shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

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

Today the Fingerprint Inquiry heard from Richard Luckcraft and Allan Bayle.

Morning:

http://www.thefingerprintinquirys.../2009-10-20%20AM%20Transcript.pdf

Mr Luckcraft left Aberdeen to come to Glasgow in the hope of a higher position and what he found was absolute Arrogance and Malpractice, he could not get out of the place quick enough.

Mr Griffiths assured Mr Luckcraft that all was well within SCRO and claimed their mistake was down to looking at another image

He wrote to Jim Wallace to complain about his treatment and the culture within SCRO where he claimed they were living on top of each other practically.

They were told to ignore the 10-10 and that basically to ignore all their training at Durham and do things the SCRO way or no way as they were the best in the World, This certainly contrasts with Arie Zeelenberg saying they are the laughing stock of the world the other day.

Mr Luckcraft claimed he was told off, for going to the toilet without asking permission by his supervisor.

Because he dared to challenge a wrong Identification which was eventually stopped from leaving the Bureau things started to go wrong for him and his letter to Jim Wallace was about Malpractice within SCRO.

Mr Luckcraft claimed because he contacted other bureaux he was threatened with Breach Of Official Secrets Acts and he only contacted them to check the 16 point standard because he felt the students were constantly being pushed on the 16 point standard.

An organisation with no procedures

I must stress that all my time at SCRO I never saw any procedures, written procedures, so I don't know what it would have been like for a trainee who starts there, never mind an expert.

Steven Begg was the expert according to Mr Luckcraft who made the derogatory comment about Shirley and that she had previous for this sort of thing.
In reality it is very common for experts to leave fingerprints at crime scenes, hence the need for eliminations, but Y7 was not Shirley McKie's and experts like Mr Luckcraft were prevented from looking and speaking out about Y7

Infact Mr Luckcraft went as far as to claim when he left SCRO he was told he better not speak out about them or he would, In his own words here:
I will follow you and get you, This was why he did not complain right away after leaving SCRO

Was the fear so great for SCRO that they did not want experts leaving to speak out about Y7 ?

Mr Geddes had a laugh when Mr Luckcraft was talking about the culture and bullying within SCRO but that is the mentality of them still and shows this culture still exists as Geddes still works within SPSA

21 A. If there is one sort of overriding factor that kind of
22 surprised me it would be that, if you like, the blind
23 faith or blind support for SCRO from within and I just
24 couldn't agree with that. You know, it doesn't matter
25 where I worked, whatever bureau, if three people had
page 20
1 made an identification and this was being challenged,
2 then I would not blindly support the three people
3 involved, even though I was friendly with them or a
4 colleague of them. I would like to see them demonstrate
5 to me how they come to their conclusion. I just don't
6 agree with blindly supporting or blind faith.

I think Mr Luckcraft is referring above to the fact a letter was sent to Lord Cullen showing support for colleagues without checking if they were right or wrong but then again SCRO would not allow others to look at the material not even within their own place of work

7 In fact, I recall one briefing in the SCRO where --
8 and this was after the Tulliallan presentation -- it was
9 a briefing to the whole office by Chief Inspector
10 Griffiths and I asked if the rest of the Bureau could
11 see the Tulliallan presentation by Robert Mackenzie and
12 the Chief Inspector, yes, certainly but not at the
13 moment. We never saw that presentation.

Mr Luckcraft also said he witnessed points being left on comparators for the second checkers when this should have been cleaned before the next viewer

I am shocked at the next part of Mr Luckcrafts evidence:

There were no procedures for dealing with Disputed prints:

