An article in The Independent, 23 October 2000
By Ian Burrell, Home Affairs Correspondent
The trusted system that wrongly fingered a detective
Britain's identification system
has serious flaws, but is still seen as irrefutable evidence and rarely challenged
in court
When fingerprint experts told Detective Constable Shirley McKie that her
thumbprint had been found at the scene of a murder, she said it was like "being trapped
in a bad nightmare". Ms McKie knew she had never been inside the house in Kilmarnock,
Scotland, where Marion Ross was murdered in 1997. She told the experts they had made
a mistake. A man was later convicted of the murder but the policewoman's steadfast
refusal to accept that the doorframe print belonged to her infuriated some of her
colleagues at Strathclyde Police. She was put on trial for perjury.
Ms McKie told
the BBC's Crime Squad programme, which features her case tonight: "I knew it was
not my fingerprint. I could not understand why they were saying it was or how this
could be." A jury acquitted Ms McKie last year after an American fingerprint expert
gave evidence that the print was not hers. The detective has left Strathclyde Police
on health grounds. Four fingerprint experts from the Scottish Criminal Records Office
are suspended, pending an investigation into the case.
Ms McKie said: "It could happen
to absolutely anyone. A normal person that does not necessarily have a police background
or the help that I had, would be in prison now, and that's frightening." The case
has stunned Britain's network of police fingerprint experts. Yesterday, the national
head of police fingerprint training in the UK called for an overhaul of the 76-year-old
system and spoke of his fears that "corners were being cut". Geoffrey Sheppard said
the UK should ditch its "16-point" fingerprinting system in favour of the "non-numerical"
American model.
In the UK, the 16-point system, where experts look for 16 matching
marks between two prints, is widely seen as irrefutable evidence and almost always
goes unchallenged in court. Under the more rigorous American system, an accredited
expert gives an opinion on whether two prints match, which must be upheld by two
independent experts and is open to challenge in court. The 16-point system was introduced
in 1924 after a Frenchman, Alphonse Bertillion, described it in a New Zealand scientific
journal, which was seen by Scotland Yard.
Mr Sheppard said: "For no scientific reason
they chose the number 16. It could have been any number but we have stuck to that
ever since." Some British forces use an eight-point or even six-point standard to
identify prints they wish to eliminate from a crime scene. "It's an absolute mish-mash.
You either have standards or you don't," said Mr Sheppard. "The non-numerical system
would rid the profession of these numbers games."
A spokesman for the Association
of Chief Police Officers told The Independent it was likely to switch to the American
system next year. He said: "We expect to be able to make an announcement early next
year about a move to replace the numerical standard for fingerprint evidence with
a system based on improved professional practice, including quality assurance and
competency testing of fingerprint officers." All fingerprint experts will also be
required to go before the new London-based Council for the Registration of Forensic
Practitioners, which will ensure procedures are being properly followed.
Mr Sheppard
said that in a 35-year career in fingerprint, he had rarely known a defence barrister
question an expert's findings. He said: "I honestly believe that the Bar Council,
the Magistrates' Association, all believe the same thing: once you have got fingerprint
evidence the case is closed, he's guilty." David Wilson, a criminologist at the University
of Central England, said he was surprised by the police admissions. He said: "Ultimately,
fingerprint identification is a matter of opinion and what we need is a system which
ensures that we get the correct opinion."
Editor: This woman was forced out of her job and almost stitched up. Another example of the absolute farce that passes for British justice. Too many people are convicted in Britain because of someone's wrong opinion, it is common place. So called experts are rarely as expert as they are made out to be.
www.slimeylimeyjustice.org