In 1934, there was no formal universal standard for how many matching minutiae were required before a positive identification could be declared. Different jurisdictions and examiners applied different thresholds. The FBI’s approach was to document the basis for each identification finding rather than applying a rigid numerical threshold.
What this meant in practice for the Dillinger case was that the examiner looking at the postmortem prints was not working with a fixed minimum number of matching points. The examiner was working with the surviving ridge detail available on the altered fingertips — specifically the peripheral areas — and comparing that detail against the known Dillinger record. The finding was positive: the available detail was consistent with the known record.
Whether the specific number of matching minutiae in that comparison would satisfy modern threshold requirements in every jurisdiction is a question that the 2019 Turbeville and Hallisey examination effectively answered: yes, the surviving detail is sufficient by modern comparison standards.
—
## Indiana and the Making of a Criminal Mythology
John Dillinger was from Indiana, and his Indiana origins were woven through the public narrative of his criminal career in ways that shaped how both his supporters and his critics understood him.
The 1924 conviction — the robbery that produced the disproportionate sentence — was in Indiana. The imprisonment at Michigan City was in Indiana. The parole in 1933 was from Indiana authorities. The first post-parole robberies were in Indiana. The Crown Point escape — from an Indiana county jail — was in Indiana. His father lived in Mooresville, Indiana, and Dillinger visited him during his months as a fugitive.