CLPEX Chat Board

Lord Johnston
Last Updated: 2:02AM BST 21/06/2008
Controversial Scottish judge who ignored his critics and was renowned for his old-fashioned independence of mind.

Johnston: legal fraternity knew him as 'Big Al' or 'Bluff Hal'
Lord Johnston , who died on June 14 aged 66, was one of Scotland’s most senior judges, and presided at the controversial trial of Shirley McKie, a police officer accused of leaving her fingerprint at a crime scene and then lying about it.

Shirley McKie had been part of a team investigating the brutal murder of a woman in Kilmarnock in 1997, but in court she refused to accept that a rogue thumbprint left at the victim’s house was hers, as maintained by four fingerprinting experts.

She said she had never been in the house. The defendant was found guilty, but the feeling persisted among her colleagues that she had jeopardised the conviction.

Article continuesadvertisement
A few months later Shirley McKie was arrested in an early morning raid, brought to the police station, marched past colleagues and friends, strip-searched and thrown in a cell. She was charged with perjury, the only evidence for which was the disputed fingerprint.

At her trial, presided over by Johnston in 1999, the fingerprint experts stood by their earlier testimony, but she was saved from conviction and a possible eight-year prison sentence by the counter evidence of two fingerprint fabrication experts from America. The jury unanimously found her not guilty. She was the first person in 100 years of fingerprinting successfully to challenge a fingerprint identification in court.

In his handling of the case, Johnston had been characteristically quick to grasp the points at issue, and after her acquittal he took the unusual step of saying: “Personally I would like to extend to you my respect for the obvious courage and dignity which you have shown throughout this nightmare... I very much hope you can put it behind you.” But she was unable to do so until 2006 when she finally accepted £750,000 in settlement of her claim for malicious prosecution.

A tall, burly, generous-spirited man, known affectionately in Edinburgh’s legal fraternity as “Big Al” or “Bluff Hal”, Johnston was seen as one of the last of Scotland’s old-style judges, with a pronounced independence of mind. He was not one to let unnecessary technicalities stand in the way of doing what he thought was right, and he was never bothered by what anyone else might say by way of criticism.

His engaging, straight-talking approach made him popular among advocates pleading their cases before him, although his individual judicial style and obiter dicta occasionally made it easier for his decisions or sentences to be overturned on appeal.

Alan Charles Macpherson Johnston was born in Stirling on January 13 1942 and grew up in Edinburgh’s New Town, where his family owned a house on Heriot Row. His father, Lord Dunpark, was a well-known Scottish judge.

Alan went to Edinburgh Academy and Loretto School, then took a degree in English Law at Jesus College, Cambridge, followed by another in Scottish Law at Edinburgh. He was called to the Scottish Bar in 1967 and did his early work as an advocate in cases on behalf of the National Coal Board, and the Scottish Home and Health Department, for which he was Standing Junior Counsel from 1974 until 1979.

He was appointed QC in 1980, and in 1989 became Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, in which capacity he was notably more open to journalists than his predecessors. In 1994 he became a Senator of the College of Justice.

Among his cases which were successfully appealed was one involving a man convicted of drug trafficking, who had his conviction overturned after it was decided that a “sarcastic” remark by Johnston during the prosecution case may have displayed to the jury “an adverse view of the accused’s credibility”.

In another Johnston’s sentence of three years imprisonment for a man who had drunk 12 pints of lager and a number of vodka shots before causing a car crash in which two people were killed was held to be unduly lenient, despite the fact that the man was full of remorse and had apologised. On the other hand his decision in 2003 to allow a woman who had killed her abusive partner to walk free from court and rebuild her life was widely applauded.

In the Appeal Court Johnston was one of those who decided earlier this year that a male stripper known as “Sergeant Eros” – whose act involved peeling off a policeman’s uniform and brandishing an extendable truncheon – was not guilty of carrying an offensive weapon.

Last year he was among the appeal judges who granted the appeal of a drunken offshore worker, who had dropped his trousers in the street and then gyrated against a handrail, to be taken off the sex offender’s register.

