Press release from Abertay University (29/11/18):
Scientitists recover fingerprints from feather exposed to outdoor conditions
An Abertay University study has discovered that fingerprints can be recovered from bird feathers that have been left outside, exposing them to environmental conditions.
Previous research from PhD Student Helen McMorris had revealed that it was possible to obtain fingerprints from feathers under lab conditions.
For the first time, she has been able to prove it is possible to recover them from feathers that have been exposed to environmental conditions such as wind and rain.
[Helen McMorris obtains a fingerprint from buzzard feathers. Photo from Abertay University]
In the long term, it’s hoped the research will have a transformative impact on the number of wildlife crime convictions in the UK.
According to the latest RSPB Birdcrime report there were 68 confirmed incidents of raptor persecution last year, with only four prosecutions. From these, just one led to a successful conviction.
Investigations into such incidents can be extremely difficult as there’s no accurate measure of determining human involvement.
McMorris – also a Teaching Fellow at Abertay – said this makes it difficult to prosecute: “At this moment in time toxicology tests can prove that a raptor has been poisoned, and you can prove that a bird has been shot through x-rays and post mortem.
But there’s no way of telling if a human has had any contact with that bird if it’s found dead in a field or on a hillside. You have to assume there has been foul play of some description, but you can’t hone in on the actual person responsible.
This technique potentially gives investigators the chance to prove actual human involvement in raptor persecution, be it through an identifiable fingerprint or a touch mark from a human finger that identifies exact areas of contact on the bird-of-prey”.
Head of Science Dr Ben Jones said “As part of Abertay’s research in improving forensic investigation techniques, this study is an important step in moving from the laboratory closer to a real-life situation, as the technique moves from research to development for use in an investigative setting.”
ENDS
For those interested in the science, this research has been published in Science and Justice, the journal of the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences. Publishing restrictions prevent us from posting the full paper here but here’s the abstract:
It’s probably a bit of an overstatement to claim that these results “will have a transformative impact on the number of wildlife crime convictions in the UK“. These days the majority of raptor killers are much more savvy about hiding their crimes and often remove and destroy all the evidence (cf all those ‘missing’ satellite tagged raptors that vanish in to thin air).
However, there are still some who are too stupid/lazy/arrogant to get this right, e.g. the shooting of a hen harrier on a grouse moor at Leadhills last year (here). This shooting by a masked gunman was witnessed by a member of the public, and the witness was later able to point the investigating authorities to the location which led to the discovery of the harrier’s body, partly-hidden in vegetation. In rare cases like this, the ability to test the corpse for fingerprints may well have helped to identify the perpetrator.
Similarly, in the recent case of gamekeeper Tim Cowin who shot, then stamped on, and then buried the bodies of two short-eared owls on a grouse moor in Cumbria (here), had the RSPB’s video evidence of Cowin committing his crimes been deemed inadmissible, testing the owls’ feathers for human fingerprints may well have led to Cowin having to face some awkward questions.
This new research isn’t a panacea but it is still another useful weapon in the armoury of those fighting the illegal killing of birds prey, a fight that Ian Thomson (Head of Investigations, RSPB Scotland) has described as ‘an arms race’ (here).
Raptor Persecution UK 
A good tool to have in the armoury when the opportunity to use it occurs. Initially the science would be challenged in court, but if the scientists can demonstrate the methodology etc. then well and good. It will not defeat criminals who wear gloves.
I think that the greatest potential in bringing the criminals to book lies in improving the input from those responsible for law enforcement and the prosecution/court systems. Massive room for improvement in these respects.
The failure to empower the SSPCA is telling evidence that worthwhile political will does not exist. That is a major barrier.
Thanks for pointing out the article by Ian Thomson, which I had not seen.
In Scotland, we are in the ridiculous position where an illegal trap can be discovered, then if the person discovers the trap, informs the police as soon as possible, sets a covert camera, it is deemed sufficient to refuse that the case goes to court. In reality, this is allowed under the Covert Surveillance and Property Interference Code of Practice Section 1.14 without authorisation where evidence may be obtained which could otherwise be not obtainable. Additionally, OSC’s 2016 Procedures & Guidance document Section 279 allows surveillance of persons while they are actually engaged in crime in a public place. In accordance with evidence given at the ECCLRC meeting in January, COPFS did not make this final decision, and perhaps many in the department did not agree with it.
Although I believe that the heads of department at COPFS are honourable people, I am surprised that they did not ask a regulatory authority to review the decision. Until the document sent to the ECCLRC convener in May 2017 is removed or replaced by new legislation, there is little chance that this fingerprint technique can be used effectively, as the same dubious method in the document could be used to prevent a case reaching court where a member of the public finds the evidence.
Can we now expect a sudden increase in the sale of gloves to gamekeepers?
Let us hope that we can now see some action from the law regarding shot and trapped/poisoned raptors if the killers don’t start to wear gloves.
Of course in order to match fingerprints to an alleged perpetrator you would need their fingerprints too…does the law allow the obtaining of fingerprints from a suspect of wildlife crime?..are fingerprints on file of anyone who obtains a shotgun or firearms certificate [and if not, why not?].
Fingerprints are not required for firearms or shotgun certificates, the killers will just wear gloves ,and will dispose of any body, its mostly the wounded birds that fly on and drop that are found anyway and these have not been touched by human hands. But its always worth checking for prints.
I don’t think we need to get excited about this, they will just wear gloves and how many corpses do we recover now which have been in the hands of a keeper, no the only way is an outright ban of the sport (and I don’t like calling it a sport because it’s not a sport) if it was a sport the grouse would be able to shoot back and then these cowards would be nowhere to be seen on the hill
Good, but it will only catch loners, the criminal gangs already try to avoid leaving corpses
“Criminal gangs”…thats a new one on me….most of these disgusting little crimes are carried out solo…
It’s a shame the RSPB doesn’t have the resources of the estates and for each of their gamekeepers, provide a ‘raptorkeeper’ living in or near the estate to monitor potential raptor persecution.
They have had, they have had millions and millions of pounds,,
Just one problem, now everyone knows, they’ll just wear gloves. I expect many of them do anyway.
I think wearing a mask is probably regarded as macho for such people. Perhaps gloves would be a bit too ‘xxxxx xxxxx’ for them.