CLPEX Chat Board

Remember, it is entirely possible to make a well trained expert assert that a perfectly good ident is in fact erroneous. Simply by applying negative context. More research is soon to emerge but for now, a few tasters of what I am talking about.

Dror, I.E. & Charlton, D. (in press). Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56 (4), 600-616.

Dror, I.E., Charlton, D., & Peron A. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications Forensic Science International, 156 (1), 74-78.

Dror, I.E., Peron, A., Hind, S., & Charlton, D. (2005). When emotions get the better of us: The effect of contextual top-down processing on matching fingerprints. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(6), 799-809.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~id/publist.html

This is why I am cautious of jumping onto bandwagons and remaining impartial and objective. Bias is a dangerous effect that can cause impaired decision making in whatever the context may be. In theory, given the right contextual information, it is possible for fingerprint experts to differ from original positions, ie from ident to not, or from not ident to ident. So long as the right prompts and circumstances prevail, and decision could be subject to sucg effects.

Now, if you want some science, here is some. Please do not take this to mean anything other than a theoretical discussion, but, what if all the adverse publicity coming out of SCRO into the public domain was actually influencing experts when they assess evidence coming from such a bureau. It could be argued, and our research has proven this, that in the context of beieving that most evidence that may come from that bureau may be somehow tainted, the natural human assumption kicks in where you actually expect to see errors. In such circumstances it may be possible to draw such a conclusion. Now of course if the latest error was as obviously wrong as has been stated by Allen Bayle then so be it. But in truly difficult marks, the bias toward wanting to find error may in fact produce the self fullfilling prophecy desired.

This is where the true debate should begin. Not who made what mistake and when, but how we can make our science and our examiners less vulnerable to the influences that may lead to further errors in the future.

I hope that Bruce Grant, Arie Zeelenburg and others read this thread, because I think the psychology of error is an error untapped in any debate thus far. Serious research into the areas of culture, group dynamics and dare I say it internet society need to be examined and understood. ACE-V is a great and valid tool in our work. But ACE-V should be ACE-V over P. That is the effectiveness of ACE-V is only as good as the divisible that is psychological influences of the human being. Not only in examining latents, but also in our interaction with technology like AFIS as well. Over coming years I will be looking to expand upon many of these ideas.

cheers


Dave

Of course each examiner wants to see the prints in question for themselves before passing final judgement, as reflected in Glenn's call for production of the images. I doubt that any qualified examiner would say otherwise. However, we all frequently rely on the work of others that have proven themselves and their work to be reliable and verifiable.

SCRO cannot excape a tendency for pre-judgement based on their history. There is ample evidence in favor of them getting alleged fingerprint identifications wrong on multiple occasions. Adding in the respected reputations of those bringing forth the latest 'revelation' only reinforces that tendency for pre-judgement, be it right or wrong. Pre-judgement should not be confused with an informed, final judgement.

So, if the alleged identification is indeed valid, and the 'sub judice' or similar argument does not apply, why would the prints/productions in question not be published? If not published, the assumption and justifiable judgement would seem to logically be that it was to SCRO's detriment.

Dave, perhaps this statement of yours reveals the major difference between our positions:

"This is where the true debate should begin. Not who made what mistake and when, but how we can make our science and our examiners less vulnerable to the influences that may lead to further errors in the future."

I maintain that whenever a mistake is made, it must be studied. We cannot "make our science and our examiners less vulnerable to the influences that may lead to further errors in the future" unless we first know "who made what mistake and when," as well as what their mistake was and why they made it. And if a person makes a mistake and refuses to see it or admit it, is the problem with the science or with the person?

Now, if a person makes a mistake and, when shown, says, "Oh my gosh, yes, I see now that I was wrong," then it is much easier to figure out how to "make our science and our examiners less vulnerable to the influences that may lead to further errors in the future."

One of the major arguments our critics are using now is that of error rate. We have maintained that the error rate of the methodology is at issue, while the critics say we cannot make any distinction between error rate of methodology and error rate of practitioner. But that is wrong. Intuitively, I believe the error rate of the methodology approaches zero. The vast majority of erroneous identifications result from error of the expert. Most experts go their whole careers with no erroneous identifications. But there are some who make erroneous identifications over and over and over. Perhaps those people need a gentle nudge into a different profession.

No, Dave, we cannot truly move forward until we know about the mistakes that have been made in the past -- what mistakes have been made, when and by whom, and how those mistakes occurred. Only when we understand those mistakes can we take steps to avoid more like them in the future.

And if we in the profession do not focus our attention on those mistakes, who will?

I repeat that those who pass judgement by taking the word of others are entering dangerous territory. The word of other experts -no matter length of expertise or claims of 'eminent expert' by themselves or others is no basis for making 'identifications' or indeed 'misidentifications'. Relying on this makes for a worrying time in the profession by all who condemn without viewing actual evidence. Jumping on the bandwagon does not not help and only makes a mockery of the system by making assumptions on Mr.Bayles et al 'expert' opinion that this indeed an 'error'.

