CLPEX Chat Board

Gday Charles, thanks for that, on page 58 of the IAI Directory is Section 8.03 dealing with Violations Regarding Ethics, Professional Conduct and Technical Errors. I'll whip up a complaint tonight and send it in. Hopefully by referring to this site and Onin the IAI will have sufficient information to get their background material. And hopefully they will accept that 'non- original' material can be used to eliminate Shirley McKie since 'it' has already been used by both sides of the argument. Regards. Les

Les,

Written evidence submitted by Peter Swann to Justice 1 in first paragraph:

Mr Swann's said Expert Fingerprint Evidence has been validated byPeer Review undertaken by, inter alia, Martin Leadbetter and John Berry, two of the most distinguished and respected Fingerprint Experts in the UK. The CV's of all three Experts are available, upon request. If required, Mr Leadbetter and Mr Berryare also prepared to give Evidence to the Justice Committee.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/busin ... -05-03.htm

And Leadbetter HAS done a Report which you will find on page 64 of the following link:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/busin ... wan_01.pdf

I suspect you may wish to read and include all of Swann's submissions with your complaint.

I take my hat off to you Les. If Swann and Leadbetter had nothing to fear then why did they not make a complaint??

I think we know the answer.

If it helps here is the links to Peter Swann's charts.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/busin ... charts.htm

Keep in touch my friend.

Very warmest regards,

Taggart

I hope daktari will come on and tell us how much he and Swann welcomes this complaint!! And explain why Swann hasn't had the courage to make a similar complaint!

The one thing that puzzles me is why, if so many people are convinced that a compalint against Pat Werthiem, in relation to Y7, would fail, why don't they instigate a complaint themselves instead of asking other people to do it? Beware what you wish for!
Bet you Pater Swann and his lawyer would welcome a chance to give evidence at the inquiry. Under oath or not.
Remember Shirley had her chance of a day in Court before and never took it. She was dragged kicking and screaming to Justice1.

Thanks, Ive been in touch with the IAI and am waiting to hear back about how to proceed. With your additional information I shall submit on both accounts. Funny coincidence that it took a letter from the Fingerprint Society in Australia to raise the eyebrows of those in England that there was a problem with appointing the former SCRO member as Editor. I guess we are getting to the pointy end of this historical case and eyebrows do need to be lifted. Without it the Science has no resolution and its international membership no consensus about Y7. Cheers

Might I suggest that any test of the professional competence of Peter Swann and/or Pat Wertheim is done simulating exactly the same contextual information that they had when they first reached their conclusions. i.e. checking a verified ID by a highly respected fingerprint department.

If they conclude exclusion the testers should get that sinking feeling that Pat reported. They must think that they are about to start a huge controversy.

I get it -- comparison magnifiers at twenty paces in a dusty street at High Noon. Images of Gary Cooper shooting it out with Shep Wholley while Grace Kelly cries behind the window of the store front.

No, Steve. This is not about who can pass the hardest proficiency test. This is about who was right and who was wrong concerning the fingerprints used in the Marian Ross murder investigation.

Sorry, Steve, I agree with Hank. Proficiency tests would prove nothing in regard to this case. But there is a source for proficiency tests for those interested in pursuing the idea:

http://www.casltd.org.uk/index.php?page=meettheteam

How about that! A fingerprint proficiency test designed by none other than Martin Leadbetter! I wonder if Y-7 is on the test? Call it Shirley McKie and you pass the test!

I think there are two separate issues. One is who was right, that can be tested by presenting the Y7/Mckie comparison to competent experts without contextual information. The other question is about the ability to withstand contextual information. With an external verification, contradicting an identification that a prosecution case is based on and declaring it an exclusion will create a huge controversy that will bring problems to the profession. If the external verifier has complete confidence in the department that made the identification, and they have never been known to make an error in the past, then this is a far greater test of independent judgement than a within department verification that will have no external repercussions.

It is obviously wrong to report findings that you disagree with but maybe the pressure to not disagree acts at subconscious level, particularly if the there are a lot of similarities in the images and with some points of similarity a judgement could go either way. But of course, it would still be unprofessional.

I am only going by the cases I know about where external verification failed (Cowans, Mayfield and McKie). What I was thinking last night was that maybe it is more difficult than you might think to contradict an identification that is already in the public domain. I was suggesting a simulation using independent experts who normally do verifications for the defence checking the Y7/McKie comparison, set up to believe that it came from a highly respected department and an important prosecution case was dependent on it.

But of course, we need to know if it was a match or not which would be best done separately without contextual information.

Daktari,

Please let me help you with your query:

The one thing that puzzles me is why, if so many people are convinced that a compalint against Pat Werthiem, in relation to Y7, would fail, why don't they instigate a complaint themselves instead of asking other people to do it?

The truth is obvious to the majority in that Pat Wertheim is an expert of repute, and I suspect NO ONE apart from you and your desperate colleagues believe he is incorrect!

So the reason no one has made a complaint against Pat is they all trust and respect him. So why would you instigate a complaint against someone you believed was correct?

We know how much Swann’s lawyer was only too keen to make complaints against any and everyone but the ONE complaint he didn’t make was against Pat.

