CLPEX Chat Board

Delighted, of course, to know that DMF is still corresponding. But why has she not answered the questions above, rather than her usual playground criticism. (It is becoming more and more incoherent to me at least. I suspect that because she knows the truth, she avoids answering the real issues.)

So, by summary, from this string the following questions remain unanswered:

1. In your statement to Bondi, you say that Zeelenberg records that he threatened McKenzie and others. Can you please point us to that statement where Zeelenberg says so or says anything that could be interpreted as a threat?

2. So you accept now, do you, that he DID in fact have access to the best available evidence available on the door frame moulding?

3. Why did McKenzie use the Wertheim photo in his presentation if not better than SCRO's effort?

4. Did SCRO tell the prosecution that they had excluded part of it and why they did so?

5. Did they tell the defence?

6. Was it in their report to the court that they had excluded part of it?

7. And why, all of a sudden, at a subsequent presentation, did McKenzie find 40 or so points of similarity most of which on this "useless" top portion of the print?

8. Did SCRO look for differences before they decided that the defence (and the prosecutors) should not be allowed to see the top part of the print (if that is what they did)?

9. And from the answer to Pat Wertheim’s comments another question arises: in his presentation did McKenzie use plain or rolled prints from McKie? [I do, actually know the answer to this…but I am interested to know what DMF and FM think]



So, lets hear from you DMF with some facts, not some childish behaviour. As we know you are an insider in SCRO as with FM, I for one would appreciate a debate which is on the facts rather than the puerile criticism that you levelled against experts disagreeing with you from days after the trial. [Yes, we know that was you too].

And incidentally, the past tense of lead is “led.”

A minor detail, I know, but accuracy is a virtue.

DICK!

"And incidentally, the past tense of lead is “led.” "A minor detail, I know, but accuracy is a virtue."

Oh dear Mr Dastardly...I'm cringing for you right now...

The Justice 1 Committee are interviewing all involved in this case...who did what, said what and why...all will be revealed...

I have already explained my position on this forum...to present that another side to this case exists...

There is one matter which I feel is very important and merits another mention...

SCRO used charts which disclosed SIXTEEN POINTS IN SEQUENCE AND AGREEMENT WHICH PROVES IDENTITY BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

The Delightful Miss Fabulous!

p.s. any spelling errors made on this post were made on porpoise.

I have to say though, that the pictures that were shown in court may have had 16 points of identification but they only showed the bottom half of the prints, they cut off the parts of the print that didn't fit.

Also some of the 16 points didn't actually point to any detail!

You know, I have been a latent print examiner for 20 years. I hold my profession and the science of fingerprints in high esteem and I respect the history and tradition that goes with our honorable work. What is being portrayed as scientific debate on this forum is making me cringe...if not cry for my beloved career. Has our science really come to people using anonymous handles making cheap shots at all and sundry for effect? I joined this forum years ago to learn about the science and to interact with likeminded individuals. This thread makes a mockery of all our training and what we are supposed to stand for. This forum can be viewed by legal people like Michael Mansfield, Barry Scheck, James Starrs, Simon Cole. They must be laughing their pants off at the shocking display of triteness and backbiting that apologises for scientific debate these days on these pages.

If we as a profession cannot debate principals and ideas without resorting to this behaviour then I for one cannot class fingerprints as science any more.

I am a scientist. I am doing a PhD in psychology. I raise issues and debates with fellow psychologists. They sometimes disagree. But they are always polite and understanding. Concensus is reached and the science moves on. Is this happening in fingerprints? Today, I am ashamed to be a fingerprint examiner. I am proud to be a psychology scientist.

Unless we as fingerprint examiners can move onto a scientific footing then we are doomed. To DMF and anyone else who reads this forum...please, please lets get to the science and cut out the persoanl attacks...or we are all going to crash and burn in the same rocket!!

cheers


Dave Charlton
Former Editor
Fingerprint Whorld

Mr Charlton97...this is a genuine question...did you or anyone like you put out a message in the last nine years such as the one you have just posted intended for myself to the McKies and every attacker of SCRO?

Myself and others have come under huge criticism for coming out as supprters of SCRO, standing up to the McKie's campaigners and more importantly, portraying another side to this case. Go back over the posts and newspaper articles of the last nine years...accusations of criminality, conspiracy, misidentification, misconduct, one sided journalism...the list goes on...

