CLPEX Chat Board

This weekend sees the Fingerprint Society Annual Conference in Southport.

At this Conference Fiona McBride will be proposed as the new Editor of the Society Journal.

I have become aware recently of certain comments made by Martin Leadbetter, the Chairman of the Society regarding Miss McBride.

He has given McBride his TOTAL support. He has also stated that Miss McBride is someone of honesty and has the utter probity.

Leadbetter also questions whether individuals have seen the evidence in the case. This coming from a man who has publicly stated at NO time has he viewed the original material! Yet he is able to write a report confirming the identification! Despite questioning if people have seen the material!

He states that McBride has not been found guilty of any misdemeanour. He also thinks people should wait until there is a Public Enquiry before finding anyone guilty.

Strange why he should take this line given he has already allowed his Report to be published at Justice 1? Has he not already nailed his colours to the mast and by doing so, finding everyone who disagrees with the “identification” to be wrong, and therefore “guilty”?

Strange an apparently educated man accuses people of finding Experts “guilty” of wrongdoings before a Public Enquiry, when he does the very thing himself!

Alas dear Martin, despite you not being able to see the obvious, 99.9% of Experts already know who are the “guilty” parties in this case.

I am unsure how Leadbetter will react after the Enquiry? Obviously his position as Chair of the Society will clearly be untenable.

And then what of the Society?

Strange that Leadbetter will be a witness at that very Public Enquiry. And that his evidence will actually damage the SCRO Experts. You may recall McBride publicly stating that you NEEDED the ORIGINAL material to be able to come to any conclusion. Leadbetter didn’t! If he is to be believed he will validate every single comparison and conclusion carried out using the Internet Images. A fact already accepted by the Parliamentary Enquiry who failed to accept McBride’s claims and those of her colleagues.

What will also be incredibly interesting is Leadbetter’s role in this case. Has he always thought it was an identification? You would perhaps think.

Actually initially Leadbetter was openly distributing copies on mark Y7 and the Thumb Print of Shirley at various Fingerprint Meetings and Conferences many years ago to anyone who would take them. And why was he doing this? To support the SCRO? To agree with their conclusions?

Unbelievably NOT! In fact just the very opposite. Leadbetter was himself openly stating there had been a mistake in SCRO. I know of at least three people who were approached and told this by Leadbetter. In fact I now have copies of the very photographs he was distributing.

I would ask the Society members who will be attending the Conference this weekend to consider the actions of what could happen to the Fingerprint Society.

Leadbetter has admitted that McBride has not been given the job, and it will be put to the MEMBERSHIP at the Conference this weekend.

I would ask anyone attending to carefully consider the implications of such an appointment. The Public Enquiry into the McKie will destroy the McBride’s and the Leadbetter’s. Trust me on that one. If in doubt read gain my previous postings. Leadbetter is not immune from possible prosecution after giving evidence.

Your Society is under threat. If McBride becomes your editor I would also ask you seek a change of title from The Fingerprint Society, to The Self Preservation Society. It is naïve to believe that individuals will not use their positions for their own gains.

But you have the choice. The future and existence of the very Society is in your hands. Remain silent and accept the consequences, or try and influence how the Society can work.

I await the outcome of this weekend with great interest……

What does the SCRO situation have to do with someone being the editor of Fingerprint Whorld? Do we think that we’re going to be bombarded with articles about the McKie Case? Are we assuming that the editor is a reflection of the articles and the research? If people don’t like what the Journal turns into then they have the option of not renewing their membership. Until then, I’ll continue looking forward to each issue. I enjoy the articles, the research, and the pictures (Was Dr. Dror swearing in Dave Fairhurst in the last issue?)

I would ask anyone attending to carefully consider the implications of such an appointment. Public Enquiry into the McKie will destroy the McBride’s and the Leadbetter’s. Trust me on that one.

I would be more apt to trust you if I knew who you were. Instead of assuming the worst, I think I’ll wait and see what happens and then act according.

Regardless of who takes over as Editor, I wish them the best of luck. It can't be an easy job in the best of circumstances.

