CLPEX Chat Board

David,

I could not agree with you more that it is the Society as a whole that stands to suffer as a result of this appointment.

I am aware that Martin Leadbetter when he was backing Fiona McBride also chose to mention her forthcoming Court Case against her former employer for unfair dismissal.

I think since he is fully aware of this then it is extremely naïve to endorse her appointment until AFTER she has been through that Court Case. Given the comment he has made he obviously is aware of what her case is, and I only hope the members who voted at the AGM were given those facts. Were they informed she is pursuing a legal case? You may ask what the implications are of this?

What if she loses her case? Her aim is to be re-instated within the SPSA. If she loses this case where does that leave her? Where does that leave her appointment with the Fingerprint Society given a lot of information will come out at her case?

I assume Leadbetter is aware of her actions within the Glasgow Bureau when she swore at Senior Management on a number of occasions. In front of her own colleagues who were disgusted and appalled at her behaviour.

I assume Leadbetter is equally aware of her continual defiance of procedures given to her by her management?

I assume Leadbetter is aware of her public defiance by turning up at the Royal Concert Hall and handing out propaganda while still employed by the SPSA, breaking orders she had been given?

Martin Leadbetter even went as far as saying she was not guilty of any wrong-doing!

Leadbetter claimed the Society needs to remain impartial over the McKie case when he himself allowed his report to be submitted to Justice 1!

And Leadbetter himself posted on a Scottish News forum a while back publicly supporting Miss McBride.

The dilemma facing the Fingerprint Society is after the Public Enquiry. New evidence is coming to light almost weekly exposing certain persons as liars, and indeed inferring things much worse.

And I can guarantee those who have made errors, honestly, or otherwise will NOT accept their errors. Individuals are not accepting them now, so why would things later after the Enquiry. This will I guess will tie in with your research Dave, regarding mindset.

I am sure you are as aware of what I am what that Enquiry will conclude. And if individuals REFUSE to accept their errors then they will equally refuse to relinquish their posts as their belief is they have done nothing wrong.

Why would Leadbetter state that McBride has done nothing wrong, when the evidence is there to be seen?

The Fingerprint Society is not about individuals and hidden agendas, but that is what it has become. The credibility of the Society is being eroded with Leadbetter as Chairman, McBride as Editor and Mackenzie on the Committee.

I like you fear for its existence. How can it thrive and move forward?

Time will tell Dave…..

Dear Taggart,
the chairperson read out a letter first from our antipodean experts, who expressed their concerns over the suggested editor. I got there too late to hear all of what they said. Fiona got a chance to tell us why she wanted the position. the chair said some supportive stuff. Then one member stood up and requested that due to the disquiet over this appointment, maybe it should be put out to a vote to ALL members. A second member present then stood up to second that view. The chair then appointed Fiona.
The seconder then pointed out that he had forgotten to ask those present if we wanted it to go out to all members. 6 present voted for it to go to all members. The rest, wanted it decided there and then.
We then voted for or against the appointment. 6 members present voted against. some abstained, and the majority voted Fiona in.

Time will tell on the effect this appointment has on the society.

Karen

Karen,

Thanks for the information and the update. Seems the majority of members support this appointment which is interesting.

I hope you had an enjoyable weekend in any case.

I see the Fingerprint Society have a new website, with a number of pages still under construction.

One thing that has disappeared however is the April 2000 edition of the Journal they used as an example of their fine work.

It contained a wonderful article by David Grieve about the McKie case and the misidentifications by SCRO.

I wonder if it will be uploaded again? I for one hope it is, but I can't help wonder what message it would give if that particular edition does not appear again? I will keep an eye on their website with great interest.

