International Fingerprint Week - Fingerprint Society

[Taggart]

As part of their 2012 Conference The Fingerprint Society is having an International Fingerprint Week.

http://www.fpsociety.org.uk/events/derb ... W2012.html

International Fingerprint Week
Aims and Objectives

The primary objective of International Fingerprint Week is

to provide an awareness and appreciation for the role that fingerprints play in the investigation and detection of crime.

Reason

The use of fingerprints as a means on personal identification and as a forensic tool to identify persons at a crime scene has been in existence for over 100 years.

Since the introduction of DNA profiling in the 1980’s, the focus of media attention in the arena of forensic detection has been on this new technique, despite the fact that fingerprints contribute to more crime detections than they ever have.

The fingerprint profession is also facing some challenging times with the continuance of the McKie Case, and the much awaited publishing of The Scottish Fingerprint Inquiry report.

Also, 2011 has seen the publishing of the judgement in the case of R-v-Smith, which resulted in a murder conviction being quashed due to issues with the presentation of the fingerprint evidence.

There is also research being undertaken into the psychology of comparison work and its scientific validity, which further challenges the work being undertaken in police forces.

Morale within scientific support / forensic services within police forces is also at an all time low due to budget cuts in the police service and subsequent redundancies that have resulted.

International Fingerprint Week will be an opportunity to:

Positively demonstrate the role of fingerprints
Reflect and celebrate the achievements of fingerprint practitioners
Engage with the public by providing an educational programme for school children and students
To raise the morale within police force scientific support / forensic units; especially in the fingerprint bureau.

When

International Fingerprint Week will be:

Monday 16th April 2012 to Friday 20th April 2012
How will it be launched

International Fingerprint Week would be officially launched as part of the Gala Dinner at The Fingerprint Society Annual Conference, which will be on the evening of Friday 13th April 2012.
It is anticipated that it would be launched by a specially invited guest in the presence of other distinguished guests who represent the UK fingerprint profession.
Strategy

International Fingerprint Week will consist of 5 themed days:

Monday Custody – MobileID - LiveScan
Tuesday Crime Scene – Powders – Remote Transmission
Wednesday Enhancement Laboratories – Chemicals – Specialist Techniques
Thursday The Fingerprint Bureau – IDENT1 – ACE-V
Friday Court – detections – evidence presentation

The Fingerprint Society will produce a press release on each day, which will highlight the specific theme.

Police Forces will be encouraged to undertake at least one public relations event during the week, to promote the work that their fingerprint bureau carry out to help detect crime and protect their communities.

The Fingerprint Society will promote the event by the creation of a website dedicated to International Fingerprint Week, which will list all events that are taking place; and will also hold educational resource material for schools and universities.

The Fingerprint Society will also launch a social media campaign using tools such as Facebook and Twitter, to promote events.
What next

We are looking for supporters from all around the fingerprint profession to participate in International Fingerprint Week, but not to provide financial support, but to offer time and resources; to organise events; to help in communication.

I am slightly concerned that The Fingerprint Society is leading this, given they still have within their ranks experts who have totally discredited the science.

I must assume they have a strategy in place for when the Inquiry reports back to deal with all those who are named and shamed?

If any of those exeprts are still within the Society come this Conference then I seriously question the credibilty of the 'International Fingerprint Week'.

[Pat]

As part of their 2012 Conference The Fingerprint Society is having an International Fingerprint Week.

http://www.fpsociety.org.uk/events/derb ... W2012.html

International Fingerprint Week
Aims and Objectives


.
.
.

The fingerprint profession is also facing some challenging times with the continuance of the McKie Case, and the much awaited publishing of The Scottish Fingerprint Inquiry report.
.
.
.

The Fingerprint Society will promote the event by the creation of a website dedicated to International Fingerprint Week, which will list all events that are taking place; and will also hold educational resource material for schools and universities.
.

.

My dear Taggart, does this mean that the Fingerprint Society has taken a position on the McKie/Asbury cases? The IAI took an official position, of course. But I was under the impression that the Fingerprint Society was still operating per their vote at the 2000 meeting to withhold any comment whatsoever on the case. If they are using the case now to launch "International Fingerprint Week," please tell me they have taken a formal position on the case.

[Taggart]

I am not aware that the Society has climbed down from their fence to take any stance on the McKie/Asbury prints.

