Thursday, January 19, 2012

Shirley McKie case; Fingerprint misidentification: Author of forensic science text says fingerprint testimony should be treated as "opinion."

STORY: "Shirley McKie case: Fingerprint misidentification," by Jim Fisher published on January 9, 2012 on his blog.

GIST: "In 2011, the Scottish Special Services Authority (SPSA) held hearings on the SCRO fingerprint misidentifications in the McKie and Asbury cases. The proceedings featured 64 witnesses giving 250 hours of testimony over a period of five days. The authors of the SPSA report, published on December 14, 2011, concluded that human error (rather than a conspiracy) was to blame for the misidentifications. (A lot of people believe there was a conspiracy and cover-up, especially in the McKie case. I am one of them.) The authors of the report also concluded that fingerprint identification should be treated as opinion-based testimony rather than fact-based. This recommendation has angered members of the forensic fingerprint identification community worldwide. After researching and writing my book, "Forensics Under Fire" which contains a chapter on the Shirley McKie case, I agree that fingerprint identification testimony should be treated as opinion."


PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:

Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;;