The issue of the alleged misidentification of Marion’s print was not aired at Asbury's trial: Asbury's Appeal was founded on the Danes’ assessment, later recanted after Mike Pass agreed with the SCRO identification.
There was never any question over the print on the tag. Asbury admitted being in the house anyway (which is more than Shirley did!)
I suggest you check out Asbury’s solicitor’s comments. You can read them in the Sunday Times (early March 2006)
You are very free with your use of the word lie and at calling people who have made genuine mistakes liars.
May I remind you what a liar really is?
A liar is someone who says, for example, that she is unaware if anyone else has looked at her print when she had full knowledge on Peter Swann’s report or, another example, a retired cop who claims he was once a detective with Strathclyde Police when he was not!
Maybe you are spending too much time with the McKies.
Can’t wait to get them under oath!!!!
Statistics and Misidentifications - The weeks Detail
-
Dick Dastardly
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:53 am
At the risk of being terribly boring, can you please stop repeating the lie that the Danes recanted their statement that the Ross Id was wrong?
You have said this more than once, and if you read my previous post, you will see the sequence of events. They did NOT withdraw their opinion on the alleged Ross print on the tin. Either get your facts right, or stop posting.
Pass's opinion was not on that print.
You tell me that we can see Asbury's solicitors comments on the matter in the Sunday times. Can you tell me what was said. i am REALLY curious.
I do reserve the word "lie" for those who state something that they know not to be true. That is why I called you a liar, as you continually perpetuate untruths. You have not challenged my statement about the fact that the money was Asbury's, yet you posted before on this and suggested it was his. Are you now withdrawing it, or are you not big enough to do so.
I do not understand your cryptic statements about someone who said he was a detective in Strathclyde police. Why don't you just say what you mean instead of implied defamatory statements. Or is this the way you think a debate should be conducted?
You have said this more than once, and if you read my previous post, you will see the sequence of events. They did NOT withdraw their opinion on the alleged Ross print on the tin. Either get your facts right, or stop posting.
Pass's opinion was not on that print.
You tell me that we can see Asbury's solicitors comments on the matter in the Sunday times. Can you tell me what was said. i am REALLY curious.
I do reserve the word "lie" for those who state something that they know not to be true. That is why I called you a liar, as you continually perpetuate untruths. You have not challenged my statement about the fact that the money was Asbury's, yet you posted before on this and suggested it was his. Are you now withdrawing it, or are you not big enough to do so.
I do not understand your cryptic statements about someone who said he was a detective in Strathclyde police. Why don't you just say what you mean instead of implied defamatory statements. Or is this the way you think a debate should be conducted?
-
Daktari
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:50 am
- Location: Glasgow
But presumably you DID understand the one about someone saying she had no knowledge of anyone else, apart from SCRO, examining her print. This, in spite of having travelled over 400 miles to meet Peter Swann. And submitting an averment claiming that nobody, except SCRO, had said that Y7 was hers? And all of this under oath!!!I do not understand your cryptic statements about someone who said he was a detective in Strathclyde police.
You can look up the Suday Times for yourself, you seem to have plenty time on your hands.
-
Dick Dastardly
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:53 am
1. You have still not answered my question about your lies. I will, and assume most will, take it that as you have not denied it, you have admitted it.
2. You have not enlightened me on the cryptic comments about a retired detective.
3. I know exactly what you are saying about Shirley allegedly lying. This is old ground. I don't accept that she lied. I don't accept that there was a false averment about it.
4. I don't have as much time as you to look idly through past copies of the Sunday Times. I will assume therefore that you don't know what or when was allegedly published.
5. It takes little of my valuable time to show you for the time waster that you are. It is not a difficult task and so long as you post the rubbish that you do, I shall find time to respond to it.
I await your next posting for the SCRO. I am sure it will be as much of a gem as the others.
2. You have not enlightened me on the cryptic comments about a retired detective.
3. I know exactly what you are saying about Shirley allegedly lying. This is old ground. I don't accept that she lied. I don't accept that there was a false averment about it.