Thanks again Karen

The fact that there was any sort of debate at all is quite revealing to me. Usually all appointments are quite routine and carry no debate whatsoever. I don't know whether it is the best way of conducting a debate for any Chairperson to be a strong advocate for one side or the other. This for sure will skew debate in favour of the Chairperson's views and or desires. Remember that Leadbetter is a strong personality who holds alot of sway in the community. Again, group dynamics play a part. A wider membership vote, with pros and cons put before them, and under blind conditions may have provided a more revealing indicator of feeling. Certainly in my own bureau the feeling against this appointment was one of incredulity. What would other bureau think? It seems from what I have heard that the Aussies were quite vocal in their objections. I wonder whether this will mean that members from that part of the world will ebb away. Letters of objection from members does not appear to include other letters of objection that I am privy too?? Does that mean the Chair was 'selective' with the debate material?? Like I said before, people will ultimately vote with their membership fees. Not this year, but certainly over next couple of years. There will either be a huge endorsement of this appointment, or a catestrophic condemnation. We shall see.

One other thing on the subject of how to conduct a debate. A debate that should have been had in the committee meeting just prior to the AGM (as is traditional). If the wider AGM had been told that members were already resigning as a result of just the possibility of such an appointment, then would the AGM debate, and maybe even the outcome have been different??

Helping People to Contribute Effectively During Meetings
http://www.meetings.org/meeting3.htm

There are many reasons for non-participation during meetings including lack of preparation, shyness, being overawed by rank or someone's specialist knowledge, being put off by another's aggressiveness or dominant behaviour or just pure laziness.

To draw out the silent type and protect them from intimidation it might be helpful to ask questions that tap their expertise, praise their good ideas, openly note their contributions, call on those that are shy or junior first.

Of course you may also have to limit the long winded. This can be done by setting the ground rules at the start including how long any one person can speak for at a time. You should also request that remarks be confined to the topic of discussion. If someone still insists on an opera length speech you may have to tactfully but firmly insist that you move on.

It is equally important to remain focused on the agenda and what needs to be achieved. To do this you will want to summarise progress and remind everyone of the meeting's objectives. You will also have to interrupt if the discussion gets out of hand, off topic, too heated or rowdy. Act quickly if a serious disagreement arrises.

Sometimes a participant may have something worthy to contribute but may not be the best public speaker. At such times it is the chair's job to rescue that person by helpfully summating what they think he/she was trying to say.

As the meeting chair you should work to encourage diverse points of view, especially if it is a problem solving or brainstorming session. Well run meetings enable a group of people to achieve more than the sum of their individual efforts, through the creation of synergy and the combination of their collective expertise.

As the chair you should encourage all opinions and perspectives to be explored. Some participants will need to broaden their viewpoints while others must be encouraged to be more realistic.

Dave,

I see from Karen’s comments that the Chair said some “supportive” things about McBride in front of the members.

I would love to hear further from Karen if she is able to tell us exactly what he did say to support her? Did he say she had done nothing wrong? Not to believe everything you read in the press? Did he explain to the membership of her forthcoming court case?

Given Members had ALREADY resigned from the Society PRIOR to the Conference, as a DIRECT result of this appointment I am sure Leadbetter would have been duty bound to inform the members this had happened. And you are correct Dave; I assume this WOULD have influenced the vote.

To keep this information secret would clearly show that Leadbetter does not have the interest of the Society at heart, but is more interested in self protection, and desperately trying to protect his own reputation, and the reputations of a small percentage of the Society, who just happen to be his "chums".

Think about it. Leadbetter has prepared a report which has the same conclusion as McBride over Y7. Well not quite. Leadbetter’s conclusion is clearly flawed in McBride’s eyes as he didn’t use Original material. She can’t have it both ways. She can’t attempt to discredit all those experts who used other images to reach their conclusions but accept the findings of Leadbetter because his opinion is similar to hers using this same “flawed” material. Doesn't work that way. Clearly she will have to expose Leadbetter at the Public Enquiry!

So how can Leadbetter do anything other than support McBride. In truth Leadbetter has used the Society, and its members. Not for the good of the Society but to protect his own reputation.

Unless we find out Leadbetter WAS honest with the membership by telling them about the resignations, and the forthcoming court case?

One other thing that struck me, and I wonder if anyone can answer?

What is the OFFICIAL view of the The Fingerprint Society over the McKie case?

Does it accept that misidentifications were made? I am asking about the position of the SOCIETY as a whole, and not regarding individuals.

