or contacting one of the countries it was sent to.  I wonder what the basis was for sending a request to the countries contacted which vary from neighbouring European countries to Reykjavik to Wellington (NZ?)?  Or are we only seeing a sample of the countries contacted?

[Holly Goodhead]

Officers are routinely trained not to touch anything in such situations Holly but in reality they sometimes have to open doors and windows, cupboards, closets etc in order to do checks.

Thanks.  Maybe it was easy to write off the unidentified fingerprint against Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa since he was a soldier from the GNR and not a police officer from PJ? 

[G-Unit]

I'm pretty certain OG will be in a position to obtain either from the files or contacting one of the countries it was sent to.  I wonder what the basis was for sending a request to the countries contacted which vary from neighbouring European countries to Reykjavik to Wellington (NZ?)?  Or are we only seeing a sample of the countries contacted?

The PJ's Department for International Cooperation's National Interpol Cabinet informed Amaral that they had sent the fingerprints 'to all Interpol offices'.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm

[Mr Gray]

The PJ's Department for International Cooperation's National Interpol Cabinet informed Amaral that they had sent the fingerprints 'to all Interpol offices'.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm

So the PJ thought it a good idea to check the database of other countries but don't see the importance if having a database themselves..

[Holly Goodhead]

So the PJ thought it a good idea to check the database of other countries but don't see the importance if having a database themselves..

I assume PJ did check its own database but a match wasn't found hence it reached out to others.

[Mr Gray]

I assume PJ did check its own database but a match wasn't found hence it reached out to others.

They don't have a database as such

[Holly Goodhead]

The PJ's Department for International Cooperation's National Interpol Cabinet informed Amaral that they had sent the fingerprints 'to all Interpol offices'.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm

So maybe we're only seeing a snapshot then?  As certainly other countries, incl UK, have Interpol offices that we're not seeing?