Rolfe
Adult human female
Fingerprint analysis is supposed to be objective, but it isn't. In addition, it depends on the methodology.
In the McKie case, the analysts were using a system where they said they had a match if they found a certain number of points that were the same on both prints. The trouble with that is that it doesn't take into account whether there are parts of the print that definitely don't match.
Shirley's case had been sloppily marked up, with points marked as equivalent when they really weren't, and the fact that a chunk of the print was actually completely different from Shirley's reference print not appreciated. It seems to have been a pure mistake, due to careless working, with no malice and no confirmation bias involved.
If they had just said, oh sorry we goofed, it would probably have blown over. But they were terrified of admitting to a mistake, because they were supposed to be infallible, and doing that would (they believed) undermine fingerprint evidence in general and allow criminals to walk free. They stuck to their guns, and even presented a manipulated print with the part that didn't match the reference print cropped off.
Of course, the way they handled it was much worse in the end - a version of the Streisand Effect. At one point one of the fingerprint boffins actually said in court that fingerprint identification was just a matter of opinion anyway, which caused every other country in the world to have a collective heart attack. And then it turned out that they hadn't just misidentified Shirley's fingerprint, but the damning print on the biscuit tin was also an error. Alternative methodology that also looked for differences between the prints was shown to be more reliable. I don't think that dense Fiona McBride bird ever backed down though. If that was what was producing evidence to go before the courts, God help us all.
Shirley McKie's persecution was so notorious we tend to forget about David Asbury who was wrongly convicted for that murder on the basis of flawed fingerprint identification. If they hadn't screwed up on Shirley's print at the same time, and Shirley hadn't refused to back down, he would certainly still be in jail.
How many others are there in that category, I wonder?
All that stuff about US pressure is interesting because it was rumoured at the time, but no fingerprint evidence was ever brought to court in the Lockerbie trial. One of the first things the SNP government did when it came to power was to withdraw the case against Shirley and pay her compensation. Many of us thought they would act to resolve the wrongful conviction in the Lockerbie case as well, but they did quite the opposite - they seem to have acted to prevent the resolution that was on the way.
Then we reconsider how Shirley's case was handled, and realise that although they backed off and paid compensation, the effect of that was to prevent the errors being scrutinised in court. The handling of the Lockerbie case also prevented the errors being scrutinised in court.
Meh. And I actually support these guys.
Rolfe.
In the McKie case, the analysts were using a system where they said they had a match if they found a certain number of points that were the same on both prints. The trouble with that is that it doesn't take into account whether there are parts of the print that definitely don't match.
Shirley's case had been sloppily marked up, with points marked as equivalent when they really weren't, and the fact that a chunk of the print was actually completely different from Shirley's reference print not appreciated. It seems to have been a pure mistake, due to careless working, with no malice and no confirmation bias involved.
If they had just said, oh sorry we goofed, it would probably have blown over. But they were terrified of admitting to a mistake, because they were supposed to be infallible, and doing that would (they believed) undermine fingerprint evidence in general and allow criminals to walk free. They stuck to their guns, and even presented a manipulated print with the part that didn't match the reference print cropped off.
Of course, the way they handled it was much worse in the end - a version of the Streisand Effect. At one point one of the fingerprint boffins actually said in court that fingerprint identification was just a matter of opinion anyway, which caused every other country in the world to have a collective heart attack. And then it turned out that they hadn't just misidentified Shirley's fingerprint, but the damning print on the biscuit tin was also an error. Alternative methodology that also looked for differences between the prints was shown to be more reliable. I don't think that dense Fiona McBride bird ever backed down though. If that was what was producing evidence to go before the courts, God help us all.
Shirley McKie's persecution was so notorious we tend to forget about David Asbury who was wrongly convicted for that murder on the basis of flawed fingerprint identification. If they hadn't screwed up on Shirley's print at the same time, and Shirley hadn't refused to back down, he would certainly still be in jail.
How many others are there in that category, I wonder?
All that stuff about US pressure is interesting because it was rumoured at the time, but no fingerprint evidence was ever brought to court in the Lockerbie trial. One of the first things the SNP government did when it came to power was to withdraw the case against Shirley and pay her compensation. Many of us thought they would act to resolve the wrongful conviction in the Lockerbie case as well, but they did quite the opposite - they seem to have acted to prevent the resolution that was on the way.
Then we reconsider how Shirley's case was handled, and realise that although they backed off and paid compensation, the effect of that was to prevent the errors being scrutinised in court. The handling of the Lockerbie case also prevented the errors being scrutinised in court.
Meh. And I actually support these guys.
Rolfe.
Last edited:
