CLPEX Chat Board

Happy New Year from all at The Fingerprint Society,

This is just a quick post to update you on what events you have to look forward to this year:

The Fingerprint Society
Annual Educational Conference
8th-10th April 2011
University of Wolverhampton Conference Centre, Telford
More Details : http://fpsociety.org.uk/events/telford2011/index.html
Booking : http://fpsociety.org.uk/events/telford2011/index.html


The Fingerprint Society
Seminar on Fingerprint Distortion
Facilitated by Alice Maceo
11th-12th April 2011
University of Wolverhampton
More Details : http://fpsociety.org.uk/events/seminars.html
Booking : http://alicemaceo2011.eventbrite.com/

I believe the Fingerprint Society is showing great vision by inviting Alice Maceo over to give a presentation on a subject in which she is more than qualified to do so, and they should be congratulated for doing so
Can I make one small suggestion? Peter Swann has given evidence now on a number of occasions regarding the very subject Alice will be presenting on, namely distortion of fingerprints. He claims to have found a 66 degree twist in the fingerprint Y7 misidentified by the SCRO.
Strangely at no time has he actually demonstrated his findings, scientifically or otherwise.
Given he is a member of the Fingerprint Society, can I suggest he be invited to give a presentation demonstrating his findings. He could include all his research and experimentation, and be invited to demonstrate how the fingerprint Y7 was apparently distorted by 66 degrees with all the characteristics remaining in coincident sequence as he has previously stated.
I am sure even Alice would welcome a chance to see the scientific findings of the legendary “Doyen” of fingerprints and to see how he was able to measure an exact 66 degree twist.
I also believe it would be truly fascinating to see all the evidence he has to support his claim.

Wasn't there some kind on "Inquiry" into Peter Swan's so-called "distortion?" I have seen a little of Ms Maceo's class on distortion and my thoughts are that she presents distortion of fingerprints while Mr Swan presents distortion of truth. Say, maybe the FS could host a panel on the Inquiry and Mr Swan. Would any distortions be resolved, I wonder?

Tazman,
I cannot agree more that I believe Peter Swann has ‘distorted’ the truth in the McKie case. From the very beginning when he claimed to be an expert in forgery and fabrication, and later having to admit he was neither. Basically I believe he committed fraud by his unethical behaviour.

With regard to his findings regarding the 66 degree twist on print Y7 it needs to be emphasised that Swann has given testimony under sworn oath regarding his findings. But other than some second rate charts he has never ever been able to justify and evidence his findings.

Is it not the duty of any expert to be able to demonstrate and fully explain their findings?

Given he is a member of the Fingerprint Society and they are hosting a seminar based on distortion of fingerprints I genuinely believe Swann should be invited to present his findings to an audience of his peers.

I am led to believe from experts I have discussed his findings with, that indeed the 66 degree twist he claims to have found is actually impossible.

So what better platform, than to present his findings, his research and his experimentation to such an audience?

If Alice Maceo reads this would she have a problem with Swann giving such a presentation? Has he not delivered evidence under oath on a fingerprint phenomenon which is unique?

I suspect that Swann would be unable to give any such presentation as I believe he has done no research or any experimentation on his findings. He simply placed a protractor on the prints in a desperate attempt to justify his already flawed findings and attempted to make things fit.

Unfortunately he got that spectacularly wrong also.

But give the Doyen the platform to prove me wrong.

Alice, would you have any objection to seeing the legendary Peter Swann explain his findings?

Tagget

'Is it not the duty of any expert to be able to demonstrate and fully explain their findings?'

In court, not exactly no. The words from the mouth of the expert is the evidence.

However in this case it is quite different, are you talking about a pear review?

As a committee member of The Fingerprint Society, I want to say how grateful I am that Alice is coming over the pond to present a talk at the conference and to also faciltate a seminar on such a topical subject as distortion.

Alice has presented at Society events in the past and has always been very well received.

