There they go again.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=779342006

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/5018748.stm

It turns out that not only has the SCRO continued to make erroneous identifications, even some of the same so-called "experts" who stitched up Shirley McKie and David Asbury are still making "identifications" that are still causing innocent people to be arrested. And even more amazingly, the SCRO administration still "stands by the identification" in those cases, too.

Unbelievable!

[David L. Grieve]

But, sadly, predictable.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Is it in the best interest of our profession for good and honest fingerprint examiners to remain neutral "for the good of the science?" Is it in the best interest of professional associations to remain silent "for the good of the science?" Are neutrality and civility the best behaviors to cleanse our ranks of incompetence and dishonesty? Is it better to just ignore the controversy and hope it goes away, believing that the publicity is worse than those who make erroneous identifications? Is it all right to sacrifice an innocent person every once in awhile in order to avoid being in the headlines ourselves?

Or might it not be better if competent, honest examiners got involved? Thank goodness there are a few individuals in the UK who do speak out.

[g.]

To Mr. Bayle (or associates):

Since this case has been ajudicated, I wonder if it would be possible to view the images. I am sure Kasey could be more than accomodating to post them at high resolution.

Is there also a charting that would accompany this? Or not? given that this evidence was not "considered" in this case.

Thank-you in advance,

g.

[Iain McKie]

For an update on the latest SCRO mistake see:

http://www.shirleymckie.com/ (Breaking news 26 May)

This is now the 5th mistake revealed since the Marion Ross murder.

I have written suggesting that this latest 'identification' be reviewed by Danny Greathouse, Bruce Grant and Arie Zeelenberg the international experts who are presently assisting the Mulhern Enquiry in its work.

I also believe the images should be circulated to all other Scottish bureaux in the Scottish Fingerprint Service for comment - such is the way of openness and accountability.

This is the ideal opportunity to develop an up to date insight into SCRO and the much vaunted new procedures that were supposed to have ruled all problems out.

As the SCRO productions, including all chartings that had been prepared, have already been recalled, and their release is not within the gift of the independent experts can I suggest that g contacts SCRO with his request at:

scro@scro.pnn.police.uk

and keeps us posted on progress.

[charlton97]

Pat, I note you feel that not enough is being said by UK experts. I respect your assertion. But let us look at the facts.

The McKie case is in the press every day.
The case is on TV every day.
There is a Parliamentary enquiry.
There is a panel of experts working a review and making recommendations.

The damage to fingerprints is an interesting debate. Rightly or wrongly, the continued pressure through media sources to make further pressing enquiries into a bureau's business cannot help but feed the science skeptics out there who may have a beef with fingerprint examination.

My question is Pat, what do you want UK experts to shout out? It is all being played out before our eyes. What extra impetus could a UK expert add to what is already an avalanche of information. If the reviews come to a conclusion it will be based on the collation of facts borne of detailed research. You are asking me as an expert to shoot the man in the head when the body is already wriddled with bullets. Why would I waste my ammo?

I will wait for the conclusions of the review and the conclusions of the Parliamentary enquiry.

[Michele]

Iain,

Are the 5 erroneous ID's you're referring to: Shirley's print, Marion Ross's print on the tin, David Asbury's print on the gift tag, the Mark Sinclair situation, and the ID published today? One of the articles that Pat linked talked about an erroneous ID from 2000. Is this one of the ones I've mentioned or a different one?

Thanks,

[mary ellen holmberg]

Charlton97,
You shoot them in the head to end their suffering. Only the truth will set us free.
mary ellen holmberg

[Charles Parker]

Passion can be a good thing. It can lead human beings to do some very great things. However, there are occasions when passion like a perfume can be so very strong that it becomes repugnant. It can make people say some things that in the cool light of reasoning, they should not have said.

“Passions are vices or virtues in their highest powers.”
Johann W. von Goethe

Both sides have a strong passion with this incident.

There have been things said from both sides, which I do not agree with. Some analogies have been made that make no sense to me. Some statements made about comparison and latent print analysis that I find outdated.

Some have advocated that the professional organizations need to take a stand on the issue and when the elected bodies have voted not too, they have been accused of not doing their duty and eroding away the foundation of the discipline. Whether I agree with the professional bodies or not, they have made a decision and they should be allowed to stand by it. History will decide whether they are right or wrong.

Some people have opted to remain neutral because that is what they believe to be the right thing to do? But they are reminded that although that might be their belief, it is not the right choice. They are reminded that there can be no middle ground.

There should always be some who maintain the neutral or middle ground. Without the middle how could one determine right or wrong, left or right.

About a year ago I was discussing this incident and others with a close friend of mine. I was amazed at some of the vehemence being shown. I could not understand it. My friend turned to me and said “Their passion is not your experience”. I sat back. He was absolutely right. Being involved in an experience will certainly make one more apt to become very vocal and passionate over that issue. Perhaps that passion can take someone to go far beyond reasonable expectations of others.

So when you become passionate about something and you express that view and others are not jumping up and down and running to the flagpole, just remember that “Your passion is not their experience”.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Dave, you ask "My question is Pat, what do you want UK experts to shout out?"