I assume a professional body set up dedicated to the Science of Fingerprints would be in a position to accept the overwhelming findings of the various bodies, including The National Training Centre at Durham, the Scottish Executive, The Scottish Crown Office to name a few. And therefore would have an official position.

But let me guess, someone is going to come back and tell me the Fingerprint Society is impartial and doesn't have an official view?

Anyone know the position of the Society?

That has indeed always been the position of the Society for as long as I can remember. It is all to do with remaining a 'passive observer'...'never having seen the original material' etc etc. Even the potential under articles to expell members on all sides for breaking conduct codes etc has been avoided for fear of litigation associated with 'restriction of professional practice'. The committee only over last few years has obtained vicarious liability insurance to cover the committee being liable in such instances. I have alot of sympathy for most on committee in this regard as they have families and mortgages etc etc.

I think the likelyhood of the Society...or IAI for that matter ever having a hard position on this matter is about as likely as me competing in the Beijing Olympics!!!!

Sadly, Dave is right in his comment that neither the Fingerprint Society nor the IAI will go on record. A number of people, including a vice president of the IAI, have approached me with the idea that the situation could be brought to a head in the IAI if someone were to file a complaint against me with the Latent Print Certification Board on the grounds that I erroneously excluded Shirley McKie as the donor of Y7. The Certification Board would then have to hold a hearing of sorts in which I could defend myself against the charge. I would welcome such a complaint being filed against me! Of course, the Certification Board would find in my favor, which would become a de facto position of the IAI. The problem with that scenario is that it requires someone willing to go on record as saying I was wrong and the SCRO was right. No takers?

I know of at least one former member of the Society who voted against Ms McBride in absentia by resigning in advance from the Society. I wonder how many members who were not at the meeting will vote late in the same way.

Before I continue with this posting I must state that any views expressed are personal and any observations I make are my own perceptions, and may not reflect those of my employer (Greater Manchester Police), or other members of The Fingerprint Society committee.

I am Richard Case, the current webmaster for The Fingerprint Society Website. I attended the committee meeting (prior to the AGM), the AGM and the actual conference.

I am going to take this opportunity to clarify some of the comments already made, and let you know what I intend to include on the website. I hope this does not give anybody any reason to target me on this thread.

With regards to comments made on this and other threads regarding Graham Hughes, a previous editor of Fingerprint Whorld. Unfortunately due to personal reasons unconnected with The Fingerprint Society, Graham left his employment and decided to return to full time education. As this did not involve fingerprints, he decided he could no longer be the editor of Fingerprint Whorld, and it was a very sad day for the committee when his resignation letter was received, as Graham was an excellent editor and a great servant to The Society.

I fully respect the views of Iain McKie and was very pleased to have him speak at the conference I organised in Cardiff. I found him to be a very approachable man and at the time he was grateful for having the platform to put across his story at the conference. I sincerely hope that he and other persons involved in the Mckie case get their opportunity to put across their views in a judicial enquiry.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Thomas, Karen and Michelle for their positive views in this thread on the role of The Society. To answer the question on the stance of The Society (my own perception): The Society was established to encourage communication within the fingerprint service, to make new friends and to educate its membership. We have never sold The Society as a regulator or arbiter in cases of dispute. We have, and will remain totally neutral on the McKie case, but will respect the views of any findings made by higher authorities.

Only once the case has been totally concluded, if it ever is, shall we review any complaints that are made to see whether anyone has breached The Society rules, by bringing The Society into disrepute.

We have hundreds of members who sit on either side of the argument, or have no opinion at all. It would be inappropriate and totally unacceptable to the majority of the membership for The Fingerprint Society to dictate what the ultimate decision should be.

THE COMMITTEE MEETING

During the committee meeting, which was not attended by Fiona, we agreed that we would be totally open and give any attendees any information required.

The Chairman agreed to read in full, correspondence he had received from Australia outlining their concerns.

THE AGM

I concur with Dave Charlton that there is never enough members that attend the AGM. This year was no exception, despite the efforts of some to round up as many as they could.

