Square Peg. Round Hole.
-
clpexco
- Site Admin
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 5:00 pm
Previous post by Dwayne Dibley
Once again, I have had to remove two posts for content which in my opinion was over the line on a professional forum. However, since the post alluded to the peg/hole analogy in the title, I thought I would combine them with the editorial addition of a professional tone to demonstrate that we can act like mature adults as we communicate on this forum:
----------------------------
Posted: 16 Jun 2006 08:18 pm
Post subject: No pegs but what a hole!
and: what a hole (again)!
Congratulations on your magnificent website and quite fascinating forum! And now, in the interests of true objectivity (something I'm quite sure the moderator will applaud!) I find myself compelled to drive forwards the continuing search for truth and justice by asking this question:-
Q. When do you intend to post images of the recent erroneous exclusion by Allan Bayle, Gary Dempster and John McLeod? This is the case where SCRO was correct in their identification and Allan Bayle appeared on BBC suggesting closure of the SCRO.
Just for clarification, this was the comparison that has recently been referred to as SCRO's 5th error, and I have not recently heard from the individuals since the Justice1 Committee meetings.
Kindest Regards,
Dwayne Dibley
----------------------------
Posted: 16 Jun 2006 08:18 pm
Post subject: No pegs but what a hole!
and: what a hole (again)!
Congratulations on your magnificent website and quite fascinating forum! And now, in the interests of true objectivity (something I'm quite sure the moderator will applaud!) I find myself compelled to drive forwards the continuing search for truth and justice by asking this question:-
Q. When do you intend to post images of the recent erroneous exclusion by Allan Bayle, Gary Dempster and John McLeod? This is the case where SCRO was correct in their identification and Allan Bayle appeared on BBC suggesting closure of the SCRO.
Just for clarification, this was the comparison that has recently been referred to as SCRO's 5th error, and I have not recently heard from the individuals since the Justice1 Committee meetings.
Kindest Regards,
Dwayne Dibley
-
clpexco
- Site Admin
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 5:00 pm
Re: Previous post by Dwayne Dibley
If anyone produces the images, as the webmaster I will post them. I can be reached at my published e-mail address: kaseywertheim@aol.com. I have yet to see them myself, although I have asked around.Dwayne Dibley wrote: Q. When do you intend to post images of the recent erroneous exclusion by Allan Bayle, Gary Dempster and John McLeod?
Regards,
-Kasey
-
Dwayne Dibley
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:23 am
Dear Kasey, my apologies for using the term 'mis-identification' . You are quite correct in saying that it was an erroneous exclusion. However, you have to accept that you yourself have gone too far in your "amendments" to my script. Bayle did indeed "demand" the instant closure of SCRO based on his mistake amongst many other libellous statements during that broadcast. Not only that but he made it clear he would have been willing to use his findings to undermine a criminal trial had it gone ahead -and you can easliy verify this by requesting a transcript from BBC Scotland. I'm sure even you would be shocked by his conduct. Kasey, you are perfectly entitled to moderate as you see fit but I implore you not cross the line of censoring views which may not correspond with your own. Maybe you can reassure me otherwise but it seems to me that Bayle and his like enjoy some kind of "protection" on this site. (consider the comments of Iain Mckie against SCRO which remain unaltered).
Kindest Regards Always. DD
Kindest Regards Always. DD
-
RL Tavernaro
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 5:42 pm
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
DD,
I consider myself to be neither defender nor apologist for Mr. Bayle and his acknowledged error, and offer no 'protected status'. However, the alleged silence may not be so strange when all the facts, along with currently unknown critical information is considered.
Shirley McKie was arrested and prosecuted on a perjury charge due to a fingerprint 'identification', after taking issue with the premise that she had been inside a crime scene. The fingerprint 'identification' was subsequently successfully challenged as being an erroneous
'identification', and she was found not guilty. The SCRO Glasgow initially disputed those findings, and at least four of its employees continue to do so.
Mr. Bayle publically announced that he had discovered a mis-identification in a recent case (that reportedly was not to be prosecuted due to circumstances other than the questioned fingerprint 'identification'). The identification has now been independently confirmed as an identification. Mr. Bayle has pubically acknowledged his error and apologized.