Beware of contributing to the fingerprint service by making 'hearsay' idents or error judgements on this basis that mocks the process that should be followed for making 'sound ascertations'.

Kafka

I have watched this story with great interest and the different points of view fascinates me immensely. This is the first time I have felt compelled to express my own thoughts - the reason being that charlton97 voiced something I'd been thinking myself.

"what if all the adverse publicity coming out of SCRO into the public domain was actually influencing experts when they assess evidence coming from such a bureau. It could be argued, and our research has proven this, that in the context of beieving that most evidence that may come from that bureau may be somehow tainted, the natural human assumption kicks in where you actually expect to see errors. In such circumstances it may be possible to draw such a conclusion."

If Allan Bayle were proven to be wrong on this occasion, would he be hung out to dry for this? Not for his human error I might add - for conducting himself in a manner that strongly suggests that he has been on an S.C.R.O 'witch hunt'. Would you, Allan Bayle, Pat Wertheim, David Grieve and Iain McKie etc be held accountable for your actions (witch hunting), ("there they go again") if S.C.R.O's identification was in fact correct?

Son of Adam

How wise you are - this reliance on others 'expert opinion' and making assumptions about cases that come from SCRO is indeed worrying. Is it a bandwagon or witch-hunt or both?

Kafka

Of course they would be held accountable. They have all posted and/or published using their actual names, unlike some who feel free to criticize under a pseudonym.

The 'bandwagon' effect aside, the characterization of their activities as a "witch hunt", would not seem to be appropriate, at least as I would define the term. Having a case "fall in your lap" that proves to have an erroneous ID is not the same as having access to all casework, & sytematically culling through it looking for any and all errors.

For the flip side of the coin, what if the claim of an additional misidentification by Allen Bayle is correct? He apparently did, after all, have his findings verified by two additional 'experts'. What further action by Mr. Bayle would be acceptable? If the individuals involved and the agency/bureau refuses to ackowledge the error, should he simply button his lip and sweep it under the rug? Or what avenue would be available to right the wrong, to try and insure that such an error did not occur again?

Bringing it to the light of day, which will hopefully provide a public and transparent opportunity for review would seem to have advantages.

I would like to explain where/when my first thoughts of 'witch hunting' began. Correct me if I am wrong. Please. Was there not a report of a third 'erroneous' identification in the Marion Ross case? An impression on a bank note found to be identical to David Asbury? It was independently verified was it not in recent months that S.C.R.O were correct in this identification? What I remember about this was that no one was hung out to dry, no apologies made (not publicly anyway).Was this report of the third erroneous ident which in fact turned out NOT to be erroneous the reason that the four S.C.R.O experts were suspended from duties? Pat Wertheim's comments to this revelation of non error from S.C.R.O on this occasion in a previous thread : "(oh, yes, there was one other identification to David – on a piece of currency that was in his home. Now there’s valuable evidence!)" That remark troubled me, Pat. This is pretty serious stuff. For you to be so flippant in respect of a report of a third erroneous ident which turned out to be very damaging error on the Danish experts part is nothing short of biased and therefore I would have to question your integrity.

son of adam,

There is truly a remarkable amount of information on the McKie case that has been posted on this msg board. Even if you have followed all the threads for years, it is easy to forget, or be confused due to the many instances of revisiting issues by supporters of SCRO that have previously been discredited, or at least clarified. And I do not seek to issue a blanket condemnation to those who sympathize with SCRO. I have no doubt there are many fine folks there who suffer by association.

I rely on news reports and postings on this msg board for the following:
There was a third, albeit brief, 'erroneous' identification reported by the Danish experts reviewing the case, of a print on a piece of currency found in the possession of Asbury. That work was reviewed by Arie Zeelenberg from the Netherlands, and found to be wrong. It has been suggested that the reason for the Dane's error was clerical in nature, due to mis-labeled or wrong photographs/fingerprints being looked at. Regardless, the Dane's readily admitted the mistake, and issued a revised report reflecting that the print on the currency in Asbury's possession was in fact made by Asbury.

The obvious difference here is the ready admittance and immediate correction of the error. Should the participants be 'hung out to dry' for doing the right thing?

I have no knowledge if this incident, related to an identification on an item with no probative value (there was no way to link the currency to Marion Ross or her residence), would have impacted the decision to suspend employees at SCRO. I suspect that the revelation of the 'erroneous' identification on the tin in Asbury's posession to Marion Ross would have had a far larger impact, although I do not immediately know the timing.

Hope another point of view along with what I believe to be factual information is helpful.

RL Tavernaro, I don't wish to appear to be a 'Doubting Thomas' but what you are saying is, that the Danish Experts made not a comparitive error, but a clerical error and wrong labelling is to blame for this? This is what you heard? Ok, if 'jumping on the bandwagon' wasn't the case on this occasion, that's all and good however, labelling error?

I appreciate your information but there is something I am still not clear on - if Arie Zeelenberg verified the identification at the time and the Danes admitted their error, then why was there a requirement to have the mark independently checked this year? I have read of three misidentifications in this case in several articles and threads therefore I would suggest that despite the Danes 'admitting error', they haven't acted accordingly strongly enough to inform the Fingerprint world and the general public that they made this 'clerical error'.

