CLPEX Chat Board

University College London, 9th-11th April 2010

Final preparations are now being made to one of the most exciting conferences in the long history of The Fingerprint Society.

If you are considering attending, don't delay as the full residential package at the official conference hotel can only be guaranteed until March 15th. After this date attendees will be required to organise their own hotel accommodation. So book today to avoid disppointment..

A very easy-to-use online booking facility is now available!

Visit the conference microsite on the Fingerprint Society Website for further information: http://fpsociety.org.uk/events/london2010/index.html

Also, we are announcing a call for papers for our 2011 Conference:

The 2011 Fingerprint Society conference is due to take place at the University of Wolverhampton over the weekend of 8-10 April 2011. Conference rates including registration and accommodation are set to be about £200 making it cost effective.
We already have talks on the following topics:

Stephen Bleay The future of finger mark visualisation
Michelle Reznicek ACE-V and the scientific method
Marcel de Puit ACE-V An Alternative Trinity’
Christophe Champod Probabilistic assessment of individuality in fingermark comparison

Sergei Kasarian Chemical constituents of fingerprints
John Smith Fingerprint Image quality
Prof. Rob Hillman, Fingerprint visualisation
Alice Maceo Fingerprint distortion
Joanna Fraser Hand marks on clothing
Christophe Champod Single metal VMD
Raul Sutton Automated palmar flexion crease matching
Raul Sutton Alternative approaches to fingermark visualisation quality assessment

This promises to be an exciting conference covering some highly topical areas within fingermark research. We are looking for persons interested in contributing to this conference. In the first instance approaches should be made to the conference organiser, Raul Sutton at R.Sutton@wlv.ac.uk .

"Final preparations are now being made to one of the most exciting conferences in the long history of The Fingerprint Society" !!!!!!!!!! ( It's not even grammatical - YOU NEED A NEW EDITOR!)

AND... no mention of the most exciting Public Inquiry into charlatanry, deception and probable criminality by members of the The Fingerprint Society???? Methinks the FS's history would be better described as ignominious and short-lived. What a Joke!

Well, that should be a very interesting conference.

The speaker’s list announced by the Fingerprint Society for its April conference is impressive and fitting for a body that claims to lead the world in promoting the science of fingerprinting and ensuring the highest standards of expertise and integrity.

My own personal knowledge of leading speakers like Christophe Champod and Alice Maceo re-assures me that the conference will achieve its aims to educate and inform. The sponsors and exhibitors like Sagem, West Technology, Cogent Systems and UKAS are correctly supporting efforts to improve and advance expert knowledge and debate.

Unfortunately these efforts and the conference itself are likely to be overshadowed by the serious questions being asked across the world about the behaviour of the Chairperson of the Fingerprint Society Martin Leadbetter and the editor of its journal, ‘Fingerprint Whorld’, Fiona McBride.
It is arguable that the reputations of the conference speakers, sponsors and exhibitors could well be compromised by their involvement in this conference if they are unaware of their host’s refusal to admit to two of the most notorious fingerprint mistakes ever made in the history of fingerprinting. Accusations could also be made that the two society officials are using their fellow members and the conference delegates, sponsors and exhibitors to further their own personal aims.

Much as I applaud the Society and its committee for seeking to promote their science they also have a responsibility to ensure that all those involved are made aware of the current controversy and the destructive position being adopted by Mr Leadbetter and Ms McBride.

At worst they should stand aside until the judicial inquiry reports and in the meantime signal to their committee colleagues and members alike their intention to abide by the findings of that inquiry.

Curiouser and Curiouser:

While all of my last comments remain completely valid a rereading of the original Fingerprint Society posting reveals that in naming Christophe Champod and Alice Maceo as speakers they are not referring to this year’s (2010) conference in London but next year’s (2011) conference in Wolverhampton.

Why I wonder under the heading for this year’s conference are they referring to speakers for next year?

I would hope that this strange early announcement and the use of these eminent expert’s names is in no way meant to act as a device for signing up delegates for this year’s event.

My apologies for adding to the confusion.

I think the Fingerprint Society has done a smart thing by announcing the call for papers and lining up speakers this far ahead for 2011. As an occasional speaker myself, I frequently have my schedule set a full year or more in advance. Last minute requests for me to speak can sometimes be honored, most often not. People such as Christophe Champod and Alice Maceo are truly outstanding speakers with the very latest information, as are many others already on the 2011 program. They represent quite a "catch" for the Society and are not to be missed! Hopefully, the Society can entice more of their caliber by planning this far ahead.

This year's speaker's program looks very good, too. It can be viewed at http://www.fpsociety.org.uk/files/2010% ... Agenda.pdf

Unfortunately these efforts and the conference itself are likely to be overshadowed by the serious questions being asked across the world about the behaviour of the Chairperson of the Fingerprint Society Martin Leadbetter and the editor of its journal, ‘Fingerprint Whorld’, Fiona McBride.

Hear Hear
And let's hope the Fingerprint Inquiry will have found them to be Incompetent or out and out liars by this time.