In answer to your question, I believe UK experts should be outraged at the erroneous identifications in Scotland and the intransigence of the SCRO in denying any wrongdoing. You should let your outrage be known to the Scottish authorities. That, Dave, is what you should "shout out." That has not happened. In fact, quite the opposite has been the case. The few British experts who have let their feelings be known have been muzzled, some no longer have their positions as fingerprint experts, and all seem to have been left out to dry by the Fingerprint Society and the vast majority of silent British experts, who by their silence seem either to agree with the "identifications" or to condone the actions of the SCRO in both making erroneous identifications and then trying to sweep them under the carpet and deny errors were ever made.

In response to your closing comment, "I will wait for the conclusions of the review and the conclusions of the Parliamentary enquiry," that seems to me to go to the heart of the issue about which we are debating. Too many British experts are mere spectators on the sidelines and too many of those who have brought this forward are foreigners. If we foreigners had been silent from the start, nothing would have ever come of it and the SCRO would never have been put under scrutiny. Their continuing errors would be going undetected. But if more British experts had shouted their outrage from the very beginning, perhaps this all could have been brought to a head years ago and we all could have moved on by now.

From my involvement in these cases, I have observed what I perceive to be a cultural difference between you and me. We in the US are more rash with those guilty of misbehavior. We are quick to gang up on the incompetents or the dishonest examiners and throw them to the wolves. Personally, I believe this trait of impatience is a virtue in circumstances such as this. On the other side of the pond, the British seem much more tempered in their response, most prefering to look the other way and say nothing, but others even going to the point of circling around the errant experts to protect them. This seems to me to be the wrong response.

I agree that civility among honest, competent Gentlemen is a good thing. But if our science is to be respected, we have to police ourselves. We ourselves must actively purge from our ranks those who are not honest or are not competent. Too few British experts have participated in exposing the dishonest or incompetent "experts" at the SCRO.

[David L. Grieve]

Charlie, I found your calm voice and wisdom to be refreshing, as usual. But for one of the rare times in history, I find myself just a bit at odds with all of your reasoning. Yes, there is plenty of passion to go around, and as you noted, some are more passionate than others. But just as passion can be virtue or vice, the question asked nearly hundred years ago, is how to plod on and keep the passion fresh? We need some good old fashioned passion now and then or I fear we become complacent and uncaring. I can do without the passion that leads to name calling and rumor mongering, but this is a subject in which passions run high. I'm guilty of that, for it is not some academic debate in which being neutral may be a wise course, but a matter than deal with people's futures and well being. And, I am guilty of being personally involved.

I think some of us just get to the point where enough is enough, that being in the middle ground no longer has justification. What comes to mind is a presentation I did for the Mid-States meeting this year, the trial of James Otto Barker by the IAI in 1944. Both Pat and I find this case fascinating, and maybe for passionate reasons. There is little doubt the IAI wanted to avoid this event, just as the IAI has avoided being involved in the McKie case. For current passions, the IAI had an out, for at the time, no one from SCRO was a member. Some of the people from SCRO are members of the Fingerprint Society, and although charges were filed, no action was taken. I think the excuse provided by the Society is a little wimpy, but by not getting involved, they became involved. I might, with some hard swallowing, buy the excuse that after a quarter century, they suddenly realized the rules they had in place were not formally ratified, but when they voted to accept the invitation of the very same Scots for their meeting last year, well, nothing stirs passion like a good slap in the face.

With poor old James Otto, the situation stemmed from a trial in which the accused was acquitted, the famous Harry Oakes case. During the course of the trial, the defense called Maurice O'Neil, one of those pioneers you sure wish you could spend some time with. He has been described as pure class, competent, smart as a whip, soft spoken, some of those traits I find in you. He showed the court how he could make a lift from a crystal cigarette holder than looked just like the lift Barker said came from a charred, wooden dressing screen. Barker had not photographed the latent in place, and the lift showed no indication of soot or wood grain, but did have "machined" circles, just like those on the cigarette holder. It seems when the accused was first questioned, it was all very civilized, including the offer of lemonade and a cigarette with the crystal holder. Well, this was enough for the jury to acquit.

No record was kept of the IAI trial, but Barker had O'Neil with his photographs of how easy it was to fabricate the latent. So up until recently, what went on with the Board of Directors in their deliberations has been unknown. Barker was found not guilty of the serious charges, but given a slap on the wrist for failing to photograph the latent in situ. But some information obtained under the Freedom of Information law has given some insight into the reasoning. The Board member from the FBI, Quinn Tamm, provided a synopsis to J. Edgar, and that memo was released.

The Board knew before any witnesses or evidence was presented that Barker was incompetent, and as Tamm put it, in over his head in both the murder investigation and the latent examination. Poor James Otto did not even know that a latent lifted with a rubber lifter would be laterally reversed. Barker had a drinking problem and was probably sucking up the sauce in the Bahamas heat and humidity. Maybe he just forgot where the lift came from, for he was not consistent in specifying the exact place on the screen he recovered the print between the preliminary and the trial.