19 Q. What was your understanding of any procedure that there
20 was at the time for dealing with a situation where a
21 verifying examiner such as yourself disagreed with the
22 first examiner?
23 A. There was no procedure at that time. My understanding
24 was that I would go back to Collette Orr, which I did,
25 and discuss the comparison.
page 29
1 Q. Mr Dunbar, in his oral evidence to the Inquiry on
2 6th October, suggested that you had confronted Mrs Orr
3 aggressively in an open office.
4 What is your response to that?
5 A. I portrayed no aggression whatsoever. I'd like to know
6 what is meant by that "aggressive in an open office".
7 That just did not happen.
8 Q. Can you describe for us your discussion with Mrs Orr
9 when you went back to her?
10 A. Well, I'd just go back to Collette Orr and just say,
11 "Look, I've looked at this comparison at my desk and
12 I've looked at it on the comparator", and I've said to
13 her that I cannot see two characteristics in agreement.
14 "I just don't think it's it", and then what Collette Orr
15 did was we discussed the mark on the comparator.
16 Q. How did that discussion proceed?
17 A. Well, Collette Orr sat at the comparator and plotted the
18 points, the 16 points, I watched this and then I took
19 over the seat on the comparator and looked at the
20 characteristics. I could not find two characteristics
21 in agreement. I was quite firm in my stance about that
22 but I certainly didn't show any aggression whatsoever.
23 Q. Were you aware of any procedure for a disputed
24 identification to go to the Head of Bureau at that time?
25 A. No, I wasn't.
page 30
1 Q. You go on to tell us -- if we can look at the next page,
2 please -- that Mr Stewart became involved.
3 Can you tell us how that happened and how you became
4 aware of that?
5 A. Yes, I recall that it was possibly a Friday that it
6 happened and it was just before lunch that I took the
7 comparison on from Collette Orr and after we had had our
8 discussion and that, lunchtime came and I went off to
9 lunch. When I returned, I spoke to Collette Orr and
10 she -- what I understand from her, she went over to the
11 Identification Bureau, the Strathclyde Identification
12 Bureau, and obtained photographic enlargements of the
13 marks in this case. Then she told me that she had given
14 this to Charles Stewart and this, bearing in mind that I
15 hadn't had the opportunity to look at the enlargements,
16 and she said that Charles Stewart had looked at it and I
17 said, "Well, where is the case now", and Collette Orr
18 told me that it's now with Alan Dunbar.
19 So I don't believe there was a procedure at that
20 time for a possible erroneous identification because
21 this had gone to Charles Stewart and, of course, when I
22 came back from my lunch I went over to Charles Stewart
23 and asked him had you looked at this comparison and he
24 said yes. I said why. He said because Collette Orr had
25 wanted him to give an opinion. I said, "Well, what did
page 31
1 you think?" He said that, "Yes, it's an identification.
2 I've found 14 characteristics in agreement", and I was
3 just totally -- well, I couldn't believe you could get
4 14 characteristics in agreement.
5 So then obviously I'd learnt that it was now with
6 Alan Dunbar --
7 Q. Can I stop you there and just ask you what the tone of
8 your discussion with Mr Stewart was?
9 A. Very calm, very calm, no aggression whatsoever.
10 Q. I am sorry I interrupted you because you were going to
11 go on to talk about speaking to Mr Dunbar.
12 A. Yes. So I then approached Mr Dunbar and he said he'd
13 got the enlargements to look at and some time
14 afterwards, and whether it was on the Friday or whether
15 it was on the Friday and the Monday the following week,
16 I looked at the enlargements. I was given the
17 enlargements by Alan Dunbar to look at. So I looked at
18 the enlargements and looked at the whole case again and
19 I still thought it was not an identification. I
20 couldn't find two characteristics in agreement.
21 So I said this to Alan Dunbar and, again, I can't
22 recall whether it was on the Friday directly after it or
23 the following Monday but I said to him, "Look, I can't
24 make this identification. I can't get two
25 characteristics in agreement", and Alan Dunbar said,
page 32
1 "Well, I think that -- you know, we're disappointed this
2 couldn't have been discussed and we could come to some
3 sort of conclusion about it". He said that he thought
4 Collette Orr was disappointed I hadn't said it was
5 insufficient for comparison but I turned round to Alan
6 Dunbar and said, "Well, how could that be the case of
7 being insufficient for comparison when Collette Orr
8 found 16 characteristics in agreement and Charles
9 Stewart found 14 characteristics in agreement and I
10 couldn't find two characteristics in agreement".
11 I distinctly remember Alan Dunbar saying, whether it
12 was on the Friday or the Monday, he said that, "Look,
13 you know, we can't afford for this information to go out
14 to other bureaux or outside the office at this time
15 because of the sensitive nature of this".
16 Q. What did you think that Mr Dunbar would have wanted you
17 to do? You have said that he thought that Mrs Orr was
18 disappointed you had not said it was insufficient. Did
19 you get any feeling there was anything in particular
20 that he would have wanted you to do?
21 A. I got the feeling from Mr Dunbar that he would have
22 perhaps preferred me not to say that it was an erroneous
23 identification and that, you know, there was less than
24 eight characteristics in the mark.
25 Q. How did he give you that impression?
page 33
1 A. Just by stating that Collette Orr was disappointed that
2 I hadn't said it was insufficient. But there's just
3 such a vast area of disagreement between the 16 and 14
4 characteristics in agreement and me not finding two
5 characteristics in agreement.
6 Q. If we can look, please, at paragraph 23, you say that
7 you are quoting there from memory. Are you confident
8 that those are the words that were said to you?
9 A. Most definitely.
10 Q. So how was the matter left, as you understood it?
11 A. Well, over the weekend I did go ahead and write a report
12 and so that following week I did come in with that
13 report and I said to Alan Dunbar that I have a report on
14 what has happened in this case stage by stage. And it
15 was at a time when Mr Mackenzie and Mr Dunbar worked
16 directly outside the Chief Inspector Griffiths' office
17 and Chief Inspector Griffiths heard that I'd got a
18 report. He then took over the matter and got the report
19 typed up and it was submitted to the Director, Harry
20 Bell.
21 But after that at some point I was called in to
22 Harry Bell's office with the Chief Inspector there and
23 they said the matter had been dealt with and that's over
24 now and that's all I knew. I never saw the case
25 envelope again. It seemed to disappear.
page 34
1 I was particularly unhappy and not satisfied with
2 the way that had been dealt with because I hoped we
3 could all come together and learn something from that
4 case, but that just wasn't the case. As far as I'm
5 aware, that case was never issued, passed out to another
6 bureau.

