Juan Ignacio Blanco  


  MALE murderers

index by country

index by name   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

  FEMALE murderers

index by country

index by name   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z




Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.









Classification: Murderer
Characteristics: Robbery - Fingerprints
Number of victims: 1
Date of murder: September 19, 1910
Date of arrest: Same day
Date of birth: ???
Victim profile: Clarence B. Hiller
Method of murder: Shooting
Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: Executed by hanging in Illinois on February 16, 1912

Identifying criminals using fingerprint impressions found at crime scenes and comparing them to known fingerprint files collected as a result of previous criminal activity has been used by police services around the world for over 100 years.   Not all people believe, however, that fingerprint identification is a science and therefore should not be used as a means to identify or individualize.

A landmark 'science of fingerprints' case in the courts occurred in 1911 in Chicago, U.S.A.  It resulted in the conviction of a man named Thomas Jennings for murder.  Very little evidence against Jennings existed ...the most significant being fingerprints.  To ensure that fingerprint evidence would be admitted, the prosecution called several recognized fingerprint experts as witnesses.  Edward Foster - the man responsible for the establishment Canada's national fingerprint bureau - was one of these witnesses.  With the help of his testimony, Jennings was convicted and sentenced to hang on December 22, 1911.

What was the scientific basis for allowing fingerprint evidence for this case?  

At the time, it was the research and comprehensive book Finger Prints published in 1892 by Sir Francis Galton, a well-known scientist,  that made a significant contribution to the science of fingerprint identification.  "Galton's more interesting contribution was his method of distinguishing fingerprints that contained similar patterns.  The general fingerprint patterns of twins, for example, were often the same.  But Galton had noticed that fingerprint ridges did not proceed across the fingertips in unbroken lines.  They often stopped abruptly, split, contained enclosures, or connected with other ridges.  The arrangement of these ridge details were never repeated in a print from two different fingers, not even in twins.  Identification of one fingerprint with another, Galton realized, should always be made by comparing their ridge detail or fingerprint minutia (known later as points of comparison or identification).  He used this comparison of ridge detail to confirm Herschel's observations of fingerprint permanence." (Copyright C 2001 Colin Beavan) 

As a result of his research Galton confirmed that a person's fingerprints would identify him for life and he "became sufficiently confident in the method to say that it would indeed form the basis for a reliable system of identification."(Copyright C 2001 Colin Beavan) 

Galton also proposed a statistical model in an attempt to provide a scientific basis for the uniqueness of fingerprints and therefore justify their use in identification.  Pat Wertheim explains, however, that "Galton's model overlooked any consideration of the direction of ridge flow in any of the 35 grid areas and took into account only whether or not a minutiae point was present in any given square. 

Obviously, Galton's model completely ignored not only ridge flow, but also the shapes of the ridges, the presence of prominent sweat pores, scars, creases or wrinkles, incipient ridges etc...Thus, Galton's model was sorely lacking in many respects."  (Scientific Comparison and Identification of Fingerprint Evidence, July 2000 issue of Fingerprint Whorld.) 

Had Galton approached his research from the belief that all human beings are unique and therefore our fingerprints are different - rather than the other way around - he would have realized the 'extreme difficulty' in placing a value on the uniqueness of nature.   Nevertheless, Galton's work provided "the systematic proof of its scientific basis" (Copyright C 2001 Colin Beavan) and advanced the science of fingerprint identification significantly.

The defense lawyers for Jennings's appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Illinois, arguing that fingerprint evidence should not be accepted.  "In this first test of the legality of fingerprints in an American high court, the landmark ruling stated that, "there is a scientific basis for the system of fingerprint identification, and...the courts are justified in admitting this class of evidence.  The Illinois Supreme Court's ruling was thorough and comprehensive. It included a complete outline of the history and practice of fingerprint identification." (Copyright C 2001 Colin Beavan) 

"The Jennings case gave fingerprinting another boost toward its universal acceptance around the world..." (Copyright C 2001Colin Beavan)  This, of course, lead to fingerprint comparisons being completed by law enforcement personnel for the purpose of identifying criminals.  Fingerprint evidence was now well on its way as being accepted by the courts with very few challenges over the next 100 years...until now.


