BY: PRACHEE. RATNAPARKHI MSc- I , R.No. 15., Institute of Forensic Science, Mumbai. Rochaix has said: “ The ears are after the fingerprints the best means of identifying people; they do not change except for size; they stay the same from birth till death. The ear is the most characteristic feature of the human being”. HISTORIC OVERVIEW: Darwin attracted the attention of the scientific world by saying that ear is one of the elementary organ; he pointed out to the broadening of the middle of the helix & indicated that this is nothing else but the corner of the primitive ear which has reduced in size, and since then it has been acknowledge by naming in the ‘tubercle of Darwin’. First person to invent the method of measuring the external ear was given by Schwalbe. Also attracted the attention of the scientists toward the racial peculiarities in the structure of the ear. Contributions by Imhofer: • suggested that there's no other organ in the human body that can demonstrate the relation between a father and his child. • He believed that the shape of the ear is a clear proof of paternity. • Also suggested certain areas in which ears play a crucial role in establishing ones identity such as determine the identity of the corpses and living persons, establishing identity of a wanted criminal. Bertillon stated that, it is impossible to find two ears which are equal in all parts & which have many shapes & characteristics which stay without noticeable changes in ones life time; also he stated that a combination of four features is enough to establish the identify of a person. A study was conducted which included photographs of the right and left ears of a series of infants, taken from the day they were born until they were discharged from the hospitals, 206 sets of ears were photographed and they concluded that: • the ears of different sample babies are always different, no baby was found to have ears identical in both size or configuration to those of others. • There is enough variation in individual ear form to distinguish visually the ears of one baby from those of another. • The sample series of the photographed ears of a baby remained homogenous (similar n form & structure) during the entire hospitalization period. • due to the minute changes that take place in the growing ear, the ear actually does not change at all, thus meaning that the development of the ear has no or almost a negligible effect on ones ear prints. Hunger & Leopold discussed the medical and anthropological views regarding identification of people; they emphasized that the external ear has many specific features useful for identification particularly because these features are very stable throughout the ageing process and even after death. Trube-Becker from Dusseldorf, pointed out the fact that no two ears are absolutely identical, they can be similar; even two ears of one & the same individual are not completely identical, this is equally true for identical twins. It was stated that ear prints provide additional circumstantial evidence for a suspects guilt & thus it is worth while looking for ear prints & preserving them like that of fingerprints. Hammer summarizes the value of ear print identification by saying that, out of 100 ears which were investigated, no two ears could be found to correspond each other in all features & thus the human ear print is suitable for establishing ones identity in forensic practice, even though the reliability of the information obtained from the print depends upon its quality which was obtained during its collection from the crime scene. Simple classification method for ear prints based upon several features of the ear was given by Rochaix. • in all there are five features to be used for obtaining a final classification code, the features considered are: shape of the ear, attachment of the ear lobe to the cheek , bending of the antitragus, • These codes give a series of numbers for both the left & right ear and can therefore be easily stored and found out. • Rochaix concludes that, by using this classification system, 600 different ear prints can be stored separately. A research was conducted at the Dutch College for Criminal Investigation and Crime Control at Zutphen, in 1990-92, the findings were that; the distance between the top of the skull and the middle of the auditory canal appeared to be 14cm on an average in males, and in females it was observed to be 6cm. determination up to a certain extent. Thus ear prints also help in sex Contribution’s by Alfred Iannarelli… • Lastly, The first book which focused solely on ear prints and their applications in identification , written by Alfred Iannarelli (1964). • In his original book, “The Iannarelli System of Ear Identification,” he proposed the use of ear prints to identify newborns and military personnel. • All of the original comparisons published in his book dealt with picture to picture comparisons of actual ears. “Earology,” was his revised edition which was published in 