If you are an expert:

Click here to download a large tif file of the latent print (approx. 2300K file size). 
  -
Click here to download a large tif file of the record print (approx. 2800K file size). 

Fingerprint experts presented testimony about the latent and record prints, charting many "matching points" to prove the "identification."  Four of the alleged "matching points" are  indicated with red and green dots on the image below. 

 In January 1996, the body of Marion Ross, a middle-aged spinster, was found in her small home in Kilmarnock, Scotland. The investigation, as well as the search of the crime scene, was undertaken by the police agency with jurisdiction, the Strathclyde Police. They sealed off the scene, established perimeter control, and began the task of collecting evidence.

 Among other physical evidence, a number of crime scene marks (latent prints) were collected. A suspect developed, a young handyman named David Asbury, who had done some maintenance repairs in Miss Ross’ home a couple of years earlier. Evidence was collected from his apartment, including a small decorative tin that originally came with individually wrapped candy pieces in it. The tin had a scene painted on it of a horse drawn streetcar or carriage. 

 Subsequently, one mark on the tin was identified as having been made by the victim, Marion Ross, and one mark from the scene, found on a gift tag on an unopened Christmas gift, was identified as having been made by David Asbury. He was arrested and charged with murder. The only physical evidence used against him in court was the fingerprint evidence: his print inside the scene and the victim’s print on an item in his home. The Strathclyde Police do not have any fingerprint examiners and rely on the services of the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO). Four SCRO experts signed the report making the two identifications. 

 When the SCRO was eliminating the “outstanding” (unidentified) marks, one mark from inside the crime scene was identified as having been made by Detective Constable Shirley McKie. The fingerprint evidence in the Asbury trial was thrown into doubt when DC McKie testified that she had not been inside the Ross home, in spite of the “fact” that her fingerprint had been identified there. (See “Scotland Case” on this web site). The same four SCRO experts who had signed the report identifying David Asbury inside the scene and Marion Ross in Asbury’s apartment had also signed the report naming DC McKie as the source of the elimination mark inside the scene.

 In spite of the doubt DC McKie threw on the fingerprint evidence, the jury convicted David Asbury of murder and sentenced him to life in prison.

 This site attempts to give fingerprint examiners around the world a look at the mark on the candy tin and the inked print of Marion Ross, which was “identified” by the SCRO. The mark used in court was not the clearest photograph available, but was one that appears to have been taken slightly out of focus. A crisp, sharply in focus photograph of the mark was found in other court exhibits. In addition, the image of the mark used for charting purposes appears to be digitally degraded, rather than enhanced. Compare the sharp photograph of the mark with the out-of-focus photograph of the mark, and then with the image in the charted enlargements.

 Conduct your own comparison and reach your own conclusion. Do you see points in the mark that are not there in the inked? Do you see points in the inked that are not there in the mark? Can you see each of the sixteen points where they supposedly exist in the latent? Is the mark of no value? Is it an erroneous identification? Assuming that the mark on the gift tag was a correct identification of David Asbury inside the scene, as outside experts have easily agreed, should the conviction stand when it was based in part on this “identification,” or should David Asbury be granted a new trial? You be the judge and please post your thoughts on the comments page.

The Examiner never apprenticed under a competent examiner, but had a self-trained Latent Print Examiner "mentor" 90 miles away who occasionally reviewed some identifications.  The "mentor" (employed by the Illinois State Police laboratory system) was "charged" with making a separate  erroneous identification three months after the error displayed here was discovered.  The "mentor" had never been proficiency tested, had previously retired from a California law enforcement agency as a crime scene technician and was basically self-trained having never apprenticed under any Latent Print Examiner.  The chart scanned here was used during testimony at both a preliminary hearing and a parole revocation hearing.  Legal prosecution ceased when the error was revealed.  The Examiner's agency did not require identification verifications... and also did not participate in annual proficiency testing. 

American Latent Print Examiners Pat Wertheim and David Grieve presented testimony that it is NOT an identification. 

Shirlie McKie was found not guilty and no indication has been made public to date as to whether the jury concurred with the foreign experts or merely considered their testimony as negating the Scottish experts. 

As recently as July 7, 1999 the Scottish Criminal Records Office was still asserting this is a valid identification. 

Senior Latent Print Examiners (20 to 35 years experience) from several countries have related to me that this is NOT a valid identification.  Some have signed the comments page. 

On January 19th, 2000, the first UK police expert publicly denounced the SCRO "ident" (first to the author's knowledge).  Allan Bayle, a senior fingerprint expert (Ridgeology Specialist) with New Scotland Yard's Scientific Support College posted:

I looked at the McKie case in September. The mark is not identical. I have shown this mark to many experts in the UK and they have come to the same conclusions. I am willing to assist the Mckies, on this mark should they require it. 

If you are not a fingerprint expert and this all sounds like Greek to you, click here to see the three latent print images in the same relative size and same orientation.  The blue outline on the two larger images corresponds with the latent print area in the court chart. 

The court chart has image sampling pixel interference (mottled square or step-like artifacts) and very high contrast. 

The SCRO crime scene photo is slightly blurred, but includes all the ridge detail. 

The March 1999 crime scene photo has the best clarity or sharpness of the three images, but includes only ridge detail that is also present in the slightly blurred SCRO crime scene photo. 

The red dots below the green dot are points 4 and 5 in the above record and latent print charts. 

The red dots with yellow arrows were NOT charted by the SCRO experts, but are two of the most obvious discrepancies (neither is present in the other print). 

 Look like it should have been tossed in the trash to begin with? 

Do you think that problems like this "identification" should be kept hidden... or publicly shared for unrestricted peer review.