Square Peg. Round Hole.

[David Fairhurst]

Thanks Dwayne,

I was not aware that SCRO was not a Strathclyde Police entity, even though it is situated in the Strathclyde Police area and serves Strathclyde Police (as well as the others). As an aside: would I be correct in saying that Dundee/Tayside now serves Fife and Aberdeen/Grampian serves Northern? Or does Edinburgh serve Fife?

However, my main aim was to clarify the point about Dundee being synonymous with Tayside when it comes to fingerprint bureau. I think I did that pretty lucidly.

[Les Bush]

here we go again,

this time its RunFromDamascus because SOFA lots its potential as did the others. The psychological fingerprint has to be someone with a continued invested interest in the issues relating to McKie. A person who is working very hard to negate the legal problems faced by the SCRO and its supporters. Someone who has the ability to mold themselves to suit the occasion. A person trained and adept at doing such things for the sake of their client and their own earnings. I wonder what profession would fit that bill? I dont think he will run out of steam or further disguises until he is satisfied that his anarchy has at least done something to harm the science since 'it' is what stands between him and reward. The problem is the science is sound, he is doing his own profession more harm by his continued mischief.

[RL Tavernaro]

David / Dwayne,

Actuallly, David's response was helpful, to put a bit of geography to the various names.

Perhaps one of you could enlighten me on the following, since I remain unclear on a couple of points. I seem to recall having read that although the SCRO Dundee location is in Tayside, that Tayside Police have had their own independent(?) fingerprint capability, historically separate from SCRO. Is my recollection incorrect?

Regards, RLT

[son of adam]

RLT - has this thread become nothing more than a platform to outdo an author's comments? Are we now reduced to trying to prove one another wrong here? I am becoming very guilty of it and I'm beginning to lose sight of the reason why I joined this forum.

Undeniably, I have responded emotionally, particularly when I'm goaded into a response. I have made a decision to ignore the authors that are guilty of doing just that. If they want me to bite the bait, they've had it. I won't play into their (Les Bush's) hands.

As for Pat Wertheim's statement in relation to the other Scottish Bureaux opinion of the 'McKie' mark, I was considering, putting some time aside to review the archive footage again, to prove myself right but I've had it. I don't want to go there. That's just tit for tat.

I have grown increasingly untrusting of Pat Wertheim's comments. This feeling of doubt could perhaps cloud my judgement call at times. I shall, in future approach reading everything he writes with an open mind. I should advise him that browsers of this forum are becoming increasingly disgruntled when reading some of his posts, especially when certain practices within the U.K. come into question.

Amen

Son of Adam

[clpexco]

I have grown increasingly untrusting of Pat Wertheim's comments ... I should advise him that browsers of this forum are becoming increasingly disgruntled when reading some of his posts, especially when certain practices within the U.K. come into question.

Your brush is far too wide. Many browsers of this forum have tremendous and well-placed respect for Mr. Wertheim, and I should advise you that they are becoming increasingly disgruntled when reading your continued verbal assaults on him.

[son of adam]

My comments were not meant as a personal attack. If it becomes increasingly apparent that there are untruths being posted on this forum in an attempt to drag S.C.R.O through the mud, then the person posting these false statements will become less than reputable. I have read more than one comment that has transpired to be fabrication. These things do not go unnoticed. I have no doubt that Pat Wertheim is held in high regard which is why he should ensure that what he writes is 100% accurate. He is in a position where people do listen to him. Take what happened to Allan Bayle. His noise has been his own destruction. It has become apparent that his credibility is now zero. I would remind you that his downfall is not down to his skills as an expert, but his behaviour towards S.C.R.O.

I too have felt attacked on this site. I would also suggest that one of your users was looking for a fight. I answered his questions to the best of my ability. He continued the thread by taunting me. Is that acceptable? In my world, goading and taunting is nothing short of bullying. It is also true to say that bullying features alot on this site.

So Casey, what do you see as acceptable behaviour from your authors? Is posting a dishonest comment acceptable? Is bullying acceptable? Pointing out dishonest information and how some of your browsers feel about it seems however, not to be acceptable.

