International Fingerprint Week - Fingerprint Society

[Iain McKie]

Postings from David Grieve, while infrequent, are always insightful and worth reading.

I stopped calling the Fingerprint Society a professional organization when it hid from its responsibility to consider charges against several of its members. The weak excuse then was that its rules were never approved after 25 years of existence. It would be laughable except for what the FS conveniently forgets, that real people got hurt, that lives were shattered and that a murder goes unsolved, hardly the subject of jokes. That was run and hide then and it is run and hide now. Mr. Case, your supposed higher road stand is simply putting more lipstick on the pig.

It is a fact of life that the Fingerprint Society by failing to take action against expert members like Martin Leadbetter, Peter Swann and those from the SCRO failed in its duty to its other members and to their profession.

In seeking to hold an ‘International Fingerprint Week’ without reference to the Inquiry Report and awarding Martin Leadbetter an award for services rendered the Society only serves to underline the ‘run and hide’ position identified by David.

Richard Case has given an undertaking that the Society will re-consider these decisions and I look forward to his updating this forum with the outcome.

Until then I will personally continue to bring this topic forward on the forum as a constant reminder to members and potential members that the time has come for the Society to ‘stand and deliver’.

[Taggart]

In the meantime can someone related to the Society please provide me with the name of the person who can officially respond to media enquiries?

[rmcase]

I am bowing to pressure, where I know I shouldn't, to engaging yet again.

I know I am diluded in thinking that these answers will quell any further interrogation, but I am a sucker for punishment.

The follwoing are my own opinions based on my beliefs and have not been endorsed by the committee of the Fingerprint Society. I will probably get criticised by posting these views here by the committee, but they are only what I would be suggesting at a committee meeting. I have been through this thread making note of relevant questions / observations, and I hope they are tackled sufficiently here:

Is the Fingerprint Society holding or leading an International Fingerprint Week in 2012?
No, International Fingerprint Week will be owned by the fingerprint profession. The Fingerprint Society has initiated the idea, named the dates and will be hosting a series of events to reflect and celebrate the science of fingerprints.

Other companies, organisations or individuals are free to organise their own events or publish research as part of International Fingerprint Week.

Does the Fingerprint Society have a stance on The McKie / Asbury cases?
Yes, it is one of neutrality. The Fingerprint Society serves to”advance the study and application of fingerprints and to facilitate co-operation among persons interested in this field of personal identification. The Society is not a Union or a Negotiating Body, but a group of professional people formed by their own mutual agreement” (Rules of the Society)

The Fingerprint Society does not look to act as arbiter on cases involving fingerprint evidence as it does not have the resources or the legal remit to undertake such a role.

Fingerprint evidence is based on opinion, and it is the responsibility of the legal system in each country to ensure that anyone reporting fingerprint evidence in their court systems are competent to perform such a task based on their qualifications, training, skills, knowledge and experience.

Unlike the International Association of Identification, who offer a service of professional certification, The Fingerprint Society is unable to endorse the competence of any of its members, and as such not able to suspend or exclude members on any technical issues.

The Fingerprint Society does not employ any staff and the committee is made of volunteers from within the profession and academia to support a programme of education and continual learning.

Will the Fingerprint Society be issuing a response in relation to the Scottish Fingerprint Inquiry report?
Yes, the Fingerprint Society intend to hold an extraordinary committee meeting following the publishing of the report to review its findings and recommendations and to devise a formal statement.

The Fingerprint Society is also working very closely with the Home Office Forensic Regulator and other bodies.

Will the Fingerprint Society be holding a debate on the Scottish Fingerprint Inquiry at its 2012 conference?
A debate session has been included in the programme and we are seeking persons to take part in the discussions. I acknowledge and welcome the volunteering of Iain McKie to take part in the discussion.

Was Martin Leadbetter given an award?
Yes, Martin was a founder of The Fingerprint Society and a long serving member of the society and had held a number of official positions on the committee, including chairman and president. The Fingerprint Society recognised this contribution following Mr. Ledbetter’s resignation from the committee, along with other outgoing committee members, at the gala dinner of the 2011 Annual Conference.

No Fingerprint Society Award is based on conduct or professional competence, and are not publicised as an endorsement of such.

Where do I direct any media requests?
As there is no current media / press officer within the Fingerprint Society, all correspondence should be addressed to the Secretary, Mr. Luke McGarr, c/o Derbyshire Constabulary, Scientific Support Unit, Butterley Hall, Ripley, Derbyshire. DE5 3RS luke.mcgarr.6936@derbyshire.pnn.police.uk

In relation to the remarks attributed to Graham Hughes and Steve Heylock.
As previously mentioned, every individual member has a fundamental right to reach their own conclusions in relation to a comparison.
Graham Hughes, as editor of Fingerprint Whorld was able to convey his views within his editorials. I cannot comment on Steve’s correspondence with Iain, so I am unsure whether he was speaking in a personal capacity.

The only editor that has been restricted in their editorials has been Fiona McBride.

In response to David Grieve’s comments.
I am not too sure of the circumstances given of The Fingerprint Society’s stance in the past. Personally I think that the images that are available on the internet are of suitable quality for a comparison to be made; but my views on any comparison to be made using these images fall within my interpretation of my terms of contract with my employer and the codes of conduct published by the Home Office Forensic Regulator that the Fingerprint Society endorse:

1. Your overriding duty is to the court and to the administration of justice. I will only make a professional comparison, and report on such, if instructed to do so by my employer or a court. To do otherwise I believe shows a lack of respect to my employer and the criminal justice system that I serve.
2. Act with honesty, integrity, objectivity, impartiality and declare any personal interest that could be perceived as a conflict of interest. Due to recent research in the psychology of fingerprint comparison, I believe it is very difficult to demonstrate 100% that I have been able to exclude any human factor interference due to the notoriety of this case.
3. Provide expert advice and evidence only within the limits of your professional competence.
4. Take all reasonable steps to maintain and develop your professional competence, taking account of material research and developments within the relevant field.
5. Establish the integrity and continuity of items as they come into your possession and ensure it is maintained whilst in your possession. I believe the publishing of copies of the marks and prints on the internet does not constitute a sufficient chain of continuity, and does not secure the integrity of the exhibits.
6. Seek access to exhibits / information which may have a significant impact on your findings. As above, I would require access to the original exhibits to make an accurate and fair comparison.
7. Conduct casework using methods of demonstrable validity. It is questionable whether the comparison of marks and prints posted online constitutes a valid processing method.
8. Be prepared to review any casework if any new information or developments are identified that would significantly impact on your findings.
9. Inform a suitable person within your organisation if you have good grounds for believing there is a situation which may result in a miscarriage of justice.
10. Preserve confidentiality unless the law obliges, a court/tribunal orders, or a customer explicitly authorises disclosure.

If my role on the committee of the Fingerprint Society meant that I had to undertake comparisons without the permission of my employer and that would constitute a breach of any of the above codes of conduct; then I would need to reconsider my position on the committee.

I am sure that I am not the only person to have this opinion, as otherwise there would be a lot more people making their views known other than the 169 signatories and the supporters of the SCRO conclusions.

I fully respect Iain McKie and the practitioners on this thread. I still hold the Thank You card from Iain and Mair that was given to me following the invite to the 2002 conference I organised, as it survived the clear out I undertook when recently moving home… and also hold fond memories of meeting Pat and David in Liverpool 1999 at my first Society conference and listening to your respective talks.

I hope you would show me the same personal professional courtesy and at least respect these views… you don’t necessarily have to agree with them.

If there is anyone out there that share my views, then please help… it is very lonely out on this ledge

[Ernie Hamm]

I would like to support the position and professional standing of The Fingerprint Society. It has steadfastly maintained a status of neutrality in the events concerning questioned latent print comparison/identifications and the involvements of Fellows of the Society. When I was privileged to addess The Society in 2006, I was expecting to encounter informal (formal were not to be addressed per announcement) discussions regarding the SCRO case, but nothing transpired. This neutral stand has been attacked and questioned by individuals, not organizations; but it should be acknowledged and recognized that this is their unwavering position.

As expressed by Mr. Case, the Fingerprint Society, unlike the IAI, has no certifying board or committee to judge or sanction their members. They were formed many years ago as an organization to assemble and educate interested practitioners in the field of latent print examinations. In their formative years, The Fingerprint Society could be more associated with being a fraternal / professional organization, with the accent on fraternal.

I, as well as many individuals accessing this site, was extremely appreciative of having been accepted as a FELLOW of the Society and I was proud of the recognition. I also enjoyed for many years the very interesting, informative and entertaining issues of The Fingerprint Whorld under the editorship of Mr. John Berry. I looked forward to each issue and thoroughly enjoyed the wide range of articles and those tidbits of information set forth in each issue.