I look forward to hearing from you.

I have an update on my own question with regards to the 'third erroneous ident' in the Marion Ross case from following the live interview at the Scottish Parliament of the four experts from S.C.R.O.

The third impression in question was indeed independently verified in very recent months, this year possibly and if I remember the name correctly, by a Mr Mike Pass. It was AFTER THAT check that Arie Zeelenberg carried out his comparison. So, my question still stands - witch hunt/jumping on the bandwagon or, er, labelling error?

For those of you who did not view the live stream, here are one or two points (including suggestion of witch hunting) worth mentioning that came from today's session.

Hugh MacPherson, one of the four experts spoke of Allan Bayle's accusations of other mis-identifications. He appeared confident that Allan Bayle is in error and when these identifications are independently verified is seeking that Allan Bayle retract his demands that S.C.R.O. be shut down. All four felt that Allan Bayle is now seeking misidentifications to come from S.C.R.O therefore with that mindset is incapable of clear judgement.

Fiona McBride was given Pat Wertheim's production in court. She stated that it was damaged and unrecognisable.

Newsnight Scotland would not afford her a live interview. The Newsnight team told her Mr McKie said he would sue them if they did.

An MSP made mention of the fact that there were 12 (correct me if I'm wrong, I think it's close to that) experts including Peter Swann and Malcolm Graham (who still stands by his identification) that compared the mark and only ONE disagreed that it was Shirley McKie and that was Pat Wertheim. All other experts it was noted compared from the 'Crown' productions with exception to Pat Wertheim.

It will be interesting to see what comes from today's part of the inquiry. I have to say, it was compelling viewing. I'd be interested to hear what other people thought of it.

son of adam,

As previously posted, I have not addressed the 'band wagon' effect in this thread. However, I am willing to accept your conclusion regarding this occasion.

The terms 'clerical in nature' and 'mis-labeled' were mine in attempting to describe on a contextual basis what I had seen and/or heard about an explanation offered by others regarding the incident.

I do not personally possess all of the facts or have an intimate knowledge of precisely what occurred, however it has been posted on this board that the mistake by the Danes was due to them having received the wrong photographs originally, and consequently comparing the wrong fingerprints . If that is the case, do you have a better description to describe the mistake that would distinguish it from a fundemental fingerprint identification error?

I have no immediate knowledge regarding a requirement for a recent independent review of the identification of Asbury's print on currency in his possession. Could you please provide a specific citation?

That there was a mistake at all is indeed unfortunate. Dates and citations of the several articles and threads you refer to might be beneficial for research and assessment. The question of whether adequate steps have been taken to assuage damage that may have occurred as a result of that mistake may well be a valid question, if that is what you wish to pursue.

This would seem to be something of a side issue though, made more prominent and hurtful due in large part to the barrage of negative publicity the SCRO has suffered under. It sadly detracts from the two widely acknowledged erroneous identifications in the Shirley McKie case, and the possibility, if not probability, of others in the intervening years. SCRO and their personnel have enough problems without having to deal with what turns out in one instance to be a demonstrably false allegation, even if corrected in a timely manner.

It seems that 'son of sam' & I had posts pass each other in the internet ethereal regions. My acceptance of his/her apparent 'band-wagon' conclusion referred to the post of 'Tue May 30, 2006 1:44 pm'.

"son of sam' was also prescient in providing some citations when he/she had yet to see my request. Thank you. I shall seek to follow-up when other more pressing matters are attended to.

Please forgive my error in the preceding post in reffering to 'son of sam'. In my haste I mis-typed what should have been 'son of adam'.

RL Tavernaro, you seem to be a genuinely decent, honest man and I have the impression that you believe that there could be 'witch hunting' at play here and of course that sort of behaviour is unacceptable. Today at the Parliamentary Inquiry, Hugh Macpherson set the record straight on the Sinclair ident which Allan Bayle was involved in, again, independently. Hugh MacPherson pointed out that it was in fact an ident. In this instance, the case wasn't accepted in court due to the number of points in sequence and agreement not falling in with the 16 point standard which is still required in Scotland today. Allan Bayle is doing himself and the fingerprint world no favours in conducting himself in this manner. By going straight to the newspapers and televised news with these alleged erroneous idents he is not allowing The Scottish Fingerprint Service to move on. Furthermore, he will bury his reputation and take others with him if/when it is proved he is in error with his accusations.

After viewing the live discussion, I became interested in what the four witnesses from S.C.R.O. had to say about Pat Wertheim's productions. Unrecognisable to the productions they worked with, the impression damaged due to brush marks, plain impressions used instead of rolled, omitting some relevant points, etc. Can I ask you RL Tavernaro did you make your comparison using Pat Wertheim's images, the ones posted on the internet? Could you be open to the suggestion that as one of the MSP's proposed today that anyone that has studied Pat Wertheim's internet images have possible been misled by them?

I would throw that question to all reading this thread that has formed an opinion using Pat Wertheim's images. It could make for an interesting debate.