My understanding when the report comes out the first thing they will do is call in the medics to remove all the splinters from their backsides gathered over the many years whilst sitting on that fence. They must be pretty much embedded given the time they have been in there.

The second thing they will do is to Contact the Guinness Book of World Records and see if their fence sitting constitutes a new world record?

I suspect they have a great chance and maybe next year they could celebrate that at their annual conference?


I am finding it hard to see how the Society can actually make any comment or support the findings of the Inquiry.

After all did they accept the findings of thje HMIC when they stated the prints were erroneous?

No.

Did they accept the findings of the IAI and their Y7 Committee?

No.

Have they ever accepted the findings of many of the other Independent reports including a formal criminal investigation which all concluded the prints were erroneous?

No.

Did they ever instigate their Code of Conduct against of their members who erroneously identified the prints?

No.

What they did do however during this time was to reward and appoint Fiona McBride to Editor of their flagship magazine!

If they think they will be able to make a statement in which they accept the findings of the Inquiry and hope they can move on good luck to them. But I suspect they will be asked serious questions such as why do they accept the findings of the Inquiry but not the IAI or the HMIC?

Why did they take no action against any of its members when they knew they had disgraced the Science?

What action are they going to take now against those very members?

I find it incredulous they wish to lead this International Fingerprint Week when they have so many un-answered questions.

Until then maybe it should be the International Fingerprint Weak?

Maybe Richard Case or someone from the Society could at least let us know they have a strategy in place for the Report being published?

[Taggart]

Also, 2011 has seen the publishing of the judgement in the case of R-v-Smith, which resulted in a murder conviction being quashed due to issues with the presentation of the fingerprint evidence.

Pat,

Let us not forget it was a Society member (discredited expert Peter Swann) who gave the criticical evidence under oath that the print in question contained so many discrepancies it must have been wrongly identified.

The Society mention 'issues' but are they prepared to do anything about them, especially given the issues seem to centre on one of their own members?

As in the McKie case do you suspect the Fingerprint Society has buried their heads on this case or are they being instrumental in forcing a case review?

I suspect they have perhaps erected a new fence, this time with some padding! Lessons learnt from previous years!

[Iain McKie]

I wish the Fingerprint Society well in its aims and objectives and hope that the 'International Fingerprint Week' will be a resounding success.

However it seems to me that before this can happen the Society needs to prove to its members and potential members that the malign influences of the past are dead and buried.

Unfortunately the programme you have published suggests that collective heads are still being buried in the sand.

Avoiding the lessons of the past is surely not the way to move the Society forward.

As the coming ‘Fingerprint Inquiry Scotland Report’ is likely to provide the most up to date review of fingerprint procedures and practice ever published why does it not feature strongly on your programme?

By openly reviewing and debating the report and its conclusions at the conference the Society would show the forensic world that it is determined to lay the past to rest and provide proof that the rhetoric was at last being matched by positive and determined action.

I suggest that you consider adjusting your programme to include such review and debate. I would certainly be happy to assist this project in any way I can.

The key to dealing with challenge is to face it not avoid it as the Society has done for over a decade.

Perhaps now is the time for the Society to adopt the slogan that we adopted in fighting for justice for my daughter Shirley.

‘There's nane ever fear'd that the truth should be heard but they whom the truth would indite'.

[Sam the man]

Iain,

I see the conference is in April 2012 are you sure the Inquiry will have reported by then?

Best regards

Sam

[Iain McKie]

Hi Sam,

All the signs are that the report will be published this year.

Unfortunately, if the past is anything to go by, I expect the latest postings critical of the Fingerprint Society to be ignored

The new office bearers of the Society have indicated that there is a new regime in charge who want to look forward and create a vibrant and relevant organisation for experts in the UK and across the world.

Unfortunately to do this they have to prove that they are their own persons and that strings are not still being pulled by members like Peter Swann and Martin Leadbetter who it could be argued have been responsible for many of the problems experienced by the Society over the past few years.

The news that Martin Leadbetter is soon to receive an award for his contributions to the Fingerprint Society at a gala dinner only serves to underline my concerns.

I will be watching closely to see how the Society deals with the coming Inquiry Report which could well be critical of Society members. It is only through their actions we will be able to judge whether the Society is on the way to re-establishing itself as a world wide leader in promoting, protecting and advancing the profession of fingerprints.

Best wishes,

Iain

[rmcase]

Hi Taggart,

Thanks for starting this posting, as it was on my to do list for this weekend What I am not going to do is pour over issues that I believe I have tried to answer on previous postings.