There are those that look to the Fingerprint Society to take a position on opinion evidence that is really not in their control. I am sure it is not in the scope of the Fingerprint Society, or the IAI for that matter, to judge the actions or procedures of individuals.

I do not know the full extent of events that transpired in the initial SCRO examinations or the subsequent ‘re-examination” and I seriously doubt that anyone will ever be knowledgeable of all the information. Differences of opinion on identifications have occurred many times over the years in number of organizations, long before the SCRO case, and resolutions have been accomplished without issue. This case escalated way beyond the ‘normal’. The individuals on all sides were dealing with the information known to them at the time their examination and their opinion decision can differ depending on circumstances and quality of comparative standards. Many of these individuals are associated with The Fingerprint Society and you can place them on the “con” or “pro” side of the argument depending on your position.

However, it must be remembered that this OPINION evidence. It can be challenged by those with different opinions, but the end result is that it is an individual opinion. Another individual may not agree with the initial decision, but that is then their opinion. The ‘opposing’ position can then be presented and a defining decision made by some authority, but all opinions are on the table.

Martin Leadbetter is on whatever side someone places him, “you are with me or you are agin me”. That is your opinion. However, his many years, dedication and devotion to The Fingerprint Society and their goals over the last 40+ years cannot be ignored.

I, as a longtime Fellow of The Fingerprint Society, am disturbed by the continued attacks on the organization, especially by those with no professional affiliation to FPS, or to the discipline for that matter, and even more so by those that have enjoyed the association for many years and are now performing more like animals attacking the wounded leader. I believe the current leadership is trying to resolve the current situation, but it is a delicate act needing support.

Colleagues, take care and travel safe.

Ernie

[rmcase]

Thank you Ernie,

Your support is personally welcomed and appreciated. I woke this morning with fear and regret as I noticed by Blackberry phone winking at me to signal that a reply had been posted on this thread.

You put your views across (that are shared by me) more eloquently than I ever could, and as you are very well respected person in the profession, I hope that you have not put yourself forward for criticism by association.

John Berry's tenure as editor was before I began in the profession but I have had the opportunity to read those early issues of Fingerprint Whorld, and I agree that some of that "fraternal", light-hearted atmosphere has been lost in the journal, but these types of article would still be published if submitted.

I can understand Iain's position as a father (being a dad myself) and also the views of the practitioners involved in the case as their ability, professionalism and integrity has been challenged publicly; but it is disappointing and sad to see the profession being torn apart as it has.

I am sure there will be many positives that arise from the Inquiry Report that will help professionalize the service to a level that is expected in other areas of forensic science, and I am positive that The Fingerprint Society has a role to assist in this process and to help heal the wounds that have been inflicted.

Best wishes,

Richard

[Taggart]

Richard,
You state the Society cannot suspend or exclude members for any technical issues. Would you be so kind as to clarify what the Society could suspend or exclude members for? Many thanks

[Iain McKie]

Hi Ernie,

I wonder if you would bear with me while I analyse some statements in your recent posting.

‘This neutral stand has been attacked and questioned by individuals, not organizations; but it should be acknowledged and recognized that this is their unwavering position……..I, as a long time Fellow of The Fingerprint Society, am disturbed by the continued attacks on the organization, especially by those with no professional affiliation to FPS, or to the discipline for that matter, and even more so by those that have enjoyed the association for many years and are now performing more like animals attacking the wounded leader. I believe the current leadership is trying to resolve the current situation, but it is a delicate act needing support.’……..‘However, his (Martin Leadbetter’s) many years, dedication and devotion to The Fingerprint Society and their goals over the last 40+ years cannot be ignored.’

I am assuming that you would not deny my right to challenge the ‘Fingerprint Society’ over the years about their failure to take action against their members who almost succeeded in driving my daughter to suicide and condemning a man to life in prison.

The Society has not of course remained neutral but has to date steadfastly provided succour and support to experts like Martin Leadbetter, Peter Swann, Fiona McBride and other SCRO experts. They appointed one of the most controversial of the SCRO experts Fiona McBride to edit ‘Fingerprint Whorld’; they held their annual conference in Scotland and lent SCRO experts credibility; they honoured Martin Leadbetter at a time when he and Peter Swann had been censured by the IAI for wrongly identifying a print in my daughter’s case and had vilified world renewed experts who had the temerity to disagree with them.