As already posted, with regards to the editorship, The Chairman read the concerns from Australia and gave his own opinions on how Fiona would be as editor, and Fiona was also given the opportunity to make her own personal address, publicly stating that she will not be publishing anything regarding ehe McKie case within the journal.

The Chairman also noted that the decision to appoint could affect membership in the short term. He did not mention that anyone resigned, as to my knowledge nobody has. We have only received one notification that they will not renew due to the decision.

2 persons from the audience spoke of their desire to put the vote out to membership.

This proposal was voted on, but not carried. Personally I believe that this action would have set a precedent, and made almost all future decisions impossible without first considering putting a vote out to membership.

It was then decided whether or not to appoint Fiona.

The overwhelming majority voted for the appointment.

I must also add that no other nominations came forward for the post.

THE CONFERENCE

The conference itself was a great success, and I believe everyone who attended enjoyed the weekend.

THE WEBSITE

To answer Dave Charlton. All positions in the committee have now been filled and will be updated on the website once I have received contact details.

To Taggart: I apologise for the number of pages still under construction. As well as posting the new site we also had to change our service provider due to issues with compatibility with our previous provider. This was not confirmed until 24 hours prior to the conference, so I haven’t had a chance to fully populate the site as yet. Be rest assured that it will be done in the coming days and weeks.

Also I will not be posting the issue of Fingerprint Whorld that was on our previous site. The only reason for this is that I intend to put all journals on the site for downloading at a small cost. Obviously it would not be sensible to have a free one available for download. Anyway the previous site had that issue available for a number of years so most people would have had the opportunity to download it. I am also sure that if requested, Dave Grieve would re-publish that article on this site.

TO FINISH

I personally met Fiona for the first time during the conference. She came across as very enthusiastic, focussed and committed to The Society.

I hope that members will at least give her the opportunity of a few of journals to see whether she is a good editor or not, before making a decision on their future membership.


Richard Case
Webmaster
The Fingerprint Society

Richard, thanks for this update. I know that you are a dedicated and committed member of the committee and you work tirelessly to further the aims and ideals of the organisation.

Richard is quite correct in what he says about the long held remit of Society with regard to this case.

I too have met Fiona and found her to be personable and intelligent. But that is not the same as suggesting that she is a gold plated editor of a journal that represents a flagship for the Society. Many know my views on her appointment that have nothing to do with her as a person, but represent above all else professional expediency on my part. It is simply a matter of credibility. Y7 could be a match for all I know (for debating purposes), and Fiona could be right. But the smart money does not bear that out and at the very least, we will have an editor that may be subject to ongoing interrogation and cross examination in a formal legal setting. This will mean that like it or not the Society will be drawn into the debate, irrespective of any desire to remain neutral. This appointment has de facto meant the Society has taken up a position. The truly neutral thing to do would have been to have not appointed her at all but have stated that the position of editor would for sure be open to her in the future upon resolution of certain enquiries. The Society cannot claim to say nothing on a matter and then make comment via a back door means, whether it was intentional or accidental. Fiona's appointment was a statement of intention to uphold one side of the argument at the expense of the other. This is not remaining neutral.

As I stated many moons ago when still on the committee...what will we do if we appoint her as editor and then the wheel comes off?? It would have been surely better to not place the Society in potential harms way??

I really do wish Fiona as a person well and hope that the journal is a success. But I am also a realist and realise that if an enquiry does take place..as seems likely, this decision to appoint a pivotal figure in the McKie case as editor may prove to be folly beyond belief, as it will lead to a huge inspection of the actions of the Society and committee within the context of the enquiry to come that may prove embarrassing to the committee.

I have always had the Society at heart and have always wanted to protect it's core values. But I cannot hand on heart say that this will do the Society any favours whatsoever.

Richard,

I appreciate your candid views and opinions surrounding the Fingerprint Society. I realise it takes courage for someone to speak up over this issue. There are however a few points I’d like to raise with you and would appreciate your thoughts and comments.

Firstly I think there is a little confusion over Miss McBride’s appointment. The problem is not with regard to Miss McBride’s capability, or even her as a person, the problem is a far larger one and surrounds the credibility of your Society. The fact the Society can appoint a discredited Experts as Editor of their Journal I believe is the real issue. What message does that send out?

