CLPEX Chat Board

son of adam wrote:Pay attention in class. Peter Swann compared all productions which included inked prints of Shirley McKie, photographed impression marked Y7 and enlargements. The evidence produced by S.C.R.O. The charts he made at a later date.

The charts he did make at a later date, after the perjury trial. And eventually, he obtained the material from other sources. But he testified that his initial decision was based on the charting PC enlargements of the SCRO that contained lines and numbers. Later, he obtained a rolled impression from the newspaper, and finally he obtained the original latent photographs after the perjury trial. Most experts refuse to issue an opinion unless they have access to material that is un-marked. From your posts, it appears you are a latent print expert, so you know this causes bias that could affect the accuracy of your decision. In short, an examiner is much less likely to catch an erroneous identification if they examine an incorrectly charted enlargement as if it matches. This carries with it confirmation bias and other psychological issues that make it difficult to be objective. His entire process was flawed from the beginning, and I am making the point in my previous post as in this post that this has caused him to have to maintain a hilarious position to defend his credibility because the alternative to him is worse. And from his testimony, it is difficult to tell whether he actually believes himself. He did use the phrase "in my opinion" quite a lot, and that's just fact from the transcripts.

son of adam,

Yes, pay attention... you appear to take issue with the comments (please correct me if I misinterpret):

Mr. Swann admitted that his original verification of Y7 as having been made by Shirley McKie was made solely on the basis of the degraded, cropped charted enlargement of Y7 and the sixteen numbers with lines going into the chart. In his initial verification, Mr. Swann never once compared a photograph of the latent print itself with an inked print from Shirley McKie.

nigeus lowlef post Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:08 pm Post subject: Interesting testimony from Peter Swann (emphasis added)

I submit that the statements are accurate. Key words would seem to be "original" and "initial".

By Peter Swann's own testimony to the Justice 1 Committee:

My involvement in the case started when I received a telephone call from solicitors asking whether I would be prepared to act in this case. I said yes, so they sent me a bundle of material, part of which was a comparison chart of Y7, which

Col 3371

I saw in Mr Zeelenberg's presentation. I do not have a copy of it. That chart took a while to go through. I was to ensure that it was a positive identification, which is what I did. That was sent back to Levy & McRae, the solicitors in Glasgow.

And -

With regard to my two comparisons, I spent some time on the first one from the comparison chart, which I had for about a week—no problem there. However, with regard to the one in the High Court building, I had to do a comparison in not particularly salubrious surroundings— ....

Col 3372

Arguments presented against others regarding possible bias might well appy to Mr. Swann, and in perhaps a more fitting fashion. Might his subsequent examinations have become an exercise in attempting to justify his initial call of an 'identification', and therefore biased and unreliable? The weight of an erroneous identification typically carries more weight than a missed identification.

Part of Peter Swann's Precognition Statement- previously posted by Flying Monkey.

On 2 March, l999 I attended at the Offices of Levy & McRae in Glasgow and met with Mrs. McCracken. We then both attended at the High Court of Judiciary, SaltMarket in order to view the Crown’s Exhibit, a door standard. We entered a very small room, containing Exhibits. The door standard was propped up against one wall. I examined the door standard, both sketching and measuring it. I also noted the Mark in question. The Mark was on the face of the standard, 19 to 19 ½ inches from the top, the total length being 76 inches. It was a black powdered Mark, still being clearly visible in situ. In my opinion, it was a genuine Mark resulting from contact between the thumb and door standard. There was nothing I could see to suggest that the Mark was other than entirely genuine. There was an actual size copy of the Mark and a Fingerprint Form on a desk. During that Inspection, I examined Exhibit 102, being the door standard, a Fingerprint Form in the name of Shirley Jane McKie, an actual size photograph of the Mark on Exhibit 102 and other Exhibits connected with the Case. I am able to produce my sketch and notes. As a result of that Inspection, I confirmed that the Mark was the left thumb print of Shirley McKie with at least 16 ridge characteristics in agreement in both detail and position. The appearance of the Mark had all of the signs of having been made by the natural thumb. The Mark’s disposition, that is to say the way it lay on the Exhibit, evidenced the natural manner in which the thumb had made contact. The ridge structure and presence of sweat pore detail all added to the genuineness of the Mark. There was no sign of any disturbance to either the Mark or the area around the Mark. After the Inspection, accompanied by Mrs. McCracken I met with Donald Findlay QC and Victoria Young, Advocate, Ms. McKie’s Senior and Junior Counsel. Mr. Findlay asked me if I had seen the Mark. I confirmed that I had seen it in situ on the door standard. He asked me whether it was genuine and I confirmed that it was. He asked me whose fingerprint it was. I stated that it was the left thumb print of Shirley McKie. I confirmed that the Mark on the door standard, the photograph of the Mark in the Production and the left thumb impression of Shirley McKie on the Fingerprint Form were all one and the same subject. I stated that the Mark on the door standard was the left thumb print of Ms. McKie. I have my original note of the discussion with Mr. Findlay. Mr. Findlay terminated the meeting abruptly and left the room, accompanied by Miss Young. Shortly after that, I returned to Wakefield.