Johnston was also one of those who decided that the “naked rambler” would not be allowed to appear in court undressed. Before the rambler’s appeal hearing began, his counsel had told the appeal judges that his client was “present, without clothes at the moment, and wants to attend in that state during the proceedings”.

The judges went into a huddle and were in a dilemma because if the man attended naked, then lost his appeal, he would be in contempt of court again, and might even be in breach of the peace – if he frightened the escorts sitting beside him in the dock. The rambler was at the time serving a six-month sentence for walking naked from Edinburgh’s Saughton prison at the end of a sentence for a similar offence.

Johnston was sworn of the Privy Council in 2005. Away from the law he was a keen countryman, and enjoyed shooting, fishing and stalking. A keen golfer, who was a long-standing member of Muirfield, he was a gregarious, highly hospitable character, convivial at all hours, and a great family man. He did much for others that was never advertised.

Alan Johnston married, in 1966, Anthea Blackburn; they had three sons.

the News Article wrote:Shirley McKie . . . was saved from conviction and a possible eight-year prison sentence by the counter evidence of two fingerprint fabrication experts from America.

One would have hoped that after all that has been said about this case, a newspaper reporter would have learned there was an erroneous identification, NOT fingerprint fabrication. I am glad Lord Johnston was on the bench in that trial and not the reporter who wrote this story.

That said, Lord Johnston had a better grasp of science than just about any judge before whom I have ever testified. He understood concepts, asked pertinent questions for maximum clarification, and allowed this foreign witness latitude to present evidence effectively in an unfamiliar court setting. Lord Johnston was gracious in giving instruction in the correct use of the true English language to this expatriate Texan so that precise definitions and meanings were put into the court record. It was obvious that he would do whatever he could to instill truth and justice into every decision rendered in his court. While this news article carries a mild, implied criticism of Lord Johnston for his off the cuff comments in court, I found his remarks during and after the trial of Shirley McKie refreshing. I always enjoy testifying, but seldom have I enjoyed it more than in Lord Johnston's court.

Lord Johnston was not just a good judge, he was a great judge. Scotland has lost a national treasure in his passing.

“ the News Article wrote:

A few months later Shirley McKie was arrested in an early morning raid, brought to the police station, marched past colleagues and friends, strip-searched and thrown in a cell.

Rather emotive language pointing to another one who has not read what MacKay had to say about her arrest and is merely regurgitating the malicious rubbish her father has spread about.

Shirley is ‘in an isolated and lonely position.’

So said the late Lord Johnson at her Trial in May 1999.
So how lonely and isolated was she?
She was supported by her father, Iain, who raised vindictiveness to new highs in his crusade to destroy anyone who dared to challenge his views. Iain McKie was a media relations officer with Strathclyde Police so he would know who to contact and what to feed them.
She was supported by Bill McFarlan’s Broadcasting Business a company with extensive media expertise.
In his book McFarlan states ‘I gave Shirley the ammunition she needed.’ In a blaze of publicity, McFarlan later collected money for a fighting fund for an Inquiry into the McKie Case Shirley but refuses to say what happened to it.
Angela McCracken, Shirley's solicitor, worked for Levy & McRae, a leading firm of showbiz lawyers whose client list includes all the major Scottish newspapers and other media outlets. Close allies of L&M are Media House, is state on their website We have dealt with a diverse range of crises over many years – from personal court proceedings to potential international, PR disasters’ and happily quote Shirley as one of their clients.
The Scottish National Party was keen to take up the McKie case, more to attack the Labour administration then through any sense of outrage. When they saw that Labour’s response was to do and say nothing they took full advantage of having the stage to themselves.
None more so that Mike Russell, who launched the internet petition bearing the Masonic salutation Lectori Salutem.
Russell has said he is no longer a freemason.

Maybe Lord Johnson’s remark would have better fitted Marion Ross at the time of her death. And whose murderer is still free to walk the streets, and possibly kill again, thanks largely to the efforts of one Iain McKie!