Harry Bell Threatened Mr Luckcraft:

9 A. That was my leaving meeting with Mr Bell and he tried to
10 persuade me to stay but I said that I'd made my mind up.
11 I had to get away as soon as possible and I said there
12 was a number of difficulties during my period of
13 employment with SCRO and a number of issues I've raised
14 during that term and I said I was committed to leaving.
15 Then he said to me, "If you go bad-mouthing us to
16 anybody I will come after you and get you", and that was
17 most definitely said.

Mr Holmes was at his best again, Angeline you will like this one:

20 Q. So how can you speak to trainees being made to feel inadequate if they could not see 16 points in a comparison?

A. Because I was speaking to them on a day-to-day basis. “Simple” eh?

Our Way is Best

3 A. Yes, I think in Edward Bruce's statement it states that
4 we were not paid to look at procedures and it was very
5 much the culture of SCRO was, "Sit down and do as you're
6 told and don't ask questions about procedures. Our way
7 is the best way".

Sounds a bit like Donald Findlay to me in what he said to Iain McKie when he met him.

Another peach from Mr Holmes here was this one:

2Q. Paragraph 8 of your statement mentions that you felt peer pressure and you feel that that could lead towards a bias towards identifications. That's not been something that has been identified in a number of years of reviews.
Are the people conducting those reviews getting it wrong?

A. I don't know what reviews you are referring to.

Q. I'm talking about the HMCIC reviews?

Wait for it..............................................................................................

A. I think there was 25 recommendations in that.

Grampian concluded Y7 was not Shirley McKie's

Q. Perhaps you can just confirm to us what the conclusion
4 of that report was from the Grampian Bureau?
5 A. The conclusion was that Y7 was not made by Shirley
6 McKie.

Allan Bayle gave evidence after Mr Luckcraft and he basically said he was told by New Scotland Yard they do not investigate other police forces and he was banned from voicing his opinion despite them having Y7 on their walls.

More to follow on Mr Bayle tomorrow when I have more time to study his evidence.

http://www.thefingerprintinquirys.../2009-10-20%20PM%20Transcript.pdf

_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 146

Once again, Wullie, many thanks for keeping us all up to date on proceedings. I've been away for just over a week, so haven't had much time to catch up, but I'll be back onto it all this week.

Keep up the good work - and the "highlights" that help give us all a chuckle amidst the absolute seriousness of it all!
_________________
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

Peter Swann was in the box yesterday and boy did he cause a stir amongst the SCRO Russell and Leadbetter.

Every single one of them was passing notes back and forward to each other with Mr Russell taking written notes to Swann in the box during a short break in the afternoon.

This would never have been allowed in any court in our Country.

His evidence can be viewed here:

http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotland.org.uk/inquiry/1661.221.html

In my opinion he hasn't a clue what he is talking about, with claims of this is not what I looked at and the use of different Images to chart his presentation, even using a picture he took from the Daily Mail.

At one stage he drew for me what was a line right over a space and was using dots and claiming they were ridge endings.

If this is the best SCRO can produce to back them up then, boy are they in trouble.

On the question of QI2 Peter Swann said he was sent this from Scotland but doesn't know by whom yet he was never instructed to act in this (Asbury) case, it was only out of interest.

Is this the first time SCRO have sent Images outside their own Bureau and what was their motives ?

More importantly, was permission sought from Crown Office for this "original negative" to leave Scotland and was this normal procedure.

Read his evidence then Compare it to Pat Wertheim and Arie Zeelenberg's, Swann's is not a patch.

It certainly put worried faces on the SCRO lot with plenty more to come today.

I did notice the McKenzie boy was reading the charts produced by peter Swann and showing Les Broon and his wife in the public benches yet these documents were not passed out to the public.

Anyone know if McKenzie Junior is an expert or works for SPSA

At one stage our screen went blank and we could not follow what was being done by Swann but believe me he was not comfortable in that box
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 526

Thanks Wullie as Angeline said for all the updates.

It helps me to understand what is going on and is very much appreciated.

Watcher · Joined: 04 Jul 2009 Posts: 25

I am confused by certain aspects of the evidence of Terence Kent but it may be the matters have been subsequently clarified and I have missed the links.

My understanding is that on 6th May 1999 Mr Kent gives evidence at Shirley McKie’s trial and on 7th May 1999 Mr Kent emails to Steve Meagher, Head of FBI Latent Fingerprint Section, a copy of the fingerprint materials Mr Kent has so that Mr Meagher can make an assessment.

Mr Kent emailed them to Mr Meagher because he wanted a quick opinion from someone independent who he had known for ten years and whose opinion he trusted. He thinks he phoned and spoke to Mr Meagher before he sent the email with the materials. This was clearly an important case having reached the High Court and involved allegations of perjury relating to a serving police officer. If the fingerprint had been incorrectly identified it would be one of the few recorded cases of this occurring.

However although it was not until 24th May 1999 that Mr Kent emailed Mr Meagher and asked for confirmation that the documentation had been destroyed it is Mr Kent’s evidence that he is “fairly sure” that he received no definite opinion from Mr Meagher as to whether there as a correct identification or not.

Given the obvious importance of the matter and the obvious interest that Mr Kent had in receiving an opinion from Mr Meagher I am at a loss to understand why either Mr Kent did not receive an opinion or an explanation as to why Mr Meagher could not supply one.

