Expert difference of opinion

[Iain A J McKie]

I recently posted this article on www.shirleymckie.com . The aim was to bring home to the fingerprint community just what the SCRO and their supervisors are alleging.

The article is repeated in the hope that the world community of experts will use this site to openly support the Grampian experts Gary Dempster, John Dingwall and John McGregor and the vast majority of their Scottish colleagues who totally reject what SCRO has to say about ‘Difference of opinion.’

For the latest update on Shirley’s case click on http://www.shirleymckie.com/ (Breaking news)

‘Expert Difference of Opinion

For 9 years the Scottish Criminal Records Office has maintained that the prints of Shirley McKie and Marion Ross were correctly identified.

In defending their identifications against the conflicting findings of official enquiries and hundreds of experts worldwide they have offered the following, “It is a matter of opinion”, proposition.

‘That in evaluating two fingerprints where they agree the latent contains sufficient detail and quality for comparison it is legitimate and acceptable for one expert to come to a conclusion that they are identical (positive) and another to come to a conclusion that they are not identical (negative).

In defence of this patently absurd proposition it has been stated that friction ridge analysis is not a science but ‘a mix of art and opinion’

With such statements the SCRO experts and their supervisors have challenged the world community of fingerprint experts, their Scottish Fingerprint Service colleagues, the stated guidelines of SWGFAST and the status of fingerprinting as a forensic science.

The SWGFAST position that is accepted across the fingerprint world is that the evaluation process allows for only three conclusions:

‘3.3 Evaluation

Evaluation is the formulation of a conclusion based upon analysis and comparison
of friction ridge impressions. Conclusions which can be reached are:

3.3.1 Individualization (Identification)

Individualization is the result of the comparison of two friction ridge
impressions containing sufficient quality (clarity) and quantity of friction
ridge detail in agreement.
Individualization occurs when a latent print examiner, trained to
competency, determines that two friction ridge impressions originated
from the same source, to the exclusion of all others.

3.3.2 Exclusion

Exclusion is the result of the comparison of two friction ridge impressions
containing sufficient quality (clarity) and quantity of friction ridge detail
which is not in agreement.
Exclusion occurs when a latent print examiner, trained to competency,
determines that two friction ridge impressions originated from different
sources.

3.3.3 Inconclusive

Inconclusive evaluation results when a latent print examiner, trained to
competency, is unable to individualize or exclude the source of an
impression.
Inconclusive evaluation results must not be construed as a statement of
probability. Probable, possible or likely individualization (identification)
conclusions are outside the acceptable limits of the friction ridge
identification science.’

See: http://www.swgfast.org/

In layperson’s terms this means that when comparing two fingerprints the expert can only come to one of three conclusions

• The fingerprints are from the same person - POSITIVE
• The fingerprints are not from the same person – NEGATIVE
• The expert is not able to come to either a POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE conclusion - INCONCLUSIVE

From these principles we can understand that a difference of opinion can only occur between experts when:

• one deems that two prints are the same (positive) and another expert is unable to conclude whether they are a match or not (inconclusive) or

• one deems that the two prints are not the same (negative) and another expert unable to conclude whether they are a match or not (inconclusive)

What is not possible is for one expert to say it is an identification (positive) and for another to say that it isn’t (negative) and for both to be right.

One of the experts must be wrong.

This does not apply in the Scottish Fingerprint Service however. On the one hand we have the Grampian experts supporting the worldwide conclusion that the SCRO identification is wrong and on the other SCRO experts saying it is right.

Despite the massive evidence supporting the Grampian experts the heads of SCRO John McLean and the Scottish Fingerprint Service Ewan Innes continue to allow SCRO to perpetrate their fiction. They show no signs of taking action to resolve the issue and demonstrate little concern for the damage being caused to fingerprinting in general and the Scottish service in particular.

Despite the efficiency and integrity of the vast majority of the Scottish experts how can we have any faith in a Scottish Fingerprint Service where its leaders support the unsupportable?’
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

[Pat A. Wertheim]

The SCRO stance that fingerprint identification is "a matter of opinion" is based on three premises:

1. Everyone can have an opinion.
2. Opinions cannot be wrong because they are only opinions.
3. Everyone's opinion is equal.

