Fingerprints, one of the great deciders of innocence or guilt in criminal charges, are now in the dock themselves. This is because of a growing number of claims from defendants that their ’prints’ have been ’lifted’ and planted at scenes of crimes. And these allegations are being taken seriously by lawyers, judges and policemen because it is possible to move a fingerprint from one spot and place it elsewhere. With one of the cornerstones of evidence now being placed in doubt a committee of criminal lawyers is carrying out an inquiry into fingerprinting. The investigation has been ordered by Justice, the prestigious legal organization, and a report is due early next year. Last night a spokesman for Justice said: "There are an increasing number of cases where people are claiming their prints have been transferred and put in incrimination objects. We are not aiming to establish if these allegations are true or not, but we are questioning current fingerprinting methods as part of a general investigation into scientific evidence. Some of Britain’s top criminal lawyers are worried about this increasing number of claims." How can a fingerprint be transferred A fingermark left on a greasy glass or some other smooth surface can be ’lifted’ with a strip of adhesive. It can then be deposited on another, perhaps incriminating, object. Accusations about ’planted prints’ were first put up at an Old Bailey IRA bomb trial nine years ago without success. Fingerprints at the scene of a crime used to be dusted down with fine powder, photographed for identification purposes, then the pictures and the objects carrying the prints were produced in court. However, since 1973 a new method of taking prints has been generally used in Britain. Police experts now use a strip of adhesive tape to ’lift’ a print which is then produced in court as evidence. Before 1973 the object on which the prints were found a bottle, dagger or a gun used to be shown in court as well. This is no longer necessary. As a result criminals are claiming that their prints have been lifted and planted elsewhere. There have been two successful claims in the United States, though this line of defence has failed in Britain. According to the ex-chief of Scotland Yard’s fingerprint department, Mr Harold Squires, who is now an independent defence witness: "More than 55% of the cases I now get are making these claims. But so far I have not seen any fingerprint evidence that proves the allegation to be true. Petty crooks are always accusing the police of lifting their prints and planting them at the scene of a crime." According to ex-chief Superintendent Squires, lifting a mark and transferring it to another object "requires great skill and trouble". He added: "It’s almost impossible but it can be done. It can usually be easily detected by someone like me, but there is a chance that even I may not be able to tell." Mr. Squires sees the new line of defence as an attack on the police by desperate men. He would like the old method of photographing prints and producing them together with the object pictured to be generally used again. The text suggests that

A. some of the allegations against fingerprinting are justified.
B. transferring fingerprints cannot be easily detected.
C. transferring fingerprints is too much trouble for most policemen.
D. it is likely that some policemen transfer fingerprints.