Given that the documents were apparently supplied to the FBI on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding between the FBI and the Home Office it would be a highly significant fact if someone within the Home Office had received an opinion from the FBI that there either was or was not an identification.

Surely the Inquiry should seek to obtain from Mr Meagher exactly what action was taken in relation to these prints and whether any view was indeed communicated to Mr Kent or anyone else in the UK? Has this already been clarified or dealt with?

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 262 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

Dear Watcher,

There are a number of question marks against Mr Kent's evidence - including the ones you raise - that I hope the Inquiry will pursue.

In his evidence to the Inquiry Terry Kent had to admit he had distributed images of Y7 to two individuals, namely Steve Meagher and Peter Swann. This despite telling the HMCIC in 2000 that he had not distributed any images to any other party.

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

I Posted This to CLPEX and think it important to post here:

Oh boy did the fireworks explode on Friday with Leadbetter's evidence.

I thought bonfire night wasn't till 5th November.

http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotland.org.uk/inquiry/1682.221.html

Out of all the witness's I thought Swann would have caused the Fireworks but I suppose you could say he set the fuse.

Not to be missed

Re: news article: "McKie inquiry evidence to start"
by Big Wullie » Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:37 am

If I was any other SCRO expert coming to give evidence now I would be crapping my pants, my god if they couldn't get away with their crap presentations at Parliament what chance did they think they could get away with it here in front of QCs Lawyers and Judges.

My Holmes representing SCRO was that dumbfounded he could not ask a single question to support SCRO and even Russell was silenced in his cross of Leadbetter.

I have never saw so many people sitting with their heads in their hands and faces sunken like the Titanic as I witnessed today.

Well done Andrew Smith for tearing the lies apart from these two witness's, I can see white towels getting flung in.

Here is some of today's entertainment :

Swann A Liar

Q. You heard Mr Swann's evidence yesterday, didn't you?
A. I did, yes.
Q. I recall what he said. He indicating that from Y7 itself he could see no evidence of any distortion or twisting or something of that kind.
A. Yes.
Q. To that extent do you disagree with Mr Swann's evidence?
A. Well, I can't do anything but, can I,

Very Difficult to Explain Position of SCRO

Q. How can you explain the position that a number of experts from SCRO relied upon an area of a print that you say you can see evidence of distortion of some kind sufficient to obliterate nine or ten lines? How do you explain that?
A. Well, it's very difficult, isn't it?

Titanic Admission of Guilt

Q. Well, either they are wrong or you are wrong, isn't it?
A. Well, I may be wrong about that area but I'm not wrong about the rest of it.

If I was Leadbetter I would be looking for a new job ASAP.
Did he think us Scots would be a pushover and he could pull the wool over our eyes with his many lies ?

Q. Are you accepted that there may be no evidence of twisting or distortion in that area of the print?
A. There may be no evidence but I still had to go by my impression of it when I examined it.
Q. If there is no evidence of it how do you justify the ridge count difference?
A. I can't add anything to what I've said.

9 or 10 Disappearing Ridges

Q. Provide me, please, with an explanation as to how we can lose nine or ten ridges?
A. I can only give you the same explanation I've already given you.
Q. Well, please tell me again what the explanation is, not just that there's something gone wrong, something's happened, tell me what possibly could have caused these ridges to go missing?
A. Possibly movement as the finger's turned in rotation, pressure, all the usual things that can happen to a crime scene mark.

Can any other experts confirm if twisting could account for the loss 9 or 10 ridges ?

Avoid the Core
Q. Mr Leadbetter, what possible explanation could there be for missing about nine or ten ridges? What possible explanation could there be?
A. Well, I can't offer much more than I said this morning on this issue which I went over with Mr Moynihan that I still consider -- I considered at the time that there was some issue with the natural flow of the ridges in that area thus I avoided going there.

So much for A of Ace V

Ridge Count

Q. Let us do it that way if you can. Can you confirm from core to 14 what the intervening ridge count actually is.
A. Well, as I said before, eight or nine.
Saved as FI 2310.10

Again, no doubt a bit clearer here, can we do a ridge count from 14 across to the core. (Pause)
I wonder if we could have it expanded again so you can count the ridges, please.Just to save you doing the exercise are you able to tell us how many intervening ridges there are on the inked mark?
A. About 17, I think.
Saved as : FI2310.11

Check out these images yourselves

8 then 17, Far out man

Unexplained Differences

Q. What were the issues?
A. That there seems to be differences in the pressure and the orientation and the pressure and the flow of the ridges didn't look right and the way the top of the ridges looked like they could have been flowing in the wrong direction.
Q. So, in short, the issues were there were differences?
A. Not within the ridge structure. There are adequate matching ridge features but there are differences in the appearance between the two images.

Mr Leadbetter appears to contradict himself here

Mr Russell's Cross Examination of His Expert Witness

24 Cross-examined by MR RUSSELL
Q. Mr Leadbetter, are you aware of the fact that over many years Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg have made a number of very serious allegations as to the honesty/conduct of UK fingerprint experts, particularly those of SCRO, and that there have been very specific allegations against
named officers of dishonesty and criminality?
A. Yes, I have heard that, yes. I'm aware of that, yes.

