 |
shirleymckie.myfastforum.org
To allow readers to post comments on current issues related to the Shirley McKie case
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 11:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Steve
| Quote: | | Mr Mackenzie didn't really answer this. |
Mr McKenzie reminds me of a little primary 1 school kid cowering in the corner, after a ballocking from the teacher, afraid to look up.
He has not made eye contact with Andrew Smith QC since he started asking him questions.
What also stuck out on friday was this, The minute Andrew Smith QC started asking Mr McKenzie questions Fiona McBride started flapping, is the only way to describe her actions.
Even her lawyer got fed up with her getting up and down to pass him notes he told her to sit down, Not Mr Holmes, her other Lawyer next to Mr Holmes.
Ms Mcbride hasn't moved from her seat like this with any other witness though to be fair they have all been looking at her when giving evidence apart from Mr McKenzie.
Perhaps he knows what has been said about Geddes and does not want to be accused of the same, I really do not know, but his arrogance with Andrew Smith QC has been well noted throughout the inquiry.
In my opinion it is good manners to look at someone when they are speaking to you, but then again if you do not want someone to see your expression then you would look away only if you have something to hide though.
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm
http://williambeck.blogspot.com/
http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FoolsGold
Joined: 07 Sep 2009
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big Wullie wrote: |
would there have been sufficient in your view to
eliminate the print of Shirley McKie on the information
available?
A. No, sir, |
There seems to be a lack of precision in the testimony.
And no one seems to be asking the obvious questions about if this was a mis-identification was it a mis-identification error that although regretable was a reasonable or understandable error to have been made or was it an egregious error unsupportable by anyone with the slightest skill in the process involved? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotkaz
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 526
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
There doesn't seem to be much in the media about the inquiry. I would have thought this would have been very newsworthy. Or are media not allowed to report on much of it? But that doesn't make sense either since the transcripts of the proceedings are online daily
_________________
Great Spirit, grant that I may not criticize my neighbor until I have walked a mile in his moccasins." - Old Native American Indian Prayer that my dad taught me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:29 am Post subject: Arie Zeelenberg Evidence Unchallenged At Inquiry |
|
|
Yesterday saw Arie Zeelenberg's 17 points he disputed go Unchallenged by SCRO and their lawyers.
Not once did the Lawyers representing SCRO refer back to Arie's presentation nor his 17 points of discrepancies.
These actions speak volumes.
Arie was asked however to explain why he threatened McKenzie & Dunbar and his answer, well he said if you see a colleague running towards a cliff what would you do ?
You would warn him wouldn't you.
Arie explained that because of their actions in denying they were wrong Scotland was looked upon as the Laughing Stock of the Fingerprint World.
He tried to warn them that their children would look back at History and see their Fathers and Grandfathers were found to be liars and when he said this to them at Tulliallan they actually agreed and said they had been thinking the same.
No Threat, just friendly advice.
Mr Zeelenberg has been the most comfortable witness I have seen in the witness box throughout this Inquiry with every aspect of his evidence and looking at the man it is clear he was not capable of making the threats SCRO tried to attribute to him.
He also claimed he would never have been in any Position of Authority to make any threats to anyone in Scotland.......I have to agree.
At the end of the day what mattered more to Mr Zeelenberg was his ethics and Justice................He did not want to see people wrongly sent to Gaol.
Arie Zeelenberg also pointed to a culture in Scotland where experts are not allowed to speak out against other experts certainly not their colleagues and this still exists says Arie within SPSA.
This culture must stop and the Fingerprinting must be taken away from the Police Services to allow for Independence and to stop the presure placed upon these experts.
Although Daktari (McKenzie's Son) claims on another thread that the SCRO workers are facing their accusers head on, His Father and Mr Dunbar were absent throughout Arie Zeelenberg's evidence.
This is strange because after all they were the ones to accuse Mr Zeelenberg of threatening them and their families.
As for the claim today from Mr Holmes that his clients were told they could not comment on Y7 and QI2 they have persistently done so throughout with Ms McBride being the ringleader and Mr Geddes doing his level best to get Marion Scott from the Sunday Mail to do a story through Mr Les Broon.
Mr Holmes might not have been told about the Herald article that Ms McBride actually posted here on this site CLPEX yet he made an allegation today which was totally wrong that they have been prevented from speaking out about their findings.
The real truth of the matter is Daktari posted the article here:
Topic: McKie's facing court appearance?
