CLPEX Chat Board

While some of the contributors supporting SCRO in the ongoing internet debate might think themselves extremely clever as they seek to defend the indefensible and denigrate experts of proven competence and honesty the fact is that their undignified and negative debate is seriously damaging fingerprints.

I am not naive enough to believe that their ramblings will influence the majority of experts who are capable of evaluating the evidence before them. The real danger lies in the ammunition they are providing for critics of fingerprinting by their lies, innuendo, flippancy and self justification.

Far from serving the profession they continue to undermine it in the eyes of critics and the public in general and are causing untold damage.

I doubt if there has ever been such an unedifying public debate among ‘experts’ who would claim to be forensic scientists. The rest of the sciences must be looking on in amazement as the profession appears to seek to tear itself apart.

That a serious debate is required to bring clarity to the purposely created confusion is undeniable. Unfortunately the present one does not fulfil that function. Why should experts contribute to a debate where their opinions are ignored and they are subjected to personal attack without a shred of evidence?

I am not arguing against debate or SCRO having a voice in that debate but believe that the only way forward is for informed, intelligent and courteous discussion among professionals in an appropriate less emotionally charged forum.

The fingerprint profession itself is in the dock and certain experts appear intent on destroying the profession in the pursuit of their own narrow self interest.

It is a fact that more and more experts are being challenged in our courts and are often found wanting. Only last week two expert witnesses in England were grilled on the Shirley McKie and other contentious cases and the veracity of their evidence was lost among a welter of accusation much of it provided from the ongoing debate. The line, 'well of course fingerprint evidence is only a matter of opinion’, had a very familiar ring to it. We cannot blame the judge or the jury if confusion leads to the guilty escaping punishment, injustice to the innocent or a devaluing of expert evidence.

While obtaining a judicial enquiry will help bring clarity to the many political issues in Scotland I believe it is the responsibility of the Fingerprint Society and IAI to help bring this pantomime to an end. The loss of fingerprint evidence as a major trusted crime prevention and detection tool would be bad enough. Its loss because of the self interested actions of a few of its own experts would be a tragedy.

While obtaining a judicial enquiry will help bring clarity to the many political issues in Scotland I believe it is the responsibility of the Fingerprint Society and IAI to help bring this pantomime to an end.

There have been many calls, in recent years, for the Fingerprint Society or the IAI to take action and enter the debate when a controversial issue relating to fingerprint identification comes to the fore. Perhaps the managing members of those associations are a bit unimaginative or dare I say, clueless. So, instead of asking them to "do something" let's give them some ideas of just what it is we would like them to do. I invite forum readers to profer solutions that would address and put to rest the issues at hand.

While contemplating your solutions, please keep in mind:

1. These are professional organizations chartered with specific purposes which may not include the solutions we seek.

2. As private associations, they do not have the power of government authority and can not compell witnesses to testify or the production of evidence.

3. Who will provide the material, documentary or otherwise, that will allow the associations to evaluate the issues and decide on an appropriate action?

4. Will those defining a solution be in the position to provide the "best evidence" for use during any technical evaluation? In other words, can we provide evidence that will satisfy both sides as being legitimate?

5. Once a decision is reached regarding the technical aspects of the issue, should there be an additional effort regarding the actions of principals?

To quote from Sherlock Holmes: "The game is afoot." and "Any truth is better than indefinite doubt."

A dispute within a science needs to resolved by a collaboration of scientists within the science. Two opposing conclusions of 'was made by' and 'was not made by' in friction ridge science is a dispute that needs to resolved within the collaboration of scientists. Ignoring the dispute is not the answer.

A court or government making a ruling is not what is needed in any science. The cause of the problem needs to be determined by the collaboration of scientists. I consider the IAI and Fingerprint Society to be scientific organizations. If they consider themselves to be scientific organizations, I would think they would like to have science determine the causes of the dispute. I would like to encourage the IAI and Fingerprint Society to agree to organize a collaboration of scientists to determine the causes of the disputed conclusions, and not only determining the correct conclusion. Ignoring the cause of the errononeous conclusion, and one of the conclusions must be wrong, is not healthy for the science.

A dispute within a science needs to resolved by a collaboration of scientists within the science. Two opposing conclusions of 'was made by' and 'was not made by' in friction ridge science is a dispute that needs to resolved within the collaboration of scientists. Ignoring the dispute is not the answer.

A court or government making a ruling is not what is needed in any science. The cause of the problem needs to be determined by the collaboration of scientists. I consider the IAI and Fingerprint Society to be scientific organizations. If they consider themselves to be scientific organizations, I would think they would like to have science determine the causes of the dispute. I would like to encourage the IAI and Fingerprint Society to agree to organize a collaboration of scientists to determine the causes of the disputed conclusions, and not only determining the correct conclusion. Ignoring the cause of the errononeous conclusion, and one of the conclusions must be wrong, is not healthy for the science.

Mr. McKie

You demanded your day in court, ignoring the £750,000 which was laid on the table some months prior to your Civil Action, choosing instead to fight on as a matter of principle. Good for you! The problem seems to be that it was just a bluff. While the judge was putting his wig on, you scuttled out the door with the First Ministers blood money, only to turn around on the court steps and, before that door had closed behind you, demand a judicial inquiry! You and I know full well that there are other self-interested parties starring in your pantomime and that they will never allow a full judicial inquiry, however, you chose to run away from the nearest thing you will ever get to one.
While you profess to welcome open debate, you threaten legal and/or professional action on those who dare to differ. Small wonder that postings are made anonymously on this site. I know many Fingerprint Examiners who don't even look at this site, therefore the notion that the general public is concerned by it's content or even aware of it's existence is a little dramatic. It is yourself, Mr. Bayle and Mr. Dempster who took your pound of flesh and threw it, scrap by scrap to the tabloid hounds. Now you have the audacity to blame contributors to this site for a public loss of faith. I notice, yet again, that it is only the supporters of SCRO upon whom you vent your spleen, despite vitriolic negativity also being a weapon of choice favoured by your supporters. YOU chose the populist media crucifixion over court proceedings so be man enough to shoulder some of the blame.
Open debate has been driven underground. Do you seek to deny it even this meagre platrorm?
There is one thing upon which we may both agree; the casting of your pantomime has left us with too many applicants for the horse's #$$@, and not enough Prince Charmings!

Mr Damascus,

I see you refer to Prince Charming (Ridicule is nothing to be scared of).

This is spookey.

In latent print comparison we must always be sure in our decision making...in fact, we must be 'adamant'.

Prince Charming for our US friends was a pop song of the early 1980s by a guy by the name of Adam Ant!!

How spookey is that!!

Sorry to engage in humour, but it is a hot day, I am having my lunch!!


cheers


Dave