Let me say from the onset that personally I have no interest in the McKie case, and personally it does not matter to me whether McKie’s fingerprints were, or were not, found at the crime scene (conversely, whether the SCRO experts were correct or not in their identification). Furthermore, I think that these questions are not by themselves of any interest to the science of fingerprints or/and to the professional fingerprint bodies. Generally I avoid making postings on this (as well as on any other) message boards. However, I really wonder, and was hoping to hear what people think about the following two issues:
1. What does the Mckie case say about the domain/science of fingerprints? Again, please, not on a personal level, it does not matter --from this perspective, which I am focusing on-- whether her fingerprints were there or not (or equally whether the SCRO experts were correct or not). The issue is: What does it say about a domain in which there is a clear answer (either it is, or it is not, her fingerprint), but the domain cannot (has not, after many years) reached an agreed decision on it. What does that say? For example, does this reflect basic issues in fingerprint analysis or/and as a science? Does it reflect different thresholds/criteria for reaching a conclusion? Or just different training/methodologies/processes? Or does it, maybe, reflect a ‘statistical/ probabilistic’ nature of the domain, or just its subjective, opinion-based, nature?
Surely the fact that there is a print out there that is disputed, that many experts after many years, cannot (& have not) agreed upon, must mean something... What do the experts in this domain think it means? (specifically those who are *not* involved and entrenched in this controversy; those who want to focus solely on the domain itself).
2. On the more pragmatic level, and less from the scientific/theoretical perspective above, what does it mean in terms of the professional bodies in this domain? Surely one of the predominant roles of professional bodies is to take over and lead the debate in such controversies, as well as have agreed procedures of arbitration, for determination in such cases.
I think that it is about time (if not too late) for those not involved in the McKie case to take charge, control, and look into the deeper issues revealed by this case. Again, NOT *at* this case, but the fingerprint *issues* it exposes.
On a more positive note, although the Mckie case may reflect some problems in the science of fingerprints as well as in the professional bodies associated with it, I think & hope (am I a naïve academic?.... maybe) that this case can be used to improve these issues. Rather than having interested parties take over this controversy, dig in deeper into their positions and continue their battles, the *issues* this brings up must be taken on board and dealt with properly and professionally –this, to me, seems to have not happened.
Thank you for your attention, and I will read with interest people’s views/responses to the two issues/questions I have raised (and hope NOT to read/see postings as to whether it is or not McKie’s prints, but only on the deeper issues that are irrespective of it—as I have tried to raise in the two points above).
On a less negative fingerprints-base perspective, I would like to point out that history (as well as at present) is full of controversies, even in the hard and well established sciences.
Finally, I hope that this will start a constructive fingerprint focused (not McKie focused…) discussion that will move this domain forward. I felt I should raise this, but I will not be posting anything further. Thank you.
Itiel
www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~id
What does the McKie case mean ?
-
Dr. Dror
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:40 pm
- Location: United Kingdom
- Contact:
-
Pat A. Wertheim
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:48 am
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Dear Itiel,
The case that stirred your post is unique in the history of fingerprints and broad conclusions regarding the science or practice thereof should not be drawn from that one case. However, you raise some valid concerns. The case as seen from the outside must be very confusing and must raise serious doubts as to the "scientific" nature of fingerprint identification.
The most pertinent point you raise, in my opinion, is the need for professional organizations to inject themselves into such a case. If the professional organizations such as the Fingerprint Society and the International Association for Identification will not intervene to resolve such conflicts, how can a judicial or political body be expected to reach a correct conclusion in the absence of expertise except for the arguing factions in the case? I believe the two professional organizations named above have committed a major disservice by remaining silent. But perhaps these two groups see their only goals as sponsoring annual educational and social functions rather than resolving critical issues.
I still hope for the long sought after Judicial Enquiry to become a reality, but I am afraid the politics of the situation will prevent it from ever happening. I believe the history books fifty years from now will present an accurate assessment of the case, as they have in other cases that were controversial in their times. In saying that, however, the Harry Oakes case comes to mind and a review of the current literature mentioning that case shows that today, 64 years after Oakes' murder, there is still no officially recognized resolution to the case. So perhaps time will tell, but perhaps it will not.