That is not neutrality Ernie. When people’s lives are a stake and injustice threatens ‘neutrality’ is not a choice.

‘This case escalated way beyond the ‘normal’. The individuals on all sides were dealing with the information known to them at the time their examination and their opinion decision can differ depending on circumstances and quality of comparative standards. Many of these individuals are associated with The Fingerprint Society and you can place them on the “con” or “pro” side of the argument depending on your position.’

Have you fallen into the trap Ernie of assuming that this was a case of equal bodies of ‘opinion’ to some extent cancelling each other out? Not so. On the one side we had about a dozen experts siding with SCRO and on the other 100’s from across the world condemning them for their two mistakes. Anyone who cares to research the matter will quickly ascertain that the evidence against SCRO remains overwhelming.

The Fingerprint Inquiry has undertaken to determine which experts made mistakes and how those mistakes were made. I am on record as stating that I will accept the Inquiry’s findings. Is that the Fingerprint Society’s position?

If I am wrong Ernie I will be the first to apologise to experts I have unfairly criticised because I am only too aware of the pain and suffering unjust accusations can cause. If I am right do you feel that those experts who caused my daughter and family so much pain should admit their mistakes and apologise unequivocally or be removed from ‘Society’ membership?

I suspect that this debate will ultimately benefit the ‘Society’ and I agree with you that the Society is apparently under ‘new management’ intent on learning the lessons of the past 14 years despite the opposition of 'vested interests'. I look forward to hearing the Society’s response to the Inquiry Report and ultimately to the conclusion of this whole affair.

Best wishes,

Iain

[David L. Grieve]

I don't know Mr. Case and must trust Ernie's assessment to the point that Mr. Case truly believes he is doing what is best for the Fingerprint Society. I've known Ernie Hamm for many years and find him a respected and admirable colleague. His opinion comes from his own personal views about the roles of organizations, but I do not agree.

Ernie and I share a great appreciation for history, as did the late Charlie Parker. When the IAI was in its early years and had no general publication, much of what was going on in the profession came from the Finger Print and Identification Magazine, edited by T. G. Cooke, head of the Institute of Applied Science. The IAS was a for-profit correspondence school, and if anyone had justification to be neutral, it was a business that depended on continuing student enrollment.

Late in his career, Joseph Faurot, one of the significant pioneers in American fingerprint advancement, made an identification in a high profile, very notorious case. The result was the indictment of one of the key players. J. D. Taylor, then head of the US Naval Service identification bureau, was asked to review Faurot's identification. J. D. determined it was erroneous. In spite of his report, the prosecution proceeded, believing that the reputation of Faurot would sway the jury. Under cross examination, Joseph Faurot declared the discrepancies noted by Taylor were just "fly specks." This explanation from an acknowledged major contributor was so ludicrous that Faurot retired completely disgraced. Ernie, I find a 66 degree twist just as ludicrous as fly specks.

Cooke had the decision to publish none of this and justify his decision as neutrality. But the Institute of Applied Science had a responsibility to the profession that Cooke understood. You may feel the Fingerprint Society doesn't have that same responsibility, but for those who look to professionals for guidance, that is difficult to understand. Cooke understood that and published Taylor's comments and condemnations of Faurot's work. Faurot had opportunity to reply but declined.

A mutual friend of ours was faced with a similar conflict resolution on a disputed latent print identification. Bob Olsen arranged from a three panel review board made up of Kansas and Missouri examiners to review such instances. This was done with the blessing of the Kansas and Missouri divisions of the IAI. When I asked Bob about that, his position was we all owe support to those who do the job right, and we do owe support to those who do not.

[Pat]

I don't know Mr. Case . . . .

Dave,

I do know Richard Case and I have the utmost respect for him. If anybody can save the Fingerprint Society from its own disinclination to get involved, it is Richard. He is a strong, ethical, and honest man. I wish you had the opportunity to meet him because I believe you would like him and respect him as I do. Richard is doing his utmost to serve and to save the Society he cherishes.

I believe two people can respect each other and still have basic philosophical differences. Personally, I believe it is the responsibility of a professional organization to resolve issues before the public that would throw into disrepute the profession the organization serves. Richard believes professionalism dictates that an organization formed for the purpose of educating its members should stay out of the political arena and avoid getting involved in public controversy. I can respect Richard's view while still disagreeing with it because it comes from an honest man.

I wish Richard the best in his efforts to see the Fingerprint Society emerge from this debacle intact.