s of a,

You neglected to include the preceding paragraph of Mr. Swann's Precognition Statement. I include it here in the interest of contextual accuracy.

On 22 February, l999 Mrs. McCracken of Levy & McRae wrote to me, confirming the arrangements for Expert Inspection of the Crown’s Exhibits in Glasgow on Tuesday, 2 March, l999. I was notified that we would also be meeting with Senior Counsel at 2 p.m. on the same date. In the same letter, Mrs. McCracken provided me with a copy of the Crown’s Fingerprint Report together with other relevant Crown Productions. On 26 February, 1999 Mrs. McCracken forwarded to me my airline ticket, together with three videos, Volumes I, II and III of the copy Productions and photographs, apparently obtained from the Procurator Fiscal’s Office. I undertook review of the albums of photographs and, as I recall, a number of Comparison Charts. I recall one particular Chart of the disputed Mark, which was not too clear, and probably a second or third generation copy. In my examination of that Chart, I identified 16 ridge characteristics, which were in agreement. I was satisfied that it was a positive identification

Flying Monkey Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 6:25 pm (Emphasis added)

I believe that 22 February, 1999 predates 2 March, 1999 by about a week. Mr. Swann has been consistent in his description of his initial confirmation of the 'identification' relying on admittedly inferior charts.

"In the same letter, Mrs. McCracken provided me with a copy of the Crown’s Fingerprint Report together with other relevant Crown Productions. On 26 February, 1999 Mrs. McCracken forwarded to me my airline ticket, together with three videos, Volumes I, II and III of the copy Productions and photographs, apparently obtained from the Procurator Fiscal’s Office. I undertook review of the albums of photographs and, as I recall, a number of Comparison Charts."

Am I missing something here?

RLT, I fail to see why Peter Swann is under attack here. I do not see any difference whatsover to his viewing S.C.R.O.s charts without looking at the rest of the material (not that he did) and coming to a conclusion to you viewing Pat Wertheim's internet images without looking at the rest of the material and coming to your conclusions. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I'm not interested in who can outsmug who here. Nor in taking part in your playground taunts. I have, however, allowed myself to become drawn into such. It's been suggested that I am becoming biased towards S.C.R.O. I guess that's because I'm not participating in the S.C.R.O witch hunt. I do not care to. I cannot offer an opinion on the mark. I haven't seen it. Here is what I have seen - verbal abuse from Pat Wertheim and Iain McKie against the S.C.R.O four in newspapers, news documentaries and here on this site. What I haven't seen is THAT in reverse. The S.C.R.O four and Peter Swann are to be commended for the manner in which they have conducted themselves 'in my opinion'.

I regret responding. My resonse, although level headed or hopefully seen as level headed was born out of retaliation and is as damaging as the posts that I find unpleasant to read nor have time for.

son of adam wrote:I regret responding. My resonse, although level headed or hopefully seen as level headed was born out of retaliation and is as damaging as the posts that I find unpleasant to read nor have time for.

son of adam,

Although I found myself again questioning your bias in your first post, I respect that you followed up in full realization that you had gone too far. Many individuals posting under aliases, and even some who do not, don't even realize how unpleasant their posts can be. I appreciate the comments in your second post.