Thank you for your thoughts. Please continue your research and continue your contributions to the evolution of thought in the field of fingerprint identification.
Best regards,
Pat
The case that stirred your post is unique in the history of fingerprints and broad conclusions regarding the science or practice thereof should not be drawn from that one case. However, you raise some valid concerns. The case as seen from the outside must be very confusing and must raise serious doubts as to the "scientific" nature of fingerprint identification.
The most pertinent point you raise, in my opinion, is the need for professional organizations to inject themselves into such a case. If the professional organizations such as the Fingerprint Society and the International Association for Identification will not intervene to resolve such conflicts, how can a judicial or political body be expected to reach a correct conclusion in the absence of expertise except for the arguing factions in the case? I believe the two professional organizations named above have committed a major disservice by remaining silent. But perhaps these two groups see their only goals as sponsoring annual educational and social functions rather than resolving critical issues.
I still hope for the long sought after Judicial Enquiry to become a reality, but I am afraid the politics of the situation will prevent it from ever happening. I believe the history books fifty years from now will present an accurate assessment of the case, as they have in other cases that were controversial in their times. In saying that, however, the Harry Oakes case comes to mind and a review of the current literature mentioning that case shows that today, 64 years after Oakes' murder, there is still no officially recognized resolution to the case. So perhaps time will tell, but perhaps it will not.
Thank you for your thoughts. Please continue your research and continue your contributions to the evolution of thought in the field of fingerprint identification.
Best regards,
Pat
-
Iain McKie
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:23 am
- Location: Ayr, Scotland
- Contact:
What does the McKie case mean?
Dear Itiel and Pat,
It is good to see Itiel Dror seeking to turn the mud slinging round into a proper debate about the dilemmas facing fingerprinting in the wake of the Marion Ross Case.
It is unlikely that the protagonists will ever be reconciled and that is now a sterile debate.
As Dr. Dror has suggested we should be concentrating on the consequences of the case for fingerprinting as a science because they are likely to be considerable.
Put simply we now have two fingerprints of sufficient quality and quantity on which experts cannot reach a conclusion.
This is a God given opportunity for your critics as it hits at the very basis of your science. It is no use trying to write SCRO off as wrong, rogues or whatever because in the eyes of some they have clearly shown the root problem with fingerprinting – it is indeed an art and not a science and experts can legitimately have different opinions.
As I have been saying for years, no matter that the vast majority of the fingerprint community see that both are ‘misidentifications’ the IAI and Fingerprint Society stand accused of sitting on the sidelines fiddling while fingerprinting is debased as a forensic science.
This is an issue that only the experts and their representative organisations can sort out and as Pat has said you cannot blame the courts or the politicians.
To my mind this is the ideal opportunity to create a procedure for resolving disputes at an international level. It should not be beyond the wit of the IAI, the Fingerprint Society, Interpol, the FBI and other relevant national and international organisations to co-operate in the establishment of a dispute resolution system that could be quickly convened as required.
It is good to see Itiel Dror seeking to turn the mud slinging round into a proper debate about the dilemmas facing fingerprinting in the wake of the Marion Ross Case.
It is unlikely that the protagonists will ever be reconciled and that is now a sterile debate.
As Dr. Dror has suggested we should be concentrating on the consequences of the case for fingerprinting as a science because they are likely to be considerable.
Put simply we now have two fingerprints of sufficient quality and quantity on which experts cannot reach a conclusion.
This is a God given opportunity for your critics as it hits at the very basis of your science. It is no use trying to write SCRO off as wrong, rogues or whatever because in the eyes of some they have clearly shown the root problem with fingerprinting – it is indeed an art and not a science and experts can legitimately have different opinions.
As I have been saying for years, no matter that the vast majority of the fingerprint community see that both are ‘misidentifications’ the IAI and Fingerprint Society stand accused of sitting on the sidelines fiddling while fingerprinting is debased as a forensic science.
This is an issue that only the experts and their representative organisations can sort out and as Pat has said you cannot blame the courts or the politicians.