Pat

[R J Hillman]

Iain.....well said

When people’s lives are a stake and injustice threatens ‘neutrality’ is not a choice.

[ER]

Fingerprint comparison and identification, while the opinion of the examiner, is also a scientifically demonstrable opinion. While debate and disagreement occasionally arise when conclusions fall on the line between identification and inconclusive, or one the line between exclusion and inconclusive, this discipline cannot abide disagreement when one group maintains a conclusion of identification while another maintains a conclusion of exclusion.

The errors that occurred in this case are so blatantly obvious that a stance of neutrality is indefensible. The science of fingerprint identification is a powerful tool in the pursuit of justice. Accepting that different examiners can have opposite opinions on a comparison diminishes the power of that tool. I refuse to accept these opposite opinions.

Condemn the misidentifications as misidentifications. I am not one who normally resorts to absolutes, but any other stance weakens our discipline.


'Rage, rage against the dying of the light'
-Dylan Thomas

[Ernie Hamm]

I apologize for not responding earlier. I was in the process of preparing for a final examination in a volunteer civilian position with a law enforcement agency. It was interesting as the expected duties include some I first encountered as a military policeman 50 years ago in a land far, far away.

Mr. McKie, your interest in the SCRO event is completely different than my own. You have special personal interest and I respect that, but I have no dog in that fight (actually, as a non-active practitioner, I do not even have a dog). You are also more privy to events and persons involved than I am or care to be. You probably know the identity of every one of the various posters, including the anonymous ones, to CLPEX on this matter and have information on their knowledge, skills and abilities. I do not have that information, but believe some to be outside of FPS and the discipline. I did not identify anyone in my statement on being upset with the outside “attacks”. They, as you, can express their opinions. However, over the YEARS, some of these ‘opinions’ have been vicious, personal and painted with a broad brush. They have expressed the ‘doom-and-gloom’ and ‘total collapse’ of the discipline if this issue is not resolved, usually in favor of their position. I have been surprised that some exchanges were permitted to appear. I hope that the administrator(s) of this site exercised some control and spared readers from time-to-time.

I also believe the exchanges and discussions have resulted in the loss, or serious damage, to many long-standing personal and professional relationships. This is upsetting to me as I have known many of the parties for a number of years. I hate to see this happening to individuals, agencies and organizations.
I believe my frustration of some of the events is also associated with actions occurring elsewhere concerning the discipline and other areas of forensic applications. Attacks on the professionalism and dedication of individuals and agencies are being made on a regular basis. While I am no longer a practitioner, I still resent the negative statements. What set me off to post my message, which my inner voice warned me about doing (especially on this forum), was the topic from whilst the latest attack came.

The CLPEX topic, “International Fingerprint Week – Fingerprint Society”, was introduced, but the poster’s message was essentially, “How dare them!!!”, and, of course, it was initiated by a well-known and respected practitioner (?) or at least a frequent poster. Okay, FPS is sponsoring a professional meeting with invited guests and lecturers. I do not believe they are selectively screening anyone, guest or lecturer, for their views on current issues. FPS is moving forward despite continued criticism of its policies, philosophies and actions of their membership.

So, out of this ‘innocent’ posting about FPS hosting a professional meeting, the “McKie/Asbury cases” were immediately re-introduced to our lexicon, lest we forget. While there are those with personal interest in those events, I have grown weary of the topic. The thread seems to fade, but is then resurrected. There is an official inquiry that is to be completed and perhaps that will close the verse, chapter and book, but I seriously doubt that. I do not know how FPS will respond to the inquiry, but wait and see. This could well be what the staff and leadership of FPS may be doing.

Before I end this communication because that inner voice has now been screaming at me in a loud voice, I would like to address some of Mr. Mckie’s comments:

I do not know what “succour and support” has been provided by FPS?

I do not know how Fiona McBride is considered “most controversial”? However, I have not seen the position of Editor of Fingerprint Whorld used as a platform to express opinions on the SCRO cases. I also recognize the fact that the acceptance of the Editor position was probably a difficult decision as that is not a ‘fun’ job (as those that have been editor well know) and perhaps FPS was fortunate that a least someone stepped forward, regardless of other circumstances.

Why not have the annual conference in Scotland? It is a beautiful country and I have thoroughly enjoyed my visits to the area. FPS has always planned their conferences at different locales. I did not experience any evidence that the 2006 conference lent creditability to SCRO experts. In fact, as previously noted, discussions on the topic of the McKie/Asbury cases were not to be conducted during the conference.

