CLPEX Chat Board

PW, in respect of who was responsible for discovering that the identification was in fact not erroneous you had this to say -

" I believe the first to discover Mr. Bayle's error was Mr. Dempster. I believe Mr. Dempster did that within 24 hours of first seeing Mr. Bayle's material, initially confirming Mr. Bayle's opinion, then having doubts and reexamining the print and the mark. I believe Mr. Dempster notified his supervisor immediately, then went on to notify Mr. Bayle. "

I reviewed the Justice 1 archive footage of Allan Bayle's interview because your version conflicts with what Allan Bayle said during his line of questioning from Ken McIntosh. The following is not a transcript, however is an accurate account of events. Mr McIntosh asked him if his findings were verified by another expert. Mr Bayle answered, sheepishly I might add, that it was. Mr McIntosh then pressed him further by asking him if it was Gary Dempster. Allan Bayle again answered, yes.

I am rather concerned PW that you could be posting inaccurate information on this site in an effort to discredit S.C.R.O. What really troubles me is your defence of Allan Bayle in this situation to the point of suggesting that he wasn't provided with the best quality images - hence his mistake. Let's not forget the Danish Experts - labelling error. Sorry guys. They were on an S.C.R.O Witch Hunt. Nothing more, nothing less.

Les Bush - You're making a big thing of my use of the word 'believe'. Why? This is a discussion forum. Not the witness box or a science lab. I 'believe' you knew what I meant and I also 'believe' the world knew what I meant. I do not wish to be drawn into whatever you're trying to draw me into. The use of the word 'belief' was not intended to be controversial.

Peter Swann stated in his presentation that there were 'no dissimilarities'.

My view on an identification that shows dissimilarities - I will speak to a case that I am 100% is an identification. If there are differences, they can generally be explained. Movement, distortion, another digit. The list goes on. I do not understand why Arie Zeelenberg would not produce an ident in court if the mark had one discrepancy. If a mark contains 30 or 40 characteristics in sequence and agreement and one in disagreement and Mr Zeelenberg deems that mark unsafe then I'm afraid he is lacking in skill, confidence and expertise.

There appears to have been an attempt to muddy the waters a little. Lets get some facts straight here. Bayle & his associates only"reviewed" their findings because they had been tipped off they were to be exposed by justice1. We all have sources in the most unlikely of places & mine is in Aberdeen (Grampian).Yes of course that makes it hearsay but no different to Pat's 3rd party claims on behalf of Bayle. As I have stated previously in a subsequently censored posting, there has been NO apology to the staff and families so distressed by Bayle's unjustified outburst. This brings us back around to the policing issue which Bayle obviously feels (in his own mind) he is an important part of. If you are a Police Officer & a perp. takes a pop-shot at you, does that warrant slaughtering the whole neighborhood in revenge?

So how about this? An open invitation to the three to tell the world how they reached their conclusions? There are many questions that need to be answered before we start bestowing some "honorable" tag upon them. Such as...

Can you explain how you used ACE-V methodology? What exactly did you analyse in terms of photographed marks? In any competent bureau to preserve impartiality & the integrity of the conclusion,the checking system must be "anonymised" - so who verified whom? Isn't that a "buddy" system of pre-disposed mind-sets? Why did all three make the same error? How many other marks were correctly identified in the case? Why (if the claim is true) was the opinion of the Metropolitan Police not sought BEFORE broadcasting your demands on the BBC? Arrogance perhaps?

I & many others in the community respectfully hope at least one of you will consider taking up this request.

Kindest regards always. DD

PW - I'm feel I should rephrase. I proposed that you may be posting inaccuarate information in an effort to discredit S.C.R.O. I do apologise for that. I would say, on this occasion that it would be more accurate to suggest that you have made a valiant attempt to give Allan Bayle credit where unfortunately credit is not due. This man, on a 'witch hunt' deserves no credit whatsoever.

SOFA,

This site is a discussion forum and primarily for practitioners. I asked you a question re pressure resulting in ridge counts dissimilarities and you arent prepared to discuss that. Why? However you are prepared to claim knowledge of an identification that Airie wouldnt pay and your belief is that he doesnt qualify as an expert. Who are you SOFA? David Russell again under another disguise? So far you have chosen the path of selective quotation and biase.

The proposition put to Peter Swann was
Mr Pringle - There are four ridges between the two points on the right hand print, but it looks as if there are about six or seven on the left-hand print.
Peter Swann - It does, I agree, but it is caused by the pressure that was applied when the mark was laid down.

