CLPEX Chat Board

Site Update: www.shirleymckie.com

Book launch

‘Shirley McKie – The Price of innocence’ is being published in mid April with launches in Edinburgh 17 April, Glasgow 18 April and Ayr 19 April. Further author appearances are scheduled for Dundee and Wigton. Dates and further appearances will be confirmed later.

If anyone would like an invite to one of these events then please go to www.shirleymckie.com ‘Book news” and follow the ‘attend launch’ link.

Interest in publication is high and public tickets are strictly limited.

Further information on ordering advance copies can be found at;

www.shirleymckie.com ‘Book News” and follow ‘Order a copy now’ link.

Electronic index

From the middle of April, in an innovative move, this site will alter its structure and become an electronic index for ‘The Price of Innocence’.

Information on all persons, publications and documents referred to in the book will be accessible via this website.

Effectively the site will represent one of the most comprehensive archives ever published online and will be extremely useful to students and those wanting a more in-depth knowledge of the issues that have driven this case for 10 years.

Readers will be able to view copies of all correspondence, reports, minutes of meetings, journals, media reports and TV programmes referred to in the book and new material will be added as it becomes available.

The site will be interactive with the authors happy to correspond with readers on any relevant issues.

……………………………………………………………………………………….

'That book' has disappeared from the Herald's Scottish bestsellers list after reaching number eight for one week only. It has been replaced on the list by Preferred Lies by Andrew Grieg. ( Do you think they're having a laugh)
The UK's major bookseller, Waterstones, have just knocked a third off the price.
Talk is SCRO are offering a prize to the first person to spot it in Bargain Books 50p box! They are expecting a winner very soon.
It will come as no surprise that Iain McKie has cancelled his much vaunted 'tour' promoting the book after the heckling he received at the Glasgow launch debacle.
Aye, it's enough to drive co-author Mike Russell to drink!

You know Daktari, I didn't realise that the Scottish best-sellers list actually went up as far as 8, must have been a good week.

Still, nice little endorsement for McKie's poster "No.8 Scottish Bestseller"

Oh dear.

I do hope that charity wasn't making any grand plans for the McKie largese. Still, nice that he finds time to promote the 'free patrick docherty & brendan dixon' campaign on his new forum.

I wonder if they have a copy of the book in the prison library?
Maybe Mr. McKie will send the chaps a copy each.

You know what, Daktari and Maladroit? You two plus everybody who believes the SCRO got it right would fit into a Volkswagen and still have room for the picnic basket -- and enough copies of "The Price Of Innocence" to go around. In fact, that's a good idea. Why doesn't your small band pack the picnic basket and head for the woods. Read the book. Everybody but your small clique already knows it contains the truth.

Actually I bought my copy for the full asking price on Amazon. Received it today. Half way through now. I intend to do a book review for the Fingerprint Society.

I would advise any forensic professional to read it. Whatever your beliefs on this case, please note that you WILL be asked about it in court one day. As an examiner I need to be aware of latest literature and debate. That is what expertise is all about!! That is why it is essential reading. When is the fingerprint profession going to wake up and realise that we cannot hide behind glib comments and jibes. Disagree with the content and debate the issues by all means. But have Adroit and Dak read the book? Or are they going to throw inuendo from the outside?

I for one hope that every bureau in the UK has a copy for their library, as well as the academic institutions teaching forensic science in Uk and in our training schools. It is only by education and awareness that science can progress. Of course the book comes from a certain perspective, that is obvious. But we should all as adults be able to read a publication and draw conclusions even if there is a certain 'spin'. I may not agree with absolutely everything in the book. Why should anybody. But the important thing here is to debate an issue without need to resort to insult or inuendo.


"Thinking creates an image.
Images control feelings.
Feelings cause actions.
Actions create results."

Leland Val Vandewall

I've finished the book and posted my opinion under "McKie's in for Court Testimony" subject on this message board. The book made me want to cry with frustration and I can't imagine what it must have been like to live it every day. I completely understand Shirley's desire to move on with her life. Chances are that nothing of substance will happen in this case, ever. But this book is one that should be read by every Latent Print Examiner as a cautionary tale.

Below is an extract from the edited transcript of Dr. Dror’s interview on BBC’s Newsnight that took place in February 2006 in the aftermath of the disgraceful McKie payout. (you may still be able to view it on-line, at): http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~id/bbc.html

Interviewer: You’ve got a simple way to show the sort of thing you’re getting at.

Dr. Itiel Dror: Yes, we have examples where the context can affect what you see. If you look at the numbers here you’re going to see 12, 13 and 14:

But if I show you this diagram, you will see the letters A, B and C:

In fact the information I showed you is exactly the same, and you interpreted the middle information as the number 13, or as the letter B, depending on the context:


This example shows you how a perceptual context can affect how you perceive information. However, we do not only have such perceptual context, we also have higher cognitive expectations and context which affect the mind. The mind is not a camera; it’s not a passive machine. So the higher cognitive context, what you expect to see, what you hope to see, what other people see, etc., affects what you actually see and that may cause a lot of distortions in your perception and evaluation of information.

Interviewer: Right, so the point would be that in a context where you have already been led to believe that a fingerprint has been misidentified, you are seeing it as a misidentification is almost analogous to what we saw there, where the statements ‘I saw B’ and ‘I saw 13’ would both be true.

