Your comments on Finger of Suspicion

Your comments on Finger of Suspicion

---

The Alan McNamara conviction is nothing more than a travesty of justice. This is just another sad example of the inept British criminal justice system. If the Home Secretary has a spine, he should intervene immediately and demand an independent inquiry into this case. It is a disgrace that this man and his family should fall victim to the incompetence of so called 'finger-print experts'. My sympathy, for what it's worth, goes out to Alan McNamara's wife and little girl.
Stephen Healy
Dublin

Having watched the programme and studied many of the responses to it, it is extremely disappointing to find the responses of Pat Wertheim et al, who really are being selective in their comments. Because there is still an active judicial process taking place and there is an inevitability of an appeal by Mr McNamara, I am constrained as to what I can say in this reply. Unfortunately Pat Wertheim is not similarly restrained. I am unsure of the legal position in the USA but I do question whether it is ethical for an expert commissioned by a defence solicitor to discuss his findings with a large audience of fingerprint experts before the actual court case! A letter in my possession suggests that is exactly what Pat Wertheim did, including using photographs provided to him in his capacity as a defence expert, by Greater Manchester Police. What I would like to put on record is the fact that both the Panorama programme and 'others' have failed to fully detail all of the evidence provided during the trial resulting in a bias which is unreasonable. I am not concluding by my comments that Alan McNamara is guilty but rational argument and appropriate conclusions cannot be served by a blinkered approach which presents, at best, 50% of the fact and detail. If Greater Manchester Police or any member of staff were found to be culpable in this or any other case, then the public can be assured that we would not seek to justify or hide any facts and would take appropriate action. I will await the outcome of any appeal before offering any further comment on this case.
Alan Green, Assistant Chief Constable, Crime Operations
Manchester

Having commented on Sunday regarding this, I would like to add that I immediately mailed the Home Office to acknowledge my concern for the situation Alan McNamara is in. I think it would be useful to act on our horror and disgust as well as just sharing it.
Ben Avery
Aylesbury

Whether Alan McNamara is guilty or otherwise is irrelevant since there is no evidence against him, unless the technique used to take the print is demonstrated. The fact that this has not been done speaks volumes. All it would take for justice to be done is for the technique to be demonstrated or some other plausible explanation provided. This seems such a straightforward task yet it has not been done and we are faced with the alternative of ruining a man's life and discrediting both the fingerprinting profession and the justice system.
Steve Jones
Bolton

I fully agree with the comments made by my fellow colleagues that there is much that is good within our profession. In my webcast last Monday, which is here on this web site for all to see, I hoped to highlight some of those plus points and hoped that the public concern over the Panorama programme could be offset. In my webcast I suggested that we as a profession needed to be open and transparent... open to question and cross examination in and out of the courtroom. Debate must be encouraged to foster learning and eradicate complacency. This is why I decided to do the webcast on behalf of The Fingerprint Society and IAI. I want to initiate an honest and open debate on where we are going in our profession over the next 5 to 10 years. If we are to maintain our hard won respect within the judicial system, then we must get our house in order quickly. I urge anyone wishing to know more about our work to contact The Fingerprint Society and The IAI and go to their web pages. There you will find educational material and open debate that is out of the direct glare of public attention. The fingerprint profession has just celebrated 100 years in existence. Fingerprint identification has much to offer the judicial system for at least another 100 years yet... but, as I said on Monday, maybe it is time we stopped assuming we are so great and started openly demonstrating it. If we do not sell ourselves to the public and the judiciary then we will get exactly what we deserve - nothing. That is to say we will not get any of the Home Office financial pie. Consequently local bureau funding will shrivel against more 'sexy' sciences such as DNA. Come on all my fellow experts. Let us market our profession through bodies such as The Fingerprint Society and The IAI, and make these bodies the forum for change, debate, and honest open assessment.
Dave Charlton, Editor of The Fingerprint Society Journal 'Fingerprint Whorld'
Eastbourne

As a group of Fingerprint Officers and Experts with nearly 100 years experience between us, we were seriously disturbed and saddened by the Panorama documentary. The majority of fingerprint examiners are highly skilled, competent and impartial individuals, who have received 5 years intensive training before reaching expert status. (This is not the case in other parts of the world.) No fingerprint expert of integrity would wish to see a person wrongly convicted. We would welcome a programme that portrayed correctly the workings of a Fingerprint Bureau and how an identification is made. We were somewhat dismayed to see that the comments of a Chief Constable who has no fingerprint qualifications was chosen to speak for the fingerprint profession. From the outside it would appear that there are grave problems within S.C.R.O. which need to be addressed. The McKie case needs to be opened to public scrutiny so that our profession can regain its previous excellent reputation. Let the public not forget that fingerprint identification has been invaluable in identifying victims in disasters such as The Marchioness tragedy and The Kings Cross Fire, as well as providing crucial evidence to prove or disprove a persons involvement in a crime.
A group of Fingerprint Officers

A frighteningly excellent programme. I urge everyone who saw it to contact both their MP and the Home Secretary. Being tough on crime doesn't include locking up innocent people; it does include locking up those who would pervert the course of justice.
Chris Craig
London

As a fingerprint expert with 30 years experience, I found the Panorama programme illuminating and helpful for educating the public and spotlighting important shortcomings. I have interfaced with UK fingerprint experts for many years and even completed expert training in the UK. Many UK fingerprint experts are second to none worldwide. Yet, the Shirley McKie and David Asbury fingerprint cases were a travesty. Even brand new fingerprint experts would have had the ability to see those were obviously not identifications. Nothing could justify such shoddy work. I suspect the reason it went to court is a combination of incompetence within the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) and a subsequent cover-up due to the absence of meaningful quality control. Though not involving fingerprint "identification" incompetence, the jewellery box fingerprint evidence involving Alan McNamara stinks of the same type of cover-up involved in the SCRO incident. It should be a simple task for the crime scene officer to demonstrate his special methodology using the exact same jewellery box and whatever dust or dirt necessary to duplicate his lifting technique under the watchful eyes of doubting experts Alan Bayle and Pat Wertheim. The above views do not purport to represent the position or opinion of the U.S. Army, U.S. Department of Defence, or any other agency or organization with which I am affiliated.
Ed German, Special Agent
U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory

The home secretary should take action to free Alan McNamara - this guy is innocent for God's sake. This man's life is about to be ruined by yet another miscarriage of justice. David Blunkett please, please intervene. British Justice has been brought into question by Panorama. An urgent enquiry into its findings has to happen. Great Britain is supposed to be a free society where its citizens can feel protected by the law. This rides roughshod over the liberty of law abiding folk and puts such citizens in very real danger of being wrongly accused. My heart goes out to Alan McNamara and his family.
Simon
Lichfield

Although the thought of a computer being able to superimpose two images sounds a good idea, our skin has a natural elasticity which, as a result means two impressions taken from the same finger can easily APPEAR to be different and fool a computer into not making a match. It is for this reason that we have to train for many years to qualify as experts and be able to attend court with enough experience to explain our system efficiently enough. With regards to comments about trusting the Police, every member of the department I work in are civilians and we only provide Police Officers with our impartial findings be they good or bad for the prosecution. When procedures are carried out correctly there is nothing to hide and we quite willingly invite independent experts to view our findings to establish their own opinion.
Fingerprint Officer
Midlands

Is it not about time we had a fully independent of the police forensic service. Staffed by people who are not out to obtain a conviction. These latest revelations do not surprise me. I do not believe the Home Office give a damn about separating the innocent from the guilty. Remember those chilling words from Lord Denning some years back. 'It is far better that innocent people remain in prison, than the good name of British justice be impugned'. This means that the professionals that work within the justice system, are more important than the people it is there to serve.
Russell Bishop
Hawkhurst

As a Fingerprint Expert with 13 years experience I was saddened and appalled by the content of the Panorama programme. It takes 5 years to train as an expert. The training is not easy and not everyone is suited to the profession. It requires a great deal of concentration and attention to detail. I think that I can speak for a large percentage of Fingerprint Experts when I say that any officer who is proven to be incompetent should be struck off the Register of Fingerprint Experts. This incompetency gives all experts a bad name, and draws our profession into disrepute. I would invite the BBC to make a further documentary highlighting the good work achieved by the Fingerprint profession. I was involved in the identification of the victims of the Kings Cross fire. Colleagues of mine have been involved in the identification of rapists, murderers, paedophiles and terrorists. Our work can sometimes be harrowing. I would like to assure the public that the vast majority of experts were as saddened as them by the content of the programme. It is time that the system had a complete overhaul, and we hope that it will not be too long until faith in our profession can be restored.
A Fingerprint Expert
Home Counties

Despite having little knowledge on fingerprint evidence prior to watching the Panorama programme, all I can say is that I am very saddened to think that our legal process has evolved so little, so as to convict an individual to up to 4 years imprisonment, solely on the basis of one fingerprint where it's credibility is in such question. I sincerely hope that justice prevails for Alan McNamara and that he and his family will soon be set free from this terrible experience.
T Barnett
Birmingham

I note the comments by Mr Wertheim and, whilst I may disagree with his interpretation of 'opinion' evidence, the identification of the fingerprint in the McNamara case is NOT in dispute. Both he and Mr Bayle confirm that the fingerprint presented in evidence is that of Mr McNamara. Whilst this raises issues of police integrity I cannot accept that Mr McNamara is a 'fall guy' to assist clear up rates for high value burglaries. The very idea is a preposterous and undermines a modern police force that is all too aware of public scrutiny and the need for transparency in its investigations.
Brian Davies
Manchester

Imagine the unimaginable. Since the days of Bertillon, it has always been held that fingerprints are unique. What if they are not - and what if that can be proved. The road to hell was paved with good intentions. The road to the Court of Appeal would soon be shoulder to shoulder with people serving prison sentences based solely or mainly on fingerprint evidence. Every Home Secretary's nightmare!
Tony
Solihull

PLEASE keep us updated on Alan McNamara - many thanks for a fascinating, if perturbing programme. I am heartened by the comments I have read on this page - while normal British people have these reactions to this mis-carriage of justice, there is some hope for us after all!
Jacquie Hampton
Aylesbury

Looking back to the late 80s when I was deeply involved in the development of Automated Fingerprint Recognition systems, I can very well recall the views of one of Europe's leading experts that, "the UK system of confirmed identification was seriously flawed with, not only the '16 point rule', but also the principle of verifying, what is essentially, an expert's subjective view".
Peter C Hunter
Godalming

Most of the comments made so far have concentrated on the fallibility of the fingerprint evidence, but there is a more serious implication here, that of the fallibility of the legal process. It is possible - although I do not believe it to be the case - that Alan McNamara is guilty. However, the system requires that he is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. From what the programme showed, Alan McNamara was charged on the basis of a single piece of evidence, on which doubt had been cast by two leading experts in the field. Also, one of the criteria for a sound scientific hypothesis is that it must hold up under REPEATED experiment. The SOCO maintains that the print came from the box, but has been unable to lift a similar print since, therefore his own evidence is also in doubt. It appears that the jury cannot have been properly instructed, as reasonable doubt had clearly been established, and so the only correct verdict can be acquittal, regardless of whether or not he was in fact guilty. I hope the Home Secretary will undertake an urgent review of these processes before more innocent families have their lives destroyed.
Jonathan Bradbeer
Reading

Read your earlier comments