To my mind this is the ideal opportunity to create a procedure for resolving disputes at an international level. It should not be beyond the wit of the IAI, the Fingerprint Society, Interpol, the FBI and other relevant national and international organisations to co-operate in the establishment of a dispute resolution system that could be quickly convened as required.
As always my thanks to all experts who have supported Shirley over the years.
-
g.
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:27 pm
- Location: St. Paul, MN
No takers?
Dr Dror,
I thought it was very admirable to take some of the allegations and hostilities toward your work and research group and turn it into a positive discussion. I was suprised that only 1 fingerprint examiner actually responded. So I thought I might at least give my viewpoint.
I do have to first agree with Pat's sentiment, that this case is somewhat singular, and so should be taken with a grain of salt in the scheme of things. But I see 2 major points, politics, opinions of the case, organizational involvement (or lack thereof) aside...
1) In a broader scope, WHENEVER there is disagreement of opinions in a fingerprint conclusion, what is the proper way to resolve? Currently, consensus appears to be the dominant factor. And of course, with that the potential for "group thinking" and other biases as Dave C. pointed to another thread. It seems to me that all appropriate testing should be done and the evidence will support one hypothesis or the alternative.
With respect to this case, Swann et al. proposed a mechanism to explain differences (no one disputed that there were apparent differences). Zeelenburg and Wertheim proposed another mechanism and Zeelenburg attempted to disprove the Swann mechanism. This to me seems the most appropriate way to begin. Even Justice 1 seemed to agree with this, citing that Zeelenburg's evidence/video showing the distortion mechanism was quite effective; Swann, et al. provided no justification, simply "ipse dixit", and [my translation] "I have many many many years of experience".
But in your average case, and my observations of examiners from many agencies, even this testing is not routinely done. It is simply "I believe these differences are explained by X,Y,Z,. I am an expert. I have X years of training. Therefore it is so. In other words, Swann, et al. were just doing what (mostly) everybody else is doing...they are products of the same system, the same status quo, and the same "machine". Perhaps, it is time for a change.
THis is that subjective part that you refer to Itiel and obviously a part that can be influenced by bias.
Attempting to demonstrate the distortion, replicate the patterns of distortion or refute the proposed mechanism are appropriate ways to deal with explaining "perceived differences".
2) I believe we are fast approaching the day when we can no longer say "well I can't use statistics to represent my testimony". Models are becoming more sophisticated. Technology has improved to the point where we could start using objective metrics to compare prints. It may not be perfect or emulate EVERY aspect of the human comparison, but it certainly will be more objective in reporting the selectivity of the features observed and CERTAINLY more transparent about how the conclusion was reached. We wouldn't necessarily have to do away with the expert opinion altogether, but that would be a matter of great debate. Exactly how to use these tools, report with these tools, and testify to an expert opinion based on these types of metrics...that's what will be fun to debate in the next few years...
Anyway, thought I would share my thoughts Itiel. Good luck as always.
g.
I thought it was very admirable to take some of the allegations and hostilities toward your work and research group and turn it into a positive discussion. I was suprised that only 1 fingerprint examiner actually responded. So I thought I might at least give my viewpoint.
I do have to first agree with Pat's sentiment, that this case is somewhat singular, and so should be taken with a grain of salt in the scheme of things. But I see 2 major points, politics, opinions of the case, organizational involvement (or lack thereof) aside...
1) In a broader scope, WHENEVER there is disagreement of opinions in a fingerprint conclusion, what is the proper way to resolve? Currently, consensus appears to be the dominant factor. And of course, with that the potential for "group thinking" and other biases as Dave C. pointed to another thread. It seems to me that all appropriate testing should be done and the evidence will support one hypothesis or the alternative.
With respect to this case, Swann et al. proposed a mechanism to explain differences (no one disputed that there were apparent differences). Zeelenburg and Wertheim proposed another mechanism and Zeelenburg attempted to disprove the Swann mechanism. This to me seems the most appropriate way to begin. Even Justice 1 seemed to agree with this, citing that Zeelenburg's evidence/video showing the distortion mechanism was quite effective; Swann, et al. provided no justification, simply "ipse dixit", and [my translation] "I have many many many years of experience".
