Hi Everyone
I recently gave evidence at a criminal trial that involved 'hot-tubbing' with the police expert in the witness box. I disagreed with his identification result and we argued our points concurrently. Below is a link to an article with more details.
Simon
http://www.keithborer.co.uk/news/view-a ... itness-box
'Hot-tubbing' and exaggerated fingerprint evidence
-
Simon Bunter
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 3:41 pm
- Location: England
-
Steve Everist
- Site Admin
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:27 pm
- Location: Bellevue, WA
Re: 'Hot-tubbing' and exaggerated fingerprint evidence
Could you explain the process a little more?
Is this process moderated?
Do you each take turns answering the same questions through direct and then the same questions through cross?
Do you get to respond to the other witness's remarks?
What's the judge's role in the process?
Are you working from the same charts, etc...? Or do you work solely from your own?
Is this process moderated?
Do you each take turns answering the same questions through direct and then the same questions through cross?
Do you get to respond to the other witness's remarks?
What's the judge's role in the process?
Are you working from the same charts, etc...? Or do you work solely from your own?
Steve E.
-
kevin
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 3:37 pm
- Location: elsewhere
Re: 'Hot-tubbing' and exaggerated fingerprint evidence
I agree with Steve - it would be good to hear how the process works...
The article defines it:
hot-tubbing ► verb: the process by which expert witnesses from like disciplines can give their evidence concurrently.
(I put that up so nobody reads the thread title and makes the mistake of trying to look it up on urban dictionary)
The article defines it:
hot-tubbing ► verb: the process by which expert witnesses from like disciplines can give their evidence concurrently.
(I put that up so nobody reads the thread title and makes the mistake of trying to look it up on urban dictionary)
-
Simon Bunter
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 3:41 pm
- Location: England
Re: 'Hot-tubbing' and exaggerated fingerprint evidence
Hi Steve and Kevin.
I think the whole process may have been fairly new to the judge and barristers too, as I got the impression there was no fixed way of doing things and there was a bit of trial (no pun intended) and error involved. Initially, we were both stood in the main witness box but it was noted that it was quite small for two people. My counterpart volunteered to give his evidence from a 'second' witness box (that unfortunately did not have a microphone). The police expert had prepared annotated charts showing the position of the ridge characteristics he was relying on. The defence barrister had numbered the point on the charts and these were displayed on two overhead monitors in the courtroom. The jury were given hand-outs of the charts but these had not been numbered. We both used the charts to explain our findings.
It was decided by the barristers that we would each give our opinions for every single one of the 18 ridge characteristics that the police expert was relying on. The prosecution barrister then asked the police expert for his opinion. The expert explained that he felt it would be better if he gave his opinion regarding 'groups' of characteristics rather than one point at a time so his evidence was along the lines of 'Point 1 is a ridge ending, two ridges to the right I found a bifurcation...' etc. After about three or four ridge characteristics, the defence barrister would stand up and ask me whether I agreed and my answer would be something along the lines of 'I agree that point 1 is a clear ridge ending, however, point 2 is not clear in the mark at all as the area is very smudged/distorted...'. The prosecution barrister would then ask the police expert to carry on with his explanation for the next three/four points.
Sometimes the prosecution barrister would cross-examine me on the evidence I had just given but sometimes he would move on to ask the police expert about the other points. I think the judge also asked some questions during the process and also asked for clarification on some issues. There were two or three occasions where I was able to address the police expert directly to clarify an issue or to make a point. At the end we were both asked to sum up our opinions in a few sentences.
The whole 'hot-tubbing' process lasted for the entire afternoon session which was approximately 2.5 hours and it was probably a little less formal than the conventional way of giving evidence. Indeed, we had both given evidence in the conventional manner that morning with regard to whether the Fingerprint Bureau operational procedures followed were sufficient to minimise any cognitive or and confirmation bias that was present.
I hope this helps explain it a bit more.