The problem in using the word "opinion" is an old one, a decision made in law long before forensic science had been refined into the profession it is today. A better phrase in today's world of crime laboratories would be "scientific conclusion." Try substituting "scientific conclusion" for "opinion" in the above three premises that the SCRO relies upon.

1. Everyone can reach a scientific conclusion.
2. Scientific conclusions cannot be wrong because they are scientific.
3. Everyone's scientific conclusion is equal.

What folly that would be! And what folly it is for the SCRO to maintain their defense of an erroneous conclusion on the grounds that it is only an opinion. The obvious question a layperson in Scotland should then ask is why the SCRO has been using such mere opinions for the greater part of a century to send people to prison, or to the gallows, and why they continue to do so.

Intentionally confusing the issue by substituting the philosophical use of the word "opinion" for the concept of a scientific conclusion is a shameful act in defense of an indefensible erroneous identification. We can only hope the Scottish government will see through the SCRO's ploy and attempt to set things right.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

And another thing, the SCRO is saying that fingerprint identification is ‘a mix of art and opinion’

Let's see, is it the "Art & Opinion Working Group on Frictionridge Analysis, Study, and Technology?"

Are the Daubert criteria a way the courts can measure the reliability of Art & Opinion?

NO!!!

It is the SCIENTIFIC Working Group.

Daubert is a way of proving what you do is SCIENCE -- and over 40 Daubert hearings have, without exception, held that fingerprint identification is good science.

The SCRO is handicapping our science in the eyes of the courts of the world with their misleading allegations in order to justify the fact that they made a mistake and refuse to admit it.

Fingerprint identification is Forensic SCIENCE and although it includes a component of art, we reach SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS, not "artistic opinions."

[Iain McKie]

Pat as you are aware the SCRO experts claim to be part of the same scientific community as you and other international experts and individually and organisationally are members of the Fingerprint Society, the IAI and Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners (CRFP). Not one word has been raised against them by any of these organisations.

As a layperson I fail to see how this can be when they are proposing the equivalent of a ‘world is flat’ proposition.

‘That in evaluating two fingerprints where they agree the latent contains sufficient detail and quality for comparison it is legitimate and acceptable for one expert to come to a conclusion that they are identical (positive) and another to come to a conclusion that they are not identical (negative).

Too many heads are being buried in too much sand hoping SCRO will just go away.

They will but only if the world community of experts takes action and continues to speak out against them. If they don’t good experts, like the vast majority of Scottish experts are, will lose out to these ‘Flat Earth Society’ apologists.

I do not see it as an option for the fingerprint profession to stay silent.

[Shane Turnidge]

Excellent observation Pat.

This is an issue that extends far beyond the McKie case. This issue manifests itself all over the world to one extent or another, indeed in our very own offices/organizations. It can be best characterized as the unknowing attempting to apply the rules of common sense to an applied science, the science of fingerprints.

From my experience there is very little in fingerprint science that is guided by common sense. The science is as far reaching as it is deep in complexity, yet in many of our offices, our daily activities are guided by those who do not have the slightest appreciation of the complexity of our sphere of knowledge, let alone it's application. These uninformed people set policy and make decisions such as those in the McKie case. And these individuals are the ones who are going to ultimately provide the fodder our critics have been anxiously waiting for.

Without informed leadership these kind of interpretations are inevitable and will profoundly affect our relationship with the court house.

If that isn't a business case for national/international standards and accreditation I don't know what is.

Again, well said Pat.

Shane Turnidge

[Guest]

One definition of dogma is a positive, arrogant assertion of opinion, usually one that cannot be supported by fact. The statement of SCRO that matters of opinion have no right or wrong and cannot be resolved neatly fits in the definition and is representative of the circular reasoning used by that agency since the beginning. Using dogma to support dogma is familiar to these people, for what they practice is not science.

