Shirley McKie: Scottish Government Apologises

[Taggart]

Gentlemen, you are if course correct there are an unlimited number of apologies to be made.
I would like to put forward a proposal. In March the Fingerprint Society is hosting an International Fingerprint Week.
I would suggest that Tom Nelson and Alex McGinnies are invited to make a joint presentation highlighting what the SPSA has done in the aftermath of the Fingerprint Report. Nelson could inform how a 21st century forensic science had dealt with the misidentifications and all that surrounded them.
McGinnies could inform how he has put in place a programme of effective retraining. He could also explain how the SPSA are using Y7 in their training programmes.
I believe such imput would be invaluable.
It was also be an opportunity to compare the SPSA response against the FBI response.
It would allow fellow practitioners to question every adpects David raises so well.
I also propose the IAI also invites the same two individuals to make a similar presentation.
If they were to decline such invitations you would need to doubt the openness and transparency of the SPSA.
If the SPSA goes unchallenged they will continue to allow the science to be brought Into disrepute.
Perhaps David's concerns about the current SPSA approach to ACE-V will be addressed by the Scottish Trainer McGinnies.
Any thoughts?

[Taggart]

David makes an interesting observation. Can any reader inform us who provides the accreditation to the SPSA Fingerprint and Scenes of Crime sections, and what the exact accreditation is? ISO?

[Big Wullie]

Please folks let us not forget Marion Ross.

Surely her family deserve the biggest apology from SPSA, The Justice Minister and Lord Advocate ?

More importantly I feel for the Ross family and would be asking both the Justice Secretary and the Lord Advocate what steps or actions they intend to take against SPSA formerly SCRO to rectify and correct these Wrongful Identifications which have let the real murderer run free all these years.

Surely they deserve nothing less than a full investigation now into the actions of SCRO and deserve these issues to be re-investigated.

On a personal level I would be suing them if it was one of my relatives.

[Taggart]

I am pleased to see the SPSA has had the decency to re-instate their public apology to the McKie’s on their own website

http://www.spsa.police.uk/news/scottish ... nt_inquiry

I am also intrigued by the following link I came across tonight

http://www.scottishinsight.ac.uk/Portal ... 240212.pdf

which relates to “Fingerprints – a road map for reform Workshop 1 19 March 2012-21 March 2012”

The Agenda look intriguing with what I believe will be the first public platform for the SPSA, represented at the Workshop by amongst others Tom Nelson, to share with the world what steps they have taken to resolve the issues arising from the publication of the Fingerprint Inquiry Report.

The SPSA will need to be in a position to explain how they have effectively dealt with the two experts Foley and Geddes, who made the two errors, and how they have developed a re-training programme as a direct result.

Let us not forget one of the primary functions of the Fingerprint Inquiry was to restore Public Confidence in the Scottish Fingerprint Service.

In a matter of weeks the SPSA will finally break their silence and share with the profession how they have dealt with the Inquiry Report and with the findings.

Going to be fascinating……

As an aside can Michelle Triplett let me know how she is getting on with the updates for her Fingerprint Dictionary with regard to the Fingerprint Inquiry and those who erroneously identified the fingerprints.

[Pat]

Taggart,

Check with the bookmakers and let me know the odds on the three following possible themes for this workshop:
1. The SCRO was right all along, but accepts the Inquiry report as a way of bringing down the curtain on the whole sorry mess.
2. Honest mistake.
3. Anything that would admit culpability on the part of the SCRO (the odds of winning a multi-million euro lottery are probably better than this last one).

And please give me your honest opinion on one other thing, Taggart. Have any changes been made that would lessen the risk of another such "mistake" happening at the new SPSA?

[Taggart]

I also came across the following information about the Fingerprint Workshop.

http://www.scottishinsight.ac.uk/Progra ... eform.aspx

Fingerprints: A roadmap for reform

Human identification is central to an effective criminal justice process. It is essential that the identity of any individual is established unambiguously before they are arrested charged or tried. The most common means of achieving this worldwide is by comparison of fingerprints taken from the individual with known fingerprint records. Such records can also be used to eliminate potential suspects and identify offenders from fingerprints left at crime scenes. Fingerprints are also one of the four accepted forms of identification for missing persons and disaster victim identification. In recent years a number of high profile cases from around the world, and more particularly from Scotland, have cast doubt on the validity and reliability of fingerprint evidence.

