• Chairman's Letter
• Reader's guide to the Report
• The Parts and Chapters
• Preface
• Introduction
• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5
• Part 6
• Part 7
• Part 8
  • Chapter 42
  • Chapter 43
• Appendices

Part 8 Key Findings and Recommendations - Chapter 42 Key Findings And Key Recommendations

Key Findings

I made numerous findings in the course of the Inquiry, which are described in the text throughout this Report. The following statements are those which I consider my key findings.

1. There is no evidence other than the mark Y7 to suggest that Ms McKie at any time entered Miss Ross's house beyond the area of the porch.
2. The mark Y7 on the door-frame of the bathroom in Miss Ross's house was misidentified as the fingerprint of Ms McKie.
3. Ms McKie did not make the mark Y7.
4. There was no conspiracy against Ms McKie in Strathclyde Police and all reasonable steps were taken by that force to seek from SCRO confirmation of the identification of Y7.
5. The mark QI2 Ross was misidentified as the fingerprint of Miss Ross.
6. There was no impropriety on the part of any of the SCRO fingerprint examiners who misidentified the mark Y7 as having been made by Ms McKie or the mark QI2 Ross as having been made by Miss Ross. These were opinions genuinely held by them.
7. The marks Y7 and QI2 Ross were both misidentified by SCRO fingerprint examiners due to human error and there is nothing sinister about the fact that these two errors occurred in the same case.
8. The misidentifications of Y7 and QI2 Ross expose weaknesses in the methodology of fingerprint comparison and in particular where it involves complex marks.
9. Fingerprint examiners are presently ill-equipped to reason their conclusions as they are accustomed to regarding their conclusions as a matter of certainty and seldom challenged.
10. There is no reason to suggest that fingerprint comparison in general is an inherently unreliable form of evidence but practitioners and fact-finders alike require to give due consideration to the limits of the discipline.

Key Recommendations

In all I have indicated 86 recommendations for future action as a result of the Inquiry, which are described in the chapters comprising Part 7 and in full in chapter 43. There are ten which I consider to be key recommendations.

1. Fingerprint evidence should be recognised as opinion evidence, not fact, and those involved in the criminal justice system need to assess it as such on its merits.
2. Examiners should discontinue reporting conclusions on identification or exclusion with a claim to 100% certainty or on any other basis suggesting that fingerprint evidence is infallible.
3. Examiners should receive training which emphasises that their findings are based on personal opinion; and that this opinion is influenced by the quality of the materials that are examined, their ability to observe detail in mark and print reliably, the subjective interpretation of observed characteristics, the cogency of explanations for any differences and the subjective view of 'sufficiency'.
4. Differences of opinion between examiners should not be referred to as 'disputes'.
5. The SPSA's Standard Operating Procedures should set out in detail the ACE-V process that is to be followed.
6. Features on which examiners rely should be demonstrable to a lay person with normal eyesight as observable in the mark.
7. Explanations for any differences between a mark and a print require to be cogent if a finding of identification is to be made.
8. A finding of identification should not be made if there is an unexplained difference between a mark and a print.
9. The SPSA should develop a process to ensure that complex marks (such as Y7 and QI2 Ross) are treated differently. The examination should be undertaken by three suitably qualified examiners who reach their conclusions independently and make notes at each stage of their examination. The substantive basis for the examiners' conclusions should be reviewed. The reasons why they have reached their respective conclusions should be explored and recorded, even where they agree that an identification can be made.
10. An emphasis needs to be placed on the importance not only of learning and practising the methodology of fingerprint work, but also of engaging with members of the academic community working in the field.