1989. UNDERSTANDING THE EXTERNAL MORPHOLOGY OF HUMAN EAR: The human ear basically consists of cartilage, and which gives the original shape and dimensions to the ear, covered with skin. The actual development of the ear begins shortly after conception ; and by the 38th day certain features of the ear are visible & recognizable. The ear moves towards its definite position on about 56th day, & the shape of the ear can actually be recognized on the 70th day. • From here onwards, the shape of the ear remains fixed & never changes from birth until death. Ears can be divided into four basic shapes viz- (see fig. 1.) a) Oval b) Round c) Rectangular d) Triangular FIGURES ILLUSTRATING THE BAIC PARTS OF THE EXTERNAL EAR… Fig. 1: Shapes of the ear; a) Oval, b) Round, c) Rectangular & d) Triangular. These shapes appear & occur in all races but the percentage of each shape differs & varies between races. For comparative purposes, the individual appearance of the features of the ear, their dimensions and their relation to other feature is of primary importance. • A combination of these features which once identified leads to the individualization of the ear print. WHERE TO SEARCH FOR EAR PRINT ON A CRIME SCENE Continued…. Experiences & study shows that ear prints are most frequently & predominantly found on surfaces, where an individual has been listening or attempts to & verify whether the premises are occupied or not. • This is generally notices & observed on doors, windows, hence the surfaces that are likely to be examined are predominantly glass, wood or painted. In Netherlands, majority of the ear prints are found on doors in blocks / flats, also they are found at two different heights viz. a) One close to the ground & b) One at normal standing height. (fig. 2) Within a flat / block, ear prints can be searched or encountered on doors, windows & on the floor or several floors. Fig 2 : The manner in which someone listens at the door. INFLUENCE OF PRESSURE ON THE EAR PRINTS…. Due to the influence of varying pressure applied by an individual, ear prints recovered from a crime scene (C.S) will never be identical in all respects as compared to the controlled samples taken form the suspects. • This is because, the exact amount of pressure exerted at the C.S. is an unknown quantity during an investigation and thus an exact identical print cannot be reproduced. Similarly the direction from which the pressure was exerted cannot be duplicated, but it is possible to create a similar impression in which the pressure & other characteristics can be compared. Depending on the pressure exerted by an individual certain features of the ear may / not be visible. • For instance, by applying more pressure it is likely that more features of the ear become prominent & clearly visible; depending upon the ears of that person. Also the features that were already visible become more clear when more pressure is exerted by an individual; by the exertion of pressure the so - called “exertion points” become more visible and may leave behind a characteristic mark. To study the changes that occur in an individuals ear print due to the influence of pressure at least three different standards or control samples need to be taken form the suspects, these must be taken at different pressure at must illustrate distinct pressure points. In addition to pressure the effect of rotation of the ear when listening at a door or window must also be taken into account. PROCEDURE OF RECOVERING THE PRINTS & PRODUCING STANDARDS / CONTROLS FROM SUSPECTS… A. From the Crime Scene & B. From the suspects. A. FROM THE CRIME SCENCE (C.S) first procedure which is always utilized while attempting to recover ear prints from any type of surface id through visual examination; it is essential that there is good lighting (natural / artificial) and considerable amount of care has to be taken for effective comparison. Additionally combinations of changes involved in the angle of the light, the viewing position and the possible rotation of the ear etc., have a significant effect on the examination & comparison processes sat. Certain ear prints are visible only at oblique light, care need to be taken in handling such prints so as to prevent angle of the print, and its other features which may be visible at this stage of visual examination. Latent prints can be made visible by applying suitable reagents; just like the way it is done in case of latent fingerprints. (fig. 3) Fig 3: Application of finger print powder on an ear print to develop it . In cases where the ear prints are fresh; the powder adheres to the aqueous components of the sweat; whereas in case of an older ear print fatty deposits become much more relevant. The techniques which are used in collection of finger prints by applying powder and then photographing the print can be followed in the recovery of ear prints from the crime scene. B. FROM THE SUSPECTS (CONTROL SAMPLES) a. Most documented methods for obtaining standards include photographing