But in your average case, and my observations of examiners from many agencies, even this testing is not routinely done. It is simply "I believe these differences are explained by X,Y,Z,. I am an expert. I have X years of training. Therefore it is so. In other words, Swann, et al. were just doing what (mostly) everybody else is doing...they are products of the same system, the same status quo, and the same "machine". Perhaps, it is time for a change.
THis is that subjective part that you refer to Itiel and obviously a part that can be influenced by bias.
Attempting to demonstrate the distortion, replicate the patterns of distortion or refute the proposed mechanism are appropriate ways to deal with explaining "perceived differences".
2) I believe we are fast approaching the day when we can no longer say "well I can't use statistics to represent my testimony". Models are becoming more sophisticated. Technology has improved to the point where we could start using objective metrics to compare prints. It may not be perfect or emulate EVERY aspect of the human comparison, but it certainly will be more objective in reporting the selectivity of the features observed and CERTAINLY more transparent about how the conclusion was reached. We wouldn't necessarily have to do away with the expert opinion altogether, but that would be a matter of great debate. Exactly how to use these tools, report with these tools, and testify to an expert opinion based on these types of metrics...that's what will be fun to debate in the next few years...
Anyway, thought I would share my thoughts Itiel. Good luck as always.
g.
-
Michele
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:40 am
For me it’s easy to look at this in a broad sense instead of directly looking at the McKie situation because I haven’t kept up on the particulars of this case. I feel like in some respects there’s too much to read to have a real understanding of this case and at the same time I don’t know if the enormous amount of information on this case has really looked at the pertinent information. So in a broad sense here’s my thoughts.
Should professional organizations get involved in these situations?
On one hand we could easily say ‘yes’, who better to decide issues like these than the leading associations.
On the other hand, do these organizations have authority over the members or agencies? Or is their goal to advance the discipline through communication and education?
In some respect they might have some authority over their members but their authority isn’t as strong as in industries that legally require practitioners to be licensed. Some organizations may certify practitioners or award fellowship status (like the IAI or The Fingerprint Society) but these things may indicate a level of knowledge, ability, and participation, they don’t set a standard that practitioners have to follow. Other organizations (like ISO or ASCLD/Lab) do set standards but their regulatory powers also seem somewhat limited. They also don’t set standards for what constitutes a correct conclusion.
Another important question would be, are agencies required or able to have outside reviews done? This is what’s needed to really determine the particulars of any case, the conclusion, and determine if a resolution is needed and what that resolution might be. Most situations have limited reviews of the entire situation (or at least the full reviews don’t seem to be open to everyone). The FBI case is the only case I’ve ever heard of that had multiple assessments done and as a result every agency can now benefit from knowing some of the problem that occurred in this case so we can start working towards diminishing the same thing from happening again. Until this is done in other cases there’s really no way to determine what happened and how to move forward.
This leads me to Dr. Dror’s first question, what does this case say about the domain/science of fingerprints?
I haven’t read the Justice Committees report, it’s a little long for my taste (I’m waiting for the abridged version) but in every case where an ID is questioned at least 4 elements have to be looked at (all the elements Dr. Dror suggested). The goals and standards of the examiner or agency should be determined (are they looking for accurate conclusions or justifiable conclusions – Dr. Dror listed this as different thresholds/criteria and I agree this is important to determine), the methods they used (do they think that all elements of a comparison are subjective, including if the characteristics are there, or do they think that only the determination of sufficiency is subjective), training is an issue (both enough and what kind), and was this an agency issue or an individual issue (were there clear guidelines of what kind of conclusions the examiners were expected to give or could they give any conclusion because it was their opinion? If there were guidelines, did the examiners conclusions meet the requirements of the agency?).
Were these questions asked and answered by the Justice 1 Committee? I don’t know the answer but it seems irrelevant since we’re looking at this in a broader scope.
This make me wonder if our discipline needs a regulatory board and if our practitioners should be licensed. Maybe this is where we are headed? Since people’s lives are on the line with our conclusions, personally I think this would be moving in a positive direction. Many agencies already require certification but I don’t know how prevalent this is worldwide or even if people consider the IAI test an appropriate test.
