Characteristic Features of Ear and Ear-Prints in Forensic Identification.
Journal
The Journal of craniofacial surgery
ISSN: 1536-3732
Titre abrégé: J Craniofac Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010410
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jun 2022
01 Jun 2022
Historique:
entrez:
30
8
2022
pubmed:
31
8
2022
medline:
2
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The human external ear is a morphologically perplexing structure with wide variations in its features across individuals. Advances in forensic science have established the use of morphological features and prints of different parts of the human body in establishing the identity of an individual. The present study aims to establish such an identification process by examining the use of comparative analysis of ear prints and ear photographs. The study examined the morphological features of ear prints of 140 participants (71 males and 69 females) ranging in age from 18 to 25 years (with a mean age of 20.22 ± 1.77 years), recruited from a North Indian population. Prints of both the ears were recorded, using the inking method. The morphological features of the ear prints were compared with the photographs of the ear for their uniqueness and individualization using likelihood ratios. The degree ofantihelix curvature demonstrated the highest correlation (98.57%) between the morphological features visible on the ear and the expressions of these features in an ear print. The impression of earlobes, Darwin tubercle, crus of the helix, and shape of the external ear showed accuracy between 70% and 90%, whereas correlations below 70% accuracy were recorded for the other features. The likelihood ratios for 12 parameters were reported to be more than 10x, representing that the identification made using these parameters was > 10 times more likely to be true identification as compared to false positives. Moreover, 5 parameters were found to show high sensitivity, with values greater than 3 standard deviations (0.997), with an additional 9 parameters found to have good sensitivity at values greater than 2 standard deviations (<0.95). Similarly, 2 parameters were found to show high specificity, with values greater than 3 standard deviations (0.997), with an additional 18 parameters found to have good sensitivity at values greater than 2 standard deviations (<0.95). Elevated features of the ear, such as helix, antihelix, antitragus, tragus, and inter-tragic notch; particularly the degree of antihelix curvature, are more easily impressed and identifiable on an ear print. The results support that ear prints may provide important clues to assist in establishing the identity of an individual if several morphological features are evaluated concurrently.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36041105
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000008056
pii: 00001665-202206000-00025
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1093-1098Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by Mutaz B. Habal, MD.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Ulery BT, Hicklin RA, Buscaglia J, et al. Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011; 108:7733–7738.
Abraham J, Champod C, Lennard C, et al. Modern statistical models for forensic fingerprint examinations: a critical review. Forensic Sci Int 2013; 232:131–150.
Nirenberg MS, Krishan K, Kanchan T. A metric study of insole foot impressions in footwear of identical twins. JForensicLegMed 2017; 52:116–121.
Mukhra R, Krishan K, Kanchan T. Bare footprint metric analysis methods for comparison and identification in forensic examinations: a review of literature. J Forensic Leg Med 2018; 58:101–112.
Mukhra R, Krishan K, Nirenberg MS, et al. Comparative analysis of static and dynamic bare footprint dimensions in a north Indian population. Forensic Sci Int 2020; 308:110169.
Roelofse MM, Steyn M, Becker PJ. Photo identification: facial metrical and morphological features in South African males. Forensic Sci Int 2008; 177:168–175.
Ritz-Timme S, Gabriel P, Tutkuviene J, et al. Metric and morphological assessment of facial features: a study on three European populations. Forensic Sci Int 2011; 207:239.e1–239.e8.
Kaur P, Krishan K, Sharma SK. Development of human face literature database using text mining approach: phase I. J Craniofac Surg 2018; 29:966–969.
Li X, Mills M. Vocal features: from voice identification to speech recognition by machine. Technol Cult 2019; 60:S129–S160.
Skuk VG, Palermo R, Broemer L, et al. Autistic traits are linked to individual differences in familiar voice identification. J Autism Dev Disord 2019; 49:2747–2767.
Marinovic D, Njiric S, Coklo M, et al. Personal identification by eyes. CollAntropol 2011; 35 Suppl 2:347–350.
Umer S, Sardar A, Dhara BC, et al. Person identification using fusion of iris and periocular deep features. Neural Netw 2020; 122:407–419.
Costa VA, Caldas IM. Morphologic patterns of lip prints in a Portuguese population: a preliminary analysis. JForensicSci 2012; 57:1318–1322.