And what Fiona McBride claimed:
"I then worked on the case for Scottish ministers right up until the settlement was made. Scottish Executive solicitors were still telling me to confirm my accurate identification of the print when Jack McConnell stood up in public and said it had been an honest mistake'.
Confirmation they used Les Broon:
Les Brown, a former police detective, has been working with Ms McBride and the other experts to try to clear their names. He said: "To me this would appear to be unfair dismissal. I have been investigating this for the past year this is disgraceful. She has not done anything wrong.
In doing so they broke the rules of Disclosure they are bound by when working for the Crown
Another herald article can be found here:
Topic: McKie's facing court appearance?
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/di ... 09.0.0.php
Thanks again Mr McKenzie Junior.
I take it your father sanctioned all these postings and perhaps helped and encouraged you along the way ?
If it was up to me he would be questioned again and recalled to go over everything you have posted over the years.
The ironic part here is: while he is claiming to have been gagged, and indeed took the money and ran, you are posting his words on this forum.
That's right isn't it Mr McKenzie.
Perhaps the Inquiry team will see fit to question you over who's words you have been posting..............Interesting.
Are you also a fingerprint officer Mr McKenzie Junior ?
Please tell us what position you hold ?
Arie Zeelenberg's "Unchallenged" Presentation can be found here:
AZ_0061 at the Inquiry Site :
http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... &Submit=Go
Congratulations Mr Zeelenberg for standing up for Justice.
It was an Honour and Priviledge to meet you.
Transcript of yesterdays evidence can be found here:
http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... 1.221.html
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm
http://williambeck.blogspot.com/
http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
For me Mr Holmes done more damage to the Scottish Experts with his opening question here:
MR HOLMES: In paragraph 8 of your statement you say that
9 you:
10 "... believe that there was a concerted effort to
11 discourage and discredit anyone within the fingerprint
12 community in the UK who opposes SCRO or even wants an
13 open and free evaluation of the marks ..."
14 By whom?
15 A. What do you mean "by whom"?
16 Q. You say that you believe that there was a concerted
17 effort to discourage and discredit anyone who opposes
18 SCRO. I am asking on whose part this effort has been
19 made.
20 A. If it's concerted effort I think it implies many people
21 do that. I can give you some examples of what indicates
22 it was a concerted effort. The study and discussion of
23 the print was systematically blocked and discouraged by
24 everybody involved. The Internet material was
25 discredited and if you would use it you were mentioned
page 3
1 in the public domain by police management, you were
2 addressed as incompetent.
3 I look at the treatment of the early contradicters
4 from the Lothian & Borders Police. They are never heard
5 of since. I've spoken to, on some locations (sic), of
6 one of them. If I look at the treatment that Gary
7 Dempster received. He stood up to be counted. I see
8 that people who wanted to sign our petition were
9 threatened or were not wanting or unable to sign openly.
10 I see how Mr Dave Charlton is treated in the public
11 domain. He wanted some discussion about the
12 fingerprint. He was then an editor of the Fingerprint
13 World Society issue.
14 I have my own contacts with the Scottish staff. If
15 I am in the UK and I meet a lot of fingerprint Experts
16 in the UK I just see that no-one, really no-one, is
17 prepared to talk about this fingerprint. They just fear
18 to raise the matter at any time. I think the management
19 has been very effective in that.
20 The police management was airing untenable positions
21 outside their knowledge domain. We see police chief
22 coming to the public domain and saying you cannot say
23 this and they are talking about fingerprints and they
24 uphold terrible positions suggesting that the
25 fingerprint -- that there is difference of opinion
page 4
1 within fingerprint experts and they even went against
2 their own experts in that. Their experts said we are --
3 one of us is right or wrong and the police chiefs came
4 and said, well, you know, experts differ.
5 So there is so much. There's a court ruling that
6 Shirley McKie was innocent and she was acquitted and
7 people went openly against it. There's so, so much that
8 was telling you that everybody that went against anybody
9 who was in the public domain. Even when I assisted
10 Mr Dror and he acknowledged me he later told me just for
11 the fact that he mentioned my names he received hate
12 mails. I think that's -- I leave it to that.
Hate mail because he was mentioned, Wonder where that came from ?
Laughing stock of World
Q. The following paragraph of your statement, if I can move
17 on to that, please, states that the question of whether
18 Shirley McKie is the donor of Y7 has been answered by
19 the official bodies that dealt with it and the
20 fingerprint community at large.