Daktari,

An interesting new strategy I see. Rather than just criticise and attempt to discredit the living your desperation has really seen you sink to new depths by attacking the dead!

If any of our readers truly wanted to see your utter desperation they just have to read your latest posting where you do a remarkable job of self destruction.

So thanks for that. I truly didn’t know you could possibly stoop any lower!

Funny when you choose to attack the media, how you spectacularly fail to mention the SCRO Experts here. The ones who chose to accept the money and run, rather than fight to clear their names. The ones who could have resigned and told their stories.

Or what about the SCRO Expert who turned down an amazing £70,000 so she could speak out?

No mention of their spineless behaviour? No mention of their sheer greed? No mention of their lies?

Nope. Sorry I as forgetting. It is only individuals on the one side who could possibly be accused of anything. My mistake. Was forgetting as far as you are concerned your side are whiter than white. Totally blameless.

And if you wish to blame anyone for being the king of spin and lies, why don’t you nip through to your bathroom. And have a look in that mirror of yours.

You will see who we all recognise as the person who spins lies, misinformation and is totally unprepared to respond to questions.

Daktari, my first impulse was to ignore your post as merely being inappropriate in a discussion of Lord Johnston's passing. But those readers not familiar with your untruths may give credibility to your statements. Your vitriol negates any credibility an informed reader may give your information, but the last lie cannot go unaddressed. Quite simply, Iain McKie has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Marion Ross' murderer still walks the streets. Credit for that goes to Strathclyde Police and Scottish Criminal Records Office. The man arrested for the offense, David Asbury, was convicted of Marion Ross' murder on the basis of two pieces of evidence: 1) his fingerprint on a gift tag in Marion Ross' house, and 2) Marion Ross' fingerprint on a sweets tin containing cash in his closet in his flat. The reason his conviction was quashed was that the identification of Marion Ross' fingerprint on his sweets tin was just plain wrong. It was an erroneous identification. David Asbury had owned that sweets tin for three years and it never had Marion Ross' fingerprint on it. Marion Ross never handled that sweets tin at all. The fingerprint on the gift tag was inconclusive for two reasons: First, David Asbury readily admitted he had visited Marion Ross the week before her murder, and second, the tag has apparently gone missing and the fingerprint cannot be confirmed regarding its circumstances on the tag in the photograph. Now for the heart of the matter: Iain McKie had absolutely nothing to do with the quashing of the conviction -- I did. I discovered the error, others verified that it was an error, and the court quashed the conviction based on my report. The prosecutor recognized there was no evidence of any value to retry David Asbury and decided not to retry him. Strathclyde Police decided not to reopen the murder investigation. Iain McKie played no part in any of those decisions. None.

Now, are you saying that David Asbury is guilty of the murder of Marion Ross? I hope you are not saying that, because it is simply not true.

Daktari

See you are still not using your proper name "Leadbetter", My god I thought your had passed away but no such luck eh ?
No doubt you will infect this thread with your lies and blame everyone but your colleagues at SCRO as you have done on all the others in this forum.

Get a life numpty

Yes you heard right, "Numpty"

I seriously cannot wait to get some photos of you I am awaiting to put up next to Swan etc etc on you tube and let people know exactly who has been spreading all this Keke.

Wake up smell the coffee and don't be blinded by Loyalty to these fabricators who once worked at SCRO, yes you heard right again "Once Worked" wonder why they lost their Jobs ? Not something done lightly in this country let me tell you.

Martin,

Have you ever considered why no Police came forward to say Shirley entered this house ?

Have you never thought that what better way to win a case than have a rookie come forward and say he let her in by mistake.

You can bet your boots that if this happened, this rookie would have been out of the closet and the case would have folded, He would have been made to admit it do you not think ? Why did this not happen Martin, Your right name is Martin why can you not use it instead of an anonymous assumed name ?

Oh and by the way your spelling is getting bad, Sorry your punctuation is getting bad, did you have a rough night ?