Q. Is it reasonable to say that your response, as recorded in your statement, has perhaps been precipitated by that atmosphere?
A. To a degree, I believe that's the case. I've never actually responded to any of the allegations that have been made. In fact, there was one published last week on the net stating that they doubted -- whoever it was who stated it and anonymously, I believe, although the name of Colin might have been used -- they stated that they were curious to know why I should be here, what was my competency basically and they looked forward to a day's entertainment when I appeared on the stand. That was what was said and I thought that was a very, very inappropriate statement to make when we are considering such grave and serious issues.

Q. The fact is that over many years Mr Wertheim in particular has made the most serious, grave allegations against named SCRO fingerprint experts?
A. Indeed, yes.
MR RUSSELL: Thank you.

After all the public statements from Russell this was all he could Russell Up eh

To me this is more of a statement from Russell with absolutely no foundations and to be fair the judge had to tell Russell already, he did not want a statement from him, to put a question to the witness.

What about the Mckenzies attack on everyone else on the forum over the years.
I do not believe the McKenzie Junior has the intelligence to post the things he has over the years.
They must have come from Senior “Robert McKenzie” and at the very least sanctioned by the Senior McKenzie.

As far as I know Pat has always been honest and put his name to his comments not like some, and to try to attribute posts from Colin to Pat is just another nonsense and smoke screen.

I kind of half heartedly expected them to bring me into their arguments today.

I just had visions of Big Wullie makes comments on behalf of Pat, Iain or even Arie Zeelenberg, Allan Bayle or Mr Luckcraft.

They really are clutching at straws and getting more desperate by the hour.

A. To a degree, I believe that's the case. I've never actually responded to any of the allegations that have been made. In fact, there was one published last week on the net stating that they doubted -- whoever it was who stated it and anonymously, I believe, although the name of Colin might have been used -- they stated that they were curious to know why I should be here, what was my competency basically and they looked forward to a day's entertainment when I appeared on the stand.

After listening to today's evidence Mr Leadbetter it would appear Colin (Whoever he is) was right wasn't he ?

What exactly is your competency ?

So Colin is Pat now, and Taggart is Iain McKie, though Iain has denied this countless times already this makes no difference to these "people", I nearly called them Experts there.

I am sorry but although Russell was not present when Iain McKie gave evidence (No Explanation) Mr Holmes has always been present to ask any question he wanted to and none where put to Iain McKie, One must ask why.

Perhaps their Lawyers have more integrity

Do we hear marbles again ?

White coats would suit them more.

We can all see they are defeated with Mckenzie's comments above and nothing has changed.

I did make one final observation before leaving today:

When Leadbetter returned to his table next to Swann after giving evidence Swann seemed to turn away without returning any facial expressions like a smile.

surely a couple of resignations from the Fingerprint Society would be appropriate?

Hear Hear Colin, I agree completely with your comments.

What Swann said yesterday sounds familiar:

9 A. I found it an area which to me there's a degree of
10 movement there and I sort of steered clear of that area
11 and went to other areas elsewhere which to me were
12 clearer.

Leadbetter has just repeated today.
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/

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

A recent doodle for CLPEX can be found here:

Finished my Colouring in now want to see it ?

I know you do so here we go:

At Wonkipedia a very basic fingerprint training can be followed;

http://www.wonkipedia.com/page8/page8.html

They show interesting fingerprints that could be a tremendous help in making the job for fingerprint experts and subsequently the burden of proof a lot lighter.
Not all serious but I could not help to add a new type, the SCRO fingerprint.

In order to pick up the third level detail I have added an enlargement

These fingerprints in addition to Galton Points have so called “Flea Points” or to make it a little bit more scientific also called; “Siphonaptera Minutiae”
These points can jump a few ridges. There are reported, (but still uncorroborated)cases of jumps of as much as 9 ridges. These fingerprints require extreme care and dedication of an expert. If his (or her) attention drops just a short while the points may jump to another location in a mark.
full identifications may take weeks because the points may keep jumping. Junior fingerprint experts may be easily misled by marks due to this phenomena and come to erroneous exclusions.
A specific type of flea points (flock fleas) makes it even more difficult because they seem to jump
in formation all at the same time. In doing this their jumps may not all be exact thus creating some minor (ignorable) differences in ridge count in the moved configuration.
Strange enough the fleas seem to become quiet under the heat of a fingerprint comparator and seem to sit very still even until after verification.
For very, very experienced experts these points do not form a major obstacle for valid identifications. As long as he (or she) is convinced he is looking at the right donor he can explain the difference(s) by the explanation of “flea points” (Discrimen Siphonaptera)
This new element of fingerprinting is not yet widely known nor the application wide spread. In the UK it seems to be promoted by very, very senior fingerprint experts. We suggest the term “Fourth Level Detail” in order to level it with the highest degree of expertise required.

What do you think McKenzie ?

Could fleas have made the ridges jump ?

Perhaps this could also explain why the Rosetta Characteristic took a 66 degree turn to the left on its own, without disturbing any other characteristic.
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 262 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

Allegations against Pat Wertheim withdrawn

Today’s session of the Inquiry opened with this exchange.

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

18 A. Well, somebody has taken that as an alternative
19 interpretation but that's not my interpretation and I
20 don't see that as a possibility.