Fonseca GM, Ortiz-Contreras J, Ramirez-Lagos C, et al. Lip print identification: current perspectives. J Forensic Leg Med 2019; 65:32–38.
Saadeh M, Ghafari JG, Haddad RV, et al. Sex prediction from morphometric palatal rugae measures. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2017; 35:9–20.
Hosmani J, Gadekar NB, Kotrashetti VS, et al. Comparison of palatal rugae pattern among Indian and Tibetan population. J Forensic Dent Sci 2018; 10:40–44.
Van der Lugt C. (Ears and) Ear prints, individualizing crime scene marks. Prob Forensic Sci 2001; 46:38–45.
Meijerman L, Sholl S, De Conti F, et al. Exploratory study on classification and individualization of ear prints. Forensic Sci Int 2004; 140:91–99.
Krishan K, Kanchan T. Payne-James J, Byard RW. Identification: prints - ear. Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine. Vol 3 2nd edOxford: Elsevier; 2016. 74–80.
Kasprzak J. Identification of ear impression in polish forensic practice. Prob Forensic Sci 2001; 47:168–174.
Dhanda V, Badhan JS, Garg RK. Studies on the development of latent ear prints and their significance in personal identification. Prob Forensic Sci 2011; 88:285–295.
Earprint Helps Convict a Killer. The Seattle Times. Washington, USA. 1997; Available at: https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19970716&slug=2549810. Accessed September 28, 2020
Raider Convicted by His Earprint. The Herald. Scotland. 1999; Available at: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12248996.raider-convicted-by-his-earprint/. Accessed September 18, 2020
Conviction Based on Earprint Thrown Out. Vancover, Washington. 1999; Available at: https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/1999/11-19/0030_vancouver conviction_based_on_ea.html. Accessed September 18, 2020
Bennetto J. Man Convicted on ‘Earprints’ is Freed. Independent. Independent Digital News and Media Limited, Britain. 2002; Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-convicted-on-ear-prints-is-freed-185827.html. Accessed September 18, 2020
Daily Mail Reporter. Burglar Convicted After Earprint was Found at Crime Scene Challenges Accuracy of Evidence. Britain. 2008; Available at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1015599/Burglar-convicted-ear-print-crime-scene-challenges-accuracy-evidence.html. Accessed September 18, 2020
Champod C, Evett IW, Kuchler B. Earmarks as evidence: a critical review. J Forensic Sci 2001; 46:1275–1284.
Woffinden B. Earprint Landed Innocent Man in Jail for Murder, The Guardian, UK News. 2004; Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/jan/23/ukcrime1. Accessed September 18, 2020
FEARID Project (Forensic Ear Identification Project). 2002; Available at: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/G6RD-CT-2001-00618. Accessed June 26, 2020
Habil Kasprzak J. Forensic otoscopy - a new method of human identification. Jurisprudencija 2005; 66:106–109.
Meijerman L, Thean A, Maat GJR. Ear prints in forensic investigation. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 2005; 1:247–256.
Meijerman L, Thean A, Van der Lugt C, et al. Individualization of ear prints. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 2006; 2:39–49.
Kieckhoefer H, Ingleby M, Lucas G. Monitoring the physical formation of ear prints: optical and pressure mapping evidence. Measurement 2006; 39:918–935.
Meijerman L, van der Lugt C, Maat GJR. Cross-sectional anthropometric study of the external ear. J Forensic Sci 2007; 52:286–293.
Alberink IB, Ruifrok ACC. Performance of the FearID ear print identification system. Forensic Sci Int 2007; 166:145–154.
Innocent Project, New York, USA. 1992; Available at: https://www.innocenceproject.org. Accessed September 1, 2020
National Research Council. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States - A Path Forward, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 2009; Available at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12589/strengthening-forensic-science-in-the-united-states-a-path-forward. Accessed September 18, 2020
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) Report. The White House President Barack Obama. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC. 2016; Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2020
Rani D, Krishan K, Sahani R, et al. Evaluation of morphological characteristics of the human ear in young adults. J Craniofac Surg 2020; 31:1692–1698.
Rani D, Krishan K, Sahani R, et al. Variability in human external ear anthropometry (In Press). Clin Tera
Chu K. An introduction to sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios. Emerg Med 1999; 11:175–181.
Simel DL, Samsa GP, Matchar DB. Likelihood ratios with confidence: sample size estimation for diagnostic test studies. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44:763–770.