Programme objectives

This programme investigates a number of notable failings in the examination of fingerprint evidence that have undermined the confidence of the judiciary and public leading to appeals, quashed convictions and divided professional communities. We aim to establish how this situation has arisen and how it can be addressed in order to maintain the necessary confidence in use of fingerprints by criminal justice systems. Our aim is to identify the mechanisms necessary for the transformation of fingerprint practices in Scotland and criminal justice systems throughout the world. We seek to engage a wide range of professional stakeholders and academics, to establish the causes of these failings and identify practical steps to address them. The effective resolution of this issue would place Scotland at the forefront of a global paradigm shift in understanding, policies and practices of major significance to criminal justice systems.

Research questions

• What were the contributory factors involved in these misidentifications and instances of poor practice? How might these be understood from a legal, professional, policing, and management science perspective?
• Is the current procedure for evaluation of fingerprint identifications fit for purpose?
• Is there a satisfactory mechanism for the probabilistic evaluation of fingerprint evidence?
• What are the implications of adopting such an approach in legal, professional and training terms?
• Can human factors such as cognitive bias and the human-machine interface be better understood and minimised?
• With regard to the issues above, what are the implications for training of fingerprint experts, police and legal personnel?
• What issues of public confidence and trust need to be addressed?

Oh boy, these research questions are certainly ones that will seriously test the SPSA.

• What were the contributory factors involved in these misidentifications and instances of poor practice? How might these be understood from a legal, professional, policing, and management science perspective?

The Fingerprint Report was published on 14 December 2011, which has given the SPSA well over two months to have fully examined what the ‘contributory factors’ were they down to ‘poor practice’. So their contribution is vital to answer this particular question. And will also help the world understand what really happened. Thankfully both Foley and Geddes will have been able to help the SPSA explain what went wrong.

• With regard to the issues above, what are the implications for training of fingerprint experts, police and legal personnel?

Given the SPSA has accepted two of their expert’s made errors it is of course vital that the prints are used in training, not only within Scotland but worldwide. Again it will be fascinating to hear how the SPSA is using Y7 in the organisation, and what training the SPSA staff has received since December 2011.

• What issues of public confidence and trust need to be addressed?

Again the SPSA will have to explain how they have these issues have been addressed. Have Foley and Geddes accepted their errors? Have they been suspended from any Court work? Are they being retrained? Have they apologised for their errors? Has their previous work now been subjected to independent peer review?

Clearly for any public confidence in the SPSA the answer to these posers must be yes?

I hope the Workshop is recorded and the Report is made public. I am sure I am not the only one who would love to read who public confidence is being restored in the Scottish Fingerprint Service.

[Taggart]

Pat,

If you look at the list of attendees at the Workshop you will see they are truly International. At this Conference there will be no hiding place for the SPSA. They will have to explain and justify their actions to a group of peers.
If they are shown to have done nothing, they will be truly exposed. They must be prepared to give answers, and seriously good answers.
There is no hiding place. Finally the truth will come out and we will see exactly what the SPSA has done.
Failure is not an option Pat.

[Big Wullie]

Taggart

As member of the Scottish Public I see nothing and I mean nothing in any press articles trying to enhance the public's opinion that these mistakes will not reoccur.

They prefer to sweep things under the carpets in Scotland.

I have heard nothing about retraining of experts or of experts accepting they were wrong.

Indeed I have heard through the grapevine Geddes and Foley are still working but not a peep about retraining they prefer to just place them on nightshift away from the public glare.

I still have serious concerns that they have not yet accepted they made mistakes and are still being aloowed to make mistakes because as I say not a dicky bird about retraining of these experts who made two mistakes in one case.

It would be reasonable to assume since they are working nightshifts they will also be in a position where they will require to give evidence in court and this is alarming without knowing if they have been retrained or not.

I have seen nothing suggesting these experts have been suspended either pending further training which I would have expected.

I am also disturbed that there have been no enquiries into the work carried out by Peter Swann and Martin Leadbetter.

Peter Swann more so because I know the Criminla Cases Review Commission (CCRC) have relied upon this experts evidence in some cases and he was involved with the Susan May case and from what I have seen of his presentation to CCRC it is worse than what he produced for the Shirley's and Asbury's trial and subsequent enquiries that followed.

I will submit some photos soon of what he produced at Susan May's case.