I think it unfair for people on this post put undue pressure on anyone to use this forum to publicly talk about an ongoing case.

I know that this is posting is likely to put myself in the firing line, but I have broad shoulders. I am not going to be pressured to comment on the McKie Case, other than to say like everybody else, I am eagerly awaiting the findings of the enquiry.

Richard,

I think it unfair for people on this post put undue pressure on anyone to use this forum to publicly talk about an ongoing case.

You have slightly lost me. Can you clarify which ‘ongoing case’ you are referring to? Please don’t tell me you believe the McKie case is as far as you are concerned still after all those years an ‘ongoing case’?

The point I was trying to make is that Peter Swann has for several years made public statements and indeed given evidence under oath that he has personally seen a fingerprint which has been distorted by an exact measurement of 66 degrees and that there is not a single characteristic in disagreement.

The Fingerprint Society is hosting a seminar on this very subject.

Peter Swann is I believe still a member of the Society.

To me it is therefore perfectly acceptable to invite Mr Swann to present on his historic findings.

Perhaps the Society is not as far forward as I first thought, which is a shame.

Hi Taggart,

Just to clarify some of my "personal" points.

I do believe that the McKie case should still be classed as ongoing until the inquiry report is published, otherwise anything reported on this site (or via any other media) could still have influence.

As a Society we have always asked distinguished members (and non members) to speak at our conferences, and we would welcome any volunteers. I have however always supported the Society to continue with it's neutral stance in relation to live cases; as we have always promoted ourselves as an educational society and not a regulatory body, and cannot be seen to interfere with the judicial process. If there are any lessons to be learnt when cases have been completed, then I believe these should be reported through the Society's communication channels.

Unfortunately (again a personal point), but as far as asking anyone from either side of the McKie argument to speak at conference, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. The Society has been criticised on this forum in the past for doing exactly what you are proposing, so I would certainly not back any such presentations.

I am sure that this posting will not put an end to further questions, but I hope that you understand that these are my own personal opinions and I do not wish to prolong the issue. As the person who originally posted this subject, I wanted to steer this conversation away from McKie and add more focus on the wide range of topics that are being covered in the conference.

Richard,

Thanks for you response. Just so I can have this right in my mind are you able to confirm the following for me:

The official position of Richard Case is that at this present time you genuinely do not know if the fingerprints in the McKie case were or were nor correctly identified?

The official position of The Fingerprint Society is that at this present time they genuinely do not know if the fingerprints in the McKie case were or were nor correctly identified?

Thanks in anticipation.

Can anyone confirm if anyone has recieved any warnings from the Inquiry team this month ?

They did report they would warn anyone who they would be making any criticism of this month to give them a chance to respond and as yet we have heard no more ?

The point I was trying to make is that Peter Swann has for several years made public statements and indeed given evidence under oath that he has personally seen a fingerprint which has been distorted by an exact measurement of 66 degrees and that there is not a single characteristic in disagreement.

Correct me if I am wrong here but did the experts from SCRO not state at the Inquiry that the charting PC that they were using produced Inaccurate Images and indeed it had jumped when they tried to highlight their points hence they did not appear on the images they would have sent to Peter Swann.

Is this a fair recall of events I heard at the Inquiry or not ?

Hi Taggart,

Welcome back for the year 2011 which is going to be my final working year, should be good if the Inquiry Report comes down and concludes what we have known all along. I agree with your proposal that Swann should present the 66 degree rotation of latent Y7 as a demonstration to the Society for educational purposes and discussion. This was a central issue to his identification and supported by ex Society President Leadbetter and another doyen John Berry two very notable members of the Society. The new generation of Society members would be extremely enlightened as to how the analysis of Y7 was conducted by these eminent members particularly since modern education of experts includes Embryology and Anatomy and Physiology of the skin. As Richard has stated the Society is neutral on the basis of the Inquiry report, but we can equally assume that most members of the society would therefore be unaware of the details present in Y7 as the Society has never promoted it for discussion or learning in the past. With this background the presentation by Swann would be without any bias or preconceived expectations by the majority of the audience and could be presented as a hypothetical. As we have witnessed over the years under the leadership of Leadbetter the members of the society have been neutralised for a long, long time. The only glimmer of hope has been when a few English fingerprint experts gave evidence that Y7 was not the Left thumb of Shirley McKie. Who really cares if the Society is seen as educational rather than regulatory? As long as the membership has credibility in its profession that is the key quality for a membership society. The Society exists on the basis of the fingerprint profession not for being defined as an educational forum or a social forum. Keep them honest Taggart, as always. Regards from oz Les