I’m glad Glenn brought up consensus. This goes back to having different standards or goals. The end result of any scientific conclusion is that it must stand up to scrutiny. Consensus doesn’t establish accuracy (whether or not it’s right or wrong) but it does establish accepted conclusions. Accepted conclusions is the closest thing we have to the truth we don’t have the ground truth. This means that while some people might be looking for the right conclusion others are trying to get conclusions that they can demonstrate which will reasonably satisfy others. I don’t know that we can compare two conclusions when the goals may be different. I guess this shows how important it is to state our goals, our methods, and our standards in addition to our conclusions. From all the conversations on this chat board I do see practitioners in our discipline recognizing how important this is and trying to move forward in this area.
I just thought I’d share my views,
Should professional organizations get involved in these situations?
On one hand we could easily say ‘yes’, who better to decide issues like these than the leading associations.
On the other hand, do these organizations have authority over the members or agencies? Or is their goal to advance the discipline through communication and education?
In some respect they might have some authority over their members but their authority isn’t as strong as in industries that legally require practitioners to be licensed. Some organizations may certify practitioners or award fellowship status (like the IAI or The Fingerprint Society) but these things may indicate a level of knowledge, ability, and participation, they don’t set a standard that practitioners have to follow. Other organizations (like ISO or ASCLD/Lab) do set standards but their regulatory powers also seem somewhat limited. They also don’t set standards for what constitutes a correct conclusion.
Another important question would be, are agencies required or able to have outside reviews done? This is what’s needed to really determine the particulars of any case, the conclusion, and determine if a resolution is needed and what that resolution might be. Most situations have limited reviews of the entire situation (or at least the full reviews don’t seem to be open to everyone). The FBI case is the only case I’ve ever heard of that had multiple assessments done and as a result every agency can now benefit from knowing some of the problem that occurred in this case so we can start working towards diminishing the same thing from happening again. Until this is done in other cases there’s really no way to determine what happened and how to move forward.
This leads me to Dr. Dror’s first question, what does this case say about the domain/science of fingerprints?
I haven’t read the Justice Committees report, it’s a little long for my taste (I’m waiting for the abridged version) but in every case where an ID is questioned at least 4 elements have to be looked at (all the elements Dr. Dror suggested). The goals and standards of the examiner or agency should be determined (are they looking for accurate conclusions or justifiable conclusions – Dr. Dror listed this as different thresholds/criteria and I agree this is important to determine), the methods they used (do they think that all elements of a comparison are subjective, including if the characteristics are there, or do they think that only the determination of sufficiency is subjective), training is an issue (both enough and what kind), and was this an agency issue or an individual issue (were there clear guidelines of what kind of conclusions the examiners were expected to give or could they give any conclusion because it was their opinion? If there were guidelines, did the examiners conclusions meet the requirements of the agency?).
Were these questions asked and answered by the Justice 1 Committee? I don’t know the answer but it seems irrelevant since we’re looking at this in a broader scope.
This make me wonder if our discipline needs a regulatory board and if our practitioners should be licensed. Maybe this is where we are headed? Since people’s lives are on the line with our conclusions, personally I think this would be moving in a positive direction. Many agencies already require certification but I don’t know how prevalent this is worldwide or even if people consider the IAI test an appropriate test.
I’m glad Glenn brought up consensus. This goes back to having different standards or goals. The end result of any scientific conclusion is that it must stand up to scrutiny. Consensus doesn’t establish accuracy (whether or not it’s right or wrong) but it does establish accepted conclusions. Accepted conclusions is the closest thing we have to the truth we don’t have the ground truth. This means that while some people might be looking for the right conclusion others are trying to get conclusions that they can demonstrate which will reasonably satisfy others. I don’t know that we can compare two conclusions when the goals may be different. I guess this shows how important it is to state our goals, our methods, and our standards in addition to our conclusions. From all the conversations on this chat board I do see practitioners in our discipline recognizing how important this is and trying to move forward in this area.