18 A. Not really, other than to say I wouldn't agree with it.

Mr McPhersons words above upon being asked about differences of opinions but when he was asked and indeed pointed out to him that Mr McKenzie actually didn't agree with him he said there might be an Incipient not seen by Mr McKenzie “Doh”.

By his own words Mr Mckenzie is wrong

Difference of opinions between SCRO senior Officers:

9 If I could bring up again, please, the image
10 FI2910.13. This is what we started out, when asking you
11 what area attracted your attention, at least today in
12 relation to QI2, and you drew for me the bifurcation
13 which, if memory serves me correctly, coincides with
14 point 12 and a ridge ending is point 11, yes?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I had asked you about the ridge feature in Marion Ross
17 which occurs between the two open ended lines
18 immediately beneath point number 11?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. That was absent in QI2 but your view was that that could
21 just be one of those things that occurs with a piece of
22 incipient ridge?
23 A. Exactly like I think I mentioned to the left of point 2.
24 Q. What I would like to show you is the work that's been
25 done by your colleague, Mr Mackenzie, in relation to
page 26
1 QI2. I have two booklets that I can give you. The one
2 that will be brought up on screen is CO2005H. Keep what
3 is on screen just now for a reason and also bring up a
4 copy of CO2005H. (Pause) If you just proceed through
5 CO2005H just now. If we just proceed through ... and
6 again. Stop there just now.
7 If you look at page number 3 in Mr Mackenzie's
8 booklet and if I can explain to you this is a charting
9 that Mr Mackenzie did for Mr Gilchrist who was then the
10 Procurator Fiscal, now Sheriff Gilchrist. It is a
11 charting of QI2 and the area that I am interested in, in
12 Mr Mackenzie's charting, are his points 27 and 29. I am
13 having difficulty doing this in sufficient detail so it
14 can be seen.
15 His 27, does that coincide with the bottom end of
16 this feature (indicated), in effect, opposite your
17 point 11?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. His point 29 coincides with your point 12?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So your 11 and 12, in approximate location, coincide
22 with his 27 and 29?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. If we can then proceed in the top to the digital page 7,
25 for you it is page 6, in the book form. So digital
page 27
1 page 7 in the top.
2 We will see a legend --
3 A. Sorry, page 7?
4 Q. Page 6. It's okay the digital version is one page out
5 always.
6 You will see the description that Mr Mackenzie gives
7 of the characteristics 27 and 29 are that they are each
8 a bifurcation.
9 A. That's correct, yes.
10 Q. If we go back, please, to, for you page 5, for us
11 page 6, do you see that what he has drawn is a red line
12 on the inner part of the ridge detail between 27 and 29?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What he has drawn utilises the ridge feature that you
15 are calling an incipient to, in fact, in reality, close
16 off a lake?
17 A. I think the way Mr Mackenzie has marked it, it looks
18 like a ridge ending.
19 Q. What he tells us though is, by his legend, he tells us
20 it's a bifurcation?
21 A. Okay. Well, I see it as a ridge ending.
22 Q. If he's construing 27 as being a bifurcation, then what
23 he is construing is that in the area of 27 and 29 we
24 have two bifurcations in association that would form a
25 lake?
page 28
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. That is not your interpretation?
3 A. That's not my interpretation, no. I have to say I've
4 don't believe I've ever seen this.
5 Q. There may well be reasons that you would not have seen
6 it. That went into the Crown Office so you may not have
7 seen it.
8 Again, what we have now top and bottom are two
9 alternative interpretations of this area. Again, one of
10 the themes I have running -- these are two alternative
11 interpretations of this area that, in fact, happen to be
12 by two individuals who are of the same conclusion, as
13 Mr Mackenzie agrees with the identification; is that
14 correct?
15 A. That's correct, yes.
16 Q. If I were to insist to you that what you see in QI2
17 ought properly be construed -- sorry, let us say what is
18 seen in Marion Ross with the incipient ridge, if I were
19 to insist to you that that is an essential part of the
20 ridge structure, an essential part of a bifurcation
21 forming a lake, we would perhaps encounter a fundamental
22 difference between what is present in Marion Ross and
23 what you understand to be present in QI2 because you see
24 two ridges descending from point 12 as divergent ridges,
25 not meeting and not forming a lake.
page 29
1 A. I believe it's a ridge ending, yes.
2 Q. But the difference would be, if I insisted, let us say
3 if I were insistent -- I am not, this is just an
4 argument -- if I were insistent that the correct
5 understanding of Marion Ross were that there's a lake in
6 that position ...
7 A. Well, again I can only reiterate what I said before.
8 Possibly due to the superglue or whatever that's been
9 used, the incipient ridge hasn't been shown on the
10 left-hand image, mark QI2, but on the right-hand side it
11 has been shown because it's been taken under ideal
12 conditions.
13 All I can say is point 27 on Mr Mackenzie's chart
14 would appear to be, at the bottom end of it where his
15 arrow is, it looks to me like a ridge ending.
16 Q. Perhaps I will only try this one more time,
17 Mr MacPherson. It just a proposition I am trying to
18 run.
19 There is in each of Marion Ross and QI2 an event.
20 As fingerprint examiners would say, there's an event in
21 this location. If I construe that event differently in
22 each of the two, so I say in Marion Ross that event is a
23 lake and in QI2 it's an open-ended bifurcation where the
24 two ridges at point 11 do not meet and continue to
25 diverge, would I, by reason of that difference of
page 30
1 interpretation, in fact, have set up a mismatch between
2 Marion Ross and QI2?
3 A. I don't believe so. I think we've been talking for days
4 about appearances and differences, explainable
5 differences, and I think I've tried to explain it. I
6 don't see what else I can say.
7 Q. So, in other words, the difference you would say is that
8 the piece in Marion Ross necessary to close off the lake
9 is absent from QI2 because incipients are not always
10 reproduced?
11 A. Absolutely, yes.
12 Q. Whereas your colleague, Mr Mackenzie, might argue that
13 the piece is, in fact, present and to be discerned in
14 QI2?
15 A. He may well do, yes -- or he does do, sorry.
16 Q. Sorry?
17 A. He does do, yes.
18 Q. He obviously does?
19 A. He does, yes.