Simon
I think the whole process may have been fairly new to the judge and barristers too, as I got the impression there was no fixed way of doing things and there was a bit of trial (no pun intended) and error involved. Initially, we were both stood in the main witness box but it was noted that it was quite small for two people. My counterpart volunteered to give his evidence from a 'second' witness box (that unfortunately did not have a microphone). The police expert had prepared annotated charts showing the position of the ridge characteristics he was relying on. The defence barrister had numbered the point on the charts and these were displayed on two overhead monitors in the courtroom. The jury were given hand-outs of the charts but these had not been numbered. We both used the charts to explain our findings.
It was decided by the barristers that we would each give our opinions for every single one of the 18 ridge characteristics that the police expert was relying on. The prosecution barrister then asked the police expert for his opinion. The expert explained that he felt it would be better if he gave his opinion regarding 'groups' of characteristics rather than one point at a time so his evidence was along the lines of 'Point 1 is a ridge ending, two ridges to the right I found a bifurcation...' etc. After about three or four ridge characteristics, the defence barrister would stand up and ask me whether I agreed and my answer would be something along the lines of 'I agree that point 1 is a clear ridge ending, however, point 2 is not clear in the mark at all as the area is very smudged/distorted...'. The prosecution barrister would then ask the police expert to carry on with his explanation for the next three/four points.
Sometimes the prosecution barrister would cross-examine me on the evidence I had just given but sometimes he would move on to ask the police expert about the other points. I think the judge also asked some questions during the process and also asked for clarification on some issues. There were two or three occasions where I was able to address the police expert directly to clarify an issue or to make a point. At the end we were both asked to sum up our opinions in a few sentences.
The whole 'hot-tubbing' process lasted for the entire afternoon session which was approximately 2.5 hours and it was probably a little less formal than the conventional way of giving evidence. Indeed, we had both given evidence in the conventional manner that morning with regard to whether the Fingerprint Bureau operational procedures followed were sufficient to minimise any cognitive or and confirmation bias that was present.
I hope this helps explain it a bit more.
Simon
-
Les Bush
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:29 am
- Location: Australia
Re: 'Hot-tubbing' and exaggerated fingerprint evidence
Hello Simon,
Thanks for this posting and the attached article. The experience in the UK does not require them use a reference for an overseas Mayfield case as your own McKie case is much closer to home. There was a big expense paid to resolve the McKie case and the learning outcomes must surely have flowed into the UK system by now, surely. The process used in the McKie Inquiry with technical support to allow each expert to plot their results and explain their reasoning was adequate and allowed for review. The process used in this court room was far less, so no independent review is possible. Of-course being an alleged blood print there is always the possibility of 'wrong for colour' ridges. Other variables are the substrate interference and the development and recording techniques. Surely by now the UK is on top of its forensic game in all aspects of examining and recording fingerprint evidence, surely. Lastly it always helps in determining who to vote for, if images of the alleged blood print and exemplar are available. In a digital generation these can simply be added to this site for viewing, hope so. Electronic evidence in court with appropriate soft-ware tools to demonstrate the identification process, and explanations of reasoning that is firstly objective, then deductive and leading to subjective, while following a known scientific method of hypothesis testing I would have thought the UK system following McKie had all these things covered. It appears that length of time spent looking at fingerprints is still a valuable commodity. But as it happens 'looking' is different to observing as there is an element of reasoning applied. Cheers from oz. Les
Thanks for this posting and the attached article. The experience in the UK does not require them use a reference for an overseas Mayfield case as your own McKie case is much closer to home. There was a big expense paid to resolve the McKie case and the learning outcomes must surely have flowed into the UK system by now, surely. The process used in the McKie Inquiry with technical support to allow each expert to plot their results and explain their reasoning was adequate and allowed for review. The process used in this court room was far less, so no independent review is possible. Of-course being an alleged blood print there is always the possibility of 'wrong for colour' ridges. Other variables are the substrate interference and the development and recording techniques. Surely by now the UK is on top of its forensic game in all aspects of examining and recording fingerprint evidence, surely. Lastly it always helps in determining who to vote for, if images of the alleged blood print and exemplar are available. In a digital generation these can simply be added to this site for viewing, hope so. Electronic evidence in court with appropriate soft-ware tools to demonstrate the identification process, and explanations of reasoning that is firstly objective, then deductive and leading to subjective, while following a known scientific method of hypothesis testing I would have thought the UK system following McKie had all these things covered. It appears that length of time spent looking at fingerprints is still a valuable commodity. But as it happens 'looking' is different to observing as there is an element of reasoning applied. Cheers from oz. Les
-
Simon Bunter
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 3:41 pm
- Location: England
Re: 'Hot-tubbing' and exaggerated fingerprint evidence
Hello Les
Unfortunately, on the whole, UK Fingerprint Bureaux have not incorporated many of the important McKie Inquiry Report recommendations into their methodology or procedures. As such, flawed or exaggerated evidence can sometimes still be presented as evidence in court.