Very telling actually. And not lost on anyone daktari. One complaint that would actually have had the evidence reviewed as part of an official complaint and it doesn’t happen! I guess perhaps Swann’s lawyer didn’t want to open that can of worms for the fear what it would expose. Loyalty obviously too great in this case. The servant choosing to stay loyal to the Doyen no matter what.

Strange too that there wasn’t ONE single complaint from ANY of the SCRO Experts?

Let me suggest one would not complain if they knew what the result would be and would be extremely detrimental to their cause.

Hot air is all they, as indeed you have!

Les,

You are to be applauded for your actions Sir. One thing that I was thinking today was perhaps you might consider taking things a stage further?

In the UK there is the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners. Set up to restore public confidence, but unwilling to self regulate, for possibly self protection.

And who do we find as registered practitioners??

Registered name:Peter Swann
Registration number:161
Gender:Male
Region:North East
Current period starts:Monday 23 January 2006
Current period ends:Friday 22 January 2010
Registered specialty:Fingerprint Examination
Start date:Wednesday 23 January 2002
Address Line 1:35 Woodlands
Address Line 2:Horbury
Town/City:Wakefield
Postcode:WF4 5HH

And also

Registered name:Martin Leadbetter
Registration number:12
Gender:Male
Region:South East
Current period starts:Wednesday 07 September 2005
Current period ends:Sunday 06 September 2009
Registered specialty:Fingerprint Examination
Start date:Friday 07 September 2001
Company/Organisation:Competency Assessment Services Ltd
Address Line 1: PO Box 257
Address Line 2: Little Wymondley
Town/City:HITCHIN
Postcode:SG4 7WW

I am aware of the following taken from the Fingerprint Society Journal.

The Fingerprint Society Code of Conduct

The Fingerprint Society full supports the aims and ideals of the CRFP.

The Fingerprint Society is happy to adopt the CRFP Code of Conduct that all members should adhere to.

The Code of Conduct can be found at

http://www.crfp.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C93 ... ne2007.pdf

There is also a Fitness to Practice Standing Order:

http://www.crfp.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/6C1 ... 120607.pdf

and Fitness to Practice Rules:

http://www.crfp.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D6F ... 120607.pdf

detailing how complaint against individuals are dealt with. There is also a link which details how top make a complaint.

http://www.crfp.org.uk/standards/mainta ... laints.htm

Leadbetter appears on the CRFP Register as a COMPETENT Fingerprint Expert. As does Swann.

The Fingerprint Society adheres to the Code of Conduct for the CRFP.

Would you consider sending a copy of your complaint through the CRFP in the UK?

I have various reasons for this. Firstly is there still a culture within the UK to cover up the McKie misidentification?

Would the UK based CRFP deal with a complaint similarly to the American based IAI?

Would their results and findings be similar?

Are there any loyalties within the CRFP? Would they even entertain such a complaint?

I suggest they must investigate fully.

And what then if the complaint against Swann and Leadbetter is upheld? Well Leadbetter will have to respond to any complaint saying at no time has he seen original material, destroying SCRO. As will Swann who will also have to admit the Internet image is good, as is used in his presentation. For their own self protection they will need to put the knife into the SCRO Experts.

We know Leadbetter’s conclusion is based on Swann’s work which is freely available on the Justice 1 website, so no excuse for the CRFP NOT to have it analysed and report back.

If the CRFP do their job properly I am in no doubt what their conclusion will be. And then Leadbetter’s position as Chair of The Fingerprint Society is totally untenable. And given he is the main backer of McBride at present this would seriously impact on her position.

Of course Leadbetter may decide to ignore any possible conclusions of the CRFP and the IAI, but then the Society would see Leadbetter for what he is.

I am pleased with daktari’s attitude towards the release of the Mackay Report to the Enquiry. I for one would NOT be looking forward to giving evidence to the Enquiry UNDER OATH, when the people asking me questions have read the full report and were fully aware of the content and evidence within, and I DIDN’T know what it contained!

You only have to read certain precognitions of SCRO Experts to that enquiry that seriously questions the actions of the original experts!

And how damaging would it be for James MacKay to tell the Enquiry that the ORIGINAL material was analysed by Experts in the Tayside Fingerprint Bureau, and every single expert to a person, stated it was NOT identical!

Les if I can be of any further help please do let me know. I would be very interested to see how your complaint proceeds, and it may be worth communicating away from this forum.

very best wishes

Pat,

Wonder if you can help out with some information. Am I correct in thinking you were invited to an IAI Conference and gave a presentation on the McKie case?

I recall somewhere reading that. I think perhaps Arie Zeelenberg was with you?

I am curious at to what the reaction was of the IAI towards your presentation? I assume they were totally supportive. Did anyone challenge you over the case?

I am trying to help our friend understand why no one has ever made such a complaint against yourself. Clearly if your presentation had been similar to Swann's pathetic attempts in the UK, where NO one has supported him, unless of course you believe the old Doyen that somewhere out there is a mysterious bureau with 30 Experts waiting to appear at the Public Enquiry, then I would have expected members hearing your presentation would have been duty bound to make a complaint. But not ONE single complaint which speaks volumes in my book.