As I see it, the Fingerprint Society is a form of minor British monarchy. It caries the illusion of being controlled by vote of the membership, but the reality is that self appointed rulers govern with the apathetic consent of the members. The self appointed rulers are those founders with the most tenure, i.e., the “Old Guard.” The result is that the decisions which govern the members are made from a mindset that is several decades out of step with the state of the science. Until there is a revolution or a coup, the situation will continue. It will take a strong core group of science rebels, along with a majority of the members willing to vote against the will of the “Old Guard,” before there will be any significant change in the Society. Until then, the Fingerprint Society sits up there with the Flat Earth Society in all of its anachronistic splendor. Welcome to the Editorship, Fiona.

several decades out of step with the state of the science

That could be, but I don't see this as being unique to any person or any specific group. We all tend to hold on to the past while taking baby steps forward. Are you just as vocal with your friends that are still in the dark ages? We all have friends like this, I'm just wondering if you're criticizing people equally across the board or is this a personal agenda for you?

I recognize old school ideas still exist, (I can't even run an IAFIS search) but I'm lucky my co-workers are more tolerant than the anonymous posters. My co-workers offer me a hand in bringing me into the future (instead of instigating a coup).

Posted originally at :

http://shirleymckie.myfastforum.org/Fin ... ut109.html

OPEN LETTER

Dear Member of the Fingerprint Society,

‘Pause for thought.’

I have spent the past 11 years fighting experts from the Scottish Criminal Records Office who by wrongly identifying two fingerprints in the 1997 Marion Ross murder investigation brought my daughter to the edge of suicide and condemned an innocent man to life in prison.

The experts have never admitted being wrong but have over the years been comprehensively proved to be so and have been forced out of the Scottish Fingerprint Service. In recognition of the disastrous effects their mistakes had the Scottish Government paid my daughter ₤ 3/4 million in compensation and are negotiating with David Asbury re a possibly even bigger settlement.

A judicial enquiry is about to be announced that I hope will examine among other things whether these experts were incompetent or criminal in their actions.

This weekend in Southport the Fingerprint Society Chair Martin Leadbetter will attempt to have one of their number Fiona McBride elected to the central post of editor of ‘Fingerprint Whorld’ to further a personal agenda that, it could be argued, has little regard to the reputation of the Society or the future of fingerprinting as a science.

Perhaps delegates should ask Mr. Leadbetter just what agenda he is following and why the Society and its members are being used to promote it.

Best wishes,

Iain McKie
iain.mckie@onetel.com

H B,

I read Michelle’s comments and respect her views and opinions. Although I do find it quite remarkable that someone can’t see why the appointment of a former disgraced SCRO Expert as editor of the Fingerprint Society is indeed an issue?

It is clear that Michelle has no opinion over the McKie case, despite the mountain of evidence out there available.

She wants to wait till after the Public Enquiry to see what is reported. And only then will she be in a position to act accordingly.

If all the Society members adopt that approach by the time an attempt is made to bolt the door, the horse will have left the stable.

And the credibility of the Fingerprint Society will be forever tarnished.

But I have no say in what the future holds; only the members themselves can influence the future of the Society.

This is an important week for the future of the Society.

Michele, I think Taggart sees Fiona McBride's pending appointment as an issue of credibility. I do not believe Fingerprint Whorld would become a platform devoted entirely to pressing an anti-McKie agenda, but I do think there might be a more subtle shift in policy and content.

Hank, there was a “science rebel,” as you call it, a decade ago in the person of Graham Hughes. As editor of Fingerprint Whorld and as conference organizer in Liverpool in 1999 and 2000, Graham put all of his efforts into bringing the Society into the Twenty First Century as a premier scientific organization. Unfortunately, Graham fell victim to the “Old Guard” to which you refer, both in the Society and with the agency for which he worked. Graham is no longer employed in fingerprints. No doubt the “Old Guard” took great delight in his passing from the scene.

Graham was followed as editor a few years later by Dave Charlton. Dave did not pursue the aggressive science agenda that Graham did, but he still had the desire to bring the Society into the Twenty First Century. I believe Dave thought diplomacy would work over time to bring about the same result that Graham sought through radical change. But once the “Old Guard” figured out that Dave was not cut from the same cloth they were, his days were numbered.

