Evening star., 1939-01-02
Faurot Laughs Last
After Fingerprints
Trap Musita
He Had Difficulty in
1905 in Getting
System Recognized
b the Associated Press.

b the Associated Press.
NEW YORK, Jan. Like the
man who sat down at the piano
and got laughed at-they laughed
at Joseph A. Faurot back in 1905
when he suggested adaptation Of
radical change in criminology.
But Faurot lived to laugh last
and has contended himself with
several laughs in the 33 years that
have elapsed since he suggested
f1nger-printing to Police Commits
sioner William McAdoo way back
in 1905.
Recently, in his st. Adams sub
urban home, he had his loudest
laugh, for prints he had taken Of
Philip Musica in 1913 blasted the
alais Of F. Donald Coster, McKes-
son-Robbins head, and proved again
the infallibility of flngerprinting in
crime detection.
FAurot was in reminiscent mood.
He told how he had risen from
patrolman to detective and then to
detective lieutenant by 1905. He
eventually became deputy police
commissioner and retired on his
pension.
Student of Bertillon.
He long had been in the depart
ment an ardent student of Alphonse
Bertillon, French criminologist and
discoVerer OF the accuracy of finger
printing.
But his superiors. men who had
been schooled in the old methods
OF strong arm, were adamant. Such
theories were not for a department
In New York City. But Faurot too,
was adamant. He believed in Ber-
tillon, he believed in finger printing
and he believed In himself.
Finally he got the ear Of Com
missioner McAdoo, and over the
objections Of superior uniformed off,
GERS, he obtained permission to in
stall finger printing bureau.
Courts were hard to convince.
Other detectives refused to CO.
operate. Only McAdoo was SYM
pathetic and he only luke-warm.
Eventually Faurot got his chance.
Careful Work Required.
Six months after he had received
permission to dabble in finger
printing, a robbery occurred at the
cid Waldorf Astoria Hotel. The
department was taken to task for
is inability TO solve the theft.
Faurot asked and received per-
mission to develop prints of one of
the suspects. The prints matched
those Faurot found On the crime
scene. But how to check them for
identity. The suspect was guest
and we'll thought Of. He appeared
prosperous. No mistakes must be
made.
He admitted English nativity. He
spoke as cultured Englishman
would. Faurot had an ace in the
hole.
He sent the prints he had taken
to Scotland Yard and there they
we're identified as those of Henry
johnson, Englands public hoodlum
No. of the time.
Culprit Admits Guilt.
Confronted with his true identity,
johnson confessed The robbery
was solved and johnson was SEN
fenced to six years.
The scoffers in the department
began to take note of Faurot's
methods.
He was given leave of absence and
went to France where he studied
under Bertillon and later at Scot
land Yard. Back he came to a
detective captaincy and began
building up finger print bureau
and file.
But not until 1911 was his radical
method finally proved to the salts
faction of the entire department
and tested in court. johnson had
confessed hence court trial of the
evidence was unnecessary. Then
came a case made to order.
A loft was looted.
Considerable goods were taken
Police had no suspects. But Faurot
took his crude equipment to the loft,
developed prints, and all suspects
were brought in. Among them was
one Henry Crispie, who had per-
feet alibi. He was asleep at his
home when the burglary was COM
mitted. His wife testified to that.
Friends Took Him Home.
Several friends testified that
Crispie had attended performance
at the Hippodrome and that they
had taken him directly home
prints, told the circumstances of his
developing them. Judge Otto
Rosalsky was skeptical.
Finally Faurot volunteered to
prove the infallibility of his
methods, He was sent to the judges
chambers. During his absence
score of lawyers, several newspaper
men and others had their finger
prints taken. One Of these then
picked up the glass plate that had
been removed from the loft en-
trance.
Half an hour elapsed and Faurot
was again ushered into court. He
developed the finger prints on the
glass, compared them to the more
than score prints of the unknown
eXperimenters which he also took
on returning to the courtroom and
named the man who had handled
the glass.
Alibi Explained.
Crispie smiled during his recital
and explanation of whorls, and
other finger-print evidence. When
Faurot unerringly named the man
who had handled the glass, Crispie
turned pale The next morning
Crispie offered to plead guilty.
Judge Rosalsky accepted the plea
on the condition that Crispie ex-
plain the air-tight alibi.
Crispie said he had gone home
and to bed After his wife was
sound asleep he left. robbed the loft,
slipped back into bed without her