People v. Jennings:
A Significant Case In American Fingerprint History

(This original article was submitted by the author.  The author is a forensic science graduate student.  Our thanks to him for his contribution to our publication and the science.)

University of Alabama at Birmingham

In order to understand the modern day importance of fingerprint evidence in the United States legal system,  one must be familiar with important early legal cases.  One such case is People v. Jennings (1911).  

On the night of September 19, 1910, Clarence B. Hiller, his wife, and four children were fast asleep when Mrs. Hiller had awoken and noticed the gas light that they always kept on at night was not on.  She alerted Mr. Hiller to this fact and he went to investigate the situation.  At the head of the stairway he encountered an intruder and a struggle ensued.  Both fell to the foot of the stairway and Mr. Hiller was shot twice.  He died moments later.  Mrs. Hiller screamed and the intruder fled.  At the scene of the crime, three undischarged cartridges and two lead slugs were found.  Particles of sand were found in one of the children's rooms.  The point of entry was determined to be through a window in the kitchen.  The railing near this window had recently been painted and it was here that the imprint of four fingers of someone's left hand was found imbedded in the fresh paint.

At about 2:38 a.m. Thomas Jennings was spotted by police and was questioned as to what he was doing out so late.  The officers noticed he was injured and when asked about this, he gave conflicting statements.  They searched him and discovered he was carrying a loaded revolver.  He was immediately arrested and taken to a doctor.  Later, the police found out that Jennings had just been released on parole in August 1910 after serving a sentence for burglary.  His fingerprint card was on file and was compared to the prints lifted at the Hiller household.  

Four fingerprint experts at Jennings' trial declared the fingerprints from the crime scene were a conclusive match to Jennings own prints.  Based on this evidence, Jennings was convicted of murder on February 1, 1911.  It is of historical note that three of these four expert witnesses that testified at this trial were trained by Scotland Yard experts at the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair.  It was shortly after this event that fingerprint science spread to all the major American cities across the nation.

After his trial, Jennings appealed his case to the Supreme Court of Illinois.  This appeal was based primarily on the admissibility of fingerprint evidence.  The Court recognized that “standard authorities on scientific subjects discuss the use of fingerprints as a system of identification, concluding that experience has shown it to be reliable”.  

Furthermore, “these authorities state that this system of identification is of very ancient origin, having been used in Egypt when the impression of the monarch's thumb was used as his sign manual, that it has been used in the courts of India for many years and more recently in the courts of several European countries; that in recent years its use has become very general by the police departments of the large cities of this country and Europe; that the great success of the system in England, where it has been used since 1891 in thousands of cases without error, caused the sending of an investigating commission from the United States, on whose favorable report a bureau was established by the United States government in the war and other departments”.  

The Court further stated that “there is a scientific basis for the system of fingerprint identification, and that the courts are justified in admitting this class of evidence; that this method of identification is in such  general and common use that the courts cannot refuse to take judicial cognizance of  it”.  The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the lower court decision for the murder conviction.

People v. Jennings is significant to both the American legal system and the science of fingerprint identification because it firmly establishes the acceptance of fingerprint evidence as a means of legally identifying individuals, and that fingerprint impressions have been relied on in ancient cultures as well as European courts of law.  In other words, the Illinois Supreme Court ruling helped to “legitimize” fingerprint identification for legal usage in this country.  The importance of People v. Jennings is further highlighted by the fact that this case is frequently cited in numerous American criminal cases throughout history.


People v. Jennings, 252 Ill. 534, 96 N.E. 1077 (1911).


An Ignominious Distinction

Thomas Jennings was a typical burglar with a possible side interest of sexual assualt when he broke into the home of Clarence Hiller on the west side of Chicago in 1910. Burglars and rapists are a dime-a-dozen in the annals of crime, and even those who move on to become murderers are a fairly mundane lot.