In the McKie case, a great deal of evidence was accumulated over several years time in support of it being an erroneous 'identification', after the perjury trial. According to Justice 1 Committee testimony, there was very little additional support of an 'identification' in the years after the perjury trial.
In Mr. Bayles case, I have not seen or heard of anyone disputing that there was an erroneous exclusion. Mr. Bayle has fallen victim to the very kind of review that he himself called for. The time frame, instead of the seven years in the McKie case, was a matter of weeks, if not days.
The authorities at SCRO, and in their government apparently did not release any of their evidence/information confirming an erroneous identification for approximately seven years, and reportedly prevented their employees from publically commenting on their position. It is important to note that to date, no acknowledgement has been made by the SCRO examiners of a mistake, and no apologies made, seven years after the matter was brought to public light.
The release of positive information in support of SCRO Glasgow, and to the detriment of Mr. Bayle and the others was apparently made in a few days, or less.
In short, the circumstances of the two cases are vastly different. Perceived inequities do not appear to hold up well to rational comparison.
I consider myself to be neither defender nor apologist for Mr. Bayle and his acknowledged error, and offer no 'protected status'. However, the alleged silence may not be so strange when all the facts, along with currently unknown critical information is considered.
- 1. To his credit, Mr. Bayle has publically acknowledged his error, and apologized. He is now taking his lumps, and his reputation may be forever tarnished, however there would appear to be no controversy.
2. The Metropolitan Police was reported to have confirmed the identification. That does not necessarily answer the question of who was the first (SCRO aside) to discover the error? Could it have been one of the three individuals you criticized who first discovered the error?
4. If so, did one or all three seek to make the error known in a timely manner?
5. Have the prints in question been published or otherwise been made available (if so, I have not seen them), for those knowledgable to review?
Shirley McKie was arrested and prosecuted on a perjury charge due to a fingerprint 'identification', after taking issue with the premise that she had been inside a crime scene. The fingerprint 'identification' was subsequently successfully challenged as being an erroneous
'identification', and she was found not guilty. The SCRO Glasgow initially disputed those findings, and at least four of its employees continue to do so.
Mr. Bayle publically announced that he had discovered a mis-identification in a recent case (that reportedly was not to be prosecuted due to circumstances other than the questioned fingerprint 'identification'). The identification has now been independently confirmed as an identification. Mr. Bayle has pubically acknowledged his error and apologized.
In the McKie case, a great deal of evidence was accumulated over several years time in support of it being an erroneous 'identification', after the perjury trial. According to Justice 1 Committee testimony, there was very little additional support of an 'identification' in the years after the perjury trial.
In Mr. Bayles case, I have not seen or heard of anyone disputing that there was an erroneous exclusion. Mr. Bayle has fallen victim to the very kind of review that he himself called for. The time frame, instead of the seven years in the McKie case, was a matter of weeks, if not days.
The authorities at SCRO, and in their government apparently did not release any of their evidence/information confirming an erroneous identification for approximately seven years, and reportedly prevented their employees from publically commenting on their position. It is important to note that to date, no acknowledgement has been made by the SCRO examiners of a mistake, and no apologies made, seven years after the matter was brought to public light.
The release of positive information in support of SCRO Glasgow, and to the detriment of Mr. Bayle and the others was apparently made in a few days, or less.
In short, the circumstances of the two cases are vastly different. Perceived inequities do not appear to hold up well to rational comparison.
-
clpexco
- Site Admin
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 5:00 pm
I can reassure you otherwise through my re-posting of your comments, my willingness to post the palm print images if they are provided, and my inquiry to others about the images even before your posts. I do not censor views which may not correspond to my own, and that I feel is quite evident by taking a look at some of the posts I have allowed to remain that come very close to the line. In fact, I have been criticized by many for not deleting some posts... and that applies to both sides of the issue at hand. In general, posts with an overly-emotional tone or with personal attacks on an individual are closely watched. The 'line' I admit is very subjective, but I do my best.Dwayne Dibley wrote: I implore you not cross the line of censoring views which may not correspond with your own. Maybe you can reassure me otherwise but it seems to me that Bayle and his like enjoy some kind of "protection" on this site.
