CLPEX Chat Board

If you are convinced that it fits, you may spend years trying to put a square peg into a round hole. You may begin to think that it's a really complex task. You may try rotating the peg through angles of upto 66 degrees or more in all directions. You may try to introduce all kinds of wierd distortions to the peg to make it fit into the hole; because you believe that it should.

On the other hand, if you approach the problem objectively, it may take you less than 90 seconds, even less than a minute, to realise that the peg simply does not fit into the round hole. Once you have come to this realisation you can then concentrate on the real problem.

Where is the square hole that this peg does fit into?

David,
You also have made a honest mistake. Using a square hole, all you need to do is find the right size round peg and it fits!!!!!! You don't need to rotate any degrees to come up with a plausible explaination.

Using a square hole, all you need to do is find the right size round peg and it fits!!!!!!

False analogy! It's not a proper fit, the round peg just spins in the square hole. And no amount of spin will make it fit any better.

P.S. Using a hammer to try and make it fit will likely destroy the peg or split the board in two.

Or maybe if you examine the square peg closely you actually notice that it is round and not square and fits perfectly and perhaps you should have spent longer studying for your peg exams

Sometimes pegs do take longer than a couple of minutes to check

There are two strong camps that believe that they are right. Pat Wertheim's belief is that the mark has been placed once. Peter Swann sees movement.

We all know what you think about the mark DF. The Justice 1 Inquiry are now involved so why don't we just wait and see what they think.

Threads such as this one have been going on for too long now. They encourage supporters of both camps to have a pop at one another so please end this nonsense David Fairhurst by putting a peg in it yourself.

Amen

Could you ask Allan Bayle, the Universe's Foremost Expert in Pegoscopy?

son of adam - While I respect your desire for a civil debate, there are certain truths that should be out in the open. I find no reason to be so dismissive of Mr. Fairhurst's desire to put forward an excellent analogy. Your snip at the end of your post almost brings into question your bias in this entire matter, although I must say you seem to be very un-bias in your posts to date.

To expand on the anology in truth, I agree... it is unfortunate that a closer examination of the peg and the hole were not conducted. However, once a pegologist reports a fit and realizes they were wrong they can do one of two things. They can reverse their decision or try to make it fit.

Ducky wrote:all you need to do is find the right size round peg and it fits!!!!!!

This is a common first technique: shave down the square peg, and viola! It fits!! This can be done using a charting PC or similar technology.

Although completely improper, you could build credibility in your case by showing an independent pegologist the shaved square peg already in the round hole and getting him to agree in a written report. Once you do that, when he finally gets an image showing that the peg is actually square, he has to make the same choice early on: reverse, or try to make it fit.

If you are lucky, the independent expert will then take over and fight the battle for you in hearings and such. He may even use a different justification, like if you take small parts of the square peg, they fit in different parts of the round hole.

You could even try to avoid the issue by throwing doubt on the peg or the hole. You could try to convince people that the hole wasn't big enough or that the peg was poor quality and that's why others couldn't get the peg to fit. But in the end, David is right... the bottom line is that a square peg doesn't fit into a round hole no matter what excuse you use. It's an excellent analogy.

NL - I prefer not to read posts that are clearly aimed at 'having a dig'. My main input was to advise not to 'witch hunt' or not to 'jump on the bandwagon'. That was my point, that has always been my point. There are consequences to having that kind of mind set as Allan Bayle and most of the contributors of this thread now all too well know.

I thought I'd heard it all but Pat Wertheim's 'like for like' and 'rubber name stamp' analogy has got to win the prize! I nearly choked on my crisps! If SCRO are guilty of malpractice and attempting to hide characteristics through cropping their evidence, then by defintition Pat Wertheim should be guilty of same through cropping Shirley's inked prints. Taking 80 - 100 plain impressions and not taking any rolled shows lack of training and responsibility. SCRO's evidence disclosed an area marking out 16 characteristics in sequence and agreement. Where's the crime in that guys?

world cup wrote: I thought I'd heard it all but Pat Wertheim's 'like for like' and 'rubber name stamp' analogy has got to win the prize! I nearly choked on my crisps!

Once again, this was a great analogy. Pat was addressing a self-admitted audience of lay people trying to understand an extremely complex mark. To relate it back to something flexible, unique, and permanent that a lay person could relate to was near genius. I'm not jumping on band-wagons here or trying to defend anything other than the truth, but in this case I feel the rubber stamp was an excellent analogy.

world cup wrote: If SCRO are guilty of malpractice and attempting to hide characteristics through cropping their evidence, then by defintition Pat Wertheim should be guilty of same through cropping Shirley's inked prints. Taking 80 - 100 plain impressions and not taking any rolled shows lack of training and responsibility.

In many forensic sciences, obtaining multiple samples represent standard operating procedure. In Question Document examination, handwriting varies within constraints and examiners request multiple samples for a complete and accurate comparison. In toolmark comparison, several angles and pressures are used when collecting known standards to try to most closely re-create the angle and pressure used at the time the questioned mark was made. In footwear examination, several impressions may be taken to best represent the detail as it appears in the questioned mark. Pat Wertheim did what any good expert would do - he took multiple impressions to most accurately represent the detail. It is clear to experts that anyone who would "choke on their crisps" on this is either not an expert and therefore doesn't understand best practices, or they have something personal at stake, like a reputation that is going down hill with the truth that Pat Wertheim is speaking. Most of the people on this site are experts, and see right through your baseless slander, wc.

world cup wrote: SCRO's evidence disclosed an area marking out 16 characteristics in sequence and agreement. Where's the crime in that guys?

That it was wrong, it excluded clear areas of discrepency and difference, that the mark is still being maintained by some to be correct, and thereby it continues to destroy credibility in the fingerprint profession. And that's just the truth.

I peg to differ!

And I peg the truth!

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Cute. But in reality the evidence is the truth, and all but a few are handling the truth just fine.