I am happy to reply to Pat and Iain as they haven't used alternative identities.

does this mean that the Fingerprint Society has taken a position on the McKie/Asbury cases? The IAI took an official position, of course. But I was under the impression that the Fingerprint Society was still operating per their vote at the 2000 meeting to withhold any comment whatsoever on the case. If they are using the case now to launch "International Fingerprint Week," please tell me they have taken a formal position on the case.

Pat, the Society has not yet changed its stance on the McKie/Asbury cases. It's my belief that our members do not require a Society to tell them if marks are identical or not. They are fingerprint officers (Latent Print Examiners) in their own right and are capable of reaching their own conclusions. As I have mentioned in the past, I believe the Society to be an educational Society and not a professional body and I would have to review my own position on the committee if that changed.

Iain, thank you for your kind words of support.

I expect that the society will hold an extraordinary committee meeting when the inquiry report is published to review its findings and recommendations, with a view to issuing a statement.

The lecture programme for next years conference is still at a very early stage and there is still opportunity for change, and I would personally like to see a debate being held. I will put this idea forward at the next committee meeting together with your offer of assistance.

I am not going to allow myself to be drawn into any further discussions relating to the Scottish Inquiry, so I hope that you can respect the fact that I may not reply or respond to future postings.

[Taggart]

Iain,

I must confess when I read your latest posting I had to check my calendar to see it wasn’t 1st April! Martin Leadbetter being honoured by the Fingerprint Society?

A quick Google check did indeed confirm your posting!

http://www.fpsociety.org.uk/files/AGM%2 ... 202011.pdf

An award is also to presented to Martin Leadbetter for his contributions to the Fingerprint Society
These will be presented at the Gala Dinner.

At a time where I actually believed the Society was trying to re-invent itself and portray a new forward thinking organisation, they have scored probably the single biggest own-goal in their entire history!

I spoke with a Journalist friend this afternoon who is very keen to run with this story. I have asked him to hold off until the Inquiry Reports back, and to see what Response the Society gives to the Report.

The only response will be for the Society to fully accept the findings of the Inquiry and to take immediate action against all those who are named and shamed. The Society have rules to enable them to do this.

http://www.fpsociety.org.uk/files/rules.pdf

13. Expulsion of Members
13.1 If at any time the Committee considers that the interests of the Society require it they must invite a member to resign from the Society, by a letter specifying the time before which the withdrawal should be made.
13.2 If the member concerned does not withdraw the Committee must submit the question of his/her expulsion to the Annual General Meeting or a Special General Meeting to be held within eight weeks after the date of the letter.
13.3 Not less than 14 days’ notice of the meeting must be given to the members.
13.4 The Secretary must inform the member in question of the time and place of the meeting and the nature of the complaints against him/her in sufficient time to afford him/her a proper opportunity of offering an explanation.
13.5 At the meeting the member must be allowed to offer an explanation of his/her conduct verbally or in writing and if after that more than half of the members present vote for his/her expulsion he/she will immediately cease to be a member of the Society.
13.6 The voting at any such Special General Meeting must be by ballot.

If I can give Richard Case one vital thing to take back to the Society. He stated:

I expect that the society will hold an extraordinary committee meeting when the inquiry report is published to review its findings and recommendations, with a view to issuing a statement.

Please wake up and smell the coffee! Wait until it is published? Let me suggest given your Society is about to convey an honour on an ‘expert’ who is going to be totally discredited in that report, as will fellow Society members including Swann and Mackenzie can I personally suggest you call for an immediate meeting to discuss the impending release of the Report.

The media are keen to get in about the Society right now. A failure to issue an immediate Response will be disastrous for the Society. A failure to publicly rescind the award to Leadbetter will have further catastrophic consequences.

Just a gentle warning Richard, but I do believe the Society is in real danger of imploding over this new scandal.

[Taggart]

Pat,

Richard Case responded to you:

…. the Society has not yet changed its stance on the McKie/Asbury cases.

I am unsure in what capacity Richard can state this as he clearly indicates his views may not represent those of the Fingerprint Society:

PLEASE NOTE: 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.

The reality Pat is the Fingerprint Society has taken a stance on this. During the evidence at the Fingerprint Inquiry it was apparent that Fingerprint Society Chairman Steve Haylock wrote directly to Iain McKie and stated:

"... almost beyond belief and that fingerprints experts I had spoken to find it inconceivable that an 'incorrect identification' could get as far as it with the results that it did. I fully support the findings of the experts employed by HMIC for Scotland having been shown copies of both the marks to which you refer."

