Fingerprint Society Update

[fpsociety]

Dear all,

The Fingerprint Society is embarking on a new chapter in its history by reviewing the structure of the organisation and looking to widen its appeal.

Some people on this forum will no doubt try to highlight that this action is as a result of their criticism of The Fingerprint Society's stance in the Scotland Fingerprint Inquiry; but this is not the case, and we will not engage in any such attempts to change the focus of this thread. The face of forensic investigation is changing dramatically, and we as a society need to change with the times and meet the needs of todays Forensic Investigators.

We are asking members AND non-members to complete a survey titled "Defining Our Identity", the results of which will be closely analysed and further discussed at next years annual conference in London (April 9th-11th).

You can access the questionnaire via the following link:

http://www.fpsociety.org.uk/questionnaire.html

Thank you to all our members for their continued support.

The Fingerprint Society

[Colin]

Could I suggest, for a start, you sack the Chairman of your Society and the Editor of your Comic.

[Ernie Hamm]

Now that is a professional(?) and constructive (?) approach by 'Colin' to the request for information and input .

It also represents a personal attack on individuals in The Fingerprint Society, unwarranted based upon the posting seeking direction and guidance in the goals of a professional organization.

An organization is not necessarily governed by individuals serving in various positions, especially being Editor of the publication. The Editor is responsible for provide information from CONTRIBUTORS and should not interfere with the information being published. It is, in many organizations; a thankless, difficult and time-consuming task.

I have been a Fellow of The Fingerprint Society since 1978 and have enjoyed and appreciated the information set forth in Fingerprint Whorld over these past 30 years. I have had the privilege of addressing the Society on two occasions (limited by geography) and have always found the members professional and informed.

The present diversion associated with a singular identification vs. non-identification should not define the contributions and objectives of a professional organization. This organization has distinguished itself by remaining aloof from the issue, which seems to alienate some individuals. At the FP Society Meeting in 2006, opening comments set forth guidelines in which certain controversial topics would not be presented and they (publicly) were not. The separation of organizational involvement in controversial issues is not unique and The Fingerprint Society should not be held accountable for its current position.

I would ask those readers (ol’ timers?) of this forum to go back to when they joined the Society and enjoyed issues of Fingerprint Whorld. Do you now want to destroy the organization which you supported and appreciated?

[Colin]

Any Professional Society which wishes to be taken seriously in the field they claim to influence would not censor its members' contributions to resolving an issue which threatens the credibility of their discipline. Nor would it employ individuals who have been publicly exposed as professionally incompetent (or worse) and who have been sacked because of their inadequacies. Unless you exclude such dross from your organisation, you will never be taken seriously.

[redlion62]

fpsociety said that the society had `distinguished itself` by remaining aloof.

(Sand.........head........buried.......hmmmmmmm.)

Distinguished indeed.

Dear fpsociety, please tell us the current membership total, is it growing or shrinking?

Colin spoke for many ex members who will never return to the Society as long as the current Chairman and Editor remain in post.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

To all my Friends in the UK, or if you do not consider me a friend because of the bad publicity that has flowed from certain cases in which I have been involved, let me say "To all Professional, Ethical fingerprint examiners in the UK:

Ernie has a good point. The FS is, after all, a "democracy." You can simply chose candidates for Chairman and for the Executive Committee who represent the majority will. To many outsiders, it would appear that those elected and appointed do, in appearance at least, represent the will of the FS. I dare say that if a fair number of members (new, old, and ex) showed up at the next meeting, you could sponsor a "Revolution," a concept not unfamiliar on the Western side of the pond. Take back control of the FS from those who have driven you off.

Alternatively, or even at the same time, contact Bob Garrett at the International Association for Identification (rjgarrett@idman.com) and form a UK or a European Division of the IAI. Bob mentioned to me recently that such a new body might be both an alternative to the FS and bring the UK more into the international arena of fingerprint experts.

Or continue to drop out of the FS and turn your back on the fingerprint community at large. But as Ernie implies, that is not the path a professional, ethical fingerprint examiner would follow.

Your choice.

[Big Wullie]

Perhaps the way experts are accepted in our UK courts needs more looking into than one would ever imagine.

Today's story in the Sunday herald regarding Gene Morrison who not only conned his way into giving Expert Evidence (Not Fingerprints though) has turned out to a be a "Rapist" with no qualifications at-all.