4. I don't have as much time as you to look idly through past copies of the Sunday Times. I will assume therefore that you don't know what or when was allegedly published.
5. It takes little of my valuable time to show you for the time waster that you are. It is not a difficult task and so long as you post the rubbish that you do, I shall find time to respond to it.
I await your next posting for the SCRO. I am sure it will be as much of a gem as the others.
-
charlton97
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:51 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Please please please, can we move on from this banter and get on to discussing the issues that latent print examiners find pertinant to today. We must move on now and look to the future...learn lessons, act on those lessons, improve the science. This exchange is on a forum that can be seen from the outside in....we must be careful to exhibit a stance of professionalism.
An enquiry? No enquiry? What will be will be. But Mr Mulhearn put it very well.....there may never be a resolution to this issue.
Can't we please discuss the science and research within the science. Do I have to turn on to CLPEX and have to endure the same old discussion, with the same old sniping? Come on everyone...I want to wake up from this 'Grounhog Day'!!!!
An enquiry? No enquiry? What will be will be. But Mr Mulhearn put it very well.....there may never be a resolution to this issue.
Can't we please discuss the science and research within the science. Do I have to turn on to CLPEX and have to endure the same old discussion, with the same old sniping? Come on everyone...I want to wake up from this 'Grounhog Day'!!!!
-
charlton97
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:51 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
-
Daktari
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:50 am
- Location: Glasgow
The cohort I referred to is, as you know, Dr 'Bottom' Dror.
Readers will no doubt remember him from his NewsnightScotland appearance with Gordon Brewer shortly after the McKie ‘settlement’.
He performed a party trick with some stencilled numbers and letters then told Brewer “You will see...."
A more accomplished children’s' magician would have asked, "What do you see?" But Dror was obviously in no mood to take risks.
I have the full transcript somewhere but a few moments surfing on the BBC website will find you the video of the interview. (It may be on shirleymckie.com)
My major criticism of you and Dror’s output is in lack of peer review and the use of overwhelmingly McKie supporter’s to give some credibility to your work.
Contrast your efforts with this verbatim extract from an email I received recently in connection with the results of some serious and purposeful scientific research.
Dear XXXXXXX
We saw our last patient for their final follow-up visit in March and completed our analysis of the trial findings shortly thereafter. We have submitted our account of the trial to an international journal and await independent peer review. As soon as that review is completed (and assuming our results to be valid) we will advise patients and their GPs immediately.
Sorry for the long wait. The final confirming step by independent reviewers, before our announcement of the results, is a very necessary one for the validity of the trial.
Best wishes,
XXXXXX
June 21, 2007.
Maybe you should take a leaf out of their book.
You also asked about ‘cold feet’. Do you not find it interesting that the only people who are calling for an Inquiry to be scrapped are McKie supporters? Iain McKie himself asked for the Inquiry to be called off, but later backtracked.
I am unaware of any one supporting the SCRO identification who does not wish to see a full Inquiry into this affair. I would have thought that as someone with a keen interest in fingerprints that you would have been pleased to the matter nearing resolution. After all you have nothing to lose by one taking place. (Or am I missing something?)
Readers will no doubt remember him from his NewsnightScotland appearance with Gordon Brewer shortly after the McKie ‘settlement’.
He performed a party trick with some stencilled numbers and letters then told Brewer “You will see...."
A more accomplished children’s' magician would have asked, "What do you see?" But Dror was obviously in no mood to take risks.
I have the full transcript somewhere but a few moments surfing on the BBC website will find you the video of the interview. (It may be on shirleymckie.com)
My major criticism of you and Dror’s output is in lack of peer review and the use of overwhelmingly McKie supporter’s to give some credibility to your work.
Contrast your efforts with this verbatim extract from an email I received recently in connection with the results of some serious and purposeful scientific research.
Dear XXXXXXX
We saw our last patient for their final follow-up visit in March and completed our analysis of the trial findings shortly thereafter. We have submitted our account of the trial to an international journal and await independent peer review. As soon as that review is completed (and assuming our results to be valid) we will advise patients and their GPs immediately.