I do not know what honours have been bestowed on Martin Leadbetter and Peter Swann by FPS?

Lastly, “…they (FPS?)…vilified world renewed (sic) experts…”, when and how did they do this?

David: Bob did it right with a panel to resolve an issue. That is one thing gnawing at me, what happened, or did not happen, that may have influenced a resolution in the McKie case before it became a problem? BTW, I threw in “whilst” in Bob’s memory!

Richard: Thanks for the concern about any criticism, but my life has moved far beyond any such worry.

My inner voice has left to find a club. I am out of here.

Ernie

[Taggart]

I would like to thank Richard for posting a response to several of the issues, but unfortunately it only leads to further questions which I hope you will be so kind as to address.

…. The Fingerprint Society serves to”advance the study and application of fingerprints and to facilitate co-operation among persons interested in this field of personal identification. The Society is not a Union or a Negotiating Body, but a group of professional people formed by their own mutual agreement” (Rules of the Society)……Unlike the International Association of Identification, who offer a service of professional certification, The Fingerprint Society is unable to endorse the competence of any of its members, and as such not able to suspend or exclude members on any technical issues.

The Rules of the Fingerprint Society do allow for the expulsion of members.

http://www.fpsociety.org.uk/membership/rules.html

13. Expulsion of Members
13.1 If at any time the Committee considers that the interests of the Society require it they must invite a member to resign from the Society, by a letter specifying the time before which the withdrawal should be made.
13.2 If the member concerned does not withdraw the Committee must submit the question of his/her expulsion to the Annual General Meeting or a Special General Meeting to be held within eight weeks after the date of the letter.
13.3 Not less than 14 days’ notice of the meeting must be given to the members.
13.4 The Secretary must inform the member in question of the time and place of the meeting and the nature of the complaints against him/her in sufficient time to afford him/her a proper opportunity of offering an explanation.
13.5 At the meeting the member must be allowed to offer an explanation of his/her conduct verbally or in writing and if after that more than half of the members present vote for his/her expulsion he/she will immediately cease to be a member of the Society.
13.6 The voting at any such Special General Meeting must be by ballot.

What is unclear is what a member may be expelled for?

What exactly is meant by the ‘interests of the Society’?

Would this cover bringing the Society into disrepute? I go back to Iain’s posting where he highlighted the scandalous attack on fellow experts by Martin Leadbetter during the Fingerprint Inquiry. In his Inquiry statement he clearly mentions he is a member of the Fingerprint Society.

Will the Fingerprint Society be holding a debate on the Scottish Fingerprint Inquiry at its 2012 conference?
A debate session has been included in the programme and we are seeking persons to take part in the discussions. I acknowledge and welcome the volunteering of Iain McKie to take part in the discussion.

Are we to believe the Society would allow the likes of Fiona McBride to partake in such debate at its Conference? Or Martin Leadbetter? Peter Swann? What cannot happen is for the Society to allow any voice to be given by any member who does not accept the findings of the Fingerprint Inquiry.

Was Martin Leadbetter given an award?
Yes, Martin was a founder of The Fingerprint Society and a long serving member of the society and had held a number of official positions on the committee, including chairman and president. The Fingerprint Society recognised this contribution following Mr. Ledbetter’s resignation from the committee, along with other outgoing committee members, at the gala dinner of the 2011 Annual Conference.
No Fingerprint Society Award is based on conduct or professional competence, and are not publicised as an endorsement of such.

It must be remembered that when this award was given by the Society Martin Leadbetter had been censured by the IAI over his misidentification of Y7. This would clearly have been known by the Fingerprint Society. I am slightly concerned in Ernie Hamm’s last posting when he said:

I do not know what honours have been bestowed on Martin Leadbetter and Peter Swann by FPS?

Can I presume from this that the members are not informed or consulted over such awards?

In response to David Grieve’s comments.
I am not too sure of the circumstances given of The Fingerprint Society’s stance in the past. Personally I think that the images that are available on the internet are of suitable quality for a comparison to be made; but my views on any comparison to be made using these images fall within my interpretation of my terms of contract with my employer and the codes of conduct published by the Home Office Forensic Regulator that the Fingerprint Society endorse:

1. …………. I will only make a professional comparison, and report on such, if instructed to do so by my employer or a court. To do otherwise I believe shows a lack of respect to my employer and the criminal justice system that I serve.