21 Does this mean that you fail to see the need for the
22 present proceedings?
23 A. No, I've always been an advocate for these proceedings
24 and that's also why I'm here. But if you refer to where
25 this comes from, I think HMIC has investigated it, the
page 6
1 Minister for Justice came to Parliament, we have
2 other -- Justice 1 has received it. I think Mr Mulhern
3 accepted that it was a mistake. The International
4 Association for Identification has investigated it now
5 and I have met numerous, numerous, numerous experts who
6 have seen it and I wonder, I really wonder what's going
7 on in Scotland and, if I may say so, they regard the
8 profession in Scotland as the laughing stock of the rest
9 of the world.
Q. You go on to explain your position further in
16 paragraph 15 of your statement. You say that:
17 "If there is a matter of competency, the litmus test
18 is mark Y7 itself. If one is unable to assess that this
19 mark is not identical to the print of Shirley McKie,
20 then either competency or otherwise, serious causes must
21 be taken into account."
22 Is that to say that the test for competency is
23 whether the expert in question agrees with your
24 assessment of Y7?
25 A. Not necessarily. I say we have a fingerprint in front
page 10
1 of us and every independent assessment of this came to
2 the same conclusion, that it is not identical to the
3 fingerprint of Shirley McKie. If we want to measure any
4 type of competency, then if somebody is unable to see
5 all the differences then he has a serious problem.
6 Q. So if somebody does not agree with your stated view of
7 Y7 then they are not a competent expert?
8 A. I am not asking you to agree with my conclusion. I'm
9 asking you to look at my evidence and all the
10 discrepancies there are between the fingerprints and I
11 contest that I think everybody that has looked at it can
12 see what I'm saying.
13 Q. What you are saying in that paragraph is that the litmus
14 test for competency is the assessment of mark Y7 itself.
15 Is that not tantamount to saying that any expert that
16 does not agree with your assessment of Y7 is not a
17 competent expert?
18 A. I'm not saying that. I'm not agreeing with my
19 assessment. I'm asking you to look at the fingerprint
20 and the fingerprint is telling everything there is and
21 there is no competent expert in the world that I know of
22 that disagrees with this position
.
Why would Mr Holmes refuse to visit the Presentation of Arie after this invitation, One Wonders
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm
http://williambeck.blogspot.com/
http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
23 Q. Having been employed by a Government agency to look at
24 Y7, did you not feel at all conflicted when you then
25 went on to act for Miss McKie herself during her civil
page 13
1 claim against the Scottish Ministers?
2 A. Not at all. Not at all. I think that if I see that a
3 mistake is made and if I look at the Code of Ethics from
4 the NSVI and other bodies, then you have an obligation
5 as an expert that if you see there is a miscarriage of
6 justice going on that you also have to take up the act
7 and I am an expert in fingerprinting and this profession
8 is quite dominated by the police and people who are
9 suffering from a mistake or whatever you call it, a
10 probable mistake, they have a hard time finding an
11 independent expert and I think it's improper for experts
12 to just to choose the side of the police and just help
13 also these people in the interests of justice.
14 I take it a step further, if I may, I have intimated
15 under the umbrella of ENSVI to erect an arbitrage body
16 that will enable people to address to us and if they
17 think a mistake is made we offer them an independent
18 consult, free from the best experts we can find in
19 Europe and that is one of the reasons and that is going
20 to be effected probably. The proposals are ready.
21 We're looking for funding and I think we all have the
22 obligations. We only serve one goal: that is the truth
23 and my profession.
Well done Arie and I hope this could eventually be rolled out for DNA experts too where they could give free advice.
The problem with Scotland for centuries lies within Legal Aid, people were normally refused legal aid to challenge these experts, This culture must change.
Anyone who claims to be Innocent surely has the right to Independent Expert advice.
If Shirley McKie was on Legal Aid this would never have paid for her to seek experts advice outside Scotland.
In fact I am sure Iain will correct me if I am wrong, but I think Shirley still had to pay for her independent Experts from her own pocket, as this was not covered. so our country as well as being the Laughing Stock of the world over the fingerprints I think if the rest of the world only knew what goes on at Legal Aid they would be horrified at this too.
It has always been taken for granted that if two experts said it was your print you were doomed, you were not allowed to challenge this, and how dare you.
What also came from this inquiry the other day is this:
These experts at SCRO's work was only checked a year before and after Y7 & QI2 and found to be fault free.
