Identification by a toe print
HMA -v- WILLIAM GOURLEY
In June 1952, there was a break-in at a Lanarkshire bakery with the perpetrator gaining entry through a wire grill above the baking ovens.
When police arrived, they could smell explosives at the scene and a safe was lying on its side with its door slightly ajar. Although the lock had been blown, the safe door had jammed and a 7-foot wooden baton had been used to lever the door open.
Fresh tracks could be seen on the floor of the loft, which was covered with a film of flour. One set of tracks was made by footwear and the other was made by bare feet, but there were no identifiable impressions.
Attention turned to the upper part of the safe, which was then examined. Two impressions of the left sole were found with the faint ridge detail of a leftbig toe print. This was photographed because it was considered by Lanarkshire Constabulary that there would be enough ridge detail present to allow comparison against suspects.
On 22 July 1952, William Gourley was taken into custody by British Transport Police as he was found within a railway goods yard with the intent of committing a crime. Gourley, a local criminal who also specialised in safe blowing, was then also charged with the crime at the bakery.
His foot and toe prints were taken and compared against the photograph from the safe. The local fingerprint expert DS McNeil found agreement in the sequence of ridge characteristics. These prints were then sent to the Identification Bureau of the City of Glasgow Police, requesting comparison be made with a view to proving identity in court. Detective Superintendent McLean confirmed the identification and Gourley stood trial at Glasgow High Court on 4th November. Enlargements were prepared to illustrate the identification.
Twenty two identical characteristics were marked on each of the enlargements with there being a further five characteristics which the experts could see but decided not to include because they may not have been clear enough for the Judge and jury to see.
Detective Superintendent McLean was in the witness box for over 2 hours with the defence counsel claiming that there was not sufficient practical experience in Great Britain in the identification of toe prints. In response, the expert witness made reference to various fingerprint pioneers and scientific researchers who had examined the skin on both the hands and the feet and found that individuality and persistence related to both palmar and plantar surfaces.
On addressing the Jury, the Judge stated that to his knowledge this was the first time that the Crown had tried to prove the guilt of the accused on the evidence of a toe print alone and that it was up to the jury to assess the value of the evidence.
After an absence of just 15 minutes, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty and Gourley was sentenced to prison for 3 years. The only evidence against him had been the toe print on the safe.