It wasn’t Jennings’s crime that earned him a place in the annals of important crimes. Instead, it was the method the police used to prove he was responsible for the murder of Clarence Hiller.

Police and other government authorities had been using fingerprints for record-keeping for more than 50 years when Jennings murdered Hiller, and the knowledge that a person’s fingerprints were unique and unchanging had been recognized by ancient Egyptians, Chinese, and Japanese for centuries.

However, it took time police to take the next step: that fingerprints found at a crime scene could be linked to a particular criminal. It wasn’t until 1902, when a thief left fingerprints on a dusty windowsill in Dunwich, England, that police managed to track down the criminal solely on the basis of his prints. The fingerprints of Harry Jackson were not introduced as evidence in that case — they were simply a means for the police to find their man and extract a confession.

In 1905, again in England, fingerprints finally found their way into a courtroom when two brothers were arrested for the murder of a shopkeeper. One of the brothers left a thumbprint on a cashbox. He had a police record and after a painstaking search, police confirmed that the print belonged to Alfred Stratton. He and his brother, Albert, were tried and convicted of that murder.

But in the United States, fingerprinting was still a secondary means of identification after the Bertillon method that measured dozens of body parts to form a unique picture of the criminal. Bertillonage was a lengthy and arduous process that was proved to be less accurate than Auguste Bertillon believed in the strange case of William and Will West who showed up concurrently at Leavenworth Penitentiary much to the dismay of the record clerks there.

Americans did keep fingerprint records of convicted criminals, but using prints left at a crime scene to locate a criminal remained problematic because at the time there was no means of effectively lifting prints found at the crime scene except to photograph them.

Jennings’s case is noteworthy because it marks the first time in American jurisprudence that fingerprint evidence was introduced into the courtroom to establish the defendant’s presence at the crime scene. The fingerprints didn’t convict Jennings, but they did play an important part in bringing the burglar-turned-murderer to justice.

Thomas Jennings had been released from Joliet Penitentiary for serving a burglary term just weeks before he broke into the Hiller home. In between the events he purchased a revolver. Poverty forced him to pawn the weapon to a saloon-keeper, but on September 18, 1910, Jennings retrieved the weapon and immediately put it to use.

The Hiller family lived in a single-family home on West 104th Street in Chicago, not far from the interurban railway tracks. On the west side of their home was a vacant lot, and immediately after that was a home occupied by the McNabb family.

In the early hours of September 19, Jennings broke into each of these homes in search of swag or something else.

About 2 a.m. on September 19, Mrs. McNabb was awakened and saw a man standing in the door with a lighted match over his head. The man was tall, broad-shouldered, and very dark. He came over to her and placed his hand on her shoulder twice, then put his hand under her clothes against her bare body.

She kept shoving his hand away and cried out, “What is the matter?” The man did not reply but went to the dresser and stood there a minute and then went down the stairs.

Her daughter, Jessie, asleep in bed with her mother, was awakened and saw the intruder. She testified he wore a light-colored shirt and “figured suspenders;” that he was large, with broad shoulders.

Jennings was having a bad night as a burglar. He had previously attempted to break into a home about a mile away from the McNabb and Hiller homes, but was discovered by the homeowner who managed to tear away a pocket from his jacket.

After his failure at the Pickens and McNabb homes, Jennings tried a third time. By this time his luck had really run out; his third strike would earn him a place in the history of American jurisprudence.

Ten minutes after Jennings fled the McNabb home, 15-year-old Clarice Hiller awoke to find a man standing in the doorway of her room. The man was holding a lighted match that revealed his torso, but his face was in the shadows. It was Clarence Hiller’s practice to check on his children at night, so Clarice said later that she wasn’t afraid of the man she mistook for her father.

The shadowy figure left her room when Clarice sat up in bed, and entered the room of 13-year-old Florence. The teenage girl awoke to find someone sitting on her bed, and in her stupor she assumed it was her brother, Gerald.