As for your latest post, thank you for keeping a professional tone and addressing the issues. I appreciate your willingness to participate in a professional forum and value the contributions of all to fingerprint related discussions.
Regards,
-Kasey
-
Dwayne Dibley
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:23 am
Dear Kasey,
Thank you for your acknowledgement - it is appreciated. You're right of course when you mention the emotional aspect of current issues. I think one of the points I was trying to make was based on Pat's idea of us policing ourselves. A good idea in principle, but unlikely to happen as each of us will always be answerable to our own nation's laws (although we do also have CRFP in the UK). But, regardless of who does the policing, we must never ever lose sight of objectivity and "pick & choose" who gets policed. That equality and fairness is a cornerstone of true justice after all. It's also clear from other postings just how little is known outside the UK of the public conduct of one particular individual and unless you have viewed the BBC or Justice1 broadcasts for yourselves then you will never understand what many have been trying to communicate, which is unfortunate.
Kindest Regards Always. DD
Thank you for your acknowledgement - it is appreciated. You're right of course when you mention the emotional aspect of current issues. I think one of the points I was trying to make was based on Pat's idea of us policing ourselves. A good idea in principle, but unlikely to happen as each of us will always be answerable to our own nation's laws (although we do also have CRFP in the UK). But, regardless of who does the policing, we must never ever lose sight of objectivity and "pick & choose" who gets policed. That equality and fairness is a cornerstone of true justice after all. It's also clear from other postings just how little is known outside the UK of the public conduct of one particular individual and unless you have viewed the BBC or Justice1 broadcasts for yourselves then you will never understand what many have been trying to communicate, which is unfortunate.
Kindest Regards Always. DD
-
Pat A. Wertheim
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:48 am
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Dear Mr Tavernaro and Mr Dibley,
I would like to expand on some of Mr Tavernaro's comments in response to an earlier post regarding my statement about not tolerating dishonesty and incompetence. My following comments are based on what I have heard, which I believe to be true, and are made to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. Tavernaro states, "To his credit, Mr. Bayle has publically acknowledged his error, and apologized. He is now taking his lumps, and his reputation may be forever tarnished, however there would appear to be no controversy."
My comment: As soon as a person he trusted expressed an opinion that Mr. Bayle's exclusion might itself be erroneous, Mr. Bayle took the mark and the print in question to Scotland Yard and asked for an independent examination. I believe the person who expressed the opinion that the exclusion might be erroneous was Gary Dempster.
Mr. Tavernaro states, "The Metropolitan Police was reported to have confirmed the identification. That does not necessarily answer the question of who was the first (SCRO aside) to discover the error? Could it have been one of the three individuals you criticized who first discovered the error?"
My comment: See previous answer. I believe the first to discover Mr. Bayle's error was Mr. Dempster. I believe Mr. Dempster did that within 24 hours of first seeing Mr. Bayle's material, initially confirming Mr. Bayle's opinion, then having doubts and reexamining the print and the mark. I believe Mr. Dempster notified his supervisor immediately, then went on to notify Mr. Bayle.
Mr. Tavernaro states, "If so, did one or all three seek to make the error known in a timely manner?"
My comment: It is my understanding that all three -- Bayle, Dempster, and McLeod -- immediately went outside to seek independent examinations as soon as doubt crept into their conclusion.
Mr. Tavernaro states, "Have the prints in question been published or otherwise been made available (if so, I have not seen them), for those knowledgable to review?"
My comment: As I understand it, no one has ever had access to the original material in the possession of SCRO, which might be part of the problem. I know from first hand experience that a defense expert asked to reexamine SCRO's work product has a devil of a time obtaining the necessary images from SCRO. I believe Mr. Bayle received his images from the defense attorney who retained him. My suspicion is that those images may have been provided to the defense by the prosecutor, and to the prosecutor by the SCRO, but I doubt they were best quality images. An indication any willingness on the part of the SCRO to make the images in this new case available might be the fact that they have consistantly refused to make their original images in the McKie and Asbury cases available for years, even though those cases are long since disposed of.
It should further be noted that Mr Tavernaro's comment that Mr Bayle apologized is correct. One has only to read the testimony before Justice 1 committee at the last session to read Mr Bayle's very public apology to all involved.