My question on accepting experts of this type in our courts one would think some kind of stringent tests would be carried our first.
How did he get away with this con and hide his sordid rapes:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crim ... r-1.926410

Bogus forensic scientist who conned his way into rape trials was sexual predator


Hoaxer Gene Morrison
heraldscotland staff

0 comments
Published on 15 Oct 2009
A bogus forensic scientist who conned his way into hundreds of trials has been convicted of a catalogue of serious sexual offences.

Sexual predator Gene Morrison, 51, targeted vulnerable young girls to satisfy his perverted fantasies, including the rapes of two girls aged 10 and 11.

His four victims came forward after his five-year jail sentence in February 2007 for posing in courtrooms as an expert investigator.

Morrison tricked judges, barristers, solicitors and police into believing he was qualified in forensics when he left school with no qualifications and downloaded sham degrees from a fictitious US university.

The judge who jailed him in 2007 branded Morrison an "inveterate and compulsive liar".

A jury deliberating over the sexual allegations against Morrison, better known as Rocky in his home town of Hyde, Greater Manchester, was not told of his past as a fake expert witness which can now be reported for the first time after restrictions were lifted.

The defendant pleaded not guilty to 33 charges - covering a 30-year-period - which the jury deliberated at his trial at Minishull Street Crown Court in Manchester

He maintained that when he accepted sexual relations took place with an adult it was consensual and that in other cases the girls were not telling the truth.

Morrison was convicted of three counts of child rape, six counts of indecent assault, four counts of engaging in sexual activity with a child and one count of perverting the course of justice. All the victims were aged under 16 at the time.

Morrison also faced sexual allegations involving six other women but was either cleared of the offences or the jury could not reach verdicts.

The Crown Prosecution Service today decided not to press for a retrial on any of the allegations which the jury could not decide upon, and reporting restrictions were lifted.

Prosecutor Neil Flewitt QC told the jury the defendant was a "sexual predator with a particular interest in young girls".

Morrison was a superficially charming and charismatic man who infiltrated the lives of children for the specific purpose of satisfying his own warped sexual desires, he continued.

"It is a recurring theme of the defendant's relationships with many of his victims that he would befriend them and gain the trust of families before inviting them to his home so that he could sexually abuse them without fear of detection," Mr Flewitt said.

He groomed the girls by treating them with money or presents but would use violence or threat of harm if they resisted his advances.

Several of them came into contact with him at a church which the deeply religious Morrison, of Martin Street, attended.

The jury was told of claims the defendant would slap one schoolgirl over her buttocks with a belt if she made any mistake when forced to read out lengthy passages from the bible.

He has two previous convictions for assaulting women - one he punched and the other was slapped across the face.

In cross-examination, Morrison conceded he had "struck out" against women but did not class it as violence.

Mr Flewitt accused him of being "hypocritical" as far as his religious beliefs were concerned.

Morrison agreed his religion was the "guiding light in his life" and that he tried to "copy the example of Jesus Christ", although he admitted "drifting away from the path sometimes".

Once-married Morrison also conceded he had firm views that Christian men engaging in sex outside marriage was wrong.

Morrison said: "We all have weaknesses. It is a matter of how you progress from that." Mr Flewitt replied: "You move on from one young girl to another, that is what you do.

"Your sex drive was the driving force in your life as well as your Christianity."

He will be sentenced next month.

More on Morrison here:

Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... girls.html

http://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=1C1C ... e+Morrison

[Colin]

I couldn't agree more. I've never understood how such self-appointed "experts" (such as those due to entertain us at the Inquiry next week) are accepted as such without rigorous assessment of their credentials. The Chairman of the FS has been given the opportunity - and has refused it - of setting out what qualifications he has which entitle him to interfere in important forensic debate. I do hope he will be challenged again on this when (if) he appears at the Inquiry.

[rmcase]

I would like to thank Ernie and Pat for their constructive views.

Being on the committee of The Fingerprint Society, I know first hand how much commitment and personal sacrifice it takes to be part of such a group.

The FS is, after all, a "democracy." You can simply chose candidates for Chairman and for the Executive Committee who represent the majority will. To many outsiders, it would appear that those elected and appointed do, in appearance at least, represent the will of the FS. I dare say that if a fair number of members (new, old, and ex) showed up at the next meeting, you could sponsor a "Revolution," a concept not unfamiliar on the Western side of the pond. Take back control of the FS from those who have driven you off.