I hope that you consider that my grievances are as important as some of the others you have chosen to act upon.

[son of adam]

I should also point out that you failed to mention that I volunteered that I would approach anything that Pat Wertheim writes with an open mind. The fact that the second part of my comment has gone not only unnoticed but unquoted (selective editing in order to have users lose respect for anything that I may have to say? ) does indeed suggest that it is I that is being attacked and that you are perhaps taking this too personally as has already been suggested by another author. Again, this type of thing does not go unoticed.

[Dick Dastardly]

I was interested to hear from Peter Swann, describing to the Scottish Parliament, how the discrepancies in the top portion of the print could be caused by the rotation.

I assume that he would be able to replicate this in his lab by taking his own thumb and turn it through 66 degrees without any overlaying or crossing ridges? Is he prepared to do so to show us how it can be achieved by demonstration?

I find it hard to imagine how this can be done without the twisting being clear. I am, of course, willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that it can be done if he can show us other examples. There is a great danger of setting out to prove how discrepancies can possibly be accounted for, rather than seeking to compare a latent with an inked mark.

[clpexco]

Son of Adam,

Threads about the McKie incident and related fallout have brought a life and volume of posts to this board that would have never otherwise been realized. In many ways, the crowd posting on these topics overlap the "regular" crowd that only posts on non-McKie related topics. Most other threads on this forum do not evoke the type of emotional responses, borderline comments, and even personal attacks that we have seen on McKie related threads. Because of the nature of this topic, posts that appear as dishonest and bullying to some may appear to others simply as defending a position on the matter. I submit that the root cause of the turbulence that continues on this topic is the continued disparity between opinions on the mark. So much more has become invested in the outcome of the situation than just in the truth based on the evidence. I have used the analogy of a festering splinter in the past, and unfortunately that analogy still holds true to this day.

I have come to the conclusion (as have others) that this situation is far past the point of removing the splinter. It has deteriorated to the point that a major surgical operation would be necessary to expedite healing. We hope that part of this surgery will be performed by the Scottish judiciary process, and in fact events are still unfolding that set the stage for a successful operation. However, even with a successful operation time will still be necessary to heal the wound and fully reveal the truth.

It has been alluded to that the history books will ultimately show the truth in this matter. The process of getting from here to there involves all sides saying their peace and hearing the sides of others. The turbulence will die down throughout this process as people accept the truth. Until that happens, there will continue to be people who are emotionally involved and need to say their peace.

A lot of browsers on this forum have come to resolution with this issue a long time ago - They have no peace to say, and they have long ago grown weary of those who continue to invest time and energy into emotional responses on this forum of those who still are in the process of resolving the truth with their circumstances. Many of these browsers have written to me personally as the Administrator that they have simply decided not to even open McKie related posts anymore, but will continue to participate in other latent print related threads. Not everyone on this forum continues to respond emotionally to this situation.

But the thrust of your earlier comments were that browsers of this forum had grown weary of the posts of one person. My point was that collectively, they have just as much grown weary of your posts or everyones posts on this topic. They have simply grown weary of the turbulence.

In retrospect, I think what you probably meant was that browsers of this forum who have an opinion opposite that of Pat Werthiem have grown weary of his comments. And I'm sure you are right. But you simply said "browsers of this forum", and that brush was too wide. As Administrator I have a view into the larger audience, and I felt compelled to correct your comment. I didn't mean it as a personal attack, although it is clear you took it that way. And I didn't mean it in defense of Pat Wertheim, although others took it that way. I simply meant to more generally characterize that weary CLPEX forum browsers exist on both sides. So with this post, I have painted the larger picture and provided more detailed clarification that perhaps I should have posted in the first place.

what do you see as acceptable behaviour from your authors? Is posting a dishonest comment acceptable? Is bullying acceptable? Pointing out dishonest information and how some of your browsers feel about it seems however, not to be acceptable.

My answer: If there is specific dishonest information, then focus on the information. Use citations and quotations. Refrain from attacking the individual or making general comments about someone's character. And don't paint an entire audience with one brush.