From my perspective, there are significant differences between the behavior of SCRO and the behavior of Mr Bayle. One sought an outsiide opinion, acknowledged a mistake, and apologized. The other has not only refused to acknowledge the mistake or apologize, but to the best of my knowledge has never sought nor accepted an outside opinion. Those who refuse to allow independent examination, acknowledge a proven error, or apologize are the ones we need to address. They are the ones doing damage to our profession. Experts who seek outside verification, admit an error when it occurs, and apologize are not the problem.
I would like to expand on some of Mr Tavernaro's comments in response to an earlier post regarding my statement about not tolerating dishonesty and incompetence. My following comments are based on what I have heard, which I believe to be true, and are made to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. Tavernaro states, "To his credit, Mr. Bayle has publically acknowledged his error, and apologized. He is now taking his lumps, and his reputation may be forever tarnished, however there would appear to be no controversy."
My comment: As soon as a person he trusted expressed an opinion that Mr. Bayle's exclusion might itself be erroneous, Mr. Bayle took the mark and the print in question to Scotland Yard and asked for an independent examination. I believe the person who expressed the opinion that the exclusion might be erroneous was Gary Dempster.
Mr. Tavernaro states, "The Metropolitan Police was reported to have confirmed the identification. That does not necessarily answer the question of who was the first (SCRO aside) to discover the error? Could it have been one of the three individuals you criticized who first discovered the error?"
My comment: See previous answer. I believe the first to discover Mr. Bayle's error was Mr. Dempster. I believe Mr. Dempster did that within 24 hours of first seeing Mr. Bayle's material, initially confirming Mr. Bayle's opinion, then having doubts and reexamining the print and the mark. I believe Mr. Dempster notified his supervisor immediately, then went on to notify Mr. Bayle.
Mr. Tavernaro states, "If so, did one or all three seek to make the error known in a timely manner?"
My comment: It is my understanding that all three -- Bayle, Dempster, and McLeod -- immediately went outside to seek independent examinations as soon as doubt crept into their conclusion.
Mr. Tavernaro states, "Have the prints in question been published or otherwise been made available (if so, I have not seen them), for those knowledgable to review?"
My comment: As I understand it, no one has ever had access to the original material in the possession of SCRO, which might be part of the problem. I know from first hand experience that a defense expert asked to reexamine SCRO's work product has a devil of a time obtaining the necessary images from SCRO. I believe Mr. Bayle received his images from the defense attorney who retained him. My suspicion is that those images may have been provided to the defense by the prosecutor, and to the prosecutor by the SCRO, but I doubt they were best quality images. An indication any willingness on the part of the SCRO to make the images in this new case available might be the fact that they have consistantly refused to make their original images in the McKie and Asbury cases available for years, even though those cases are long since disposed of.
It should further be noted that Mr Tavernaro's comment that Mr Bayle apologized is correct. One has only to read the testimony before Justice 1 committee at the last session to read Mr Bayle's very public apology to all involved.
From my perspective, there are significant differences between the behavior of SCRO and the behavior of Mr Bayle. One sought an outsiide opinion, acknowledged a mistake, and apologized. The other has not only refused to acknowledge the mistake or apologize, but to the best of my knowledge has never sought nor accepted an outside opinion. Those who refuse to allow independent examination, acknowledge a proven error, or apologize are the ones we need to address. They are the ones doing damage to our profession. Experts who seek outside verification, admit an error when it occurs, and apologize are not the problem.
-
Bondi
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 3:49 am
- Location: sydney, australia
Surely the point Pat Wertheim makes is the important one? Bayle's sin was to publicly state that there was an error and call for the closure of SCRO. (I did not see the program so I am taking it as correct that he did)
His sin was not in the exercise of his skills. Is his sin any worse than that of SCRO giving evidence in a trial of perjury, saying that they are right, than Bayle going on a TV programme saying that HE was right? The consequences of his "sin" were that he might be ridiculed: the consequences of SCRO's sin were that a potentially innocent person could go to jail and the whole system of fingerprinting was brought in to disrepute.