This was done, and perhaps Iain will confirm this, on Fingerprint Society headed notepaper.

I see this as clear evidence of a position/stance by the Fingerprint Society. Or did the Chairman abuse his position by using the Society notepaper to document his own personal opinion? Surely not.

Added to this I aware that several years ago Graham Hughes wrote an editorial in the Fingerprint Society when the HMIC’s Report was published clearly stating that there had been an erroneous identification in the SCRO Bureau.

Richard also informed us the Society was an ‘Educational’ Society.

It's my belief that our members do not require a Society to tell them if marks are identical or not. They are fingerprint officers (Latent Print Examiners) in their own right and are capable of reaching their own conclusions. As I have mentioned in the past, I believe the Society to be an educational Society and not a professional body and I would have to review my own position on the committee if that changed.

Again I am struggling with this assertion. Pat, you will recall several years ago the Society published a wonderful resume of the case by David Grieve. Was this to educate the membership? Did that article not include the fact, as Graham Hughes’ editorial state the points were erroneously identified?

Why print such items if the readers are the only ones capable of reaching their own conclusions?

The plain reality is Pat, The Fingerprint Society is well aware of the truth. I will give Richard the benefit of the doubt and suggest these happening were before his time within the Society.

But is clearly wrong to assert they have not changed their stance.

[Iain McKie]

While I feel the Fingerprint Society must be given the opportunity to get its house in order, as Taggart states, the Society will be judged on how it responds to the Inquiry conclusions.

In passing it is interesting to note that Martin Leadbetter the recipient of a Society award for services rendered has not minced his words when criticising those who dare to disagree with him.

From his Inquiry statement:

‘I am appalled by the incompetence that has been shown by those so-called experts who have reached different conclusions…….I have grave doubts as to the competence of certain individuals who have provided ‘expert’ evidence as to the provenance of Mark ‘Y7’ and believe it has led to confusion, a blurring of the truth, flawed opinions and the devaluing of fingerprint evidence to an abject level never seen before in British courts……..I take no pleasure in having to criticise a fellow expert (Pat Wertheim) so harshly . I have to say personally I do not think he has the skill, experience or ability to identify such complex marks as ‘Y7’….I have never seen such a ridiculous proposition relating to fingerprint comparison in my 42 years experience……..I would suggest Mr Zeelenberg has been watching too many American detective TV programmes: even a junior examiner, with perhaps as little as 6 months experience would know that such a proposition was untenable and quite laughable. …To summarise all four experts referred to ….have shown serious failings and/or flaws in the evidence that they presented and lack the skill and experience in analysing and deciphering complex and difficult fingerprint material.’
http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... 148-02.pdf

From his Inquiry testimony

‘Q. Mr Leadbetter, finally, I am suggesting to you against the large number of experts throughout the world who have come to the conclusion that Y7 has not come from Shirley McKie, do you accept any possibility that you might be wrong in your analysis?
A. I do not, no.
Q. Absolutely none?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. So by implication David Ashbaugh, Mr Grigg, Mr Sheppard,
Mr Grieve, Devon & Cornwall, Steve Haylock are wrong?’
A.Well, I have to say yes.
http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... /1682.html

Is it too much to hope that when the Inquiry reports and identifies who have let themselves and their profession down the Society will show the independence and integrity to take action against any who are members.

There is another related issue arising from this whole affair which the Society should give careful thought to. Many if not all of the experts who will be criticised in the report will have prepared and presented evidence in our courts since they made their mistakes. Will the Society join me in ensuring that the appropriate authorities are urged to take immediate steps to have that evidence carefully assessed as to its integrity and accuracy in case further miscarriages of justice have been perpetrated?

[Taggart]

My Journalist friend has asked me to find out who within the Society will be best placed to answer his questions?

I see from the Society Website there currently is no Media or Press Officer.

http://www.fpsociety.org.uk/thesociety/committee.html

Could Richard Case or perhaps any other member of the Society confirm who he should contact in the first instance?

[Pat]

Taggart,

Richard and I disagree on one major point of philosophy in the formation and purpose of an organization such as the IAI or the Fingerprint Society. While we both believe education should be a primary objective of such an organization, I believe the organization should also represent the profession to the greater lay population of the community. In the case of Y-7, the IAI did just that. The Fingerprint Society did not. Richard believes the Fingerprint Society acted in the more professional manner. I leave it to the disinterested readers of this forum to judge which organization served the greater good.