How was such a difference of opinion never revealed to the defence teams in both trials.

I am also sure had Crown Office really known about this then there would not have been any trial.

Although Holland & Sinclair had not been decided by the Privy Council (2005) Crown were under the obligation of McLeod, to reveal any “exculpatory” evidence to the defence and they would have been bound to have had to reveal these inconsistencies.

But then again this is a recurring theme within SCRO because so many Officers within did not agree with this 16 point Identification but the ones that did not agree were simply By-Passed until they found two three or four officers that did agree

Perhaps this was the reason for leaving their work up on the Comparator machine.

Flexible Skin

22 Q. In fact, my next question was going to have been if
23 there was a difference in shape whether that would have
24 made any difference to the overall interpretation, given
25 what you have read out from the handbook about the
page 27
1 flexibility of the skin?
2 A. Of the skin, yes.
3 Q. Would a difference in shape of this precise nature make
4 a difference?
5 A. As I say, skin's flexible. You're not going to get an
6 exact replication between the two.

Hide and seek pores

16 Q. So as a consequence of the presence of those two pores,
17 what you are indicating is that the feature 12 and 13
18 that I have up until now been calling an incipient you
19 would regard as an island; is that the correct term?
20 A. An island, sometimes in incipients pores appear or they
21 don't appear.

They only seem to appear when Mr McPherson wants to use them for reference

Down to Pressure

24 Q. Can you explain why it is then that the island is no
25 longer in contact with the lake and appears to be in
page 41
1 closer proximity to the ridge above?
2 A. I would say it's down to pressure, yes.

Chairman has trouble seeing Gaps McPherson refers to.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Just before we leave it I wonder if I could
10 ask you on Ms McKie's print 14 -- that is on the plain
11 print.
12 A. Yes.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: -- I am having some difficulty in finding any
14 gap between what you say is point 14 and the ridge
15 immediately below it. That is on the plain print.
16 Do you see an actual gap where the ridge ending is
17 between that ridge which ends and the ridge below it on
18 the plain print?
19 A. I see what you mean. The tail of the ridge looks as if
20 it's bending in towards the lower half but I would say
21 that the actual ridge comes up and stops where I've
22 marked it.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: You think it stops before it reaches the
24 ridge below it, if that's right.
25 A. Yes.
page 49
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, just on maybe on the copy I have you do
2 see a white dot which could be a pore or --
3 A. The ridges do descend in that.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. I see it curving round but I just don't
5 see at the moment the gap between the two but I take
6 your eye would be better than mine at judging that. But
7 you do see an actual space?
8 A. Yes.

It would seem the only person to see this is McPherson

QI2

6 Q. You have just explained why with the red and the mustard
7 arrows. But your overall view about the quality of QI2
8 as a mark with which to work?
9 A. It wasn't a great quality mark but it was certainly
10 comparable.

Pat Wertheim marked an area in the core shaped like a chilli pepper but today Mr McPherson tried to suggest Pat was drawing in a ridge ending and he was way off with his chilli pepper.

For my money having watched pat Draw the chilli he was nearer the core than McPherson tried to suggest today:

14 Q. Because if I show you the alternative interpretations,
15 the alternative interpretations by Mr Zeelenberg and
16 Mr Wertheim, I think -- we will bring them up in a
17 second -- would have that area, in fact, as a continuous
18 joined-up section.
19 Before I do, the other point I want to ask you about
20 is what Mr Wertheim colourfully described as the chilli
21 pepper. By that is meant the feature which is right in
22 the centre of the core, perhaps most readily seen on
23 Marion Ross as perhaps a feature in the nature of the
24 shape of a chilli pepper and what as I understand
25 Mr Wertheim and indeed Mr Zeelenberg were saying was in
page 66
1 Marion Ross that central feature, to be called the
2 chilli pepper, extends to a point or finishes at a point
3 above point number 10. Whereas in QI2 the feature
4 extends as a black patch beneath point 10 so it runs a
5 length that is far greater in QI2 than it is in Marion
6 Ross.
7 Do you have any comment on that?
8 A. Yes. Was it Mr Wertheim referred to it as the chilli
9 pepper?
10 Q. Mr Wertheim did, yes.
11 A. Well, for me that would be (indicated) what is
12 determined as the chilli pepper, basically a ridge
13 ending down.
14 I think we did in the comparative exercise, if you
15 can just follow that --
16 Q. Sorry, just before we move it, anywhere -- sorry, I
17 thought you were going to move from the image because we
18 would require to save it.
19 A. No, no.
20 There is an area for me which causes disturbance
21 above the core and possibly at the core itself and this
22 is one of the reasons I steered clear of this area when
23 we did our chartings originally and even in the
24 comparative exercise, obviously, we were just
25 duplicating what we did for the court productions. But
page 67
1 for me the chilli pepper that Mr Wertheim is referring
2 to is not this (indicated), it is in fact what I've
3 indicated there (indicated).
That's saved as FI2910.16.