As for general forum issues, I have come to the conclusion that borderline behavior cannot be avoided as people aire their opinions on this topic. In part this is due to the emotion and turbulence alluded to earlier. I see this behavior as a natural part of the healing process (in our analogy) as people come to the realization that their opinions on the root cause (the prints) are either right or wrong. This behavior is also propogated by the realization by some that a lot of circumstances exist other than the root cause of the issue. For example, someone posting under an alias may be a legal representative of a client who is being paid to defend an incorrect position. Another might be someone whose career as a latent print will be over if they admit at this point that the prints don't match. Circumstances other than the prints drive the behavior and tone of these individuals, and are likely the cause of their emotion on this forum.

It has been suggested in private that as Administrator, I take action to supress posts on this topic. Suggestions have included allowing posts to die out, deletion, and even switching boards. However, as I mentioned earlier, regardless of what I do or say, this topic will be discussed on whatever forum is available because it is an important topic to some people who need to say their peace. And doing so is part of the process that ultimately leads to resolution with the issue in the minds of individauls, and then collectively in the discipline.

So my perspective on forum administration and moderation is to allow the discussion to flow unless attacks become clearly personal. It is understood that borderline antics will come into the picture from all perspectives, especially when such a turbulent subject is on the table. I choose to overlook the majority of subtle antics from any perspective, and not "micro-manage" this forum.

Over-all, my perspective is simple - provide a forum to facilitate discussion, moterate when I feel it's necessary, and be a part of the great discipline of fingerprints as it progresses into the 21st century.

[son of adam]

"In retrospect, I think what you probably meant was that browsers of this forum who have an opinion opposite that of Pat Werthiem have grown weary of his comments."

You're wrong about that. The browsers I refer to aren't as superficial to just have an opposite opinion to Pat Wertheim. Of course that exists, however in this instance it's the realisation that some of his comments do at times have no bearing to the truth.

Take his addition to the thread entitled "McKie Case & Use of Employee Clearance Fingerprints" where he uses a term 'cleaning up the outstanding marks'. The responses speak for themselves. The author of that particular thread not only accepted that Pat's information was true but he expressed that he was troubled by this practice of 'cleaning up the marks'. Had no-one stepped in to clear that up, how would the thread have continued? More authors communicating disdain at S.C.R.Os unceasing malpractice I would imagine.

I acknowledge that Pat did apologise to S.C.R.O. for his thread 'There they go again'. This has not gone unoticed, however, his thread was borne in support of claims from Allan Bayle that S.C.R.O had produced yet another misidentification. Such is Pat's power, people PILED onto that bandwagon.

Hence the doubts in relation to Pat Wertheim's information. Also questions arise. False statements? Why? There's a danger here that Pat could be perceived as doing this in an effort to mislead. I'm not saying that's a definate, but it's a possibility.

In my situation, it's definately not the case that I have opinions in opposition to that of Pat's. I am in search of honesty. Pure and simple.

Thank you Casey for your response. It is food for thought for all involved.

Son Of Adam

[EmmaC]

Sorry but I am an impartial reader and I find that these constant attacks on many and various people very tiresome. This thread started as an amusing philosophical discussion and ends up like all the other McKie threads.

I am a relative newcomer to this site who is trying to learn all she can about fingerprinting in the real world. I am looking to continue studying and forge a career in this field and the constant sniping and re-hashing of old arguments is putting me off.

You've all had your say... now let's move on...

[son of adam]

I agree with you Emma. This definately started out as one of the more amusing threads with posts that were more imaginative than the usual. Somehow, somewhere, it has grown arms and legs and Shirley McKie. Can we go back to pegs instead of legs? Er, perhaps not.

I strongly suspect the fingerprint world isn't ready to move on quite yet. Perhaps the findings of the Justice 1 Inquiry will change that. We should expect either controversy or fireworks or even perhaps questions answered this Monday coming when whatever Robert MacKenzie and Alan Dunbar has to say comes into consideration at Holyrood.

I wish I had some 'peg' jokes, but I don't. Sorry.