Did anyone say ANYTHING over the years? This forum I'm sorry to say was used for back biting and harmful comments long before I came along...and it was all one sided...

Anything I have posted over a period of three months does not come close to the damage caused by the McKies supporters. SCRO have been slaughtered from every angle for nine years.

I will personally be more than happy to bow out gracefully...I too would like to see this forum used as it was intended...however, again, please acknowledge, that it was grossly misused a long time before I joined...

I would remind all users of this forum that the Justice 1 Committee are carrying out an enquiry into this case...perhaps it would be wise for all to wait for their conclusions...

The Delightful Miss Fabulous

Clpex posted 13th March:

[A MAJOR international fingerprint conference to be held in Scotland this week will be boycotted by experts over the refusal of Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) analysts to admit they misidentified a fingerprint as policewoman Shirley McKie’s.]

With 130 delegates.....by the way 10 more than for Brighton last year, and with the list of speakers below, including me, Glenn L and other senior scientific figures, this does not strike me as a boycott??

This is another example of the way the media can distort and manipulate the facts. Lets be clear.....I want this matter resolved, fairly, amicably and professionally. But this won't be achieved through inuendo, backbiting and playground taunts. It will be achieved through science.

The Fingerprint Society is hosting a 1st class conference with ground breaking research being delivered to an audience of forensic professionals. The conference is NOT a political forum, NOT a grand inquisitor nor are we judge or jury. We just want to hold a conference where people feel welcome, can relax, and where scientists can learn something.

This is MY SPIN on this matter.]

This is just one example of many over the years where I have tried to offer a neutral and objective stance over this matter for the good of the science.

I have often been abused for remaining neutral. Hence I am no longer editor or Chairman of the Fingerprint Society. There you go.

Like I said...if we are scientists we should be able to discuss disputes in a way that we all learn and progress the science. We are all scientists...are we not??

"Science thrives on alternative explanations, which must be equally subject to observational and experimental testing ... Scientists, like everyone, get their egos wrapped up in their work. They believe passionately in their own ideas, even if they are supposed to be calm, cool, dispassionate, and able to evaluate all possibilities evenly." - Niles Eldredge, Macro-evolutionist





[/quote]

Dave,

You state, "I have tried to offer a neutral and objective stance over this matter for the good of the science."

I believe that attitude on the part of the Fingerprint Society and the IAI has had the opposite result from that intended. I am sure you will recall my presentation on the McKie case in 2000 in Liverpool, following which the Society voted to remain silent. Look at the result of that silence. Had the Fingerprint Society and the IAI (yes, presentations were made there, too) taken a position to serve as guidence for the government to rely upon, the Scottish Parliament might not now be involved in the shameful hearing where third hand hearsay makes headlines without cross examination, and where the identification itself is still being debated.

If the most respected professional associations in the fingerprint world will not step in and take a position, then the whole mess deteriorates to the kind of swill "monkey" and "TDMF" spew. If the vast majority of excellent fingerprint experts in the UK who know the identification is erroneous remain silent, what is the government to think of the very few with the guts to speak up?

Nothing in this sordid affair has enabled the incompetents and the liars to succeed more than the silence of good, honest examiners and professional organizations who have chosen to remain neutral "for the good of the science." Your silence has had the opposite effect from that you intended.

It is still not too late. For the good of the science, SPEAK UP! TAKE A POSITION!

TDMF, et al.,

...By NOT taking any rolled impressions you were NEVER going to find what you were looking for...

Are you really a fingerprint expert with 20 years experience? The use of plain impressions is common sense... how often does a natural finger touch on a surface resemble the contrived placement of a rolled fingerprint on a fingerprint card? I would think that an experienced latent print (mark) examiner would know of situations in which multiple plain impressions taken in sequence, covering all areas of pertinent friction ridge skin on that particular finger or hand, is the most practical way to get a true and accurate picture of the ridge detail present. When apparent distortions are present, multiple prints may be necessary to determine ridge detail behavior under various directional pressures. While not necessary for every comparison, this procedure should certainly be in every examiner's arsenal of tools.

And now, with apologies for the length of this post, I seek to respond to an earlier post:

"Those predisposed to a skeptical mind might even consider it a vain attempt to muddy the waters, distracting from the central issue of what most experts consider to be at least two wrongly identified latent fingerprints."

A very sweeping statement Mr Tavernaro...!

