CLPEX Chat Board

Les,

A member of the Fingerprint Society who is now totally disillusioned has been kind enough to send me an interesting document. It was a minute of a Fingerprint Society Committee Meeting held in 2003.

FINGERPRINT SOCIETY

COMMITTEE MEETING

LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY POLICE HEADQUARTERS

Saturday 14th June 2003


Attendance

Steve Haylock (President) Karen Stow
Viv Galloway (Chair) Colin Patton
Richard Case (Secretary) Ray Broadstock
Dave Charlton (Editor - Fingerprint Whorld)


4. Correspondence

Letters were received to The Fingerprint Society by Mr. Robert Mackenzie and Mr. Martin Leadbetter, regarding the conduct of Mr. Allan Bayle.

Mr. Bayle was contacted by the Society, which led to replies from Mr. Bayle and Mr. Iain McKie.

This issue and the McKie case were discussed at length, which generated the following:
• Leave any decisions to ACPO and the National Fingerprint Board who could formulate a report.
• Legal Advice was sought and Mr. Bayle had not broke any rules of conduct.
• Perhaps Mr. Bayle would be willing to make a retraction on some of his “personal” remarks in his letters.
• Colin Patton stated that, as there were two sides with their own beliefs, and the Society was getting involved in a personal disagreement, the the matter should be referred to the National Fingerprint Board.
• Ray Broadstock suggested that we should quote the IAI resolution, which states that any disputed marks should be deemed as “No Value”.

After the discussion 2 decisions were made. These were:
• No action would be taken with regards to the letters and any possible expulsions.
• The McKie Case should be referred to the National Fingerprint Board, as the Fingerprint Society does not have the authority to deal with this matter.

Viv Galloway is to contact a solicitor and word a legal statement on this issue, which could be sent to all members.

Item 4 on the Agenda was with regard to the McKie Case, is of great interest. At that meeting in 2003 The Fingerprint Society made 2 decisions. The second one being critical.

“The McKie Case should be referred to the National Fingerprint Board, as the Fingerprint Society does not have the authority to deal with this matter.”

Are Richard, who at that time was Society Secretary, or even Dave who were both at this meeting confirm the Society referred the McKie case to the National Fingerprint Board as they decided, and what the National Fingerprint Board’s response to this referral was?

Can we assume that Richard, as Society Secretary was the one who wrote to the National Fingerprint Board?

And is Richard or Dave able to copy here the legal statement which was sent to all members?

Les, I find it incredulous that a Committee member should also refer to the McKie Case as a "personal disagreement"!

Also of note is the attendance of Ray Broadstock at this meeting, who had appeared on a BBC Programme after having viewed ORIGINAL material, and had publicly concluded the mark was MISIDENTIFIED.

Can anyone tell us if Broadstock told the Society Committee Meeting of his involvement?

Yes, the matter was referred to NFB. The NFB I think decided that it was an ACPOS (Scottish) matter that would be left to them to sort out.

What dodging of responsibility is going on in the UK! Arguably the most controversial case in the entire history of fingerprints, and instead of grabbing the bull by the horns and wrestling the beast to the ground, every group involved publicly wants to pass the buck to somebody else. The only inquiry that seemed to reach a firm resolution and want to take action was the MacKay/Robertson team, but they are sworn to secrecy and the Scottish Government did not follow the recommendations of that inquiry they commissioned. True, we have seen their summary report, but we have not seen their complete report -- still secret.

And, some might say, the worst dodging of responsibility and buck passing of all comes from the Fingerprint Society and the IAI, although the IAI is by far secondary. I wholeheartedly agree with Les Bush on this point: If a professional organization of experts refuses to take a position and advise the government on the technical merits of a case like McKie or Asbury, where can the government turn? And if a professional organization follows a path of total silence, then not a member of that organization who voted for silence has a legitimate complaint if the government gets it wrong.

One phrase I have heard over and over in the UK that I have not heard to any such degree in the US is this: "It must be seen to be done." In other words, I guess, doing right is not as important as the public's perception that what was done was right. Well, the question comes to mind -- What would be the public's perception of the recent editor appointment by the Fingerprint Society? Not taking a position?

I would like to thank those Society Members who have contacted me directly since the weekend’s events. I guarantee your anonymity as requested and am staggered by your views on the Society, and what it is becoming!

I was also sent scans of two separate letters which appeared in the Fingerprint Whorld magazine. Both will now be included along with the ever growing mountain of evidence to the Public Inquiry.

The first is a letter authored by John Berry in the October 2002 edition. In it he talks about what he considers you need to be able make a comparison:

“….I also heartily agree with the comments of Gordon Kendal regarding the requirement to view original material in the McKie case…..”

Fast forward to Justice 1 in June 2006, when Berry tells them he used a fingerprint out of the Daily Mail, and HIS chart, which was kindly supplied by Peter Swann in evidence shows Berry used the INTERNET image.

(bottom right image http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/busin ... ages/d.jpg )

Interestingly enough the top right image I assume was prepared by Swann who titles the image “Scene imprint on Internet”.

And the second letter is from none other than the current Chairman, Martin Leadbetter. You may recall Leadbetter wrote a report agreeing with Swann’s identification, but was very specific in stating at NO time had he seen original material.

But rewind back to the Fingerprint Whorld edition of July 2001.

“….And as far as I’m aware, nobody outside of those who were directly involved in the case has seen the original material upon which the identification(s) was first made: it seems to me, that all the decisions made publicly by those persons not directly involved in the case have been made based upon copies of the marks which have appeared in newspapers and/or have been published on the Internet. It could certainly be regarded as foolhardy to come to concrete conclusions when one has not had the benefit of seeing original material….”

All wonderful stuff. As if anyone would be foolhardy to base a conclusion on images in a Newspaper! Well said Martin! The only two I know of that used images from a Newspaper are John Berry and Peter Swann. So thanks for telling us you believe these two experts to be “foolhardy”.

And let us not forget Berry’s further foolhardiness by daring to use an internet image!!!

I do find it incredible that Leadbetter’s Report years after openly states he has NOT seen the original material. Confusing? Or an admission by Leadbetter that his own actions and conclusion were foolhardy?

Presumably Berry and Leadbetter believe what they say only applies to others and not themselves.

Are we to assume that both individuals have reversed these earlier comments in those two letters? Obviously Berry now believes you can use the Internet images and Newspaper images, and in doing so, validating those images, and Leadbetter clearly now must believe you do NOT need to see original material!

Going to be fascinating for both these individuals at the Public Inquiry.

I assumed Berry had always thought mark Y7 was an identification, but recent evidence has come my way which suggest that at one time Berry actually acknowledged mark Y7 was indeed a misidentification!

The sooner an announcement is made with regard to the Public Inquiry the better. I wonder if there is any way to speed up an announcement as to what may be happening. Will see what can be done, you never know a word in the right place might just help facilitate an early announcement.

I only hope the remit is wide open to allow the Judge to take evidence from whoever he wants and to request all the relevant paperwork and reports. An open remit will also take away any possible excuse the Inquiry is flawed from the start.

I know one side has nothing to fear, so the more open the better. In fact I would almost urge for no remit to be placed on the Inquiry.