Sorry for the long wait. The final confirming step by independent reviewers, before our announcement of the results, is a very necessary one for the validity of the trial.
Best wishes,
XXXXXX
June 21, 2007.
Maybe you should take a leaf out of their book.
You also asked about ‘cold feet’. Do you not find it interesting that the only people who are calling for an Inquiry to be scrapped are McKie supporters? Iain McKie himself asked for the Inquiry to be called off, but later backtracked.
I am unaware of any one supporting the SCRO identification who does not wish to see a full Inquiry into this affair. I would have thought that as someone with a keen interest in fingerprints that you would have been pleased to the matter nearing resolution. After all you have nothing to lose by one taking place. (Or am I missing something?)
-
charlton97
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:51 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
The Journal of Applied Psychology
The Fingerprint Society (Fingerprint Whorld)
The IAI (Journal of Forensic Identification)
The British Psychological Society
Do you Daktari not consider these valid peer reviewed institutions? Funnily enough all the above bodies have published our research.
The British Psychological Society Forensic Division considered the work of such importance that I was awarded the Junior Award (reserved for scientists new to academic research) last year for 'the production of forensic research of outstanding quality'.
We have presented data to:
The Royal Statistical Society
The Fingerprint Society
The Forensic Science Society
The British Psychological Society
The Canadian IAI
The University of Delhi
I could go on and on and on and on!!
This is termed peer review. Or do you even discount this evidence?
Daktari, you try to win arguments with abuse, and you refer to eminent scientists and researchers with both antagonism and contempt. There is no place in science for the venom you pedal.
Use of McKie supporters?? Come off it Daktari. Both sides in this particular argument have tried to use this research to their own ends.
The fact is Daktari you are intimidated aren't you. Intimidated by anything that you either cannot or will never grasp. You are a dinosaur who is lost in a world of yesteryear. It is time for you to seek pastures new I think. You will continue to lose the scientific arguments and you will find your harsh and arrogant opinions despatched to the trash cans of history, never to see the light of day. That is, unless you join me in a quest for scientific knowledge and understanding. Trouble is....I don't think you will.
I am prepared to put my neck on the block.. you know who I am, you know all about Dr Dror (by the way that is his name not a piece of furniture.....that would be drawer). Why don't you introduce yourself in Manchester in a few weeks when Dr Dror and I will be conducting a workshop on our research on behalf of the Fingerprint Society. More peer review and discussion!! Will you be there?? Or will you claim that you are busy and prefer to avoid the challenge, only seeking to insult and abuse others via a web forum.
Come on Daktari, tell the readers who you are......at least then they could place your comments in some sort of context.
The Fingerprint Society (Fingerprint Whorld)
The IAI (Journal of Forensic Identification)
The British Psychological Society
Do you Daktari not consider these valid peer reviewed institutions? Funnily enough all the above bodies have published our research.
The British Psychological Society Forensic Division considered the work of such importance that I was awarded the Junior Award (reserved for scientists new to academic research) last year for 'the production of forensic research of outstanding quality'.
We have presented data to:
The Royal Statistical Society
The Fingerprint Society
The Forensic Science Society
The British Psychological Society
The Canadian IAI
The University of Delhi
I could go on and on and on and on!!
This is termed peer review. Or do you even discount this evidence?
Daktari, you try to win arguments with abuse, and you refer to eminent scientists and researchers with both antagonism and contempt. There is no place in science for the venom you pedal.
Use of McKie supporters?? Come off it Daktari. Both sides in this particular argument have tried to use this research to their own ends.
The fact is Daktari you are intimidated aren't you. Intimidated by anything that you either cannot or will never grasp. You are a dinosaur who is lost in a world of yesteryear. It is time for you to seek pastures new I think. You will continue to lose the scientific arguments and you will find your harsh and arrogant opinions despatched to the trash cans of history, never to see the light of day. That is, unless you join me in a quest for scientific knowledge and understanding. Trouble is....I don't think you will.