We already have talks on the following topics:
Stephen Bleay The future of finger mark visualisation
Michelle Reznicek ACE-V and the scientific method
Marcel de Puit ACE-V An Alternative Trinity’
Christophe Champod Probabilistic assessment of individuality in fingermark comparison

What about topics on the following

How to give evidence : because Fiona was not quite sure if this was her duty or not.
She could not present any charts with her markings either if memory serves me right.

Or even how not to look people asking questions in the face, McKenzie.

I was reading a part of Peter Swanns evidence again and actually found this:

16 Q. Mr Swann, are you an expert in the forgery of
17 fingerprints?
18 A. In the what of fingerprints, sorry?
19 Q. Forgery of fingerprints?
20 A. No, there's no such person.

Did he not actually become involved originally as a Forgery Fingerprint Expert ?

24 A. Well, I don't usually go round talking about cases I
25 have been involved with, with anybody. I tend to --
page 78
1 well, keep it to myself.
2 Q. You spoke to Mr Kent, didn't you?
3 A. That was of necessity, yes.
4 Q. What was the necessity to speak to Mr Kent?
5 A. To get an image of Y7, a copy of the photograph of Y7.
6 Q. This was after Shirley McKie's acquittal?
7 A. I don't know. I haven't got the date. It probably
8 would be but I don't even know when the court case was

That's Peter For you!

Just slightly contradictory eh ?

Lastly Fiona this would apply to you but not only you:

What Peter Swann Said In His Statement:

Those Fingerprint Experts who decline the opportunity to give their Evidence and make a Presentation to The Fingerprint Inquiry should be asked to return home and remain silent.

Should you not just have went home then Fiona on Peter's advice ?

Maybe the FP Society should invite Shirley and David Asbury along.
After all, we did not get the chance to hear their position at the Fingerprint Inquiry.

Daktari

Nice to see you are still alive, I thought we might have lost you for a while.

Any sign of Fiona's hearing yet, You will post the outcome here won't you.

The Fingerprint Inquiry if memory serves me right was about the wrongly Identified marks Y7 and QI2 and not about Asbury or Shirley McKie.

You did accept readily that others on your own side could not give evidence because of the stress of it all, Why can you not accept the same for Shirley McKie.

Indeed others as well as Shirley failed to give evidence on this ground did they not ?

Will the Fingerprint Society sack Leadbetter and Fiona McBride (Who cannot turn jurors into experts) if the Inquiry find they wrongly Identified these prints or will they still allow them to keep these positions of Chairman and Editor.

How is it that Fiona could not point to her 16 marks and present any charts at the inquiry yet she is deemed fit enough to be an editor ?

Then again perhaps as editor she could have made the 10 lines diasppear, or the Rosetta move from one side of the print to the other.

I did notice none of them are down as speakers, was this a deliberate ploy in case they were asked any questions about Y7 Or QI2 ?

Perhaps they are just crap at speaking and presenting evidence who knows.

Sorry Wullie, I appear to have confused you.
I was referring to the Fingerprint Society Conference 2010
(there was a clue in the Topic Heading after all)
and not the Fingerprint Inquiry as you seem to think.

Nice to see you are still on form Daktari, diverting from the issues.

After all, we did not get the chance to hear their position at the Fingerprint Inquiry.

There was no confusion on my part Daktari, you did mention the fingerprint Inquiry did you not ?

Take some more of your dementia tablets before going to bed and you will be alright in the morning.

Sorry Wullie I've done it again.
Their position referrred to David Asbury's and Shirley McKie's position.
Which, dementia or not, I don't seem to recall hearing from them.
Pray enlighten us why this position should obtain?

Daktari wrote:. . . Their position referrred to David Asbury's and Shirley McKie's position.
Which, dementia or not, I don't seem to recall hearing from them. . .

I thought David Asbury's position was that he did not kill Marion Ross. And I thought Shirley McKie's position was that she did not enter Marion Ross' home past the front porch. I do not recall the inquiry being charged with actually examining Mr. Asbury's and Ms. McKie's positions.

I believe one of the purposes of the inquiry was to determine whether the fingerprint evidence presented by SCRO against Mr. Asbury and Ms. McKie was correct.

I'm sure you will correct me on this, so I await your comments.

I believe one of the purposes of the inquiry was to determine whether the fingerprint evidence presented by SCRO against Mr. Asbury and Ms. McKie was correct.

Pat

And of course the whole world apart from SCRO say it is not correct.

This would sit better with the reason Fiona could not point to her 16 characteristics she allegedly marked up on either marks Y7 or QI2 and claimed it was not her job to turn a jury into experts.

In other words it was not her job to show a jury her work, nor convince them she was correct.

How on earth she landed a job as an Editor we will never know.

This is a notice to say that we have received notification of the president's decision to resign, with a new president being elected at the next AGM, which will take place at the 2010 conference. Just a brief note from me, to say thanks to Martin for all the hard work that has been put in over the years to establish and maintain the Society. This year's AGM will formulate the change in direction that the Society is gong to take and should be one of the more interesting.

All views expressed in this post are entirely mine.