“Is that you Gerald?” she asked, but she received no reply.

“Who is this?” she asked, and a man’s voice, — not her father’s, — answered, “It is me.”

Florence would later testify that she tried to scream but was unable to do so. She also told the court that the man pushed up her nightgown and ran his hands over her body. The intruder also placed his “prickly cheek upon her face and moved about in various ways upon the bed,” court records show.

By this time, Mrs. Hiller had awakened and noticed that a gaslight in the hallway that was always left burning had been extinguished. She woke up Clarence, who got out of bed to investigate it.

In the hallway, he ran into Jennings, who was just leaving Florence’s room. The two men scuffled at the top of the stairs and fell down the staircase. At the bottom of the stairs Jennings took out his revolver and shot Clarence Hiller twice.

As Jennings made his escape, the sound of the Hiller family screams and the gunshots drew the neighbors. John Pickens, his son, Oliver, and a beat cop named Floyd Beardsley were the first responders. They found Clarence Hiller dead or dying, his white nightshirt saturated with blood.

At the crime scene, Officer Beardsley found three unfired cartridges and the two slugs that had passed clear through Clarence’s body. Clarence had been shot through the heart and lungs.

Jennings left other trace evidence at the scene. When Mrs. Pickens was upstairs to get a blanket to cover the corpse, she noticed some sand and gravel near Florence’s bed and alerted the police to this fact. Similar dirt was found later in Jennings’s shoes.

Most importantly, Jennings left four fingerprints on a freshly painted porch railing. The paint was still tacky and the outline of the ridges of his fingerprints were clearly visible. The railing was removed to the Chicago crime lab where the criminalists photographed the fingerprints.

Jennings had barely gone a half mile when he ran into a group of off-duty police waiting for the interurban train to take them home. His suspicious behavior, bloody clothes, and firearm aroused their suspicions and he was taken into custody. These officers had no idea that they were arresting a man who was suspected of murder.

At his trial Jennings offered a weak, easily rebutted fake alibi, and because of his claims to have been elsewhere during the commission of the robbery spree that ended in murder, the McNabbs were allowed to testify that it was Jennings who invaded their home shortly before the killing.

The most damning evidence was the fingerprints left at the scene. When he was imprisoned in Joliet, Jennings had been fingerprinted and he was subsequently fingerprinted upon his arrest by Chicago police.

Four experts examined the various fingerprints and stated under oath that they all matched. The jury, treated to a lengthy discussion of the science of fingerprinting, believed the evidence and convicted Jennings of murder. He was sentenced to death.

Not surprisingly, Jennings raised the issue of fingerprint evidence on his appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. He argued that there was no statute allowing such evidence and further, no precedent existed in an American court.

The Court, however, was unmoved by his arguments.

“While the courts of this country do not appear to have had occasion to pass on the question, standard authorities on scientific subjects discuss the use of finger prints as a system of identification, concluding that experience has shown it to be reliable,” the court held. “We are disposed to hold from the evidence of the four witnesses who testified and from the writings we have referred to on this subject, that there is a scientific basis for the system of finger-print identification and that the courts are justified in admitting this class of evidence; that this method of identification is in such general and common use that the courts cannot refuse to take judicial cognizance of it.”

The court presented a lengthy discussion on the admission of evidence, but in the end, relied on common sense to justify its decision.

“If inferences as to the identity of persons based on the voice, the appearance or age are admissible, why does not this record justify the admission of this finger-print testimony under common law rules of evidence?” the court asked rhetorically. “The general rule is, that whatever tends to prove any material fact is relevant and competent.”

Justice was swift at the turn of the 20th century, even in capital cases. Jennings killed Clarence Hiller in September 1910. He was convicted of murder in February 1911; the Supreme Court upheld his conviction in December 1911, and he was executed on February 16, 1912.

His case, however, lives on as the first example of fingerprint evidence being used in an American court.



home last updates contact