Of course, my comments assume not only that SCRO were wrong, but also that Bayle was wrong. I simply point out that we should not be too fast to criticise Bayle, when the same or worse criticism of SCRO could be levelled.
I am also pretty sure that Bayle will have learned from this experience. I wonder if SCRO have also learned from theirs.....
Lets see the material that Bayle had......
I also agree with the comments about censorship. I saw what was originally written and I am concerned a little that editorial control has been a little quick here. Sorry Casey.
One feature of this site has been to allow all to have their say. Apart from one removal which was wholly justified a few weeks ago, it is refreshing to hear all comers' views.
I may disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it....
His sin was not in the exercise of his skills. Is his sin any worse than that of SCRO giving evidence in a trial of perjury, saying that they are right, than Bayle going on a TV programme saying that HE was right? The consequences of his "sin" were that he might be ridiculed: the consequences of SCRO's sin were that a potentially innocent person could go to jail and the whole system of fingerprinting was brought in to disrepute.
Of course, my comments assume not only that SCRO were wrong, but also that Bayle was wrong. I simply point out that we should not be too fast to criticise Bayle, when the same or worse criticism of SCRO could be levelled.
I am also pretty sure that Bayle will have learned from this experience. I wonder if SCRO have also learned from theirs.....
Lets see the material that Bayle had......
I also agree with the comments about censorship. I saw what was originally written and I am concerned a little that editorial control has been a little quick here. Sorry Casey.
One feature of this site has been to allow all to have their say. Apart from one removal which was wholly justified a few weeks ago, it is refreshing to hear all comers' views.
I may disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it....
-
son of adam
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:22 pm
PW - I watched the Justice 1 Inquiry the day Allan Bayle gave his 'apology'. From my observations, he was 'backed into a corner'. May I remind you that he apologised to 'the media and...others'? Do you call that an apology? I find it astonishing that Allan Bayle is getting a pat on the back for this. He couldn't even bring himself to mention the word S.C.R.O.
Bondi - I couldn't agree with you more that Allan Bayle's sin was not in the exercise of his skills it was how he acted upon his findings.
So with that thought, I would like to ask, at which point did Allan Bayle take the mark in question to Scotland Yard for an independent examination? Before or after he notified the media of another S.C.R.O. erroneous identification. This move would appear to be a very calculating one on Allan Bayle's part as he released this information on the days leading up to the S.C.R.O. four's hearing at Holyrood.
PW, in your post you commend Allan Bayle not only for his 'apology' but by also asking independent sources to examine this 'erroneous' ident -
"From my perspective, there are significant differences between the behavior of SCRO and the behavior of Mr Bayle. One sought an outsiide opinion, acknowledged a mistake, and apologized. The other has not only refused to acknowledge the mistake or apologize, but to the best of my knowledge has never sought nor accepted an outside opinion."
I was under the impression that S.C.R.O. had to seek independent verification of this case to validate their identification. Not only on this case but on other cases that Allan Bayle has claimed are erroneous.
Do you not feel Pat that you also owe S.C.R.O. an apology? 'There they go again'. So now that you know the outcome of that case, how do you feel about your thread now? You are held in such high regard that other authors added their comments in support of your post. That is a dangerous position to put yourself in. Hopefully this is a lesson learned by all involved.
Bondi - I couldn't agree with you more that Allan Bayle's sin was not in the exercise of his skills it was how he acted upon his findings.
So with that thought, I would like to ask, at which point did Allan Bayle take the mark in question to Scotland Yard for an independent examination? Before or after he notified the media of another S.C.R.O. erroneous identification. This move would appear to be a very calculating one on Allan Bayle's part as he released this information on the days leading up to the S.C.R.O. four's hearing at Holyrood.
PW, in your post you commend Allan Bayle not only for his 'apology' but by also asking independent sources to examine this 'erroneous' ident -
"From my perspective, there are significant differences between the behavior of SCRO and the behavior of Mr Bayle. One sought an outsiide opinion, acknowledged a mistake, and apologized. The other has not only refused to acknowledge the mistake or apologize, but to the best of my knowledge has never sought nor accepted an outside opinion."
I was under the impression that S.C.R.O. had to seek independent verification of this case to validate their identification. Not only on this case but on other cases that Allan Bayle has claimed are erroneous.