Well, SOFA do you believe Peter Swann is telling a scientific truth? The problem with believing in these types of opinions is they create pseudo scientific principles in the minds of the unlearned. We as a scientific community must defend the science and its true principles. Agree?

SofA,

People out there should know that what they are reading is true or in the case of that particular comment, not true.
....
Of course 'No opinion' does not equate with S.C.R.O.s 'identification'.... (son of adam)

I'm a bit confused by your response. What part of PW's comment do you assert is untrue?

... in the Justice 1 committee, we heard from the fingerprint bureaus of Aberdeen, Dundee, and Edinburgh that not a single expert in any of those bureaus agrees with the identifications. (Pat Wertheim)

You agree that 'no opinion' does not equate to 'identification', and site no contrary evidence applicable to PW's comment (he makes no mention of 'non-identification' in this comment). Do you know of any expert in any of the three Bureaus specified who agree with the McKie or Asbury 'identifications' in question?.

SofA,
I have attempted to maintain some objectivity, remaining sceptical of proffered information regarding the SCRO/McKie related case until facts have been established. I have seldom offered my own opinions in a forthright manner, preferring to facilitate letting the facts speak for themselves, and posing questions that mattered to me. However, I feel I must must take issue with some recent comments.

I have assumed that you possess some knowledge, if not proficiency in fingerprint identifcation. The following comments create doubt in that regard. Please let me know if I have mis-interpreted.

I do not understand why Arie Zeelenberg would not produce an ident in court if the mark had one discrepancy. If a mark contains 30 or 40 characteristics in sequence and agreement and one in disagreement and Mr Zeelenberg deems that mark unsafe then I'm afraid he is lacking in skill, confidence and expertise.

Your criticism of Arie Zeelenberg appears to me to be at best ill-informed. To the extent it may reflect actual belief and practice in some fingerprint bureaus, it is no wonder the fingerprint community finds itself in such controversy.

I was somewhat incredulous on hearing Mr. Swann come periously close to discounting entirely the possibility that a single true discrepancy in ridge detail could invalidate an identification (and he may have indeed crossed the line). I define a true discrepancy as being an unquestioned difference in actual ridge detail in one print in comparison with a second print, with no logical explanation. How could two prints not matching in sequence in all available comparison detail come from a common source? Now you appear have taken a premise that flies in the face of logic (let alone scientific principle) another step. You seem to postulate that there will always be an explanation in certain situations, regardless of contrary evidence. That is dangerous territory to tread. What evidence can you offer in support of such a position?

If you have reason to consider yourself an expert in fingerprint identification, Les Bush asks some legitimate questions. I look forward to viewing your answers.

SofA,
My last post was borne of an emotional response, and as a result may have been too strong. I regret if I have offended, and should not have cast aspersions on one who's background and capabilities I do not know.

My initial reaction was to what I viewed as an absolute declaration, which I would disagree with, but which may not have been intended in that context. My response might also be viewed as an absolute, which is not my intention, and I would argue should not apply as such.

The footing is not always firm when venturing into hypothetical situations. My concern is that we both have something very specific in mind that may well be two very different things.
RLT

...

RLT, I too feel that I have been goaded. I feel also that on this site you have to be either for or against S.C.R.O. My comments are based purely on observations. From what I have read on this forum or viewed on the Justice 1 broadcast. I am now under attack for appearing to be biased towards S.C.R.O.

I have a certain dislike for reading posts that are dotted with half truths and innuendo and as the users of this site are mainly fingerprint practitioners we have a responsibility to ourselves to maintain honesty in order to avoid consequences such as Allan Bayle has experienced in recent times.

Your question regarding the rest of the Scottish Fingerprint Service - until I have heard otherwise, from the Bureaux themselves, I'm not prepared to take the word of Pat Wertheim that they all disagree with the ident.

Les Bush, I felt that I answered your question on discrepancies to the best of my ability. It's a difficult question to answer. Every case is different. Every mark is different. If I can explain a difference, I'll explain it. If all the pores and features are in the correct place, then I'll be satisfied with my identification. I cannot say more than that.

Arie Zeelenberg - I watched his presentation at Holyrood. My criticism wasn't ill informed. He made sweeping statements regarding differences. One discrepancy and the ident stops there. I didn't understand that, I'll be honest with you.