I am prepared to put my neck on the block.. you know who I am, you know all about Dr Dror (by the way that is his name not a piece of furniture.....that would be drawer). Why don't you introduce yourself in Manchester in a few weeks when Dr Dror and I will be conducting a workshop on our research on behalf of the Fingerprint Society. More peer review and discussion!! Will you be there?? Or will you claim that you are busy and prefer to avoid the challenge, only seeking to insult and abuse others via a web forum.
Come on Daktari, tell the readers who you are......at least then they could place your comments in some sort of context.
-
charlton97
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:51 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Why yes, both you and Adroit have used quotes and appropriated psychological concepts to make your arguments...let me see:
[/i]Adroit says:
I do not know enough about Mr. Dror's research to either disagree with him or to agree with Daktari on this one. However the term 'confirmation bias' led me to the 'McKie information' link under the 'recent events' title on the homepage of this very site.
So we have a detailed instuction to any examiners wishing to look at Pat's evidence (but no mention of the obvious chasm splitting the latent in two thus disrupting the 'in sequnce' across the latent if taken as whole, but not as two sections, within each section enough points under the previous numerical system to present to a court, as opposed to eliminate)
There is a great subjective build up by Arie Zeelenberg (i.e. not scientific. Dave, check in Dror's references, please with a straight face tell me there is no conflict of interest. Sharon, what mis-ident has been proven in a court regarding the Asbury case?, you aren't an ex-student of Pat or any of the Wertheim family are you?)
Dave, I respect that Dror may be one of the keenest authorities on human cognition, you should respect that human cognition is why the SCRO had a vociferous quality assurance system in place, you should also respect that the jury who -denied the knowledge of a key witness by the defendant- cleared Shirley McKie were neither psychologists or fingerpint experts.
You seem to be suffering from 'mindset' too.
You Say:
I'm not trying to be facetious here, and I acknowledge that you didn't sign the petition, but would you think that the 171 people who did are also prone to bias, particularly when there is so much emotional preamble and clear direction on the "correct" way to approach the marks?
All of this wouldn't matter but for Zeelenbergs involvement.
Was the petition research for Dror's study or is he, and all of those who signed it guilty of the very thing you now accuse Peter Swann of?
“When Pat produced photographs of the mark on the door, they said he had damaged the mark and his photographs were not valid (neither claim being true). Then the campaign moved on to suggesting that the experts for the McKie case were biased.”
Yes, I think this was actually verified at Justice 1, when all of the Mckie experts asked admitted that they had heard of the case and formed an opinion on it before asked to report on it (usually they had seen wonky Pats evidence), what was it Arie Zeelenberg and Itiel Dror referred to, was it a “mindset”? Hmmm. I think I’m beginning to see…
-
Daktari
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:50 am
- Location: Glasgow
Quote:
The research I referred to is the stuff Bottom Dror used on Newsnight and the study of top down contextual influences.
(I won't mention the use of subliminal images)
The problem I have is that this relates to mistakes and the SCRO experts did not make a mistake with their identification of Y7.
If you think different please say so!
Your stance as an independent academic is severely dented by having links to McKie videos on your website and by McKie having links to you and Dror's work on his website. It simply just stinks!
As I stated on an earlier posting the reviewers and collaborators you use, with possibly one exception, are firmly tarred as being McKie supporters.
Can you provide an example of this?Use of McKie supporters?? Come off it Daktari. Both sides in this particular argument have tried to use this research to their own ends.
The research I referred to is the stuff Bottom Dror used on Newsnight and the study of top down contextual influences.
(I won't mention the use of subliminal images)
The problem I have is that this relates to mistakes and the SCRO experts did not make a mistake with their identification of Y7.
If you think different please say so!
Your stance as an independent academic is severely dented by having links to McKie videos on your website and by McKie having links to you and Dror's work on his website. It simply just stinks!
As I stated on an earlier posting the reviewers and collaborators you use, with possibly one exception, are firmly tarred as being McKie supporters.
-
charlton97
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:51 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
I could also post on my web site images of 911 and have links to al quaeda....does that make me a terrorist........no....it means I am well read and understand world events........in fingerprints...being an expert means being aware of such issues as Mckie, Mayfield, Daubert, etc etc etc
As I have always always stated....I DO NOT CARE ABOUT WHETHER MCKIE MARK IS AN IDENTIFICATION. As a scientists I do care about how experts with similar experience, knowledge and technical acumen can come to very different conclusions. That should worry you too.