Well, the IAI Board did just about everything wrong in this trial, and when they reached their decision, they informed the press of the ruling before even telling the membership. Most delegates found out the verdict reading the local paper the next morning at breakfast. Now, you talk about passions. Robert Moore tried to get the morning session started but the membership shouted him down. Leading the charge was a hot head, Tom Dwyer, but he was joined by the normal voice of reason, Harry Caldwell. Harry was up in years by then, but he and Tom would not stay in that neutral territory. There was talk of disbanding the IAI and starting a new organization in which principles were more important than neutrality.

I think the IAI could have gone under that day. Moore relented and agreed to the members' demand to have the entire Board appear before the membership and explain how they arrived at a very unpopular decision. In addition, the members insisted that Barker and O'Neil appear to answer questions. No middle ground, Charlie. It was put up time.

All that took place. Passions got pretty hot and heavy and the explanations of the Board fell flat. Folks just were buying it when the IAI's legal adviser said they could not go beyond the comments of the trial judge. In his instructions to the jury, the judge had informed the jury that the defense had failed to prove the latent print was fabricated, and therefore the jury was not to consider the mark as other than genuine. Yeah, right, for it was less than two hours to acquit.

What saved the IAI that day was not a lack of passion, or reliance upon personal experience, but the decision of one man. O'Neil was asked point blank if he thought the latent had been fabricated. Well, he had said as much in the trial. But Maurice said softly, no, he did not believe Barker had knowingly fabricated the latent print. Dwyer asked, if that was true, why did he file charges against Barker? He replied he had prevented a miscarriage of justice at the trial in Nassau, an obligation he felt all men of honor must obey. He felt he could do no less, and no more.

I don't pretend to understand the dynamic of the day, but evidently some picked up on what he was trying to say and passions died down. Of course, it didn't hurt that there was no conference in 1945, and even those passionate had two years to cool down. I can't judge the right or wrong of O'Neil's decision, but I am damn proud of the passion of those who found no comfort in the middle.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Dave Charlton, Charles Parker, and Dave Grieve are all three right. First, Dave Charlton: I apologize for the sweeping statements about all British experts. I allowed my passion to overload my typing fingers. Second, Charles Parker: You are right, Charles -- my experience in the Marion Ross murder fingerprint evidence has consumed a large part of my life for the past seven years, which is no doubt the source of my passion for getting to the bottom of the case and my impatience with those who chose to remain on the sidelines. Third, Dave Grieve: Thank you, Dave, for the example of another case in which passions were justified. There are some disturbing parallels between these cases, as James Otto Barker had his supporters throughout the whole mess then, too.

So let me try to bring the focus back to that which should be the real issue here -- the allegations that erroneous identifications continue to be made on a frequent basis at SCRO. Shouldn't something be done about it? If the answer is "yes," who should determine what should be done? I hope this latest revelation brings about the Judicial Enquiry that has been called for by so many in Parliament and the public in Scotland. I hope that if such an enquiry is initiated, it is independent of any political slant and I hope that it is fully transparent and public. I believe Dave, Charles, and Dave would agree with me on that.

[Kafka]

Pat

You say 'Here they go again' I just wondered what exactly has happened in this recent development. What basis are you making this statement? Is this going to be posted online so we can all make assumptions? I take it you have viewed the said 'identification' you have passed comment on.

Kafka

[Iain McKie]

Following Michele’s request for more information on the ‘5 mistakes’ I have posted a short article on www.shirleymckie.com (breaking news).

After nearly ten years fighting for justice for Shirley I can paraphrase and accept Charles reminder that, “My passion is not their experience”. It is desperately difficult at times to remember this.

This said I do not discount passion and fighting for what I believe in while always listening to those who disagree. To challenge and be challenged.

The measured and respectful comment in this latest debate from all contributors is a welcome change from the at times disgusting outbursts in previous postings that were not worthy of response and killed rational debate.

Neutrality in the face of irrefutable evidence of error is not an option for your profession. Organisations like the Fingerprint Society and the IAI have stood by for years and contributed nothing to the debate. They have I believe lost credibility and I hope encouraged a move for change.

I believe that your profession lacks effective ‘self policing’. As a layperson I can clearly see that international fingerprint standards and procedures are desperately needed if your critics are ever to be silenced. The establishment of such a standard and an international body that would adjudicate objectively in major disputes without fear or favour appears the logical way forward.

Throughout the years I have maintained an absolute faith in the science of fingerprinting as a crime prevention and detection tool. The Scottish Executive and SCRO stance is however damaging fingerprinting as a science worldwide and if the profession itself does nothing then do not complain if the legal profession and courts place less and less reliance on your expertise.

To those who call for publication of the case productions in this latest SCRO mistake I can only repeat my comments as above.

‘As the SCRO productions, including all chartings that had been prepared, have already been recalled, and their release is not within the gift of the independent experts can I suggest that g contacts SCRO with his request at:

scro@scro.pnn.police.uk

and keeps us posted on progress.’

Have a great weekend.

[Kafka]

Kafka here

About the latest productions not being released - How can judgements be passed on this case, especially by those in the said profession who have not analysed the original material. Would it not be best to view them in their original state and then carry out a comparison before making a judgement call on this latest revelation.