Not really such a sweeping statement, rather narrowly defined to those fingerprint experts with an inclination to be skeptical, and by context related solely to the Shirley McKie case; adding a bit of conjecture (note the "might... consider"); an editorialized linguistic interpretation of what has been alluded to by many seeking an honest and factual understanding of what has been described by Lord Wheatly as "... THE FIRST, BUT FUNDAMENTAL, ISSUE OF FACT, NAMELY WHETHER THE SCOTTISH CRIMINAL RECORDS OFFICE OFFICERS WERE WRONG IN IDENTIFYING THE NOTORIOUS FINGERPRINT AS THAT OF DC MCKIE - AS MINISTERS CLAIM - OR RIGHT IN THEIR IDENTIFICATION....." (as quoted by David Russell on 3/3/06).

Mr Tavernaro, on what grounds do you base your findings? Unless you or any of the experts you speak of have compared from the original evidence, then you are in no position to voice an opinion on this case. Mr Wertheim's charts do not carry much of a resemblance to the mark ups produced by SCRO...

In reverse order, the fact that Mr. Wertheim's charts do not carry much resemblance to the SCRO's mark ups should be of no surprise. Mr. Wertheim disagrees with SCRO's conclusions, and believes their mark ups are faulty. The real question is, which is correct?

On the record evidence given elsewhere (including this thread) offers very persuasive arguments that images available at the website "onin.com" are fair representations of what was used by SCRO in its court production for Shirley McKie's perjury trial. Or are you suggesting that SCRO would deliberately offer sub-standard productions to the court and defense, while relying privately on something better (and which has not been produced after 8 years of controversy)? As for myself, I have in fact seen first generation copies of the court productions used in the perjury trial (and for which I have no reason to doubt their validity), independent of internet images. Yet I am a little confused by your query. What opinion do you believe that I have voiced?

My post was a compilation, or recitation, of what has been published and/or linked to by others, including TDMF & FM. Although editorial comment framed the information, my personal opinion on the validity of the alleged identifications was not voiced in that post, nor elsewhere in this thread.

As to what grounds do I base my findings, in addition to the preceding, the following reflects some of the 'evidence' in the public domain regarding fingerprint experts (& I use the term broadly) who consider one or more fingerprint(s) related to the "Shirley McKie case" to be wrongly identified:

• May, 1999 Two (2) American fingerprint experts, Pat Wertheim & David Grieve, demonstrate to the apparent satisfaction of a jury in Scotland that a latent print identified to Shirley McKie by SCRO was wrongly identified.
  
  December, 1999 Four (4) English experts independently examine the ‘Shirley McKie mark’ for BBC Scotland, and unanimously conclude that ‘the mark was not made by Shirley McKie’, or in other words, the 'mark' was wrongly identified.
  
  January, 2000 Sixty (60) fingerprint experts in the UK, as reported by Alan Bayle, could not identify the mark in question with Ms. McKie's thumbprint, leading to a conclusion that it was wrongly identified.
  
  January, 2000 Thirteen (13) Lothian and Borders Experts refer to the McKie 'misidentification', another way of stating that the print was wrongly identified.
  
  March, 2000 Two (2) fingerprint experts, Pat Wertheim and Alan Bayle examined a second identification in the Marion Ross murder, determining that yet another identification was wrongly identified.
  
  June, 2000 Two (2) independent international experts brought to Scotland by
  the HMCI state that the mark was not made by Shirley McKie, meaning that the print was wrongly identified.
  
  July, 2000 Two (2) Danish fingerprint experts commissioned by the Crown Office, Kristian Rokkjaer and Frank Rasmussen examine the ‘Marion Ross mark’ and conclude it is a mis-identification by the SCRO experts; as previously noted, the print was wrongly identified.
  
  August, 2000 The National Forensic Training Centre at Durham, after examining exemplars apparently provided by SCRO, stated that both the ‘Shirley McKie and Marion Ross identifications’ were wrongly identified.
  
  May, 2002 One hundred seventy one (171) experts from 18 countries, including 26 USA states attest to the ‘Shirley McKie identification’ by SCRO being wrongly identified. The position of most is said to be based on use of internet images purported to have previously been used by SCRO experts in a special presentation to international experts at the Scottish Police College Tulliallan. To date I have not heard of any serious, competent challenge to the validity of those images.
  
  June, 2005 Three (3) Grampian Police experts report that the SCRO identification of the Shirley McKie print was wrongly identified.
  