He has basically done the same with this case as he did with Shirley's and confirmed it was her print without checking any original material but more importantly he confirmed it was in blood yet there is no evidence one way or another to confirm it was the blood of Hilda Marchbank nor indeed Human blood at-all.

For all we know it could have been a coffee stain but looking more likely that the chemicals they used to enhance the print caused the staining.

[Big Wullie]

[Taggart]

Wulliue, perhaps I can help. If we return to the SPSA apology there are two key statements, other than the apology, that become critical in the run up to the March Workshop.

http://www.spsa.police.uk/news/scottish ... nt_inquiry

In January we will launch a new approach to specifically and separately deal with complex fingerprint marks, in line with the recommendations of the Inquiry today.

We must therefore believe there is now in place in Scotland a procedure for complex marks. The SPSA will be able to demonstrate how this has been introduced and how the staff have been re-trained to deal with the new procedure. Let us not forget that the Inquiry reported that Y7 was allegedly a complex mark (although seems only to have been a complex mark by those who got it so badly wrong). So it is not rocket science to believe that y7 was the starting point when the SPSA started to draw up their procedure.

The second statement I believe should be the starting point and indeed the focal point of the Workshop.

SPSA Forensic Services will be developing an action plan with the aim of making the necessary improvements in time for fingerprints to integrate into the new single Scottish Police Service in 2013-14.

We now know two things. The SPSA has had well over two months since they made this statement, and there has been an announcement of the date of the new Single Police Service as 1 April 2013. Time therefore is of the optimum for the SPSA and we must assume they have indeed formulated their ‘Action Plan’ to address the 86 recommendations. This will need to show each and every recommendation, the partners involved in implementing the recommendations (for example Crown Office) and most importantly the timescales for each recommendation.

I also have some concerns by the lack of Fingerprint Experts attending the Workshop. In particular I see only 2 Scottish experts in attendance! Perhaps armed with their detailed Action Plan and their Complex Marks procedure (implemented last month) the SPSA will be fully prepared for this workshop, and be able to show how effectively they are dealing with the challenge.

If not, this will be a catastrophic disaster, not only for the SPSA, but dare I suggest for the Science in General. I say this because I believe Agencies worldwide will have expected the SPSA to have effectively dealt with those who brought disgrace on their Science. If it was to come out at this workshop that the SPSA has failed, then they are as culpable as the old SCRO.

[Pat]

Taggart,

One more thought occurs to me. There were plenty of good and honest fingerprint experts within the Scottish system who spoke out dating back over a dozen years. Many of them tried to "blow the whistle" to various degrees. They were all punished while the SCRO "experts" were defended by the police and SCRO authorities. Had the SCRO or even ACPO-S listened to the whistle blowers, the whole thing could have been brought to a satisfactory conclusion a decade ago and saved the government millions of pounds. Instead, the good and honest fingerprint experts who tried to raise the alarm were beat up and, to the best of my knowledge, none have received any vindication whatsoever.

If seems to me that a just accounting now, even at this late date, would include a measure of consideration for those examiners who suffered for their right efforts to avoid the embarrassment the Scottish police have suffered and the expense the Scottish taxpayers have paid.

So, please tell me Taggart, has any indication been given that the whistle blowers will receive any acknowledgement in the closing days of this mess?

Thanks,
Pat

[Big Wullie]

Will any of the good and honest experts Pat talks about above be invited to the workshops or indeed be told this is in progress.

Even better will this workshop be open and accountable and allow the public to attend ?

[Pat]

Good questions, Wullie. The smart money says the answers are "No" and "No."

[Big Wullie]

Good questions, Wullie. The smart money says the answers are "No" and "No."

I think you might be right Pat

[Big Wullie]

WOW its official.

Scotland is the most backward country at coming forward:

Scotland is the most depressive at hiding material:

http://www.theforensicinstitute.com/Art ... nquiry.htm

For Scotland in particular, TFI have campaigned for the proper disclosure of the scientific casefiles to achieve the fairness essential for the proper functioning of the adversarial system of justice. Scotland is the only jurisdiction in the UK where all of the forensic science laboratories are owned and operated by the Police. It also has the most restrictive practice in the UK regarding disclosure and access to scientific results and files.

We are deprived of proper access to justice because the police own all the laboratories and experts go unchallenegd on a daily basis in our courts causing miscarriage after miscarriage.