I had a look at the Code of Conduct published by the Home Office Forensic Regulator which you clearly believe you must adhere to.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publicatio ... iew=Binary

I draw you attention to the 9th code.

Code of Conduct for forensic science practitioners
The Forensic Science Regulator sets out for all practitioners, whether called for the Prosecution or Defence, the values and ideals the profession stands for.
……
9. Inform a suitable person within your organisation if you have good grounds for believing there is a situation which may result in a miscarriage of justice.
……

Does this not allow you to bring to the attention of your organisation a situation which may result in a miscarriage of justice? Whatever you believe it might be?

I was somewhat intrigued by the following extract from the same Code of Conduct endorsed by the Fingerprint Society. I would remind you of the evidence given by Fingerprint Society member Peter Swann at the Fingerprint Inquiry regarding a so-called 66 degree twist he alleged in print Y7.

Reports and statements to the CJS statements and the presentation of evidence
1. Providers shall ensure that all staff who provide expert evidence have a sufficient level of experience, knowledge, standing in the peer group and, where appropriate, qualifications, relevant to the type of evidence being adduced, to give credibility to the reliability of the work undertaken and the conclusions drawn. They shall also ensure that they are able to explain their methodology and reasoning, both in writing and orally, concisely and in a way that is comprehensible to a lay person and not misleading.
2. Providers shall ensure that all staff who provide expert evidence based on scientific methodology are additionally able to demonstrate, if required:
a. whether there is a body of specialised literature relating to the field;
b. that they have complied with part 33 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 201044
c. that any database they have relied on is sufficient in size and quality to justify the nature and breadth of inferences drawn from it, that the inferences are logically sound and that alternative hypothesises in the investigative mode and alternative propositions in the evaluative mode have been properly considered; and that the principles, techniques and assumptions they have relied on are valid;
d. their methodology, assumptions and reasoning have been considered by other scientists and are regarded as sound, or where challenged, the concerns have been satisfactorily addressed; and
e. the impact the uncertainty of measurement associated with the application of a given method could have on any conclusion.
3. Providers shall ensure that all staff who provide expert evidence based on their practical experience and/or their professional (non-scientific) knowledge are additionally able to provide:
a. an explanation of their methodology and reasoning;
b. reference to a body of specialised literature relating to the field of expertise and the extent to which this supports or undermines their methodology and reasoning;
c. an assessment of the extent to which their methodology and reasoning are now accepted by their peers together with details of any outstanding concerns; and
d. specific instances which support or undermine their claim to expertise or accepted professional practice and methodology resulting in demonstrably valid or misleading opinion, and an explanation of how these have a bearing on the matter(s) in issue.

At no time was Swann ever able to demonstrate his 66 degree twist.

I am disappointed that you consider your colleagues in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, along with Allan Bayle to have been disrespectful, when they publicly spoke out regarding this miscarriage of Justice. If they had taken the same moral stance you believe they should have adopted then who knows where or what would have happened to Shirley McKie? I cannot share your opinion.

If my role on the committee of the Fingerprint Society meant that I had to undertake comparisons without the permission of my employer and that would constitute a breach of any of the above codes of conduct; then I would need to reconsider my position on the committee.

I for one have never asked the Society to carry out their own independent verifications of the prints. What I have asked for is the Society to acknowledge all the Independent Reports that exist and accept their findings. The bottom line is it too late for the Society to issue a statement accepting the findings of the Fingerprint Inquiry when it has blatantly ignored every other Inquiry which has reached the same findings.

What cannot happen is for individuals to remain protected by the Society who have brought shame on the very science they seek to promote.

[Iain McKie]

Hi Ernie,

Thanks you your clear and balanced response.

If you were to ask me what I believe to be the one element that distinguishes our societies and helps explain the inability of the Fingerprint Society to face up to what has been happening it is that different cultures are at work.

America appears to be capable of facing up to its challenges, effecting change and moving on. I know this is an oversimplification (with massive polictical contradictions) but it is derived in part from the IAI decision to have print Y7 examined, issue an opinion on it and censure Peter Swann and Martin Leadbetter. It also arises from experiencing forums like onin.com and clpex.com where all sides have the freedom to express their thoughts and challenge their opponents. In my opinion this has been good for the science although I would agree at times that personal attacks went further than appeared necessary.