Pat's explanation is an accurate description of what much of the world sees while SCRO remains blind. A scientific conclusions is supported by data, and whether the measurement is the human eye or a scanned image analyzed and mathematically interpolated, the data support the scientific conclusion that the mark came from an origin other than Shirley McKie. The source of that origin appears unlikely to ever be known, for as long as SCRO clings to dogma, no attempt will be made to determine that source.

Should anyone be surprised that SCRO attempts to conceal its technical incompetence with like kind managerial incompetence? I suppose not, for desperate times do call for desperate measures. But the stance does little to welcome SCRO back into the forensic community. I agree that all must be wary of what lies ahead for the Grampian examiners of integrity, but if the SCRO has a plan to silence all those who disagree with the identification they still maintain or those who disagree with the absurd argument to justify being wrong, then they have a full plate.

[John Vanderkolk]

Reference earlier discussion about a conclusion is only an opinion and conflicting opinions are acceptable by the SCRO. How would that agency train its new examiners if any opinion is acceptable and there is not a problem with conflicting opinions? Could the trainee exclude a print when the trainer individualizes the print and both be acceptable for the SCRO? If the SCRO states the opinion of an expert can conflict with other experts, then their trainees can have conflicting opinions with the trainers. If they teach conclusions can conflict, do they ever determine their trainees are wrong? I do not understand how an agency can say neither of two conflicting opinions is wrong.

[Pat Wertheim]

John brings up a logical extension, but let's take it a step farther. We know now that while four SCRO "experts" claimed the identification to Shirley McKie, five SCRO "experts" refused to verify the identification. We don't know for sure that they excluded Shirley as the source of the print, but we do know they indicated the identification was "unsafe." So, I guess from the SCRO's official position now, the SCRO management figures all nine of these "experts" were correct in their opinions. But the management decided to go with the opinions of the four rather than the five when it came to trial. What a great place!!!

[Iain McKie]

One of my main reasons for seeking a clpex debate on Expert Opinion was to support the 3 Grampian experts who spoke out against the SCRO. It is extremely important to continue this debate in their support because unless voices are raised from within the fingerprint community these experts will suffer the same fate as the 5 SCRO experts, referred to by Pat, and the 14 experts from Lothian and Border’s Police who were so badly treated for speaking out in 2000.

As a matter of interest I am now aware of other experts in Scotland who have spoken out against SCRO from 1999 to the present day and have been silenced.

What is happening is a serious and concerted effort from the very top of the SCRO, the Scottish Fingerprint Service and the Police to make the Shirley McKie/Marion Ross issues go away. History is being re-written and unless the fingerprint community stands up to be counted the careers of honest men and women will be jeopardised and dishonesty and deceit will win through.

John Vanderkolk raises the very important question of how SCRO and the Scottish Fingerprint Service train new examiners. This must remain a major concern and it seems likely that - if it has not already happened - it is only a matter of time before training is changed to more reflect the SCRO ‘opinion’ stance.

I have always supported fingerprinting despite Shirley’s experiences because no matter where I have met experts I have never failed to be impressed by their integrity and honesty and determination to root out incompetents and criminals.

Hundreds have spoken out for Shirley and I hope it is not too much to ask for these voices to continue to be heard for the Grampian experts and their Scottish colleagues, many of whom have been bullied into silence.

The Scottish Fingerprint Service has an important part to play in developing and improving fingerprinting as a major forensic science in co-operation with experts worldwide. This cannot be done until the cancer at its very soul is removed.

[Shane Turnidge]

I can foresee that the only way to further this case and this debate is to either individualize the impression, as in the FBI vs Mayfield case, or to prove the SCRO employees wrong in a civil trial.

All indications point to the SCRO polarizing it's position on the matter. The lack of transparency in their organization will no doubt negatively affect its reputation and finances greatly.

The SCRO should also consider the impact to other cases they are prosecuting, and whether or not those cases will be affected by the decisions made by their fingerprint practitioners in the McKie case.

Mr. McKie, keep the faith, It has become a very small world. Consequently, I do believe that this case will be amicably resolved at some point.

Shane Turnidge