Some other stuff already in the forum domain,

Perhaps the most critical aspect of this - though not the only one, because the
American witnesses have pointed to what they perceive to be discrepancies in the
Crown’s witnesses’ comparisons - but perhaps I suggest to you - again it’s entirely a
matter for you – the most important part of this question is this issue of distortion and
the top third of the print. If the Americans’ evidence is acceptable to you, the top third
of the print is genuine and available as a credible piece of evidence, then, again it’s a
matter for you, it seems to me the Crown case completely collapses because of the
obvious disparities between the two tops of the print, and you can see with your own
eyes.

Why then, or how then should you approach this matter?
You are bound, I suggest - but it’s entirely a matter for you – to recollect and take into
account the Crown witnesses, particularly Mr. Stewart and Miss McBride, pressed
by Mr. Findlay in Cross- examination, offered no reasons for why they were dismissing the top part of the print, other than, “It’s my opinion”, “It’s my judgment”.On the other hand, what
do the Americans do, particularly Mr. Wertheim. He says you look at the prints - it’s
your recollection, I’m just trying to help you - and you find immediately, without
more than a casual almost, or casual expert, if that’s the right expression, glance, that
there are mismatches between the top half of both prints. What does he do? He says,
“Well, that places me immediately in a doubt.” “And what should I do next?”, he
says. He says, “Well, distortion” - or “slippage” was the word he used - “is something
that can happen for a variety of reasons - pressure, application, movements”, so on
and so forth. But he doesn’t say, ‘It is my judgment”, he goes on to say, “I look for” -
his words - “warning signs, signs of blurring, signs of movement”, and you’ll
remember he drew a number of aspects on bits of paper as to what he would expect to
find if he was looking for distortion. He finds none. So, what does he do? He goes
back to his first base and says, therefore, this is a mismatch. And he bases that on
reasons, not just judgment.

It’s entirely a matter for you, ladies and gentlemen, but against that background you
must give very serious consideration to whether or not you can safely say the Crown
have established that the print was that of Miss McKie on their evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt.

Some very interesting comments from Lord Johnston to say the least about Crown eh ?

It has also been suggested that Shirley forgot to mention Swan saw her print, This myth must be quashed, He has admitted he took it from the Daily Mail and he suggested this was the best of all examples ?
Certainly I would not have been happy to mention such a loony as Swan who after all has stated on the video it was a left thumb print and not a right one like all the other "so called" experts claim.

So exactly what print did Swan Look at ?

Maybe it was the Beano or Dandy he took it from as Alex Neil suggested to the enquiry.

Which brings me back to an unanswered question I put to Mr Leady Better! Do you support Swans Assertion ?

Simple Question not yet answered, I am sure SAPS would be interested in this info eh ? You support a loony.

the tag has apparently gone missing and the fingerprint cannot be confirmed regarding its circumstances on the tag in the photograph.

That's not all that's 'gone missing'.
What happened to Asbury's watch?
Why did Colin Boyd 'go missing' from his job after being ordered to hand the watch over for low copy DNA analysis?
Why did the time spent visiting Peter Swann 'go missing' from Shirley's memory when she gave evidence at her Perjury trial?
What happened to the money, if any, collected by Bill McFarlan?
Did it 'go missing'?
ad infinitum

Wullie,

I was going to chastize you for personal attacks (again). I had to google the word "Numpty" though... very interesting:

'Numpty' voted nation's best word

Scotland's favourite word is "numpty", according to a survey conducted for a children's charity.
...
People in Scotland said numpty was a great word to describe "general foolishness" and said it "could be used in many ways".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6520353.stm

Your phrase indicating the desired passing of Dakarti - perhaps close to the line. For the most part posts remain centered on the issues, so thank you for that.

-Kasey

I understand there are many theories about who Daktari is. One is very relevent to my posting.

Recently this letter was published in a UK Police Journal Called Police Review in response to an article by Dr Itiel Dror on general Policing biases.