With regard to her appointment you might be able to help. In previous Journals I am aware of the following disclaimer:

“The views expressed in this journal (Fingerprint Whorld) do not necessarily represent those of the editorial staff of The Fingerprint Society. The editorial staff reserve the right to edit or alter any item received for publication in FINGERPRINT WHORLD.”

I think it safe to assume that Fiona McBride is now the editorial staff. Can you confirm if this statement remains, or if it has been changed to stop the editorial staff having the final decision as to what is printed?

To me it gives the editorial staff an enormous amount of power within the Society and what is published.

With regard to the Fingerprint Society you say:

We have, and will remain totally neutral on the McKie case,

I have to take issue with this Richard. I refer you to an editorial comment which appeared in your October 2000 Journal. And as you read it please ask yourself if you believe this is written without having a position on the McKie case:

It is with regard to the release of the Scottish Criminal Record Office Bureau Inspection, where the interim press release was published. This was followed by the following editorial in the Fingerprint Society Journal:

This is probably what most fingerprint staff have been wanting to know since this debacle blew up last year. The two main statements in the press release are: The experts have concluded that the latent mark is not that of Shirley McKie and at present SCRO (Fingerprint Bureau) is not fully effective and efficient.

Clearly there has been a problem at SCRO and the latter statement appears to confirm it. By the time this issue of Fingerprint Whorld is out the full version of the report will be available for consideration. The findings of the inquiry will make interesting reading especially for the two experts from the USA who have had to withstand so much criticism from some quarters for daring to challenge an identification in the UK. Let us not forget the newspaper stories that hit hard at Pat Wertheim for his theatrics in court and the doubt voiced over his expertise. Pat was pilloried for just doing his job: a job that he practices and cares for every day of his life. There is none so professional and dedicated to the science of fingerprints than Pat Wertheim. I have known Pat for several years and was privileged to see and hear his presentation on forged and fabricated marks at a symposium in Israel in 1995. This talk was given with authority and confidence which was backed up by impressive research on the topic: there are not many examiners who can speak as well as Pat Wertheim. What separates people like Pat and also David Grieve from others, (the other expert who challenged the McKie mark), is their passion for their work. It is a sad fact of life that there are those people who think that only British examiners are the best in the world – thankfully those people are only restricted to those who seldom or never attend professional conferences and miss out on the chance to mix with the worldwide fingerprint community. There are good and bad fingerprint examiners all over the world and they are not just found in one particular agency or country.

It is also a sad reflection on the lack of freedom of speech when experts are faced with reprimands and possible reprisals from their employers for voicing opinions within their own profession. The profession is more important than the employer for bureaux would not be worth anything if their professionals did not show interest and concern for their practices and ethics.

Yes, the comparison is one of a misidentification and how that happened should now be the main focus of concern. Was it through an honest mistake, incorrect procedures being followed or was it because of inefficient and slack working practices? Only those who were involved know the answers to those questions. They will have to stand the rigours of intense scrutiny and for those who sought to demean the expertise that successfully challenged an identification in the UK, they should be looking to right a very great wrong that has been perpetrated against true professionals.”

Firstly may I say what a truly wonderful editorial article!

The one thing that does NOT strike me when I read this piece is that it comes from a Society who is NEUTRAL. In fact it leaves me in absolutely NO doubt that the Society knows there has been a misidentification!

Can anyone read this differently? Had anyone read this article and in any doubt about the conclusion?

And we know the content of the Journal is Peer-reviewed is this cannot just be one person’s view surely?

It also leaves you in no doubt who the perpetrators of this misidentification were. And what do we have now? One of those very experts elected as the Editor of the Fingerprint Society Journal. Quite frankly a disgrace!


I am also interested in your comments regarding:

Only once the case has been totally concluded, if it ever is, shall we review any complaints that are made to see whether anyone has breached The Society rules, by bringing The Society into disrepute.