I personally would welcome our members to get involved in the AGM and put themselves forward to become members of the committee. We are always looking for new people to get involved and add to the debate at our meetings. In fact, if anyone has attended one of AGM's then you will know that we actively encourage people to come forward... but a lot of people are put off because we are all volunteers and as such do not get paid and meet in our own free time on weekends.

Alternatively, or even at the same time, contact Bob Garrett at the International Association for Identification (rjgarrett@idman.com) and form a UK or a European Division of the IAI. Bob mentioned to me recently that such a new body might be both an alternative to the FS and bring the UK more into the international arena of fingerprint experts.

If you look at the few IAI members from the UK, the majority of these are also members of The Fingerprint Society and a number of them also sit (or have sat) on the committee (myself included). The reason for this is because we feel passionate for our profession. I would really like to see a UK branch of the IAI.

Again, I would encourage everbody to take part in our questionnaire and offer constructive suggestions on how the society can improve.

Best wishes,

Richard Case

[Colin]

Sorry, Mr Case - but you really have to wake up and smell the coffee. After yesterday's public humiliation and exposure of your Chairman, much more immediate and drastic actions are required if the Fingerprint Society fantasy of being the "pre-eminent organisation of fingerprint specialists in the UK” (Mud’n Lietitter’s description) has any chance of realisation. I'll spell some of them out to you and your fellow members.

1 Go to http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... 9.221.html and read the transcript of Friday's star comedy act. It records how this “distinguished expert” (Leadbitter’s description of himself), couldn’t even make a coherent presentation without having to be constantly prompted and reminded of the need to annotate his analyses and had to be told what a microphone was for. Leaving aside his inability to distinguish between fingerprints belonging to different people (a distinction which can be comprehended by laypersons!), his circus act was a masterclass in how not to present evidence in a court of law; he managed to make Swann look a class act; I mean, he didn't seem capable of handling painting by numbers, let alone navigating his way across a fingerprint image.

2 Call an EGM (this is too important and urgent to await a top-down managed AGM}.

3 Boot out (entirely from your Society) your Chairman, Editor and other members who fraudulently claim competency in fingerprint forensics.

4 Introduce accreditation for existing and future members; I suggest,(for example) that full membership be offered only to those who have passed the IAI Latent Print Certification test.

5 Take Pat Wertheim's advice and join the International Association for Identification and commit to embracing the far higher and much more exacting standards of professional competency which pertain in other countries.

Believe me, until you excise the festering charlatanry in your organisation, membership of the FS will remain an impediment to career development.

[Colin]

To the few remaining members of the FPSoc:

If more persuasion is required, pull your heads out of the sand and check out:
http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... 4.221.html
where you will be depressed by the vacuous twaddle being spouted by the editor of your comic.

One example: Phoney Fiona (as she’s being referred to here in Maryhill) was asked:

“would you expect that if you have seen something in a mark you should be able to make someone, a lawyer, a juror, somebody who does not have your training, in the first instance, see what it is that you are seeing? “

Phoney MuckPride: : “Absolutely not”. (!)

What more evidence do you guys need? Your Society will continue to be regarded as a sick joke for as long as your membership includes such imbeciles.

[Colin]

I wonder if any of the remaining members could translate your motto "Quaerite et invenietis" for me. My Latin's not up to it, but I'm guessing - from your editor's "professional work" as a "fingerprint expert" - it might mean " If you can't find it, make it up".

If so - I suggest you change it (along with your editor and Chairman).

[David Fairhurst]

"Seek and you will find."