Do you not feel Pat that you also owe S.C.R.O. an apology? 'There they go again'. So now that you know the outcome of that case, how do you feel about your thread now? You are held in such high regard that other authors added their comments in support of your post. That is a dangerous position to put yourself in. Hopefully this is a lesson learned by all involved.
-
Pat A. Wertheim
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:48 am
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
SofA -- There is enough truth in your criticism of me to merit a reply. To the four (or so) individual experts at SCRO who had made the most recent controversial identification, my apologies for jumping to a conclusion that you had made a mistake.
To the SCRO as an organization, no apology for this or any other criticism I have leveled. The SCRO management maintains that the unanimous opinion of SCRO experts still, to this day, is that the McKie (and Asbury) "identifications" were correct and that the SCRO experts unanimously stand behind those identifications. I believe the SCRO culture of intimidation and institutional arrogance reported by James MacKay and Scott Robertson in their report must be considered the reason behind that claim. Are there individual experts within SCRO who know the "identifications" to be erroneous? I suspect there are many, but none brave enough to speak out. Meanwhile, in the Justice 1 committee, we heard from the fingerprint bureaus of Aberdeen, Dundee, and Edinburgh that not a single expert in any of those bureaus agrees with the identifications. The point is, until SCRO as a bureau comes clean on McKie and Asbury, what credibility can that bureau expect from anyone?
Also, do not confuse "independent" with "outside." SCRO claims independent verification (although regarding the McKie and Asbury "identifications," in which some of the verifiers conducted their examinations on comparitors with "points" marked in wax pencil, one has to wonder at the word "independent"). Bayle and McLeod sent the images on which they based their original opinions to "outside" sources for a truly independent verification. There is a big difference.
To the SCRO as an organization, no apology for this or any other criticism I have leveled. The SCRO management maintains that the unanimous opinion of SCRO experts still, to this day, is that the McKie (and Asbury) "identifications" were correct and that the SCRO experts unanimously stand behind those identifications. I believe the SCRO culture of intimidation and institutional arrogance reported by James MacKay and Scott Robertson in their report must be considered the reason behind that claim. Are there individual experts within SCRO who know the "identifications" to be erroneous? I suspect there are many, but none brave enough to speak out. Meanwhile, in the Justice 1 committee, we heard from the fingerprint bureaus of Aberdeen, Dundee, and Edinburgh that not a single expert in any of those bureaus agrees with the identifications. The point is, until SCRO as a bureau comes clean on McKie and Asbury, what credibility can that bureau expect from anyone?
Also, do not confuse "independent" with "outside." SCRO claims independent verification (although regarding the McKie and Asbury "identifications," in which some of the verifiers conducted their examinations on comparitors with "points" marked in wax pencil, one has to wonder at the word "independent"). Bayle and McLeod sent the images on which they based their original opinions to "outside" sources for a truly independent verification. There is a big difference.
-
son of adam
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:22 pm
PW - your apology I imagine will be appreciated by those involved in the latest controversial case.
You speak of arrogance, Pat and intimidation from S.C.R.O. - I have to date seen no evidence of such from them. I have, however, seen it in abundance from Iain McKie.
I have heard from more than one source and also validated from the S.C.R.O. four at Holyrood that the McKay report is not reliable documentation of the events leading up to and after Shirley McKie's Perjury Trial. The S.C.R.O four strongly suggested that the report contains false statements, false statements mixed with the truth and statements taken completely out of context.
The four were clearly disgruntled at the mere mention of the McKay report and if what they say about the contents of this document are true, it is of no surprise that they were less than happy with this publication as it is constantly used as a means to drag them through the mud.
You state that the all four Scottish Bureaux do not agree with S.C.R.Os identification. Correct me if I'm wrong - did the gentleman representing the Tayside Bureau not state that he hadn't formed an opinion as he hadn't seen the evidence?
Finally, it is my view Pat, that SC.R.O will never "come clean" as you put it in relation to the McKie and Asbury mark any more than you will "come clean". It is clear to me that they firmly believe that they are correct in their assertions as you believe that you are correct in yours.
You speak of arrogance, Pat and intimidation from S.C.R.O. - I have to date seen no evidence of such from them. I have, however, seen it in abundance from Iain McKie.