Iain,

A person might be measured by the kind words of friends. A person might also be measured by the bitter criticism of enemies. Considering the source of criticisms, it might be that they are just as complimentary and even greater in depth of meaning than the kind words of friends. Show me a person who has no enemies and I'll show you a person who has probably done little that is worthwhile. I am proud of my enemies, for I have worked hard to earn them.

Pat

[Iain McKie]

Hi Pat,

I am proud of my enemies, for I have worked hard to earn them.

Indeed you have Pat. But I would argue that you have also worked hard to earn your friends and Shirley and I will always want to count ourselves among them.

I have only found personal progress possible when faced with opposition and challenge. My feeling is that for so many of us involved in this fingerprint controversy it has been an at times sharp learning curve but that we distinguish ourselves by our ability to admit our mistakes and incorporate the lessons into our private and professional lives.

From the very beginning the ‘Fingerprint Society’, under the control of experts who displayed remarkable arrogance and certainty, has buried its head in the sand or has even actively sought to support the SCRO experts in their quest. These dinosaurs have been responsible for the decline of the ‘Fingerprint Society’ as an organisation across the world.

Unless the Society escapes from their malign influence it has no future.

Without a massive cultural change their planned ‘International Fingerprint Week’ is yet another ‘fig leaf’ attempt to hide the fact that the emperor no longer has any clothes.

The Society could well follow the lead of the IAI and choose to be proactive by carrying out an independent enquiry into the validity of the claims being made by expert members like Peter Swann and Martin Leadbetter.

I have challenged the Society to open its conference with a debate/discussion on the recommendations of the Fingerprint Inquiry as a way of clearly showing that they are now listening. I am sure there are many of us who would be willing to contribute to such a debate.

The question remains does the Society now have the leadership capable of creating cultural change? I have no reason to doubt the integrity, courage and energy of Richard Case and his team and I wish them well in their difficult task. The 'Fingerprint Society' can I believe be a force for positive change and development in your profession across the world and help ensure that fingerprinting continues to be an important crime detection and prevention science.

Best wishes,

Iain

[David L. Grieve]

I have tried to find some merit in the position of the Fingerprint Society as expressed by Mr. Case, but the reasoning fails to be convincing. For many years, the argument was that published images were inadequate or unreliable, a contradiction to Mr. Case's statement that conclusions are an individual responsibility but not for an alleged professional body. It is most apparent that within that body are differing opinions, and by avoiding an official stand, the organizations is failing at least some of its members. Does the FS restrict education to avoid any discussion of conflict resolution? One topic badly needed based upon Mr. Leadbetter's statements is how to resolve matters without resorting to insults and hyperbole.

The issue with Martin is more difficult, I admit. For many years, I called Martin Leadbetter a good friend. I still have a copy of Rochester Rag, a piece Martin composed for the 1982 IAI meeting where he and I first met. I also recall another meeting in Peoria, Illinois, when Martin asked me about employment with the Illinois State Police. If that had transpired, I would have administered a competency test to Martin as part of my duties. How awkward that would have been years later to explain getting my seal of approval. None of those test examples would have included mythical Rosetta points or 66-degree twists so complex that the most skilled examiners throughout the world haeve failed to note them. That is except a small cluster of people who encourage each others' delusions in a tiny part of the world.

I acknowledge that Martin, along with John Berry and others, contributed greatly to communication that has, in its own way, advanced fingerprint science. How much this was altruistic or self-serving is debatable, but the Fingerprint Society might not exist without Martin's efforts. And he has been recognized and acknowledged for this numerous times in the past. But Martin has become like Henry Faulds in his later years.belittling others because of their failure to note his greatness. It is the bitterness, the personal vendettas, the resentment of others' successes that mar the legacy of Faulds, and these same traits mar the legacy of Martin Leadbetter.

I stopped calling the Fingerprint Society a professional organization when it hid from its responsibility to consider charges against several of its members. The weak excuse then was that its rules were never approved after 25 years of existence. It would be laughable except for what the FS conveniently forgets, that real people got hurt, that lives were shattered and that a murder goes unsolved, hardly the subject of jokes. That was run and hide then and it is run and hide now. Mr. Case, your supposed higher road stand is simply putting more lipstick on the pig.