Posted by Ed German, CLPE, FFS on January 20, 2000 at 12:20:46:
In Reply to: scotch Botch posted by Allan Bayle on January 19, 2000 at 12:17:08:
The January 19th posting by Allan Bayle of the Metro Police Scientific Support College appears to be the first public denouncement of the SCRO "ident" by a senior fingerprint expert currently employed with UK police.
Allan Bayle is well known and well respected in the US government laboratory where I work. For verification, I called Mr. Bayle at his desk and he confirmed that he made the posting and stands by its contents.
I accept (but do not condone) the reality that politicians and/or police administrators sometimes lie or at least withhold the "whole truth" when they think it is for the better good of their agency's reputation, i.e., somehow think society is better served by maintaining high respect for police services. But, I will never accept, and always condemn the failure of fingerprint experts to speak out when a cover-up involving a known friction ridge identification error occurs... ESPECIALLY an erroneous identification impacting a citizen's freedom and/or reputation.
Last year the science of fingerprint (friction ridge) identification encountered one of its first serious challenges in a little publicized court hearing in Philadelphia (United States versus Byron C. Mitchell). Included in the multi-pronged attack by various PhD's retained by the Defense, was expert testimony by Dr. Simon Cole concerning what he called "an occupational norm of unanimity."
Dr. Cole testified that in his expert opinion "the fingerprint community handled cases of misidentification or error so deftly; that fingerprint identification was never subjected to judicial scrutiny; and the lack of organized opposition to fingerprint science." Dr. Cole indicated that erroneous identifications are routinely covered-up and that fingerprint science is unreliable as court evidence because experts cannot or will not openly challenge identification errors.
As time passed, I was beginning to think that Dr. Cole's assertions might be accurate insofar as fingerprint identification errors in the UK. Allan Bayle's posting shows that the cult "of unanimity" theory is as invalid in the UK as it is in America and elsewhere. Bravo Mr. Bayle! You have now joined David Grieve and Pat Wertheim in bravely doing the right thing.
As with most police internal reviews, I suspect that we
(the public outsiders) barely know even the tip of the iceberg insofar
as what is happening between the SCRO and higher authorities. I hope that
we later learn that a number of UK (including SCRO) fingerprint experts
have officially and formally complained inside police channels that the
marks in the Shirley McKie case are NOT an identification. And, if such
is the case, I also hope we learn of an investigation into any cover-up
related to UK police expert complaints.
NOTE: I suspect the correct e-mail address for Allan Bayle is AllanB8077@aol.com (drop the ".uk" from his posted address).
(Click on the "Post-Daubert
Hearing Memorandum" link at http://onin.com/fp/
and read page 65 for more information about Dr. Cole's testimony that fingerprint
experts unanimously cover-up for each other regarding identification errors.)
The above comments are my personal opinion, and do not purport to reflect the position of the US Army, the US Army Crime Laboratory, or any other organization/entity with which I am affiliated.
--Ed German
P.O. Box 2121
Forest Park, GA 30298-2121
U.S.A.
Phone (404)362-7011
E-mail ed@onin.com
URL http://onin.com/ed