shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Fiscal · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 111 Location: Edinburgh

I stated nothing wrongly...I marked Domestic Assault cases when I was a Depute.

A spouse can only be compelled to give evidence against their partner where they have given a statement to the police. Just because medical evidence would support an allegation of assault that doesn't prove who inflicted the injuries hence the need for a statement corroborated by another witness something along the line of "I heard an argument and then screams" I would suggest is sufficient and if I in a police report received a statement from the complainer (victim) which was corroborated by a neighbour in the manner outlined above I would proceed and likely mark the case Sheriff Summary Custody and would oppose bail or certainly ask for a special condition that the accused do not approach or contact the complainer nor enter the matrimonial home (or any other residence in which the spouse regularly resides)

If the complainer does not cooperate with the police then no charges can be brought - s/he could deny it was his/her wife/husband that did it.

If a statement was made at the time and then in court the usual "I can't remember" comes out I would ask "You gave a statement to the police on ...., is that correct?" "Yes" (if no, then "You did give a statement to the police, please have Crown Production X before you"), "What you told the police at that time, was it the truth" Usual answer is yes, in that case under the authority of Jamieson v HMA I would put the statement to him/her and lead on it. If they say they can't remember if what they said was not the truth they face criminal prosecution as you should ALWAYS tell the police and courts the truth in the interests of justice it is a legislative and moral duty which no one can easily refute.

_________________
Mr Fiscal

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 148

I've just been reading a fascinating article published in the Journal of Forensic Identification in April 2006.

A group of fingerprint experts were (unbeknown to them) presented with prints they'd "identified" or "excluded" some years previously. Some of the prints came with contextual information which was the opposite to what it should have been - ie, "positive id prints" came with information that the were from a highly publicised erroneous id, and vice versa. The experts were told to ignore all of the contextual information and concentrate solely on the prints themselves.

Result? Two thirds of the experts made inconsistent decisions to those they had made in the past on the same sets of prints! Even more interestingly, even in the "control" condition, where no "wrong" information was included, and the prints were presented exactly as they had been in the past, still one third came back with a different result.
So much for the "science" of it all.

It seems our fingerprint experts are highly susceptible to making decisions based on the information that comes with the prints, rather than just looking at the prints themselves.
It would be very interesting to see how this generalises to other "forensic sciences," given that we know all of the "experts" are given details of the case when they are asked to "find" matches.
_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Angeline

I think a while back I read the same article but I also read an article where the Y7 was placed before students and none Identified it as belonging to Shirley McKie.

There is some great comments regarding all this on CLPEX Detail Chatboard that might interest you

Best Wishes

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

The following article has only served to anger me for the simple reason I have been waiting to get a hearing in our High Court since last year.

Along comes Mr Mulhern trying to stall the inevitable and he gets top priority and a hearing within days.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/n...ll_go_to_the_Court_of_Session.php

I think it unlikely Mr Mulhern will succeed.

He works for SPSA and they have every right to discipline him or investigate him.