The thing is Richard is the case has been concluded! Shirley McKie was found not guilty, numerous reports have concluded the print is erroneous, including the National Training Centre who stated they believed there had been deliberate manipulation of the marks, and the Scottish Executive paid out £750,000 because there had been a mistake.

What else do you need to know?

You also say the Fingerprint Society:

“will respect the views of any findings made by higher authorities.”

I am not sure exactly what respect means in this case. Does it mean accept?

I suggest the Scottish Executive is a higher authority than the Fingerprint Society.

I suggest the Scottish Crown Office is a higher authority than the Fingerprint Society.

I suggest the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland is a higher authority than the Fingerprint Society.

I suspect the National Training Centre in Durham is a higher authority that the Fingerprint Society.

And they all accept that the mark was MISIDENTIFIED. So the Society will respect their decisions, but clearly does not agree with them?

We have hundreds of members who sit on either side of the argument, or have no opinion at all. It would be inappropriate and totally unacceptable to the majority of the membership for The Fingerprint Society to dictate what the ultimate decision should be.

I wonder if you can clarify this comment. Are you saying there are many members who are on the “Identification” side? I know of possibly four. Leadbetter, Mackenzie, McBride and Swann. I would be interested to hear who else you know of who are on that side. Their names would be beneficial to provide to the Public Enquiry as possible witnesses.

Maybe you know or indeed were part of the bureau of 30 people who have all allegedly agreed with Peter Swann’s presentation, as he stated had happened?

My concern has been with the reputation of your Society, which I believe is important for the future of the Science of Fingerprints.

I am not going to ask you Richard if you have an opinion on this case. I suspect you do.

I believe the damage has now been done, and the Society must now see which way it goes.

I am aware this very afternoon of another member who has decided not to renew their membership on the basis of this appointment.

I would also suggest that if someone decides to cancel their membership as a direct result of this appointment then this has to be seen as a resignation. I suspect that those individuals would be renewing their subscriptions if this appointment had not been made. I think we have to differ, as I see this as nothing other than a resignation.

Taggart,

Thank you for commenting on my posting, but I do not want to elaborate too much more, as I know how this type of thing escalates.

I just felt that it was important that the readers of this thread (who may be current or potential members of The Society) got the personal views of an existing member of the committee.

You are asking for the views of The Society, but as every member of The Society are individuals, there is no definitive view.

Thanks Richard, I respect your views by not wishing to compromise your position further.

It may be correct to say the Society has no definitive view, but that article which appeared in the Society’s Journal, leaves me in no doubt what there is a view within the Society, and indeed what that view is.

Unless of course perhaps there is another editorial which I have not been given which countered that opinion?

You obviously believe, as does your Chairman, that the Public Inquiry will give you a definitive answer. We already have a definitive answer Richard, but if the Society wishes to wait until the Inquiry reports back for the Society to act then so be it.

I only hope that the complaints come from within the Society, but I fear the damage will long since have been done.

I would love to be in that Committee meeting when those complaints are received. Not IF they are made, but WHEN they are made.

Good luck with the website Richard.

I do admire you speaking out at this time, I realise it took courage.

Richard the webmaster
you stated
[I would like to take this opportunity to thank Thomas, Karen and Michelle for their positive views in this thread on the role of The Society. To answer the question on the stance of The Society (my own perception): The Society was established to encourage communication within the fingerprint service, to make new friends and to educate its membership. We have never sold The Society as a regulator or arbiter in cases of dispute. We have, and will remain totally neutral on the McKie case, but will respect the views of any findings made by higher authorities.quote]

Totally neutral Richard, your group of friends meet under the banner of a professional association. To be truly professional means that issues such as the McKie case need to be resolved by the profession and not left to the 'higher authorities (?)' (since when did the judiciary become fingerprint experts?). Your perception of the society's position shows that when The Science needs you the most that issue is off the agenda. I wouldnt mind if your group of friends were called 'The Society' but by using the name The Fingerprint Society does come with some responsibility to the science that provides your employment and profession. Im glad my friend in Australia was professional in the only communication read at your Conference expressing concerns as to Editor appointment. Im glad too that it is being noticed that such concerns were real and based on known facts. A division has begun (my perception)