I have heard from more than one source and also validated from the S.C.R.O. four at Holyrood that the McKay report is not reliable documentation of the events leading up to and after Shirley McKie's Perjury Trial. The S.C.R.O four strongly suggested that the report contains false statements, false statements mixed with the truth and statements taken completely out of context.
The four were clearly disgruntled at the mere mention of the McKay report and if what they say about the contents of this document are true, it is of no surprise that they were less than happy with this publication as it is constantly used as a means to drag them through the mud.
You state that the all four Scottish Bureaux do not agree with S.C.R.Os identification. Correct me if I'm wrong - did the gentleman representing the Tayside Bureau not state that he hadn't formed an opinion as he hadn't seen the evidence?
Finally, it is my view Pat, that SC.R.O will never "come clean" as you put it in relation to the McKie and Asbury mark any more than you will "come clean". It is clear to me that they firmly believe that they are correct in their assertions as you believe that you are correct in yours.
-
Les Bush
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:29 am
- Location: Australia
They believe but is it scientific?
SOFA,
I wasnt going to post on this reply until I got the end of your last message and then that word 'belief' came into the picture. We dont practice belief, we are scientists who apply principles, method, rules and outcomes. The belief you posted is really a positional statement that comes about due to our ability, experience and accurate application of the science.
The SCRO maintain their position but they are definitely wrong because the science has shown that dissimilarities cannot be overlooked no matter who is the practitioner. I read with disbelief that Peter Swann holds the view that pressure of a thumb print on a surface can be the variable that creates a ridge count difference in the order of three ridges. Do you have a view on that SOFA? If you wish the background evidence then read the last Detail June 12 where Mike Pringle asks the questions on page four. Do you agree with his position that pressure will explain that difference?
I wasnt going to post on this reply until I got the end of your last message and then that word 'belief' came into the picture. We dont practice belief, we are scientists who apply principles, method, rules and outcomes. The belief you posted is really a positional statement that comes about due to our ability, experience and accurate application of the science.
The SCRO maintain their position but they are definitely wrong because the science has shown that dissimilarities cannot be overlooked no matter who is the practitioner. I read with disbelief that Peter Swann holds the view that pressure of a thumb print on a surface can be the variable that creates a ridge count difference in the order of three ridges. Do you have a view on that SOFA? If you wish the background evidence then read the last Detail June 12 where Mike Pringle asks the questions on page four. Do you agree with his position that pressure will explain that difference?
-
RL Tavernaro
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 5:42 pm
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
SofA,
Regards...RLT
I believe that your comments here are non sequitur. PW's actual statement was:You state that the all four Scottish Bureaux do not agree with S.C.R.Os identification. Correct me if I'm wrong - did the gentleman representing the Tayside Bureau not state that he hadn't formed an opinion as he hadn't seen the evidence?
Please forgive me for not being fully acquainted with the structure of the Scottish Fingerprint Service, but are these three Bureaus different from the Tayside Bureau? Regardless, 'no opinion' does not equate to agreeing with the SCRO Glasgow Bureau 'identification'.... in the Justice 1 committee, we heard from the fingerprint bureaus of Aberdeen, Dundee, and Edinburgh that not a single expert in any of those bureaus agrees with the identifications.
Regards...RLT
-
son of adam
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:22 pm
RLT - "I believe that your comments here are non sequitur."
Anyone reading Pat's comments may conclude that the other Scottish Bureaux do not agree with S.C.R.O.s identification. People out there should know that what they are reading is true or in the case of that particular comment, not true.
Tayside for your information is part of the Scottish Fingerprint Service.
Of course 'No opinion' does not equate with S.C.R.O.s 'identification', nor does it equate RLT, with Pat Wertheim's 'non identification'.
Anyone reading Pat's comments may conclude that the other Scottish Bureaux do not agree with S.C.R.O.s identification. People out there should know that what they are reading is true or in the case of that particular comment, not true.
Tayside for your information is part of the Scottish Fingerprint Service.
Of course 'No opinion' does not equate with S.C.R.O.s 'identification', nor does it equate RLT, with Pat Wertheim's 'non identification'.