It goes like this:

Two fingers to research

I read the article 'Biased brains' (PR, 6 June) with utter disbelief.
Having served as a fingerprint officer for more than 40 years and having
undertaken every aspect of fingerprint duty, finally retiring as head of
the fingerprint bureau for Cambridgeshire Constabulary, I can honestly say
that I have never in all my experience, encountered any fingerprint
examiner who has been swayed in making a conclusive decision by anything
other than the exhibits they have had to compare. Fingerprint comparison is
not exactly rocket science, but those who have been properly trained and
undertake this vital work, do so with integrity and dedication in the
knowledge that what they are providing remains the most important of all
the forensic disciplines and is the finest and only infallible method of
personal identification.
If, as Dror and Charlton state, there are fingerprint examiners arriving at
conclusions, who then change their minds due to contextual, or
non-fingerprint issues, then there is no place for such incompetent idiots
to practice the noble discipline of fingerprint comparison, and they should
be removed from the profession immediately.
Even now, after more than a century of successful usage, no better method
than fingerprints has been discovered, not only for the identification of
offenders, but also as indisputable evidential proof of guilt.
I consider such research to be not in the best interests of the fingerprint
system and have no doubt that it should be confined to the bottom drawer.

Martin Leadbetter, founder member, The Fingerprint Society, Hertfordshire

I quote:

'I can honestly say
that I have never in all my experience, encountered any fingerprint
examiner who has been swayed in making a conclusive decision by anything
other than the exhibits they have had to compare'.

If this is true then why also state:

'indisputable evidential proof of guilt'.

Fingerprint evidence does not provide proof of guilt or innocence. It provides evidential intelligence that investigating officers can use to further their enquiries. The intelligence may lead to a weight of evidence that leads to a conviction, and that one piece of intelligence may in fact lead to a conviction in isolation, but nevertheless, finger print individualisation is not proof of guilt...or innocence.

I am afraid in stating this very concept, Mr Leadbetter falls into the very trap I and Dr Dror have for so long been advocating. Experts can be motivated and driven to seek out evidence that aims to please...not necessarily to seek out the objective truth.

I do not conduct an examination to get a conviction. I carry out an examination for it's own sake to arrive at a conclusion that assists by providing intelligence to investigators....no more..no less. Otherwise I am no more than a self interested gun for hire.

Charlton97

Great comments above

It would be an ideal world if all fingerprint experts adopted some of your advice and as you say come to conclusions on the evidence and not just to please which brings me again to highlight the letter from America to Iain McKie found here:

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

Peer presure is very much in evidence in the fingerprint world as well as the will to please.

Not a single student matched the print we know as Y7 to Shirley, But then again they were not told who's print it was until afterwards, Strange eh ?

Wonder what Martin Leadbetter AKA Daktari would have to say about that one at the enquiry

Dave,

Thanks for the wonderful insight into the musings of Chairman Leadbetter.

If, as Dror and Charlton state, there are fingerprint examiners arriving at conclusions, who then change their minds due to contextual, or non-fingerprint issues, then there is no place for such incompetent idiots to practice the noble discipline of fingerprint comparison, and they should be removed from the profession immediately.

It’s just such a pity that Leadbetter didn’t expand on this topic, and offer an explanation why he was going around telling everyone who would listen, even handing out and sending photographs, because there had been a MISTAKE in SCRO.

And now? He has changed his opinion! Obviously his decision wasn’t based on his relationship with the Doyen, or with Robert Mackenzie? So why did Leadbetter change his opinion?

Interesting questions for him at the Public Enquiry for sure. I have recently acquired images that came from Leadbetter many years ago when he was sticking the knife into SCRO. And they will be provided to the Enquiry so Leadbtter can explain his actions under oath. I presume Leadbetter hasn't been given any immunity from prosecution??

Even more bizarre is the fact that Leadbetter has published a Report stating he has NEVER seen the ORIGINAL material! And going as far as writing in Fingerprint Whorld chastising, in the style of daktari, anyone who dares to offer an opinion WITHOUT seeing original material!

