CLPEX Chat Board

UK Experts are better trained than Americans according to Martin Leadbetter here at "page 66"

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/busin ... wan_01.pdf

Martin Leadbetter is quoted as saying :

"For having visited many fingerprint bureau within the USA, I am aware that the level of training in general is "Far Far Below" that of the average UK trained fingerprint Examiner"

Does anyone agree with Mr Leadbetter ?

Perhaps then Mr Leadbetter can tell us what courses Peter Swann Sat and Passed if any ?

Come now Martin you have also claimed Mr Swann is your friend as well as colleague so surely you will know what qualifications he has ?

Who said
“I was in NO WAY qualified to testify to fingerprint identifications when I was first accepted in court as an “expert” in the late 1970’s. I attended a two-week class in Henry classification which also touched on latent print development and latent print identification. Our comparison exercises were all inked to inked. After that, there was no OJT in my department and I had to teach myself. Within two years, I was testifying to identifications. I never had a senior examiner check my work and never had a single proficiency test. And don’t make the mistake of thinking I was the exception” ?
Answers on a postcard please.
And a big thanks Wullie for giving me a chance to post this again!

Daktari wrote:Who said . . .

Me, of course. And there you go again, Dak, pulling a quote out of context to make a point on a different thread. When I began my career in the early 1970's and when I first testified to an identification in the late 1970's, training in the US for fingerprint experts was without any minimum standard. If the court accepted you, you were an "expert."

The IAI Latent Print Certification Program, instituted in 1978, began to change that. ASCLD accreditation continued to encourage change, at least in the accredited laboratories. Daubert challenges pushed the change even harder. Of course, the US still has no national "standard" for training as an expert, but many states do. My whole point in making that statement in a discussion of training was to emphasize the need for such a standard.

But bringing this thing up the way you are is merely a feeble attempt to distract the world from the REAL problem. The discussions revolve around whether the McKie and Asbury erroneous identifications were due to incompetence or dishonesty. General training discussions have nothing whatsoever to do with individual actions in this case.

The general lack of training standards in the US in the 1970's has absolutely nothing to do with criminal dishonesty on the part of some personnel at SCRO.

I agree with Pat. When I first began my career in fingerprints, it was with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the field of ten-print classification and comparison back in 1972. At that time, it involved a thirteen week course which was quite basic when compared to what must be known today. In fact, when I first arrived here in the south, this department only gave me a comparison examination; although, there was a very comprehensive oral exam on fingerprints and the history of fingerprints. Even then, I did not get a chance to attend a latent print course until the late eighties when I attended the FBI's Advanced Latent Fingerprint Techniques course. But in the nineties, I was able to change some of that.

Indeed, I basically took the bull by the horns because I realized that my training, in my estimation, came up very short. This was discovered by reading Advances in Fingerprint Technology and taking classes at the IAI Educational Seminars. Because training funds were very tight, I was not able to attend any classes until I attended the IAI's Advanced Ridgeology Seminar in 1996. Then came along Daubert and the Shirley Mckie case. Things were now changing very rapidly. Since then I have kept up by reading other fingerprint manuals, books, and this site to keep abreast of those changes. Then in 2005, I was able to take out a loan to attend David Ashbaugh's class on Basic Forensic Ridgeology.

Because of the reading, questioning, and classes, I am know able to use all three levels of individualization. Because of those things, I was able to go into a court of law and answer Daubert questions on cross examination in a murder trial in 2003. Of course, I am even more qualified because of Mr. Ashbaugh's class. Although, I am not certified in latent prints, (because of funds) I am capable of passing the examination today if I was able to have the available funds to maintain the certification. So, daktari, even in a southern small city that is growing rapidly, where one is not pushed to go to classes, I have managed to not only keep up, but also to maintain my expertise through classes, reading, and questioning. All identifications are verified, of that I have made sure. I am also ensuring that when I finally leave, whomever is to take my place will also be trained to certification standards. Oh, and for outside pressures on any given case? I don't allow them to enter this office.

Finally, I am also very happy to report that I am able to attend this year's Educational Conference in Louisville, KY. I will be taking many workshops; indeed so many that I will have little time for much else. Even at my age when many start to look towards retirement or think that they know everything, I am not doing either. I am still training because this science deserves my best.

Daktari

Instead fo thanking me would you please answer the main questions here.

If the UK has a national standard for experts, did Peter Swann pass any of these standards before giving evidence to Justice committee in the case of Shirley ?

Do you agree that people retired for 21 years should be allowed to give evidence in high profile cases ?

We all know that once you learn to drive you can always drive but with fingerprint techniques changing so much do you not think Peter might have been a wee tad out of touch ?

I really do not expect a reply as normal and par for the course from you Daktari but as a layperson I have serious concerns that Peter Swann is not only not qualified but he was not competent to give evidence to our justice committee ?

Some years ago the UK Government introduced a policy called Care in theCommunity. The thinking behind it was that people with mental health issueswould be better off in the community, with appropriate support, than remainingin an institution.There have been mixed results. One downside is the growing number of aimless,deranged, unfortunate wretches, many with criminal records, wandering about ourstreets muttering to themselves about all the alleged injustices them, andothers, have suffered. Some years ago the UK Government introduced a policy called Open AccessThe thinking behind it was that everyone should have free and easy access tothe wonders of the internet.There have been mixed results. One downside is the growing number of aimless,deranged, unfortunate wretches, many with criminal records, wandering about ourwebsites muttering to themselves about all the alleged injustices them, andothers, have suffered.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/googles ... g%20wullie

QED?

Daktari wrote:. . . the growing number of aimless, deranged, unfortunate wretches, many with criminal records, wandering about our streets muttering to themselves about all the alleged injustices them, and others, have suffered. . .

And what would you do, Daktari? Round them up, herd them into boxcars, and ship them to institutions? Include those who manipulate the press and influence the inquiries? Then go after those who challenge you and your friends? And those whom you fancy, without any evidence, have committed crimes against the Fatherland?

What a fine world that would be!

Or perhaps some of those "unfortunate wretches" have criminal records because they were framed. Perhaps they are not so aimless or deranged as you think. And, most frightening to you, no doubt, perhaps they are right about the injustices they and others have suffered.

Daktari

Glad to see I have annoyed you to the extent you are posting all my comments from the past.

Great work keep it up and I will not need to keep repeating myself to all the incompetents like your friend Peter.

By the way you are just showing your true colours now.

By the way you have still never answered my last questions

Exactly what accreditation does your friend have from the academy of experts ?

Is he in your eyes a competent witness and do you support his assertion that it was a left thumb print ?

Simple question that even a simplton [ I was going to say "like you" there but that would be just lowering my standards to yours] could answer, and maybe i will get into trouble again from the moderator.

So I did not call you a simplton for the record.

Pat great post above but do you really expect people trained by the police to act independently.

Let it also be known that the best tool ever for miscarriages is the internet where people like Daktari can be exposed for the incompetents they are, Well done you Daktari for exposing such.

Big Wullie

Real Name "Wullie Beck"