  April, 2006 Three (3) Grampian Police experts report to the Lord Advocate stating that the SCRO identification of the Marion Ross print is also wrongly identified.
  
  April, 2006 Three (3) international fingerprint experts report to the Minister for Justice confirming the ‘Shirley McKie identification’ was wrongly identified.
  
  Summer, 1999 to date - Personal experience in conversations with colleagues in the fingerprint business (including members of both local and international professional organizations), who have looked at the prints available. Although I have not counted the numbers or taken notes on most of these conversations, I have yet to find someone having an opinion other than the ‘Shirley McKie identification’ was wrongly identified.

To be sure, there will be some duplication of individuals in the above list, however I submit there is ample evidence for a conservative estimate of over 300 fingerprint experts who have gone on record as believing that the latent print from the bathroom doorway was wrongly identified to Shirley McKie. Perhaps a lesser number have seen the prints related to the tin in the Asbury proceeding, however I doubt that less than 150 individuals believe that print was also wrongly identified.

And how many believe that the alleged identifications were valid, and have gone on the record to that effect?

• It is a matter of public record that four (4) SCRO experts certainly believed in the identification, and apparently continue to do so.
  
  Many of us have recently learned that Malcolm McDowell (1) at least initially believed the identification to be valid. There seems to be some controversy over the strength and persistance of that opinion, however I will count him in the SCRO corner for now.
  
  Peter Swann (1) is on public record as confirming the alleged identifications as called by the SCRO.
  
  According to Mr. Swann, John Berry and Martin Ledbetter (2) also have confirmed and agree with the alleged identifications, at least as charted and explained by Mr. Swann.
  
  Two (2) SCRO examiners presented a production to the Forensic Training Centre at Durham, thereby confirming their agreement with the alleged identifications.
  
  TDMF (1) has stated that she(?) is a qualified expert, and also agrees with the identifications (although never citing specific details in support of her conclusions, or in support of her condemnation of Mr. Wertheims charts).
  
  It has been said that there are others at SCRO agreeing with the alleged identifications, although I have not seen documentation of that in the public record to date. None the less, I will (somewhat generously, I believe) allow for fifteen (15) additional fingerprint experts agreeing with both identifications.

So there may be as many as twenty-six (26) on the record for supporting both alleged identifications.

I don't know what form of math you are accustomed to, however where I come from, a 300 : 26 ratio would seem to justify my statement regarding most experts (at least on the record) believing prints were wrongly identified.

I hope that this satisfactorily answers your queries.

FM:

Why will you not reply to the nine questions above?

You have been happy to give opinions about so many things in the past: so why will you not deal with these points now?

To say the inquiry will be told is just not good enough. Are you terminating all commentary now, or is just the questions you are scared of answering that you will not deal with?

Please consider any international plan B option as slim to no chance of SCRO solution from within Scotland less than a year before elections

I believe that attitude on the part of the Fingerprint Society and the IAI has had the opposite result from that intended. I am sure you will recall my presentation on the McKie case in 2000 in Liverpool, following which the Society voted to remain silent. Look at the result of that silence. Had the Fingerprint Society and the IAI (yes, presentations were made there, too) taken a position to serve as guidence for the government to rely upon, the Scottish Parliament might not now be involved in the shameful hearing where third hand hearsay makes headlines without cross examination, and where the identification itself is still being debated.

I find it curious that PAW would think that because he made a presentation on the McKie matter at an annual conference of a particular association and that by virtue of his oratory, the official machinations of the corporate body would come to a halt, suspend procedure, mount their steeds and attack each and every windmill without mercy. I had suggested in an earlier thread that PAW compile his information on the McKie case and use it to support an official complaint to one or both of the associations he mentions. After all, he is among the priveleged few who have seen the evidence first hand. This would then allow the associations to act according to the requirements of their governing documents. Posting on this forum falls short of an official submission.

It is still not too late. For the good of the science, SPEAK UP! TAKE A POSITION!

To quote an old soldier, "Heroes prepare for war; cowards merely incite it."

I would like to commend Dave Charlton for his civility and caution in dealing with this issue. The IAI and the FPS are not government agencies and can only venture so far into the realm of regulation.

Mr Charlton

I have been accused of being foolish on this forum by Dick and I feel that asking questions and having appropriate relevant discussions without resorting to name calling and backbiting important reminders. Your comments are somewhat refreshing to know there are people with manners out there.

Thanks for your points Kafka.