1)

a.       The lifts that were done using magnetic powder and fluorescent powder were done on materials that were well-suited to powders, making the lifts clear and identifiable. Magnetic powder is used on paper because prints on paper are fragile. Using a powder brush would damage the fingerprints. Ninhydrin was also used to develop prints on a piece of paper. The paper was flat and smooth so the prints were of good quality. The best powder to use was one that provided a contrast to the color of the surface of the item. Black powder was used the most often for lifts from wood and plastic. A combination of silver and chemist grey powders were used for most of the lifts from metal. Glossy and multi-colored surfaces required fluorescent powders. Prints from paper could be developed using the largest variety of developing methods. Every reagent or powder worked had a higher average quality on smooth or flat surfaces than on curved or bumpy surfaces except for magnetic fluorescent powder. Chemist grey powder was often used after silver powder because silver powder sometimes fills up the print ridges. Chemist grey powder cleans out the ridges. Also, chemist grey can be applied liberally until prints are seen without the risk of using too much.

b.      Fingerprints developed on paper had the highest average quality and were all identifiable. They were clear and able to be used for identification. Lifts from glass and chrome also had a high average lift quality and were all identifiable. This was because most of the glass and chrome items were smooth, so the surface didn’t interfere with the print lift quality. As predicted, it was impossible to develop or lift prints from cloth or rope. This was because the cloth absorbed the oils from the fingerprints so there was nothing left for the powder to adhere to. The fabric was also coarse and wouldn’t have given clear lifts had a print been able to be developed. Unfinished wood was also difficult to develop and lift prints from. This is because if wood isn’t finished, it absorbs all of the fingerprint oils. The grain of the wood also interfered with the print, making it impossible to identify.                         

c.       The average lift quality from each room depended on the types of items that could be found in that room and the materials the items were made out of. The average lift quality for the items from the billiard room and the library were the highest. The average lift quality from the ball room, lounge, conservatory and hall were all below 5, which meant that the average lift from these rooms was unidentifiable. The surface doesn’t seem to have as much of an effect on the average lift quality from each room.  Some rooms have higher averages for smooth or flat items, while other rooms have higher averages for curved or bumpy items. The hall, the study and the kitchen had the only large differences between the average quality values and the surface type. All the lifts from the library and billiard room were identifiable. 50% or less of the items from the hall, the conservatory and the lounge were identifiable. All of the other rooms had identifiable average lift qualities.

d.      The average lift quality of the lifts from smooth or flat surfaces was almost double that of lifts from bumpy or curved surfaces. This was because it was harder to bend the tape or hinge lift around the curved surface and still get an accurate representation of the fingerprint. It caused creases and bumps in the tape that interfered with the fingerprints.

2) The Quantitative Fingerprint Evaluation System (QFES) was able to be used to assign quality numbers to all of the fingerprint lifts. The fact that all of the results seem to be reasonable supports this system. The surface of an item should have an effect on the quality of the lift and the QFES showed this relationship. It makes sense that bumpy surfaces would have a lower quality lift than smooth surfaces. Cloth, rope and unfinished wood did not provide identifiable fingerprint lifts according to the QFES, and this is a reasonable conclusion. As indicated by the results, the QFES was effective for turning a qualitative fingerprint lift quality into a quantitative evaluation so that the lifts qualities could be compared with each other.