Fiona's appointment represents a victory for the “monarchy” or the “Old Guard,” although I must admit one advantage of her appointment is that she will be able to devote her full time efforts to the editorship. But I fear you are right. It will take a good, old-fashioned revolution at the FS Lectures this weekend, or else the Society will continue to rival the Flat Earth Society in its anachronistic tendencies. It will be interesting to see who emerges as victor from what I suspect will be a quiet power struggle behind the scenes at the meeting.

Pat,

I fear there is another very serious side to this debate.

What many people have failed to take account of is the harm that the SCRO debacle has done to the credibility of your ‘science’ worldwide.

Here we have a number of experts being allowed to sustain the fiction that they were right in two misidentifications for over 11 years. Instead of being treated like pariahs the ‘Fingerprint Society’ now seeks to endorse them on the eve of a judicial enquiry into whether they acted criminally.

Just imagine the comfort that this must bring to the critics of fingerprinting.

In the mind of some objective viewers the appointment of one of these discredited experts as the editor of arguably the world’s foremost fingerprint journal only serves to threaten the position of fingerprinting as a forensic science. The Society by failing to challenge incompetence and dishonesty re-enforces the critics view that instead of a science we are dealing with opinion and artistic subjectivity where ‘experts’ can legitimately come to different ‘opinions’ and that both are correct.

The recent ‘Souder’ judgement in America could yet have serious repercussions. While I continue to maintain that fingerprinting in the right hands is a science and an invaluable crime prevention and detection tool this judge’s thought processes are rooted in a completely valid interpretation of the present state of knowledge in the wake of the SCRO and other scandals.

http://www.google.com/search?sour...r+r ... t+evidence

Until the Fingerprint Society puts its own house in order, as urged by many of its own members, then such judgements will continue to be made and threaten the vast majority of experts who carry out their duties with diligence and honesty.

Best wishes,

Iain

Well,
whichever side of the fence you fall on, it will certainly be an interesting conference.

Dont forget, that there is a huge amount more to the fingerprint society than the journal, and its editorships. (and its only a short term thing in the whole history of the society, when you look at time served of the last few). The agenda for speakers this year again looks great, and the social aspects of meeting old colleagues, making new fingerprint (and forensic) friends is something that I would hate to see eclipsed by agendas that are clearly in place from more than one individual. Even when we held the conference in Scotland, we managed to learn a lot, and brush along with those who may have differing views on many subjects. People don't tend to do highland dancing when they are in the huff. Need I say more?

Also remember that the Scottish Police Services Authority is a distinctly different beast from the old SCRO. Those that have transferred from the four fingerprint units to the SPSA, have transferred along with biologists, chemists, DNA scientists, scene examiners etc. Some of us are even trying our very best to take us forward in to the 21st century! Please support the members of the forensic community in Scotland with developing our organisation, so that we can become the world class organisation that we really want to be recognised as being.
Karen

Thank you, Karen. The real value of a professional association, whether it be the Fingerprint Society, the International Association for Identification, or any of the myriad of other organizations around the world, lies in the training, both formal and informal, and the social contacts the members make during and around the meetings. Those who chose to get involved in the politics of the organization do so at their own peril. I hope the nonpolitical members who attend for the training and the social activities do not suffer from the fallout of the politics. I doubt I shall ever attend a meeting of the Fingerprint Society, but if I do, rest assured I will avoid the politics of the thing more than if it were a deadly virus.

Best wishes for great training and enjoyable visits with friends old and new!

I can well understand Karen’s sentiments.

“Also remember that the Scottish Police Services Authority is a distinctly different beast from the old SCRO. Those that have transferred from the four fingerprint units to the SPSA, have transferred along with biologists, chemists, DNA scientists, scene examiners etc. Some of us are even trying our very best to take us forward in to the 21st century! Please support the members of the forensic community in Scotland with developing our organisation, so that we can become the world class organisation that we really want to be recognised as being.”

While I support her and the others trying to move the organisation forward and recognise that progress has been made some hard facts have to be faced.

