| Posted
by Ed German, CLPE, FFS on January 30,
2000 at 20:54:58:
In Reply to: Where's the original print? posted by Jim McNulty on January 30, 2000 at 17:45:08: Excellent suggestion: "... have the original print compared with Shirley's prints." Other than putting a magnifying glass directly on the door frame to view the original impression, a good quality (clarity and contrast) photographic negative is probably the next best evidence. Pat Wertheim loaned me photographs, photographic negatives, and original inked prints from the Shirley McKie case. I scanned the materials to produce the images on the "Problem Idents" page. Other
images from the SCRO supporting their continued claim that "the identification
stands" are welcome. Allan Bayle's comment
that he looked at the McKie case was based on an independent examination
of photographs furnished by the SCRO and not images from this web site.
Experts are encouraged to compare the original print with Shirley's prints. Although not all experts have electronic tools that will enable them to view these images and make an accurate examination, many do. What you see posted are comments from experts willing to risk their reputation, and in some instances livelihood, to post their expert opinion about this "alleged identification." We know that any of the four SCRO fingerprint experts who called this an ident, or even SCRO police administrators, are free to make error complaints against any of us posting here. Some of us have used "CLPE" behind our names to indicate that we are Certified Latent Print Examiners and/or "FFS" to indicate that we are Fellows of The Fingerprint Society. Some of us have also indicated our employing agencies, although our comments do not purport to be official police agency or organization views... they represent only our personal opinion. Complaints to the Latent Print Certification Board of the International Association for Identification can be initiated from this link. Complaints to The Fingerprint Society may be addressed to President Ray Broadstock, FFSI would never want an outside expert from Scotland posting pages like this on the world wide web (or anywhere else) about a claimed fingerprint identification error made by me. And, if I were a high ranking American police administrator, the last thing I would want is some foreign expert from Scotland sticking his nose into matters involving experts for which I am responsible, especially when potential lawsuits are involved. That said, I can also guarantee you that if uninvited foreign interference was what it finally took to educate my higher-ups that my expert opinion was wrong, they would then welcome it. Indeed they would embrace the meddling because it would mean they could then improve their agency's accuracy and reputation by addressing the situation which enabled the error. All I have heard from folks in contact with the SCRO is that Shirley McKie's fingerprint identification stands. What I thought I would read or hear months ago was something as follows: "Yes, we now agree that Shirley McKie did NOT make the latent fingerprint... now would all you experts please stop commenting on our error because this is an internal matter with personnel decisions, potential lawsuits, re-examination of other identifications, retraining, and other things occurring to insure that this has not happened in other cases and never happens again." These comments do not purport to represent the position or opinion of the United States Army, the United States Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory, the IAI, The Fingerprint Society, or any other organization. They are my opinion alone. --Ed
German, CLPE, FFS
|
