International Fingerprint Week - Fingerprint Society

[Taggart]

Richard,

Thanks for the response.

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.

I could not agree more. In Theory of course but the reality is somewhat different.

If we take Iain and Shirley’s case they did chose to contact an Independent Expert, namely Peter Swann. Not as you might suspect to verify the identification, but in fact to look at forgery and fabrication. Nothing less, nothing more. Swann, a member of the Fingerprint Society, told them he was qualified to carry out such an examination.

It now transpires Swann has openly admitted he was not qualified to carry out such examinations. Is this a right and proper process under UK law? Is it not actual falsification of qualifications and at worst the work of a fraudster?

It is true to say that Swann did carry out a comparison of Y7. What he failed to reveal at any time, was the fact he had found characteristics in disagreement he could not explain.

Never revealed to his client nor at any time to the legal process.

An Expert who claims he is an expert in something he was not and an expert who then withheld vital information.

How are Independents reviewed in the UK?

Is there any peer review by which their competence is based? If so who does this? As I pointed out if this is the Forensic Regulator Swann fails the Code of Conduct by being totally unable or/and unwilling to explain his so-called 66 degree twist, which he used to later explain the discrepancies he found but failed to disclose.

It appears to me there is a process to allow an individual to consult with an Independent but not actually any process to regulate them.

This in turn makes the system flawed and quite farcical.

Let us not forget Swann is now embroiled in a new controversy by claiming a print is misidentified in a Murder Appeal allowing a conviction to be quashed.

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.

I am somewhat surprised you know an individual cannot be expelled or suspended for competency related issues but are unable to tell me what in fact you could be expelled or suspended for.

What if the Fingerprint Inquiry report back and conclude criminality or fabrication of certain individuals over the years to possibly include Society members?

As an aside I belive Iain previously made a complaint to the Society. Do you know if that was not taken on baord because they could not deal with the competence of the members or can you recall the exact reason why they would not instigate any investigations?

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.

If I can give the Society a friendly warning. Why on earth would they invite someone with an alternative view to Iain McKie to participate in a debate at their Annual Conference?

Iain’s view being the prints were misidentified. If the Society even entertains giving any sort of platform from the pro-identification side especially after the Fingerprint Inquiry report back your credibility will be totally blown apart.

I am also slightly curious as to what you might add to such a debate?

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.

Someone from within the Society who is enraged at the recent award to Martin Leadbetter supplied me with some information which if true seriously questions the recent award being presented. The inference is that it was awarded for Martin Leadbetter’s time and effort on the Society Committee, given he received it when he resigned from that Committee.

I am repeating what I was told and am looking for clarification. My source has told me that Martin Leadbetter actually resigned from the Committee several years ago, and then put himself forward again to sit on the Committee. The understanding from my informant being he wanted to support the SCRO Experts by getting himself re-elected believing he needed to be back on the Committee to do this.

Did Martin Leadbetter previously resign from the Committee as suggested to me?

If so was he given an award when he initially resigned?

If not why not?

If as I believe he has now resigned for a second time, is this current awarded for his effort on the Committee since his re-election?

[Tazman]

If an actor turns in a riveting performance as a clergyman dedicated to saving minority youth from drugs and gang violence, should he be excluded from consideration for an Oscar because he himself has a drug arrest?

If an elected leader of a country hosts a peace conference that averts a world war, but he carries on extramarital affairs and gets involved in a bitter divorce struggle, should he be excluded from consideration for a Nobel Peace Prize?

Just wondering . . . . .

[Taggart]

I guess it depends on how the individual reacts to their wrongful actions. If they acknowledge them I cannot see any great problem.
However if they were to continue to deny them and at the same time publicly slander their peers I believe it puts a somewhat different slant on things.