G’day Les, good to hear from you as usual. I have to admit the more I read Richard Case’s postings the more alarmed and concerned I become. I am also rather confused if he was or was not making his comments on behalf of the Society or not??

He stated “As a Society we have…..” followed at the end by “Any views expressed in this post are personal, and may not represent those of the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and / or The Fingerprint Society, to whom I am associated.”

I would have welcomed a response to my two earlier questions but maybe they are far too political to answer.

I still belive Peter Swann should be invited to the seminar on distortion given his ground breaking findings regarding print Y7.

But all I heard was the Society was “neutral” and this would not happen given the case is apparently still regarded as “ongoing”.

As a Society we have always asked distinguished members (and non members) to speak at our conferences, and we would welcome any volunteers. I have however always supported the Society to continue with it's neutral stance in relation to live cases; as we have always promoted ourselves as an educational society and not a regulatory body, and cannot be seen to interfere with the judicial process. If there are any lessons to be learnt when cases have been completed, then I believe these should be reported through the Society's communication channels.

Unfortunately (again a personal point), but as far as asking anyone from either side of the McKie argument to speak at conference, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. The Society has been criticised on this forum in the past for doing exactly what you are proposing, so I would certainly not back any such presentations.

I have to take issue with this so called “neutral” stance by the Society.

If they are, as claimed by Richard Case, neutral, why was the previous editor, Graham Hughes, allowed to print an editorial piece after the HMI’s Report informing the readers there had indeed been a misidentification of print Y7?

If they are, as claimed by Richard Case, neutral, why did the Society inform and educate their members by publishing an excellent paper by David Grieve on the misidentification of the print Y7?

If they are, as claimed by Richard Case, neutral, why was Iain McKie invited to make a presentation, and through that presentation, educate their members at their annual conference in Cardiff?

If they are, as claimed by Richard Case, neutral, why did previous Chairman and President Steve Haylock agree with the misidentification of print Y7 on Fingerprint Society paper, brought to light during the Fingerprint Inquiry?

At least four cases of the Society clearly showing biased towards the misidentification side. So how can they now claim neutrality?

If as they indeed claim neutrality can we assume they don’t know if print Y7 was misidentified or not? But surely they must believe in the veracity of the articles published in their Journal, so David Grieve’s article alone would have educated them on the case.

I am unaware of any single article appearing in the Society Journal which supports the SCRO or their supporters. I am aware of letters being published but do not count them as educational articles.

I also wonder who the members of the Society who would see fit to “damn” the Society for inviting a SCRO expert or supporter to present to the Society, as claimed by Richard Case are?

How many Society members would oppose the opportunity to see The Doyen’s “expert” presentation on his 66 degree distorted print?

Surely if the Society has backed the McKie camp on at least four separate occasions, for balance Swann should be invited.

I have an interesting proposal for any members attending the seminar with Alice Maceo. Ask the question about distortion. Perhaps not about a 66 degree twist given it might have the Society get into a real panic over an “ongoing case” but ask perhaps about prints which have been distorted 65 degrees or push it up to 67 degrees. Raise it and see what the response will be.

I am struggling to see why the Society is hiding behind the falsehood of neutrality given the opportunity being missed here.

I suspect this is nothing less than a political stance given their refusal to take any action against those who have disgraced the very science they try and represent.