Why hasn't all their work been checked for mistakes ? are they afraid of what they will find.
One has to wonder if this culture of not going against your Boss existed then how many other mistakes have been made out of fear ?
Fear of losing ones Job, House & family etc etc ?
How many other mistakes have went unnoticed because they (SCRO) never told Crown Office or Defence teams there was any disputes (in-house) or otherwise.
How many other times have they went to trial knowing they have rejected experts evidence (Who could not find 16 points) to find others who will find their required 16 points, Some experts within SCRO could only find 8 points yet their evidence was never disclosed to anyone, they were simply just bypassed.
Perhaps His Lordship Mr Campbell might see fit to recommend that people be given access to Independent experts in Scotland in his final report.
Full disclosure of every aspect from start to finish should be disclosed to both Crown and Defence teams and this would entail knowing every single expert who has looked at the mark and their opinions.
Having sat and listened to this Inquiry I now feel the need to apologise also to Mr Moynihan for my earlier remarks of having no faith in him.
I now feel Mr Moynihan is doing a great job of getting to the truth in this Inquiry and leaving no stones unturned.
Well done Mr Moynihan
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm
http://williambeck.blogspot.com/
http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Because of a lack of volunteers to give evidence this week the Inquiry will not sit till thursday when Iain McKie will give evidence, which is anticipated will last for two days.
17 discrepancies Arie Zeelenberg pointed out without Question the other day.
How can SCRO (Now SPSA) recover after such incompetencies ?
And still have at least two who Identified Y7 as Shirley Mckie's still working within their offices ?
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm
http://williambeck.blogspot.com/
http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotkaz
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 526
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Thanks again Mr McKenzie Junior.
I take it your father sanctioned all these postings and perhaps helped and encouraged you along the way ?
If it was up to me he would be questioned again and recalled to go over everything you have posted over the years.
The ironic part here is: while he is claiming to have been gagged, and indeed took the money and ran, you are posting his words on this forum.
That's right isn't it Mr McKenzie.
Perhaps the Inquiry team will see fit to question you over who's words you have been posting..............Interesting.
Are you also a fingerprint officer Mr McKenzie Junior ?
Please tell us what position you hold ? |
Wullie, are you saying that someone related to Mr McKenzie who is involved in the inquiry is posting information given to him on public message boards?
If so, surely this is a breech of confidentiality to say the very least. It is also very unprofessional.
This should be investigated fully. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W.Roughead
Joined: 25 Oct 2008
Posts: 120
Location: Scotland.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There have been no media reports on this Inquiry, which I find given past publicity, not to mention its importance, astounding!
_________________
“Send not to know for whom the bell tolls – it tolls for thee.” John Donne. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Wullie
Joined: 25 Apr 2007
Posts: 1149
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Wullie, are you saying that someone related to Mr McKenzie who is involved in the inquiry is posting information given to him on public message boards? |
Yes Scotkaz, the Son of Robert McKenzie (Ex SCRO) has posted on CLPEX as Daktari for years and quite clearly his comments come from the Father.
An interesting article on Fingerprints
Study: Fingerprint Evidence Isn't Infallible
Researcher Says Faulty Analysis Can Occur and Is Difficult to Detect
A single fingerprint found at the scene of a crime is such powerful evidence that it's almost an automatic conviction. Fingerprints never lie: Juries have been told that for more than a century.
But a criminologist at the University of California, Irvine, has documented 22 cases, most involving violent crimes, in which fingerprint evidence turned out to be dead wrong, usually discovered after defendants had served time for crimes they did not commit.
The fingerprints didn't lie. But the experts who matched them with a suspect were wrong, and subsequently had to admit it, according to court records analyzed by Simon Cole, assistant professor of criminology, law and society at Irvine.
Cole's exhaustive research argues that the "zero error rate" claimed by fingerprint experts needs serious retooling. His findings are published in the current issue of the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology.
'A Miscarriage of Justice'
The cases include one man who volunteered for hazardous assignments while in prison to earn money to pay for DNA research involving his case. That research eventually cleared him, despite the fact that experts had testified that his fingerprint implicated him in the attempted murder of a police officer.
In another case, a corpse found in the Nevada desert was identified – on the basis of fingerprints – as that of a California woman who later turned up alive.
Most of the cases studied by Cole were covered by the media, partly because they involved sensational events like the Madrid train bombing last year that killed 191 people. Cole suspects there are many other cases, possibly more than 1,000 each year in the United States alone, in which fingerprints have been matched erroneously with the wrong person.