I just thought I’d share my views,
Michele
The best way to escape from a problem is to solve it. Alan Saporta
There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. Peter Drucker
(Applies to a full A prior to C and blind verification)
The best way to escape from a problem is to solve it. Alan Saporta
There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. Peter Drucker
(Applies to a full A prior to C and blind verification)
-
Iain McKie
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:23 am
- Location: Ayr, Scotland
- Contact:
What does the McKie case mean
Michele,
I have prepared an abridged version of the enquiry report at:
http://www.shirleymckie.com/documents/E ... alysis.pdf
Hope this helps bring some clarity to the findings.
Best wishes,
Iain
I have prepared an abridged version of the enquiry report at:
http://www.shirleymckie.com/documents/E ... alysis.pdf
Hope this helps bring some clarity to the findings.
Best wishes,
Iain
As always my thanks to all experts who have supported Shirley over the years.
-
Les Bush
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:29 am
- Location: Australia
Summary document
Thanks Iain,
the summary document is easy to follow and covers the main issues. Ive always found it interesting that when the Justice One committee was established I was of the understanding they were looking into the involvement of the Scottish Executive but it appears the SCRO has become the main focus.
Anyway its your country, down here we have ordered two copies of the Price of Innocence so I look forward to another good read.
Regards. Les
the summary document is easy to follow and covers the main issues. Ive always found it interesting that when the Justice One committee was established I was of the understanding they were looking into the involvement of the Scottish Executive but it appears the SCRO has become the main focus.
Anyway its your country, down here we have ordered two copies of the Price of Innocence so I look forward to another good read.
Regards. Les
-
adroitcaledonian
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:55 pm
- Location: The land of the father of fingerprinting
Hi Les
Did you know that mojo now campaign for Patrick Docherty?
As you may be aware Iain is donating all of the royalties from the book to mojo, as such he is supporting the campaign to free Patrick Docherty with money he has generated in the name of Marion Ross.
I won't spoil it for you Les, but Patrick Docherty's name will crop up in the book, and you may just ask, "what is going on?"
Regards
Did you know that mojo now campaign for Patrick Docherty?
As you may be aware Iain is donating all of the royalties from the book to mojo, as such he is supporting the campaign to free Patrick Docherty with money he has generated in the name of Marion Ross.
I won't spoil it for you Les, but Patrick Docherty's name will crop up in the book, and you may just ask, "what is going on?"
Regards
No Lie Lasts Forever
-
Iain McKie
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:23 am
- Location: Ayr, Scotland
- Contact:
What does the McKie case mean?
Good to hear from you Les.
The enquiry report certainly strips SCRO bare and shows just what has been going on over the years. It is scary to think that their second mistake, the ‘Marion Ross’ misidentification, still ticks away like a time bomb waiting to undermine the undoubted improvements presently being implemented in the Scottish Fingerprint Service.
http://www.shirleymckie.com/documents/E ... alysis.pdf
Given the boost that some postings are giving to book sales you must be thinking that I am ‘adroitcaledonian’, ‘Daktari’, Taggart and all the rest.
This is another conspiracy theory that can be safely laid to rest.
For anyone to be imprisoned wrongly is a stain on our society. Over the years I have been amazed by the number of experts who have written to me saying that Shirley’s case has brought home to them the traumatic effect covered-up ‘misidentifications’ have on innocent people and their families. This has doubled their determination to ensure that mistakes are quickly admitted and, as in the Mayfield case, lessons learned.
Over the past decade I also have learned a lot. Ex police officers like myself should be honest enough to admit the dangers of objectivity being lost when guilt is assumed in the ‘fight against crime’.
The MOJO project is worthwhile of your support as they seek to raise, ‘£500,000 to build a retreat to help reintegrate and prepare innocent people back into society.’
http://www.mojoscotland.com/retreat.html
Unfortunately we still require such organisations to ensure that when mistakes are made the innocent are able to find a way back into society.
I hope that the power of Dr Dror’s original posting will not be lost in this diversion which in many ways is rooted in the past. What the McKie case says about the science of fingerprinting is important and he poses some important questions about the future of fingerprinting.
‘Does (the case) reflect basic issues in fingerprint analysis or/and as a science? Does it reflect different thresholds/criteria for reaching a conclusion? Or just different training/methodologies/processes? Or does it, maybe, reflect a ‘statistical/ probabilistic’ nature of the domain, or just its subjective, opinion-based, nature?’
