Interesting fingerprint article
-
H. B. James
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:02 am
- Location: US
-
Pat A. Wertheim
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:48 am
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Interesting, indeed. This article is a good summary of the McKie and Asbury cases. It also contains liberal editorial content, with all of which I agree. One paragraph is very flattering of me, but I expect any honest, ethical expert would have done the same as I did in the case. I added my comments at the bottom of the article, as have a few others. It will take you five or ten minutes to read the whole thing, so don't open it until you have that long to spend with it.
-
H. B. James
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:02 am
- Location: US
And yet another article: "Last of Six McKie Case Experts Sacked"
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/di ... 09.0.0.php
Mr. Wertheim: In spite of the glowing tribute to you in the first article I cited in this thread, and in spite of your feeling that you did what was honest and ethical, in view of the damage done to the reputation of fingerprint identification worldwide, don't you ever ask yourself, "How could I have handled this case differently to have avoided such a scandal?"
By what ethical obligations to the "science of fingerprints" should a defense expert feel bound? Or is the defense expert's only obligation to the client? I believe I know what your answer will be. Anybody else care to suggest their answers?
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/di ... 09.0.0.php
Mr. Wertheim: In spite of the glowing tribute to you in the first article I cited in this thread, and in spite of your feeling that you did what was honest and ethical, in view of the damage done to the reputation of fingerprint identification worldwide, don't you ever ask yourself, "How could I have handled this case differently to have avoided such a scandal?"
By what ethical obligations to the "science of fingerprints" should a defense expert feel bound? Or is the defense expert's only obligation to the client? I believe I know what your answer will be. Anybody else care to suggest their answers?
-
Les Bush
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:29 am
- Location: Australia
Ethics versus integrity
The scandal of the McKie case was handled according to the principles of law and government by the current Scottish Executive. The role of any defence fingerprint expert was a question of ethics but also of integrity. I would add that a heavy element of professionalism was needed by any person or organisation who chose to examine the questioned latent fingerprint. The science of fingerprint identification is embodied in the natural law that fingerprints are permanent and unique, it remains impartial but affected by the scandal of the McKie case. However the practice of being a fingerprint expert always requires honesty and humility and these were examined on both sides of the McKie case. The consequence of losing the struggle for proof of expertise is seen by the action of a civilised society in defending their valued trust in that professional qualification. Lose that trust means your expertise has been revoked. To assist in exposing that lack of professionalism means you have chosen the values of the science over that of peer recognition.
-
Pat A. Wertheim
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:48 am
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Les, thank you for your comments. HB, as an expert reexamining a case for the defense, I believe I have an ethical obligation to the client to make sure the police have done everything correctly regarding the fingerprint evidence. One of my first warnings to a potential client is to tell him/her that I will thoroughly review the evidence to discover whether the police have been careless, made a mistake, fabricated evidence, or committed other dishonest acts. But I warn them that if I determine that the police have done everything correctly, I will NOT help defeat a good case. I believe my real ethical obligation in that regard is to make sure the court understands both the strengths and weaknesses, if there are any, of the evidence. I believe my obligation to the science itself is to see that it is not misused.
In all of the fingerprint evidence in the murder of Marion Ross, I believe the science was misused and misrepresented by SCRO, to some degree by the experts themselves and to some degree by the management of SCRO. It seems to me any violation of ethical principles began at those sources.
If a police officer sees an offence and gives chase after a criminal, and in his efforts to elude the officer the criminal harms an innocent bystander, is the police officer ethically responsible for the harm done to the bystander? I don't think so, although there are those who say the officer should have terminated pursuit. I believe the person responsible is the criminal who chose, in the first instance, to commit an offence, then chose to run, then chose to draw the innocent bystander into the situation. Maybe not an exact analogy, but I think it will do.
In all of the fingerprint evidence in the murder of Marion Ross, I believe the science was misused and misrepresented by SCRO, to some degree by the experts themselves and to some degree by the management of SCRO. It seems to me any violation of ethical principles began at those sources.
If a police officer sees an offence and gives chase after a criminal, and in his efforts to elude the officer the criminal harms an innocent bystander, is the police officer ethically responsible for the harm done to the bystander? I don't think so, although there are those who say the officer should have terminated pursuit. I believe the person responsible is the criminal who chose, in the first instance, to commit an offence, then chose to run, then chose to draw the innocent bystander into the situation. Maybe not an exact analogy, but I think it will do.