I sincerely apologise for causing any concern, alarm or confusion in any of my previous posts. I thought I stated quite clearly that all statements are personal to me.

The reason I have tried to avoid posting anymore on this subject is because it is totally irrelevant to the original posting, and any statements I make have been misconstrued to benefit other people. But thank you for keeping this post towards the top of the board and allowing me to continue to promote both great events.

Any views that I may or may not have on Y7 will remain personal to me, as with all fingerprint experts in UK police employment it is inappropriate for me to comment or pass criticism on a case that you have not been directly involved unless instructed to do so by your employer or a judge; and this would be following a full independent examination of the original material. Other experts have already been disciplined for failing to adhere to this, and I would never put myself in that position.

As far as The Fingerprint Society.... and again this is all I would say in a committee meeting, but may not reflect the overall view of the society... is that as a committee we are in positions that we have volunteered for and are not in them based on skill level or competency. Some of the committee are not even qualified experts. Also, most of us are still in police employ and would be constrained to the same rules as previously mentioned. I would never agree to carry out any comparison work based on my position within the society. The Society is also not there to dictate nor tell members how to think. They are all capable of making their own comparisons and reaching their own conclusions.

You are quite right to point out a number of occasions where the society have reported, what appears to be in favour of the McKie side. There are a number of reasons which could have contributed to this:

• Not tight enough control on our Editorials

• A belief that the case had completed the judicial process at the time of the event

but there have been occasions where the Society have had restrictions placed on them where they have not been able to report the views of the SCRO supporters:

• The conference held in Scotland

• A presentation given at the Newport Conference

• Restrictions made on Fiona McBride as part of her Editorial role

These restrictions are all appropriate, and I believe we continue to be vigilant not to demonstrate any bias in future.

If any more questions relating to the McKie Case are asked of me on this posting then I am going to demonstrate my right to silence as I believe I have made my position quite clear.

Les, I hope you enjoyed Australia Day and have not been personally affected by the terrible weather events down under.

Richard, thanks for your honest response, and I respect you decision to now remain silent. I would however wish to highlight a couple of things relating to your latest posting.

The reason I have tried to avoid posting anymore on this subject is because it is totally irrelevant to the original posting

With respect I believe it entirely relevant to invite a Society member to make a presentation at a seminar specifically relating to distortion of fingerprints when that member has personally carried out work on a fingerprint which he has claimed under oath has been distorted 66 degrees and ultimately left no characteristics in disagreement.

Any views that I may or may not have on Y7 will remain personal to me, as with all fingerprint experts in UK police employment it is inappropriate for me to comment or pass criticism on a case that you have not been directly involved unless instructed to do so by your employer or a judge; and this would be following a full independent examination of the original material. Other experts have already been disciplined for failing to adhere to this, and I would never put myself in that position.

As far as The Fingerprint Society.... and again this is all I would say in a committee meeting, but may not reflect the overall view of the society... is that as a committee we are in positions that we have volunteered for and are not in them based on skill level or competency. Some of the committee are not even qualified experts. Also, most of us are still in police employ and would be constrained to the same rules as previously mentioned. I would never agree to carry out any comparison work based on my position within the society. The Society is also not there to dictate nor tell members how to think. They are all capable of making their own comparisons and reaching their own conclusions.

Wow! With a capital W. I find this quite incredible because if this statement is true then clearly you cannot accept any findings of the Fingerprint Inquiry given you have never personally compared the prints in the case in question.

And further to this you clearly believe the Society cannot accept or indeed comment on the forthcoming Inquiry findings as this would constitute commenting on a case that the Society has never personally been involved in. Again, wow.

Let me tell you Richard if the Society remains silent after the publication of the Fingerprint Inquiry Report then they will suffer massively as they have done so often in the past.

The only way forward for them is to publicly accept the findings and move forward taking full recognition of the recommendations and taking appropriate action against those who will be criticised whoever they may be.

However to do so will be at odds with your own views.