There
is no doubt that bringing in an independent mind to confirm an identification
will drastically reduce the incidence of error. But is the verification process really independent and can we
rely on it to prevent misidentifications?
As
far as I know, verification is done by someone in the same team who has
received the same on-the-job training as the person who did the initial
analysis and if someone knows they are doing a verification they
will have a prior expectation.
Most jobs I can think of have a natural feedback mechanism which comes from producing out-of-specification goods or from unhappy customers, and this corrects working practices. In fingerprinting, proven misidentifications are so very rare that I cannot see where this feedback mechanism comes from. Without it there is the very real possibility that fingerprint experts discussing technique will lead to a dangerous change in the way they make their judgements. This change will apply to both the original examiner and the person carrying out the verification.
Fingerprint experts who are completely independent of the SCRO, including one hired by Shirley McKie’s solicitor for her defence, verified that crime scene print Y7 was deposited by McKie. Other experts who are independent of Pat Werthiem (who first announced that Y7 could not have been deposited by McKie) have verified his opinion. In the Mayfield misidentification case (Madrid terrorist bomb), an independent fingerprint expert appointed by the court verified the FBI’s match between Mayfield and a print on the bomb materials. Someone else was later found who had a closer fingerprint match.
Verification cannot give a 100% guarantee that misidentifications will not occur.
Back
to Fingerprinting Innocentville
Back to Statistical Certainty of the McKie Fingerprint Identification