With respect, yet another myth seems to have developed around the dealings of Mr. Bayle with the Scottish Fingerprint Service, that of his apology for his latest gaffe. For the record, Mr. Bayle has NOT apologised! During questioning at the Justice 1 Committee he apologised, in the first instance, to his wetnurse, the Media. MSP Ken Macintosh later returned to the issue and pressed Mr. Bayle as to whether he thought that the apology should be extended to the SFS Officers involved in the case, to which he reluctantly agreed but the said apology was not forthcoming. It was this "missident" which spurred his televised comment that "the place should be bloody well closed down". Two weeks have passed and, as the agreed apology has not yet materialised, we can only speculate that it is indeed a very humble and protracted work in progress.

SOFA

In honesty you havent even attempted to answer my question which in itself portrays your ability and credibility with regard to the science. These are things I need to know about you SOFA since the rules of the science are quite clear and well documented. You can continue to postulate, name names and give your views about hypothetical situations but the wisdom of your thoughts is questionable. While ever you disguise yourself and sit in judgement about this science and its people then you are cloaked in mischief. Please try something different and more in line with your profile I've got a few ideas but it would mischievous to suggest.

SofA,

I have a certain dislike for reading posts that are dotted with half truths and innuendo and as the users of this site are mainly fingerprint practitioners we have a responsibility to ourselves to maintain honesty ....

Your question regarding the rest of the Scottish Fingerprint Service - until I have heard otherwise, from the Bureaux themselves, I'm not prepared to take the word of Pat Wertheim that they all disagree with the ident.

Are you prepared to accept the Justice 1 Committee testimony of the following represenatives of the very three bureaux that PW made reference to?

Mike Pringle: A considerable number of experts work in the bureaux in Dundee, Aberdeen and Edinburgh. Have any of the experts in those bureaux who have examined the fingerprint in question over the past few years confirmed that it is an identification or have you all consistently said that it is not an identification?

Col 3415

Ken Clacher: I know of no one in the Dundee bureau who says that it is an identification.

Jim Aitken: The position is the same at the Edinburgh bureau.

John McGregor: The same is true of the Aberdeen bureau.

PW's post was:

... in the Justice 1 committee, we heard from the fingerprint bureaus of Aberdeen, Dundee, and Edinburgh that not a single expert in any of those bureaus agrees with the identifications. (Pat Wertheim)

I fail to see how PW's comment could be any more true, honest and accurate. Your negative characterization of this specific comment does not measure up quite as well. No mention is made of a fourth Bureau, Tayside, or any other Bureau. In this particular instance, your apparent disdain for PW seems to be misplaced.

Just for clarification

Glasgow = Strathclyde (SCRO)
Edinburgh = Lothian and Borders
Aberdeen = Grampian
Dundee = Tayside

The former is the City, the latter is the Police Force.

Hope this sorts out the confusion.

I confess that I find the rush to applaud Mr.Dempster and Co to be a curious phenomena. In full knowledge that the McKie case was going to civil trial and therefore subject to necessary legal stricture, they indulged their curiosity by conducting a schoolboy experiment based on material rifled from a colleagues desk while yet again ignoring the fact that this was not the material used in the original perjury trial. I stress here IGNORING the fact since they were well aware that the Crown holds said material. Now, like schoolboys caught out, they are crying foul and asking to see that original material. Why? Not sure first time?
The poisoned wound of this case lies with the shameful enthusiasm"Fingerprint Experts" demonstrate for commenting on unverifiable images posted on the Internet. Ensuring you work with verifiable, original material is a basic tenant passed on to Trainees during the morning session, day one, of an Initial course(probably before first teabreak) in any other forensic discipline. Fingerprint Experts worldwide seem to think themselves exempt from this inconvenience and their unwillingness to follow professional protocol has tarnished the image of the entire Fingerprint community, not least in the eyes of other forensic disciplines.
At least Mr. Dempster's latest foray into the world of industrial espionage has blown up in his face, exposing a level of incompetence only matched by the arrogance that gave it voice.
Unless attempting to pervert the course of justice is a quaint feature of life in North East Scotland, I suggest Mr. Dempster is put through his Initial course again.
Oh, and get the important stuff in before teabreak, boys are often sharper in the morning.

Just to clear up the confusion caused by Mr Fairhurst...

SCRO is NOT the fingerprint bureau of Strathclyde Police! It is what is known as a "Common Police Service" and serves those Forces in Scotland who do not have their own Force Fingerprint Bureau. It currently serves Dumfries & Galloway Police, Central Scotland Police as well as Strathclyde Police (Having also served Northern and Fife Constabularies in the past). Strathclyde has NEVER had it's own Force Bureau. Here endeth the lesson.

Sorry Dave but your "clarification" was as lucid as some of your theories!

Kindest Regards Always. DD