With regard to publishing images of the mark and print; I'm not sure where we stand legally with publishing images from casework, therefore, I'm reluctant to put them on here. I had previously hoped to publish the images from the R-v-Smith case on our website and had sought permission to do so. Unfortunately, the relevant senior police personnel refused my request so I was not able to share such an important fingerprint case with the community.
Simon
Unfortunately, on the whole, UK Fingerprint Bureaux have not incorporated many of the important McKie Inquiry Report recommendations into their methodology or procedures. As such, flawed or exaggerated evidence can sometimes still be presented as evidence in court.
With regard to publishing images of the mark and print; I'm not sure where we stand legally with publishing images from casework, therefore, I'm reluctant to put them on here. I had previously hoped to publish the images from the R-v-Smith case on our website and had sought permission to do so. Unfortunately, the relevant senior police personnel refused my request so I was not able to share such an important fingerprint case with the community.
Simon
-
Les Bush
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:29 am
- Location: Australia
Re: 'Hot-tubbing' and exaggerated fingerprint evidence
Hello Simon,
Thank you for the quick reply, and the update on the Uk system. I notice there is an ongoing matter in relation to Fiona McBride as one of the experts for the old SCRO and she claims to have been trained to a 'gold standard' over 5 years. The SCRO evidence presented to court against McKie was to the old UK gold standard of being a required number of 12 points. Now in your case we have an alleged identification of beyond the UK gold standard of 18 points. If my memory is correct the McKie Inquiry was 2011 so there has been five long years to revise the system, a new generation of experts could have been produced. For fingerprints to stay aligned as an Applied Science it really needs global consensus on what is the most academic standard for producing identifications or eliminations. Without it there will remain a divided community of expert practitioners embracing various national dogma. Sad but true, if only the fingerprint world had recognised the changes coming in the late 1990's to the North American continent, there could have been a brighter and more scientific future. Sad also that I will not get to see the images of the fingerprints in your case, although retired for 4 years I would enjoy the challenge. Kind regards and cheers from oz. Les
Thank you for the quick reply, and the update on the Uk system. I notice there is an ongoing matter in relation to Fiona McBride as one of the experts for the old SCRO and she claims to have been trained to a 'gold standard' over 5 years. The SCRO evidence presented to court against McKie was to the old UK gold standard of being a required number of 12 points. Now in your case we have an alleged identification of beyond the UK gold standard of 18 points. If my memory is correct the McKie Inquiry was 2011 so there has been five long years to revise the system, a new generation of experts could have been produced. For fingerprints to stay aligned as an Applied Science it really needs global consensus on what is the most academic standard for producing identifications or eliminations. Without it there will remain a divided community of expert practitioners embracing various national dogma. Sad but true, if only the fingerprint world had recognised the changes coming in the late 1990's to the North American continent, there could have been a brighter and more scientific future. Sad also that I will not get to see the images of the fingerprints in your case, although retired for 4 years I would enjoy the challenge. Kind regards and cheers from oz. Les