Please refrain from abusing my esteemed colleague Dr Dror in future, it just makes you look unprofessional.
As I have always always stated....I DO NOT CARE ABOUT WHETHER MCKIE MARK IS AN IDENTIFICATION. As a scientists I do care about how experts with similar experience, knowledge and technical acumen can come to very different conclusions. That should worry you too.
Please refrain from abusing my esteemed colleague Dr Dror in future, it just makes you look unprofessional.
-
Daktari
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:50 am
- Location: Glasgow
You don’t have links to Al-Queda on your website!
Well not the last time I looked anyway!
My point is this. For a number of years know you and your esteemed colleague have specialised in your theories on how mistakes occur in fingerprint processes.
Probably the most well known ‘mistake’ is the identification of Y7 as Shirley McKie’s left thumb.
I believe that if thought for a single second that that identification was a mistake you would have jumped on the bandwagon and came straight out and said so. It does seem rather odd that you have remained silent over something that would go a long way to adding credibility to your views rather than your esteemed colleague doing party tricks on the BBC. (And not doing it very well I might add)
Talking of mistakes what about Bayle’s, MacLeod, Dempster, and the Danes?
All of whom wrongly accused the SCRO of misidentification only to recant at a later date. But let’s talk about something that you have full knowledge of and the experts in the ‘covert’ study!
Can you explain what action, if any, has been taken over this?
Presumably, you handed your results over to the proper authorities.
Can you tell us if any innocent people were convicted or guilty people acquitted as a result of the errors you discovered?
And. I may ask, if the study was carried out with approval of several, unnamed, police forces what action did they take on learning of your results?
Readers may like to check out the ‘and you will see’ interview on
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~id/bbc.html
Well not the last time I looked anyway!
My point is this. For a number of years know you and your esteemed colleague have specialised in your theories on how mistakes occur in fingerprint processes.
Probably the most well known ‘mistake’ is the identification of Y7 as Shirley McKie’s left thumb.
I believe that if thought for a single second that that identification was a mistake you would have jumped on the bandwagon and came straight out and said so. It does seem rather odd that you have remained silent over something that would go a long way to adding credibility to your views rather than your esteemed colleague doing party tricks on the BBC. (And not doing it very well I might add)
Talking of mistakes what about Bayle’s, MacLeod, Dempster, and the Danes?
All of whom wrongly accused the SCRO of misidentification only to recant at a later date. But let’s talk about something that you have full knowledge of and the experts in the ‘covert’ study!
Can you explain what action, if any, has been taken over this?
Presumably, you handed your results over to the proper authorities.
Can you tell us if any innocent people were convicted or guilty people acquitted as a result of the errors you discovered?
And. I may ask, if the study was carried out with approval of several, unnamed, police forces what action did they take on learning of your results?
Readers may like to check out the ‘and you will see’ interview on
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~id/bbc.html
-
H. B. James
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:02 am
- Location: US
I think I finally figured you out, Daktari. The bone goes all the way to the very center molecule of your skull.
Bayle, MacLeod, Dempster, and the Danes have admitted their mistakes and appropriate apologies have been made. Those responsible for the mistakes in the erroneous identifications surrounding the Marion Ross murder have never admitted mistakes, much less apologized to those they wronged. Worse, the managers, administrators, and politicians have never cut to the root of the problem and dealt with it.
I think I can differentiate between honorable actions and dishonorable stubborness.
Bayle, MacLeod, Dempster, and the Danes have admitted their mistakes and appropriate apologies have been made. Those responsible for the mistakes in the erroneous identifications surrounding the Marion Ross murder have never admitted mistakes, much less apologized to those they wronged. Worse, the managers, administrators, and politicians have never cut to the root of the problem and dealt with it.
I think I can differentiate between honorable actions and dishonorable stubborness.
H. B. "Hank" James
ID Unit Supervisor
ID Unit Supervisor