As a layperson these are questions I would like answered.
Best wishes,
Iain
The enquiry report certainly strips SCRO bare and shows just what has been going on over the years. It is scary to think that their second mistake, the ‘Marion Ross’ misidentification, still ticks away like a time bomb waiting to undermine the undoubted improvements presently being implemented in the Scottish Fingerprint Service.
http://www.shirleymckie.com/documents/E ... alysis.pdf
Given the boost that some postings are giving to book sales you must be thinking that I am ‘adroitcaledonian’, ‘Daktari’, Taggart and all the rest.
This is another conspiracy theory that can be safely laid to rest.
For anyone to be imprisoned wrongly is a stain on our society. Over the years I have been amazed by the number of experts who have written to me saying that Shirley’s case has brought home to them the traumatic effect covered-up ‘misidentifications’ have on innocent people and their families. This has doubled their determination to ensure that mistakes are quickly admitted and, as in the Mayfield case, lessons learned.
Over the past decade I also have learned a lot. Ex police officers like myself should be honest enough to admit the dangers of objectivity being lost when guilt is assumed in the ‘fight against crime’.
The MOJO project is worthwhile of your support as they seek to raise, ‘£500,000 to build a retreat to help reintegrate and prepare innocent people back into society.’
http://www.mojoscotland.com/retreat.html
Unfortunately we still require such organisations to ensure that when mistakes are made the innocent are able to find a way back into society.
I hope that the power of Dr Dror’s original posting will not be lost in this diversion which in many ways is rooted in the past. What the McKie case says about the science of fingerprinting is important and he poses some important questions about the future of fingerprinting.
‘Does (the case) reflect basic issues in fingerprint analysis or/and as a science? Does it reflect different thresholds/criteria for reaching a conclusion? Or just different training/methodologies/processes? Or does it, maybe, reflect a ‘statistical/ probabilistic’ nature of the domain, or just its subjective, opinion-based, nature?’
As a layperson these are questions I would like answered.
Best wishes,
Iain
As always my thanks to all experts who have supported Shirley over the years.
-
adroitcaledonian
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:55 pm
- Location: The land of the father of fingerprinting
Hello Iain
What happened to the money from your 'fighting fund'?
Is that going to help free Patrick Docherty too?
I trust you are going to give Mojo all the information you claim to have about Patrick Docherty so as to assist in liberating him?
If it wasn't Docherty who killed Margaret Irvine then who was it?
I wonder if there there was anybody else at liberty around that time with a track record of killing vulnerable women living alone in their own home?
I'm sure it's all in the novel.
What happened to the money from your 'fighting fund'?
Is that going to help free Patrick Docherty too?
I trust you are going to give Mojo all the information you claim to have about Patrick Docherty so as to assist in liberating him?
If it wasn't Docherty who killed Margaret Irvine then who was it?
I wonder if there there was anybody else at liberty around that time with a track record of killing vulnerable women living alone in their own home?
I'm sure it's all in the novel.
No Lie Lasts Forever
-
Les Bush
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:29 am
- Location: Australia
Questions about fingerprinting
Hello Iain,
I take on board your quotation re issues to be addressed by the fingerprint community. No one can disagree with the proposition that internationally formalised and academic knowledge about what constitutes our science has not been reached. The Justice One committee were absolutely correct in their amazement that such highly qualified and experienced experts could approach the forensic question of proving fingerprint individuality from different understandings. The lessons are there to be learnt, we need to be pro active in ensuring that the present and future experts have the required knowledge and skills to professionally represent the science. The McKie case could be the catalyst for causing that activity to take place. I hope so.
Regards again. Les
I take on board your quotation re issues to be addressed by the fingerprint community. No one can disagree with the proposition that internationally formalised and academic knowledge about what constitutes our science has not been reached. The Justice One committee were absolutely correct in their amazement that such highly qualified and experienced experts could approach the forensic question of proving fingerprint individuality from different understandings. The lessons are there to be learnt, we need to be pro active in ensuring that the present and future experts have the required knowledge and skills to professionally represent the science. The McKie case could be the catalyst for causing that activity to take place. I hope so.
Regards again. Les