Cole isn't saying that fingerprints are not a useful tool for law enforcement. All he's saying is their "error rate" is more than zero, and some way needs to be found to put their reliability into perspective.
"To tell the jury that it's positive identification, that it's infallible, that it's 100 percent certain is overstating the value of it," Cole said in an interview. "It may well be that it's right 95 percent of the time, but when it's wrong it's very unlikely for us to know about it. So it's likely to result in a miscarriage of justice."
There are multi-layered programs designed to prevent errors, including a requirement for independent verification. Cole found only 22 cases, spanning several decades, but he was limited to cases that have come to public attention.
"An analysis of these cases shows that they are most likely only the tip of the proverbial iceberg of actual cases of fingerprint misattribution," he writes.
In most of the cases he studied, the error did not surface during the routine processing of the case. It surfaced because of "extraordinary circumstances," such as the confession of someone else, which Cole describes as "always a fortuitous and highly unlikely event." So he concludes there are probably many less "fortuitous" cases where the error is never discovered.
Perfect Method, Imperfect Analysts
Part of the problem stems from the nature of the evidence itself. Fingerprints taken from the scene of a crime (called latent prints) are not always clearly defined.
"They are typically partial, smudged or otherwise distorted," according to Cole.
That would seem a clear path for errors, but experts routinely testify that the "methodological error rate" is zero. How can that be, especially now that several cases have surfaced?
When fingerprint analysts testify that the method is perfect, they are talking about the fact that no two fingerprints are exactly the same, so one and only one person can match the prints. They frequently use mathematics as an analogy.
The equation 2+2=4 is correct. If a mathematician comes up with an answer of five, the method isn't wrong – the mathematician is.
But the chance that the fingerprint analyst is wrong is not taken into account when the evidence is presented to the court, Cole says. Repeatedly, during the 22 cases he documents, the experts testified that the chance of error was essentially zero.
Madrid Mix-up
The most celebrated case of mismatching involved a Portland, Ore., lawyer, Brandon Mayfield, who was arrested and held for two weeks as a suspect in the Madrid train bombing last year.
Spanish National Police sent fingerprints from the crime scene to law enforcement agencies around the world, including the FBI, in an attempt to identify the bomber.
Mayfield, in retrospect, may have been a sitting duck. He was a Muslim convert with an Egyptian wife, a United States Army veteran, and he had once represented one of the "Portland Seven" who had pled guilty to conspiracy to wage war against the U.S.
Spanish authorities questioned the match, and the FBI even sent agents to Spain to try to convince them that Mayfield was their man.
Spanish police, however, found another man who was a better match for the prints, and Mayfield was released. At the time of his arrest, Mayfield told authorities he had not been out of the country in 10 years, and didn't even have a passport.
And according to Cole, one of the FBI agents who had insisted the fingerprints were those of Mayfield had been reprimanded for making false attributions in 1969 and 1974.
Exonerated by DNA
One of the most troubling cases involves Stephan Cowans, who was convicted of attempted murder in 1997 for allegedly shooting a police officer while fleeing a robbery in Roxbury, Mass. He was implicated in the crime by the testimony of two witnesses, including the victim, and a fingerprint found on a cup.
Cowans insisted he was innocent, but several experts testified that the fingerprint was his. He was convicted and sent to prison.
While in jail he volunteered for "biohazard" work assignments to earn money for DNA tests. Three DNA samples from the mug and from a hat and a sweatshirt discarded by the perpetrator all excluded Cowans.
As a result, the Boston police department re-examined the fingerprint and determined that the match had been an error. It was later found that one of the fingerprint experts who had testified at Cowans' trial had "discovered" the error but concealed it.
Cowans was released, but he served six years in prison for a crime he did not commit.
And he owes his freedom not only to his own perseverance, but to happenstance as well. If the real villain had not been "so obliging" to drink from the cup and discard two pieces of clothing containing his DNA, "it is virtually certain that Cowans would have served his full sentence of 35 years without anyone ever knowing that the fingerprint evidence (and the eyewitness evidence) was erroneous," Cole writes.
It doesn't exactly sound infallible.
Lee Dye's column appears weekly on ABCNEWS.com. A former science writer for the Los Angeles Times, he now lives in Juneau, Alaska.
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm
http://williambeck.blogspot.com/
http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