Despite the PR campaign the SPSA is not a, “distinctly different beast from the old SCRO.” The old culture persists and this is evidenced by a recent internal survey as reported in Scotland on Sunday under the headline, ‘New fingerprint agency 'shambolic'.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/New-f ... 3762538.jp

http://shirleymckie.com/documents/SPSAcomment.pdf

A total of 71% of staff said they did not feel informed about decisions, 70% said they were not positive about its future, while 72% said that they did not understand their role.

I have seen a copy of this survey and even allowing for media hyperbole please believe me the problems are not exaggerated. I have no doubt that the ex SCRO experts within the SPSA who continue to support Ms McBride and her colleagues are preventing the cancer being cured. Wishing the SPSA into a world-class organisation is not enough. Action must be taken by this organisation’s leadership to remove the cancer.

While I hope Karen and the other delegates enjoy a stimulating conference I also hope they will bear in mind their broader responsibility to their profession to ensure that the Society is not used to further individual rather than the profession’s ends.

Update........

Friday 7 March 2008......

Fingerprint Society Conference......

Fiona McBride has become the new editor of the Fingerprint Society Journal with only TWO members voting againt the appointment.....

Well, that says something. About the Fingerprint Society. More than Ms McBride. Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

It certainly didn't take the Fingerprint Society long to update their website:

http://www.fpsociety.org.uk/thejournal/index.html

Do any of our British friends have comments regarding Ms McBride's election as editor of Fingerprint Whorld?

Like many, I feel that the position of editor carries a responsibility and gravitas that requires respect. Many already know my views on this appointment and this of course led to my resignation from the committee two years ago. Those of you who thought that an AGM would stop this appointment probably thought that AGMs are vocal arenas where much debate is had. I have never seen such a debate in the Fingerprint Society. Usually only a handful of people ever turn up, it is held in morning before the event proper starts and like all AGMs in all walks of life that I have witnessed, many present will usually vote en block just so they can get back to the bar for drinks. That is the way of AGM democracy.

I will leave others to decide whether it is right to appoint someone who is so pivotal to the whole McKie saga. I personally thought it was a mistake two years ago. I cannot change my feelings on that. But let me be clear. My concerns were not around her involvement in the McKie case as such, I will let other bodies and hearings decide whether Fiona requires sanction. But for the Society it was a move that I personally felt would lead to finger pointing at the Society, result in resignations from both the committee and the membership, and would lead to a diminished respect for the Society as a whole. I see from postings that some are already considering resigning, and that is sad. I also note that there are new vacancies on the committee...again, that is sad. My views on this appointment are that it is not even the appointment as such that is the problem, more where is the copy going to come from to maintain the journal as a primary leader in fingerprint science. I hope it will flourish. But will an editor outside of the police service have access to good copy? Have access to contacts?? For sure, there will be plenty from within who will want to contribute. But my experience as editor was that most of the copy came from the editor's own contacts and networking. Will the current editor be in a position to provide such a facility?

I want the journal to succeed. I want the Society to grow and gain respect. I cannot pretend that I am delighted by this appointment, but we are where we are. There is an undertaking that the journal will be peer reviewed to prevent the journal being used as a propaganda machine. I take that at face value as I know that there will be respected assistant editors around the globe, incuding the US who will assist in keeping the journal on a purely scientific basis hopefully. Those assistants may well provide some of the copy, who knows, even though I have just said that much of the copy comes from the editor in chief.

The AGM rarely has more than 30 attendees, if that. Given the wider membership who can never get to conference, one can hardly call the AGM a blistering endorsement of society policy. I suspect that the membership will decide for themselves through seeing the journal, as well as their own core beliefs, whether they think this is a good thing. They will ultimately vote with the pocket books, by either staying within the society, or leaving. That is their choice and is the most democratic vote I know of. That said, I think many on this forum overestimate the strength of feeling of experts not involved in the McKie case. I have reported over many years the overall apathy of fingerprint experts. Things are no different now.

I will assess the journal over the coming year and will decide for myself whether the promises of the Chairman are well founded. If the journal maintains it's objectivity and scientific ideals then I guess the other politics will play themselves out in other domains. I will leave it to others to decide whether this appointment is damaging to the reputation of the Society as a whole. But clearly the fact that this appointment has raised so many comments is indicative of the potential here for great embarrassment to the society. I hope it will not be problematic to Society...but I fear it will be.