It is clear that RLT and I are simply trying to portray the truth in the manner in which Peter Swann first became involved in the case. Unfortunately, Peter obtained charted enlargements first, and perhaps even more unfortunately he formed and reported a conclusion based on those charts. Although we have stated this was not the correct process, we are not engaging in personal or eggregious attacks on the character of Mr. Swann. I feel we are transparent in our comments and are simply pointing out a potential reason he might be maintaining an incorrect position in this case. I believe there are elements of psychology that could account for why he initially saw an identification, and maintains that opinion either knowing they do not match (malpractice) or believing that they do match (sadly). I don't know whether anyone other than Peter knows which it is.

nl, thank you for your comments. You have captured my sentiments as well or better than I might have done.

s of a,
I too appreciate the comments in your second post, and my apologies if I have offended. I must say I am troubled by your characterization of my comments as a playground taunt. I assure you that my interests are factual, and I have attempted to maintain that perspective (although I did repeat your phrase 'pay attention', which I perhaps should have avoided).

In my view, I have observed a debate, noted what I believed to be factually incorrect arguments, gave evidence in support of my opinion, and made statements or posed questions based on that evidence.

You have represented a viewpoint that I respect and find valuable, even though I may disagree in specific instances. And you have indeed been largely level-headed, especially when compared to some others.

In my opinion, your perceived bias is evidenced by your fairly consistent acceptance of SCRO positions and pronouncements in the best possible light, along with a very strong scepticism of virtually all information in opposition. You may see me as representing the opposite side, despite my efforts to remain sceptical of both sides until facts are established. Perhaps the difference is the threshold at which facts are accepted.

You have posed some reasonable questions, and appeared willing to honestly consider the answers, and that has encouraged me to participate in the debate. We both have questions, many of which remained unanswered. I am prepared to defend my comments and take no offense at genuine factual, or even philosopical challenges to them.

Am I missing something here?

RLT, I fail to see why Peter Swann is under attack here. I do not see any difference whatsover to his viewing S.C.R.O.s charts without looking at the rest of the material (not that he did) and coming to a conclusion to you viewing Pat Wertheim's internet images without looking at the rest of the material and coming to your conclusions. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Yes, I believe that you may be missing a point or two. It was not my intent to 'attack' Mr. Swann. Nl's comments are in line with my intent. The fact remains, as reflected in Peter Swann's own statement and testimony, that he apparently first confirmed the 'identification' using the SCRO charts (that have been described by themselves as having problems). Have you seen the charts? From the first generation copies that I have seen, I would agree that they are indeed problematic.

I assume you have some experience in fingerprint examination. Have you photographic experience as well, especially with digital imaging? I have a fair amount of experience in both. The criticism I have seen regarding the 'internet' images seems to be ill-informed and without factual basis. For myself, I have seen first generation copies of what were represented to be court productions used in the Shirley McKie perjury trial (and I have no reason to doubt their authenticity). I have confirmed for myself that the images available at www.onin.com fairly and accurately portray prints in hard copies that I have seen. The uncompressed image files available for download are not 'inferior' or 'unacceptable'. With proper hardware and software, the images can be used and reproduced just as a photograph handed to you by a colleague (and with comparable quality).

For these reasons I would respectfully suggest that there is a difference, and trying to equate the two is a bit like trying to compare apples and oranges.

We have all gone too far. The author, by naming the subject of this thread 'there they go again' makes him the worst offender and a close second, the comments that followed in support of this thread. The reason these posts have gone too far? They were an attack on S.C.R.O. based on a mistake that ALLAN BAYLE had made. Not S.C.R.O. and Wertheim, McKie, Grieve etc just couldn't wait to get their claws into them.

Everyone should just leave it. There's an Inquiry into this case now. One of the purposes of this inquiry is to enable The Fingerprint Service to move on. With Allan Bayle out there and threads such as this, that is not going to happen.

I believe there are new independent experts brought in to review all the evidence which should hopefully end this dispute for good.

I have been looking at the official minutes of the inquiry, and see that Peter Swann used an image from the Daily Mail newspaper of the inked print of Shirley McKie.

I also note that there was reference to the use of images on the internet on ONIN site, which were said to be of much better quality.

I am led to believe that at the Tulliallan presentation by McKenzie and Dunbar, the ONIN images were used for comparison of third level detail (edgeoscopy) in the effort to show that Y7 came from McKie. This would seem to suggest (if correct) that SCRO reckoned that the ONIN images were better than their own does it not?

Does anyone out there think that the ONIN images are not capable of proper use for analysis (if printed off on a proper printer as would be expected, or viewed on high resolution screen)?

What did Mr.Berry use for his analysis? Does anyone know?