[Colin]

Fibbin’ Phoney MuckPride

Readers of your comic may be amused, if not more properly shocked, by the (verbatim) verbal diarrhoea of the editor reported at:
http://www.shirleymckie.com/documents/M ... heknow.pdf

[Taggart]

I originally posted this under a different posting without any response and wonder it might be better served on this posting? I am sure someone from the Fingerprint Society will be able to comment on the following:

In February 2009 the IAI Y7 Committee publicly reported their findings in relation to Y7.

http://www.clpex.com/Articles/TheDetail ... ail391.htm

Findings of the I.A.I’s Y7 Committee
by Robert Garrett,
International Association for Identification President
In 1997, Marion Ross, and elderly woman living a solitary life, was murdered inside her home in Kilmarnock, Scotland. Investigators at the crime scene developed a fingerprint on a door frame. The print or mark was subsequently identified to Shirlie McKie, a detective constable with the Strathclyde Police, by fingerprint examiners of the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO). A problem surfaced when the detective denied ever having been in the victim's house. The detective's unwillingness to admit to leaving the print resulted in charges of perjury and a trial for the offense. The detective hired her own fingerprint examiner(s) who refuted the findings of the examiners from SCRO. The detective was found not guilty and filed suit against the service in which she ultimately prevailed. The controversy surrounding the identity of the source of the print which was known as Y7 has not abated. For many years, members of the fingerprint community have asked for the International Association for Identification (IAI) to assist in resolving the issue. In response, as President of the IAI, I had decided to use its resources and study the issue. My decision was made in the interest of fingerprint science and its practice and without regard for any of the individuals involved.
A committee was organized to examine the Y7 mark and the alleged source of the print which was, according to SCRO examiners, the left thumb of Detective Shirley McKie. The committee consisted of four experienced fingerprint examiners, all certified by the IAI in latent print examination. A fifth member was a renowned expert in forensic imaging who also had a background in fingerprint science. Images of the Y7 mark were secured from a number of sources, each image scrutinized for consistency, quality and quantity of detail.
Three of the fingerprint examiners would be responsible for the actual examination and comparison of the prints. The fourth would be the committee chair, insuring the consistency of the processes used, commonality of reference, terminology and agreement of features used for comparison. The chair would also serve as the technical and administrative reviewer and be responsible for maintaining examination notes and documents. The examiners would conduct their comparisons individually after agreeing on which ridge characteristics to use, ridge counts and tolerances. Conclusions would also be made on an individual basis. Examiners would then act to review the conclusions of their co-workers.
The examiners were required to thoroughly document their analysis of the prints; observations made during the comparison of the prints and the basis for their conclusions. The notes and materials prepared by the examiners will be maintained by the IAI and made available to researchers. A detailed article, based on the committee’s work and findings will be prepared for publication in the Journal of Forensic Identification.
On December 23, 2008 the Committee’s work was completed with the arrival of the final examiner packet. It will be a while before the article is published considering the time necessary to prepare the article for submission to the JFI, the subsequent review process and the publication schedule, As Committee Chair, I decided to issue a summary finding of the committee’s work. The examiners came to a unanimous conclusion that the developed latent print known as “Y7” and the recorded known exemplar print identified as the left thumb of Shirley McKie do not share a common source. Therefore, the left thumb of Shirley McKie is excluded as the source of latent print/finger mark Y7.

You will also be aware that as a result of this disciplinary action was taken against two IAI members, Peter Swann and Martin Leadbetter.

Are you in any position, or perhaps Richard Case or some other Fingerprint Society member can help, what exactly has the Fingerprint Society done since the IAI’s Report came out?

What ‘talking’ has occurred within the Society about your Chairman and also by default your editor, Fiona McBride

Both now publicly accused by the IAI of a misidentification in relation to Y7.

Are you aware if anyone within the Society has made any kind of formal complaint? Is there not a code of conduct within the Society that should have seen both Mr Leadbetter and Ms McBride removed from post?

I am thinking perhaps nothing has happened. Apart of course a public Questionnaire which according to the Society has nothing to do with the Inquiry.

Let us look at some of the questions it asked:


In your opinion if membership criteria were expanded do you think it would diminish the society’s ethos?

Name one thing that the Society could do which would encourage you to stay a member, become a member or support others to be members

Should the Society have an ‘ethical’ code of conduct?

Should applicants have to demonstrate credible involvement in their discipline?

What needed to happen before throwing this open and letting non-members tell you what they thought about the Society should have been decisive action taken by the Society themselves against those who had brought the Science and the Society into disrepute.

Why does it take until after this Inquiry to talk to individuals I wonder? I suspect like the SPSA, the Fingerprint Society is using this Inquiry to do their dirty work for them.

Were the IAI findings not enough for action to be taken?

I suspect the Society will now wait until their Annual Conference in April 2010 before trying to act?

Is anyone within the Society prepared to let us know what they have done since February 2009, if anything?