Please note that Dr Dror said

But if I show you this diagram, you will see the letters A, B and C:

Oh dear Dror, if this is an example of your research, and it is, many of us will be shaking our heads. “you will see” Why did Dr Dror not simply ask what the interviewer saw on what is a simple party trick?
He also said You interpreted the middle information as the number 13, or as the letter B, depending on the context:
No he didn’t, he never opened his mouth

I suppose that telling the subject what they will see and how they interpret it doesn’t affect the outcome or restrict the range of possible outcomes. As science this is twaddle. No wonder McKie promotes this with evangelical enthusiasm.
What did Vandewall said again? "Thinking creates an image."
Maybe images create thinking? Especially subliminal ones

It gets worse

In APPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 19: 799–809 (2005), Dror goes on to examine the influences that may effect identification.
After a few hours ‘trials’ a group of young, non-fingerprint, student volunteers were asked to make judgements after being shown a range of photographs designed to affect their mindset. They were also subjected subliminal imaging when words like Guilty and Same were flashed on their screens. They were then instructed to record their decisions by either keying ‘N’ or ‘B’ (to save you looking they are beside each other on a UK keyboard) therefore more likely to keying errors than using keys at opposite ends, say, ‘Q’ or ‘P’. Most importantly there was not a ‘Don’t know’ or ‘Can’t’ decide’ option available. Dror states The aim of the current study was to investigate the possible effects of top-down processing in interfering with bottom-up identification of fingerprints. We focused on emotion and subliminal messages as our top-down manipulations…...Subliminal imaging? You have been watching too much Colombo methinks!
To try to ascribe real world consequences to this is beyond a joke. It is intuitively obvious that people will make mistakes because of emotions, tiredness, lack of training, pressure to deliver, etc. That is precisely why we have verification processes and checking of outcomes. You will of course remember that the SCRO Officers’ work, for a year before and a year after the McKie identification, was checked, independently, and found to be 100% accurate. No subliminal images in the Glasgow Bureau then!

Daktari wrote:As science this is twaddle.

Admittedly, I am not the world's greatest scientist. So I checked my old science texts (at least, the few good ones that I have retained) and, for the life of me, I cannot find the scientific term "Twaddle" in any of them.

Dr. Dror's scientific credentials are well known and, apparently, highly respected in academic and scientific circles.

Mr. Daktari, won't you post your curriculum vitae for the world to see so that we can judge your credentials, as well?

My dear Mr. James:

Your texts are outdated. "Twaddle" is a technical term meaning "Junk Science." Our esteemed instructor, Daktari, uses it to describe anything with which he does not agree. So, for example, he would refer to the book about which this discussion was started as "Twaddle." That means that, for some reason, Daktari does not like it. Highly technical, that term.

On the other hand, Ms Cook seems to think that, if you are employed in the field of fingerprint identification, you should read the book. Ms Cook does not use the term "Twaddle," but she implies that if the case is controversial, you are a fool not to educate yourself about it. An attorney may ask you about it in court and your answer would be "twaddle" if you could not answer the questions.

You see, "Twaddle" is also a legal term used by attorneys on either side of an issue to describe the arguments of attorneys and witnesses on the other side of the issue. Daktari may be trying to confuse you by switching definitions or using them interchangably. But I believe Ms Cook's advice is wise. I believe Daktari may himself be engaged in "twaddling" us.

I think, Daktari, if you read the book you will see that the "independent expert" who allegedly reviewed SCRO cases a year before and year after...was hired by the SCRO. And they missed the David Asbury mis-ID. To date, there has NOT been a truly independent review of any of the SCRO's cases...except the "Scotch Botch" by the worldwide fingerprint community.

Also, I can't figure out if you think Dr. Dror is an expert on cognitive function...or a quack.

Daktari,

assuming that I know who you are, why are you hell bent on engaging in destructive character assassination? I think one only has to see the extensive lists of peer reviewed research papers Dr Dror has published and his CV to realise that he is one of the keenest authorities on human cognition on the planet. I know that you know that too!!

You truly seem to be a dinosaur Daktari. You cannot see the writing on the wall. The changes that are afoot. Science is about new understanding and new perspective. You are in a time warp, a rut. You have seen the profession move on and you seem either unwilling or unable to move with the times.

One final thought Daktari, the FBI recognise confirmation bias, the US legal system recognises biasing issues, the literature on bias runs into literally tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers and book chapters, books etc etc.....Do you really think fingerprint examiners are immune from such influences? Prove it! Do the research, publish your findings. We will listen to what you have to say as the research will no doubt follow sound scientific protocol.

Oh, and by the way, as his PhD student I was awarded the British Psychological Society junior award last year for outstanding research in the domain of forensic psychology. If Dr Dror is a 'quack', then so am I, as he is my mentor, and so are literally thousands of top draw research scientists in the UK. Frankly, when you make such arguments Daktari, and assuming you are a life long fingerprint expert, it is the science of fingerprint examination that looks like it is populated by quacks, as you put it.

I do not know enough about Mr. Dror's research to either disagree with him or to agree with Daktari on this one. However the term 'confirmation bias' led me to the 'McKie information' link under the 'recent events' title on the homepage of this very site.

So we have a detailed instuction to any examiners wishing to look at Pat's evidence (but no mention of the obvious chasm splitting the latent in two thus disrupting the 'in sequnce' across the latent if taken as whole, but not as two sections, within each section enough points under the previous numerical system to present to a court, as opposed to eliminate)

There is a great subjective build up by Arie Zeelenberg (i.e. not scientific. Dave, check in Dror's references, please with a straight face tell me there is no conflict of interest. Sharon, what mis-ident has been proven in a court regarding the Asbury case?, you aren't an ex-student of Pat or any of the Wertheim family are you?)

Dave, I respect that Dror may be one of the keenest authorities on human cognition, you should respect that human cognition is why the SCRO had a vociferous quality assurance system in place, you should also respect that the jury who -denied the knowledge of a key witness by the defendant- cleared Shirley McKie were neither psychologists or fingerpint experts.