the ear, in addition to any other technique employed. If the suspect cooperates during an investigation, then standards can be collected as follows: the suspect is asked to “listen” three times at a glass pane in a door, keeping in mind the pressure exerted at time on the pane must be different. (fig. 4) b. Various pressure exerted are: (fig. 5) i. print obtained on application of gentle pressure, ii. With normal pressure , & iii. With excess pressure. Fig. 4: Taking standards from a cooperative suspect. A B C Fig. 5: Prints left by (A) light pressure, (B) medium pressure, (C) heavy pressure. This method is applicable for both, the left & the right ears. In all the cases, a photograph of both the ears are taken, with the camera at an angle of 90 degrees to the head. (see fig.) Fig. 6: Photography of the ear. The prints thus obtained are made visible in the same way as that of fingerprint and then lifted with black filter. In cases where the suspect is not cooperative, and offers resistance standards are taken using a glass or synthetic plate. (see fig.) Fig. 7: Taking standards from a suspect using a synthetic plate / glass. Five prints of each ear must be made by applying different pressure on the ear. Care should be taken that while applying pressure, it has to be evenly applied on the entire ear; preventing one part of the ear (upper, lower, front & back) having extra pressure placed upon it. PROCEDURE FOR COMAPRISON OF EAR PRINTS…… Comparison procedure had two aims viz – a) Firstly, to establish whether / not the ear print in question contains enough features for a comparison. b) secondly, to be able to explain to the court that a strict procedure was followed every time an ear print was compared. The comparison procedure involves five steps in all: Step 1 (Analysis) • In this step each and every detail of the ear print in question is noted down. a) What type of finger print powder or chemical was used to reveal the latent print? b) What type of lifter was used to lift the print ? c) Which features of the print were visible? d) Which feature might be specific for the ear? e) What pressure points are visible on the ear print? f) Any additional information is present or not? (For instance skin texture, pimples, hair, head, scars / birth marks etc.) • Lastly, to determine whether the obtained information is sufficient foe comparison with a known print or not. Step 2 ( Analysis of control samples) • The same process applies or the known prints / control samples taken from the suspects. • Besides points (a) to (f) which were considered in step 1; certain additional information is gathered when it comes to comparison of the control sample comparison, information gathered includes: g) Is there enough difference in pressure between the three (/five) ear prints , to be able to say something about the way the pressure influenced the ears. h) What are those differences? i. ii. Which parts / details of the ear become more prominent and visible when excess pressure was applied? Which parts become more dominant when more pressure was applied? iii. What about the overall changes (i.e. in the form, size, shape. Dimension) of the ear were observed. Step 3 ( Preparation) • Depending on the type of lifter that was used in collection of the ear print; a number of steps must be performed to obtain a result that can be photocopied. a) BLACK GELATIN FOIL: When the ear print has been lifted using a black gelatin foil, the color must be inverted. For comparison purposes; a gray / black ear print image on a white surface. A “dust flash” apparatus enables transfer of the image directly on to a photographic paper on a 1:1 basis, development of this image would reveal the ear print. b) WHITE GELATIN FOIL: This type of foil is not recommended for ear print lifting. The power that is usually employed is a black powder which does not adhere to the latent print. If this type of foil is used , the procedure to be followed depends on the visibility of the print. Good prints can be photocopied directly; in other cases the prints should be photographed and printed on a 1:1 basis. c) TRANSPARENT FOIL OR TAPE: This type of foil either is used in combination with a gray aluminum powder or a black soot powder, which can either be directly photocopied. Step 4 ( Preparation) • Photocopies of both the known & unknown ear prints are produces on a plain transparent overlay. • The unknown prints are copied on paper and the known prints are copied on paper as well as on transparency overlays. • All the prints should be reproduced on the same photocopier to ensure that any enlargement is uniform. Step 5 (Comparison) • The paper copy of the unknown print is taped on to the top of a light box. • The transparency overlay is put on top of the unknown print and then similar , matching features of the ear print are compared. (See fig.) Fig. 8: Using transparency overlays for comparison. REFERENCES: 1. Elsevier, Encyclopedia Of Forensic Sciences, Three- Volume Set, 1-3.