I suspect your presentation was as professional as ever, and the delegates were able to see EXACTLY where the problems with the "identification" were.

Also does anyone know if the IAI Journal has ever published any articles on the McKie case?

I have done a number of presentations on the McKie case. First, at the Fingerprint Society in Liverpool in 2000. Then Dave Grieve and I did co-presentations at a number of IAI and regional conferences in the US. We each also talked about the cases separately at a number of regional conferences. I've done presentations in Canada at the Canadian Identification Society and in Australia at the Australia/New Zealand Forensic Science Society.

I also used the fingerprint Y-7 with Shirley McKie's left thumb print in a class I taught on distortion, in which the two were presented side by side as an identification without reference to McKie, and the students were to analyze the mark for distortion and verify the identification. Nobody ever fell for it. Don't make too much of that, because I was using it as a teaching tool, not trying to accumulate statistics to do a study.

Nobody has ever come up and argued that Dave and I got it wrong. But again, I don't put much stock in that. Out of politeness, many people will not argue with a presenter or an instructor. Besides, numbers don't mean a thing. The thing that matters is that Shirley McKie can easily be excluded as the source of Y-7, just as Marion Ross can easily be excluded as the source of QI-2. Period.

So why do SCRO refuse to accept that? Incompetence may be one reason. But if one is to believe there are competent people there, as I do, then why? Or do they KNOW the "identifications" were wrong and refuse to admit it for some other reason? Those are the questions the inquiry will have to answer. We know that one inquiry has already answered them -- the MacKay/Robertson inquiry, and they recommended criminal charges be brought against certain SCRO personnel. What will the coming inquiry conclude? This next year promises to be very interesting.

So the reason no one has made a complaint against Pat is they all trust and respect him. So why would you instigate a complaint against someone you believed was correct?

asks Taggart

Well one reason would be that Pat himself said he would welcome it!

Daktari,

Have you recently changed your medication by any chance? Seems whatever you are on at present is affecting your rationale!

Pat did indeed say he would welcome a complaint against him, and as there are a handful of desperados out there who believe they are correct and the whole world (Pat included) are wrong, then surely they would have made the complaint?

Look back at all the rants of Russell, Swann’s lawyer who chose to complain at the drop of a hat about menial points, but the one complaint that would have allowed an International Organisation, of which Swann is a member, to peer review Pat’s work would surely have been so beneficial to Swann and company?

I suspect Pat was urging either you or one of your small closed knit community to make the complaint. But you failed the challenge. You all did! Spectacularly. Like you all did by taking NO action against the BBC, Iain McKie or indeed the Scottish Executive! Mind you maybe it’s hard to take legal action when you know people are only telling the truth!

Would it be normal for any sane person to lodge an official complaint against someone you knew was right?

If you base this on logic why did none of the SCRO Experts make a complaint against Peter Swann?

The truth of course is that Swann, Leadbetter, or the SCRO Experts don't want to highlight an issue that will only expose them! There is no other plausible explanation.

Better to sit back and spout lies, misinformation, and constant attacks on individuals rather than do anything at all constructive.

Pretty much the way you have conducted things for the SCRO side on here as their unofficial spin doctor.

I am pleased with the information that Pat gave as is it fascinating. Pat AND David Grieve have given a presentation to the IAI. No complaints were received by any member after that presentation.

So the IAI DOES have some history and knowledge of this case.

Just so when they have to deal with a complaint against Swann and Leadbetter they are already aware of the case with through Pat and David.

Maybe I am doing you a disservice daktari, maybe it’s not medication that is scrambling your brains, maybe it is pre Inquiry nerves!

It's certainly not pre-Inquiry nerves.

My apologies to Taggart for not actually answering the question he asked earlier. And my apologies to Arie Zeelenberg for forgetting to mention the talk he and I did together in Boston at the IAI in 2006. I can only plead caffiene deprivation, as I hadn't yet finished my first cup of coffee when I was on the computer earlier. In my last post, I recounted the talks I have done, and the talk Dave Grieve and I did together, and mentioned talks Dave has done alone. But Taggart is correct in his recollection of a talk Arie and I did together. Perhaps the most detailed talk he or I have done outside of the MacKay/Robertson inquiry, or that he has done outside of Justice 1.

While our presentations to the coming inquiry will be done separately, I have no doubt that they will be even more detailed than anything else done to date. Because I am sure Lord Justice Campbell, with witnesses under oath and subject to penalty for perjury, will grill Dave, Arie, Allan Bayle, and me without mercy to make sure we have recalled every minute detail and fact and observation and thought we have had on the case. He will pry even the most insignificant tidbit from us in his quest to learn everything that happened with the evidence from Marion Ross' murder.

I am certain, too, that Lord Justice Campbell will extend the same gentle courtesies to the SCRO personnel, along with their friends Peter Swann and Martin Leadbetter. Therein lies my second greatest hope about this whole mess. That justice will find those who have lied.

My first greatest hope? That justice will eventually find the killer of Marion Ross and that Miss Ross herself may finally rest in peace.