Posted by Trevor White, New Zealand on October 19, 1999 at 07:21:11:
From: soco.chch@ibm.net[SMTP:SOCO.CHCH@IBM.NET]
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 1999 12:22:24 PM
To: glasgow@scafo.org
Subject: SCOTTISH CASE - the experts who lied
My name is Trevor White. I have been engaged in fingerprint work since 1964. I work in a small city in New Zealand with 5 other fingerprint experts. Our experience ranges from 8 years up.
With the publication of the IAI presidents comment, we were concerned that fingerprint experts could disagree about a identification using 16 points of identity.
Pat Wertheim was contacted by email and he kindly sent us photographs of the item in question.
We have all carefully examined the located print and the print from Shirley McKie. There is no way that these two impressions are identical. In examination 4 points fall into line with allowance for distortion and background but then the apparant dissimilarities appear and even stretching the imagination, dont go away.
What I cant understand is how the person identifying the print managed to persaude 3 other SCRO experts to confirm his identity and 2 of them to conform his identification in Court.
But wait ....there is worse:
A letter sent by Superintendent Brian GORMAN to Mr COOMBES, Director of identification, New Scotland Yard, LONDON on 02 July 1999 covered this matter.
In the letter he stated -
"At the conclusion of this trial, I had an early meeting with the prosecuting advocate and the Crown. It is clear that they are satisfied with the integrity of the fingerprint experts from the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) and indeed, their Court presentation in this case."
I would assume that Superintendent GORMAN is not a fingerprint expert and is accepting what is clearly a cover up.
My colleagues and I applaud Pat Wertheim and Dave Grieve for uncovering what would have been a misrepresentation of our trade.