Out of curiosity does anyone else share my concern that Leadbetter is openly distributing letters using the term Fingerprint Society in his content?

I am in no doubt any outsider would perceive that such comments could be attributed to the Society given Leadbetter is using their name.

Are the Society members happy that Leadbetter is using the Society’s name in this manner?

Strange too that the Chair of the Society sees fit to publicly ridicule Dave Charlton, when Dave is a member of the Fingerprint Society? I would seriously question if this does not make Leadbetter’s position untenable, by attacking fellow members in public?

Leadbetter states that Dave, given his views should “be removed from the profession immediately.”

This coming from Martin Leadbetter who MISIDENTIFIED fingerprint Y7!!

And let’s look at another of Leadbetter’s claims that the science of fingerprints:

remains the most important of all the forensic disciplines and is the finest and only infallible method of personal identification.

Infallible? Really? And this coming from a man who publicly backs SCRO? A man who will be forever remembered as having misidentified a fingerprint and failed to acknowledge his mistake.

Just makes you wonder who really is the “incompetent idiot”?

Yes Taggart I Share your views.
Martin Leadbetter should be sacked as incompetent, He certainly shouldn't have anything to do with "Fingerprints" ever again if he asserts and supports Swan saying it was a left print and not a right as all the other incompetents assert.

How can he employ double standards by saying people should never come to conclusions without looking at the original evidence then support Swan who admits he took his from the Daily Mail, The daily mail never sent it to him he just bought the paper, Oh Dear KLaedy Better deep shi-e I know Kasey is watching so shall not use any words not in the dictionary Numpty

So how about it Numpty, do you support Swans assertion ? How many times need I ask this question.

CAS Ltd considers that it is providing the only truly bespoke and fit for purpose independent competency test currently available to the fingerprint profession.

It is the only test in the profession with a robust process of invigilation under controlled conditions that can be conducted in house at the premises of the customer.

What We Do
The Test and Testing Procedure

Testing only of bona fide fingerprint practitioners who must firstly demonstrate that they have received relevant training.
All tests are conducted in anonymity.
CAS Ltd recommends that practitioners should be competency tested every 24 months.
Testing will be accredited by London South Bank University
How We Do It
CAS Ltd has developed its own database of finger marks and fingerprints from consenting donors, ensuring that every mark in their database is from a known person.

The data provided in the test is drawn from the database and the competency testing reflects the type of material that would normally be expected to be received into an average fingerprints bureau during a routine day.

The test requires the applicant to:

Undertake a 3 hour timed test
Be allocated a unique reference number for each candidate
Be supervised by an independent Invigilator
Be Independently assessed
Have the right of one appeal only

This is what the likes of Martin Leadbetter are trying to get me..as a UK fingerprint expert to sign up to. The merits of the test itself are not the point here.

Martin Leadbetter has tried to systematically disrupt and antagonise all new input and research and development in recent years. He has publically on many occassions rubbished my research with Dr Dror and he has consistantly failed to even try to comprehend the nature of the message I and others like Itiel Dror are trying to convey.

In recent years he has suggested that experts....who are subject to biasing influences (our research is now commonly accepted as standard reading), as 'incompetant and should be working in Disneyland'. I assume he means people like me in that comment.

Even leaving my own research aside, we must now consider his position as a central figure in the McKie case. He has consistently advocated the McKie mark is a correct match. Y7 is now accepted as an erroneous match by the professional community.

At the very very least we must look at sensible alternatives alongside his options. Are we seriously going to invite someone to accredit our UK experts who:


* Asserts that the Mckie erroneous is a correct match
* Was instrumental in trying to get the term ridgeology and level three expunged from the expert vocabulary
* Has failed to grasp the concept of my research into expert bias
* Is motivated to corner the market

Food for thought?

Testing only of bona fide fingerprint practitioners who must firstly demonstrate that they have received relevant training.