I note that Son of Adam suggests that things have gone too far. Although the start of this thread referred to an article that suggested a further mistake, and that suggestion is wrong, I for one have found the analysis of detail a useful forum for discussion. I also agree that the sniping that has occasionally arisen (especially from Kafka) has been unhelpful. I hope S of A, you continue to contribute if you can help with the facts.

S of A,

My involvement with this sorry situation is simple. I was asked to look at a latent print that had been identified by four examiners from SCRO and was about to be used as evidence in a trial against a police officer. When I had finished my examination, I was convinced the identification was incorrect. My goal was to set the record straight and try to prevent a miscarriage of justice. I did not know what else the prosecution had, but I did know that Shirley could not be placed inside the locus with the alleged identification. I suspected, at the time, that the error was one of oversight, a product of an overwhelming case in which there were far too many eliminations, and I thought that once my report and Pat's were available to SCRO, the identification would be withdrawn. It was not. Instead, there was an adamant denial of any error, and a blame game that a jury of Scots were dazzled by American cowboys. Attempts were made to justify a 15-0 not guilty verdict that pointed everywhere except the source, including leaking lies and misinformation on a global basis.

I know the four examiners had nothing to do with that and I have no desire to sink my claws in them. The tactics of SCRO that are, to me, so despicable came from the administration, not the bench. I can only go by the reports of inquiries which have been highly critical of the way SCRO is run and the statements from the SCRO four who has issued little praise. The repeated comments which speak of an atmosphere of arrogance supports the official statements and attitudes for the past seven years. This matter should have been resolved long ago for the very reasons you hope it will be resolved now. That is sad, and indicates a management without effectiveness or vision. That is the problem here.

Yes, I have concerns about the four examiners, indeed, but I have seen nothing constructive done by SCRO to resolve this matter during this time, and that raises even greater concerns for the future. I am just as appalled by the negative reactions occurring within the agency, especially the way the four examiners were treated, as I am with the failure of SCRO to face reality and understand purpose. If this same management style is intended for the consolidated fingerprint service, then all examiners in Scotland should be concerned.

I'm old-fashioned. I believe all examiners are here to serve, but not the whims of a misguided administration or the irresponsible acts of politicians. We are here to serve the interests of justice and to help protect the citizens of our respective communities. I happen to have read the fine words carved into the High Court, especially those of Scotland's own David Hume. Justice is a wall built by many hands. We can add to that wall or we can remove stones to make it weaker. From where I stand, no one in SCRO administration, and no one in the Scottish executive, had added one pebble to that wall.

I regret the four examiners still maintain they are right, but I have no desire to string them up from the nearest tree. I do believe there is something terribly wrong with the way SCRO is managed, but I see nothing in the committee inquiry that will address this, let alone provide a remedy. My hope is that a full judicial inquiry will occur where issues such as what is best for the good people of Scotland will be examined.

DD - Are Robert MacKenzie, Alan Dunbar, Peter Swann and John Berry not due to stand before the Justice 1 Committee in the next week or two? From my understanding of last week's events, the meeting ran overtime which necessitates slotting the other experts in for their hearing at a future date.

I should imagine DD that most of your queries will be answered in due course, especially the ones you have aimed at Robert MacKenzie and Alan Dunbar whenever you referred to the questionable minutes taken at Tulliallan.

RLT, perhaps to paint you with the same brush as some of the users of this site was unjust and I should apologise.

With regards to Peter Swann's testimony/precognition it appeared to me that contributors of this thread were looking for holes in his statement. Peter Swann put forward a very compelling presentation at Holyrood and what came across is that he firmly believes that Impression Y7 matches that of the Left Thumb Print of Shirley McKie. In my opinion, Peter Swann did not deserve some of the comments I read on recent posts and he most certainly did not deserve to be mocked in the way that he was by Nigeus Lowlef.

Who is right? Erroneous or identical? All groups believe they are correct. There are holes to be found in every piece of evidence or witness statement or testimony if we look hard enough - on both sides.

Having seen the Justice 1 minutes of the presentation given by Mr Zeelenberg which only confirmed to the laypersons of the committee what they already knew(£750,000 payout, First Minister statement, Justice Minister statement, Mr Mulhearn statement) I am licking my lips with anticipation to see how the witnesses recalled later, especially Mr Mackenzie and Mr Dunbar of the SCRO attempt to convince the committee that everyone else is still wrong! Forgive me if I am wrong but isn`t the point of this enquiry to find out what the impact of the error is and not whether or not it is an error? I thought that was decided already!