In the UK things are totally different as our 14 year fight so eloquently testifies. Ours is a centuries old culture dominated by secrecy, procrastination, deceit and a subterranean maze of incestuous relationships which helps prevent any change that will threaten the ruling elite. We don’t even sit on the fence we hide under it heads firmly buried in the sand with eyes and ears firmly closed in case some truth should penetrate our collective conscience.

Year after year we have been faced by a government, prosecuting authorities, politicians, police forces, fingerprint organisations and individual experts all bent on pretending that the totally naked emperor is in fact fully dressed. Some have spoken out but have been quickly reminded of their place in the grand scheme of things.

It is from such a culture that the Fingerprint Society has emerged. Despite being in a position to form an opinion on the matters under debate they have been controlled and manipulated by so called experts who value personal vanity and gain above their profession's reputation and development.

However you will be glad Ernie that an end is in sight. The Fingerprint Inquiry will report shortly and I am on record as being willing to accept its conclusions whatever they might be. This report gives the Society an opportunity to purge the dinosaurs and allow the society to move forward as a credible organisation aimed at promoting and improving the profession of fingerprinting.

Best wishes,

Iain

[rmcase]

Pat, can I thank you for your personal recommendation on an earlier post. Sometimes I think postings on these types of forum can often sound unintentionally aggressive or arrogant and I am always careful not to come across as such, so I think it’s important that even though there are sometimes vast differences in opinion on certain issues, it is crucial to maintain an atmosphere of professional respect and courtesy to encourage debate in these areas.

Iain McKie quite rightly stated “When people’s lives are a stake and injustice threatens ‘neutrality’ is not a choice.” That is why there is there is the provision under UK law (and in most other countries in the world) to employ the services of independent experts to challenge the evidence. Mr. McKie has exercised this right and independent reports and evidence have been submitted and presented. This is the right and proper process under UK law. Therefore, I believe neutrality is the ONLY choice when you have not been instructed by either the prosecution or defence to actively review the exhibits in a case. I was questioned whether I thought (or think) that any practitioners who have put their conclusions forward outside this legal process were being disrespectful... Of course I don’t. As I mentioned previously, this is a very personal decision and every expert has the right to make a comparison, reach their conclusions and report on such (given the materials available). I would not be prepared to do this, as I believe it starts a precedent for public decision making or identifications / exclusions by vote. But these experts have the right to offer their services to any side they wish as long as it is within the realms of their terms of employment with their employer.

Iain, as Ernie stated has a very personal interest in this case, so his requests for external support is very understandable and his gratitude is very sincere, but I am sure that he is aware given his police background, that there are strict rules to adhere to when presenting evidence.

Also, Mr. McKie has rightly identified (although he goes a little further than I would) that some of the difficulties is that fingerprint identification primarily sits within the police service and all the political influences that go with that. This has great benefits operationally, but the questions keep getting asked whether the service is fit for purpose and independent. I would be surprised if this isn’t addressed in the forthcoming report.

As far as the exclusion and suspension of Fingerprint Society members is concerned... If I am totally honest, the simple answer is I don’t know. The only definite that has been written into the rules relates to bankruptcy. This is because if the society is dissolved, then the assets of the society get divided between the membership. As David Grieve mentioned, we came across an issue whereby our rules were never legally ratified. I think this oversight came about because nobody ever anticipated the events that have transpired, given we were only an educational society.

On reading the rules myself, the only other reason is if a member / fellow is suspended or has their employment terminated can membership be withdrawn.

Other reasons maybe if they have directly brought The Fingerprint Society into disrepute or a failure by a member to adhere to the codes of conduct. I have noticed that I will need to amend the published codes that appear on the internet site, which still refer to the now defunct CRFP and not the Forensic Regulator.

Also, I am not sure who can register a complaint... is it anyone, another member, or an employer?

I will see if I can get these questions addressed by the next AGM.

With regards to who will take part in any debate on the Scottish Fingerprint Inquiry report.. I guess that will depend on the content of the report; but I would expect to have someone on the panel with an alternative view to Iain McKie, otherwise it wouldn’t be much of a debate. I am unaware of anyone else to have come forward to take part yet, but I would certainly be willing to get involved.

In relation to Awards, members are able to nominate for the Lewis Minshall Award and Henry Medal. Other awards, such as those given for services rendered to the committee are given based on time and effort committed to the running of the society.

Again, you are getting the views of someone who sits on the committee of The Fingerprint Society and may not reflect the opinions of the rest of the committee.