Relevent training to mean what exactly?? Training in awareness of biasing influences? Training to examine fingermarks holistically (remember that ML does not believe in 'levels of detail' ? Training in analytical report writing? Training in analysis techniques? Or just the ability to compare a fingerprint without any known measurable parameters? What about a Viva interview to assess latest update on international developments in the science of fingerprints? Just because you pass a test to compare a few fingermarks does not make you a good latent print examiner.

All tests are conducted in anonymity.

No they are not. I have it on authority that as part of the 'marketing' campaign to get business ML is telling potential customers which bureau have sat the test and the subsequent results achieved for that bureau. Maybe anonymity for the individual examiners...but not for the agency.....not exactly ethical.

CAS Ltd recommends that practitioners should be competency tested every 24 months.

Based on what research and or data?

Testing will be accredited by London South Bank University

Fair enough..but what does the accreditation entail? Is it accreditation..or endorsement...since I beleieve ML lectures on occassions at this University?

CAS Ltd has developed its own database of finger marks and fingerprints from consenting donors, ensuring that every mark in their database is from a known person.

Not much to say about this, but it would be important to have a matrix of difficulty as well as being carefully prepared. Maybe mark Y7 is part of their test bed? Maybe not.

As I say, it could be that this accreditation is the greatest thing ever devised. But there must be more options on the table. That said, it is the professional currency that goes with this test that worries me. ML is so central to much of the discussions on this thread that the test itself becomes devalued through the lack of authority that comes with the results. For someone like ML to be so out of balance with a vast majority of the professional community sure invalidates the accreditation? I am certain I would feel most uncomfortable sitting such a test knowing the examiner did not believe or understand half of the modern thinking on latent print examination. I would also question the independence of the tests. Is there not a conflict of interests here? CAS boasts an impressive list of names from law enforcement and forensic science. But will such a company, and for that matter headed up by the Chair of the Fingerprint Society really want the experts to fail wholesale....after all it would discredit the profession here wants to protect and as a lead on the Fingerprint Society he will not want failures. So will the tests themselves be subject to certain biases and influences based on motivational and other attributes to bring about a false result through incorrect test procedures and unscientific protocol?

There is more to a formal accreditation test than just turning up with a wallet of marks and saying there you go...what can you see. Ask me, ask Glenn, and ask Kasey....we all know the pitfalls and weaknesses in all our research. The trick is to be aware of those weaknesses, admit them, learn from them and improve. The jury is still out on CAS as to whether the process is one..valid..and two reliable. Perhaps thirdly..would CAS listen to critique of their processes if found to be wanting??

Letters to the Editor
FINGERPRINT WHORLD
by Martin Leadbetter
Response by Itiel Dror & David Charlton

Page 230 FINGERPRINT WHORLD Vol 33 No 129 September 2007


I do not totally disagree with the suggestion that an examiner might be influenced in his/her decision making process, but in all my 40 years service in fingerprints I can categorically state that I never knew of any examiner changing his or her decision because the crime was nasty or unimportant or had been swayed by a gruesome photograph. The rumoured instances that I have heard of have reportedly occurred when either a senior officer has leant over a junior expert’s shoulder, adding undue pressure to get a result or when an examiner has assumed that the previous competent checkers have done a correct job and he doesn’t make a correct analysis before reaching his/her decision.


Yours faithfully,
Martin Leadbetter FFS RFP BA (Hons)
Chairman – The Fingerprint Society

I hope Daktari can answer this? It appears that Mr Leadbetter states in a recent Police Review journal....

I can honestly say that I have never in all my experience, encountered any fingerprint examiner who has been swayed in making a conclusive decision by anything other than the exhibits they have had to compare.

But only last year:

instances that I have heard of have reportedly occurred when either a senior officer has leant over a junior expert’s shoulder, adding undue pressure to get a result or when an examiner has assumed that the previous competent checkers have done a correct job and he doesn’t make a correct analysis before reaching his/her decision

So which is it Daktari.....option 1 or option 2? Can someone please let me know what ML is trying to say.....because this seems contradictory and confused logic to me?