3.1.7: Sir Edward Richard Henry

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Sir Edward Richard Henry - Public Domain

In 1891, Sir Edward Richard Henry was assigned as Inspector General of Police in Bengal, India, and later became Commissioner of London’s Metropolitan Police. He was familiar with the efforts of Sir William Herschel and adopted an identification system for the identification of criminals that was not based on fingerprint identification. This system was based on anthropometric measurements, a system created by Alphonse Bertillon, who the reader will learn about shortly. Sir Edward was keenly aware of the deficiencies of this system and believed the use of fingerprints as a method of identification would be a superior model. He corresponded regularly with Sir Francis Galton on this very topic. In 1896, Sir Edward implemented a system of recording the fingerprints of convicts using what is called the ten-print card, which records all ten fingerprints on a card using printer’s ink. The problem became apparent quite quickly that it was one thing to have the convict’s fingerprint cards at hand when you know the identity of the person with whom you would like to compare the fingerprints, but not when you have a fingerprint and an unknown contributor. Therefore, Sir Edward created a system by which fingerprint cards could be sorted using a classification system based on the patterns of the distal pads of the phalanges. This system divided fingerprints into two categories based on the presence of loops, whorls, and arches with a value being assigned to each finger based on the presence or absence of a whorl pattern. Using this system, ten-print cards could be grouped by category. This system, often called the Henry Classification System, was eventually adopted by almost every country, and remained in use until the advent of computerized systems like the Automated Fingerprint Identification System in the late 1980’s.

In 1898, Sir Edward was instrumental in solving the murder and robbery of a tea garden manager as belonging to an ex-convict named Kangali Charan. The following is a transcript of the official report:

“The manager of a tea garden situated in the district of Julpaiguri on the Bhutan frontier was found lying on his bed with his throat cut, his despatch box and safe having been rifled and several hundred rupees carried away. It was suggested that one of the coolies employed on the garden had committed the deed, as the deceased had the reputation of being a hard taskmaster, or that his cook, upon whose clothes were some blood spots, might be the culprit. There was suspicion also against the relatives of a woman with whom the murdered man had a liaison, also against a wandering gang of Kabulis of criminal propensities who had lately encamped in the neighbourhood. A representation was also made that the deceased had an enemy in an ex-servant whom he had caused to be imprisoned for theft. Inquiry, however, satisfied the police that there was no evidence to incriminate the coolies or the relatives of the woman or the Kabulis, and it was ascertained that the ex-servant had been released from jail some weeks before, and no one could say that he had since been seen in the district. The cook’s statement that the marks on his clot lies were stains from a pigeon’s blood which he had killed for his master’s dinner was supported by the Chemical Analyst’s report. Fortunately amongst the papers in the despatch box was found a calendar in book form, printed in the Bengali character, with an outside cover of light-blue paper on which were noticed two faint brown smudges. Under a magnifying glass one smudge was decipherable as a portion of the impression of one of the digits of some person’s right hand. In the Central Office of the Bengal Police, the finger impressions of all persons convicted of certain offences are classified and registered, and the impression on the calendar when compared there was found to correspond exactly with the right thumb impression of Kangali Charan, the ex-servant above referred to. He, in consequence, was arrested in Birbhum, a district some hundreds of miles away, and brought to Calcutta, where his right thumb impression was again taken, and the police in the meantime set about collecting corroborative evidence. The Chemical Examiner to Government certified that the brown marks on the calendar were mammalian blood, the inference: being that the actual murderer or some associate had knocked his blood - stained thumb against the calendar when rummaging amongst the papers in the despatch box for the key of the safe. The accused was committed to stand his trial before a judge and assessors, charged with murder and theft, and finally was convicted of having stolen the missing property of the deceased, the assessors holding that it would be unsafe to convict him of murder, as no one had seen the deed committed, but recording their opinion that the charge of theft had been conclusively established against him. This conviction was upheld by the judges of the Supreme Court, to which the case was taken on appeal.”

So important were the contributions of Sir Edward Richard Henry to the advancement of fingerprint identification that Sir William James Herschel offered the following dedication to Sir Edward in his 1916 book The Origin of Finger Printing:

‘I am offering you this old story of the beginnings of Finger-printing, by way of expressing my warm and continuous admiration of those masterly developments of its original applications, whereby, first in Bengal and the Transvaal, and then in England, you have fashioned a weapon of penetrating certainty for the sterner needs of Justice.’

Sir Edward made many other contributions to law enforcement as the Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police between 1903 and 1915. He advanced the use of dogs in law enforcement, he standardized the training of the constables, adopted a city-wide system of telephone call boxes, and increased the size of the police force.

Your author recommends the reader conduct research into the contributions of Juan Vucetich, Harold Cummings, and Edmon Locard to the forensic science of fingerprint comparison.