Mr McPherson appeared to be pointing to a ridge ending to the bottom left of the core and not the actual chilli referred to by Pat

But like everything else in this case they have nowhere to turn and are trying to create things that are not present in the images.

At one stage today Mr McPherson was drawing green lines into thin air and blank spaces trying to recreate what he is looking at in the mark QI2.
Instead of just drawing it when he is asked he recreates it from the Image in front of him (The Inked of Marion Ross) into the mark QI2

25 Q. So far as your own personal opinion, can you indicate to
page 70
1 the Chairman what reasons you have for preferring your
2 interpretation which envisages a gap when Mr Wertheim
3 has inserted the light green line and also your reasons
4 for the chilli pepper being, in effect, absent from the
5 QI2 image. What reasons would you have?
6 A. Certainly, I don't think his interpretation of the
7 chilli pepper is accurate.
8 Where I've drawn the chilli pepper can I ...?
9 Q. Yes, please.
10 A. (Indicated) That for me is what Mr Wertheim has
11 indicated as the chilli pepper to the left of point 10,
12 to the left of point 10.

Gaps not present

13 Q. What, though, I would ask you to comment on is in Marion
14 Ross, between the bottom point of the chilli pepper and
15 the adjacent ridge that you have just coloured in or
16 outlined for us, there is a gap in Marion Ross, yes?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Is there such a gap to be observed in QI2?
19 A. Well, that's what I've tried to say. There's an area of
20 damage. You're going to get this with any crime scene
21 mark. It's not going to be copy book standard and you
22 can only go by what you can see and for me I couldn't
23 interpret where Mr Wertheim has marked as his small
24 chilli pepper here but I was able to interpret the spur,
25 the ridge ending down and the ridge ending next to it.
page 71
1 Q. I have asked you about the gap between the base of the
2 chilli pepper and the ridge structure to its left. The
3 other feature where Mr Wertheim's lines are just now,
4 his arching or recurving green line on the left-hand
5 side, there is, at least to my eye, in Marion Ross no
6 gap between where his green line ends and where your
7 outline tracing begins. So there is a continuous ridge
8 structure in that location. Whereas on QI2 there is a
9 gap, at least to my eye, the black, heavier black, comes
10 to an end right at the point where the red line
11 intersects, there is then an area of lighter grey or
12 white before the black resumes that's suggesting -- so,
13 in other words, there is the suggestion of a gap in QI2
14 where there is none in Marion Ross.
15 Can you comment on that?
16 A. Again, it's only down to the fact that it's a chance
17 impression. It's not an area that I would have, as I've
18 already said, would've gone into.

Here a Gap there a Gap

1 Q. I have asked you about the gap between the base of the
2 chilli pepper and the ridge structure to its left. The
3 other feature where Mr Wertheim's lines are just now,
4 his arching or recurving green line on the left-hand
5 side, there is, at least to my eye, in Marion Ross no
6 gap between where his green line ends and where your
7 outline tracing begins. So there is a continuous ridge
8 structure in that location. Whereas on QI2 there is a
9 gap, at least to my eye, the black, heavier black, comes
10 to an end right at the point where the red line
11 intersects, there is then an area of lighter grey or
12 white before the black resumes that's suggesting -- so,
13 in other words, there is the suggestion of a gap in QI2
14 where there is none in Marion Ross.
15 Can you comment on that?
16 A. Again, it's only down to the fact that it's a chance
17 impression. It's not an area that I would have, as I've
18 already said, would've gone into.
19 Q. What perhaps it comes to is this: looking at consistency
20 on the left on QI2 -- and, forgive me, I will just use
21 it as the red shape so that we don't confuse it with
22 Mr Wertheim's chilli pepper -- to the left of the red
23 shape there is a difference in colouring, perhaps
24 suggestive of a gap, and if your interpretation of QI2
25 and Marion Ross is correct, then in that location there
page 72
1 is no gap so that we have to, in effect, draw through
2 that gap and envisage a ridge feature; whereas on the
3 right-hand side of the red shape where Mr Wertheim has
4 drawn his light green line there is, underlying it, a
5 line of black coming down suggestive of a continuous
6 ridge and you in fact construe that continuous black
7 line coming down as, in fact, having a gap.
8 Do you see the point I am trying to get inelegantly,
9 that you are envisaging a gap where there is a
10 continuous line and you are construing on the other side
11 a continuous line where there is, in fact, the
12 appearance of a gap?
13 A. Again, I can only come back to the point that I wouldn't
14 go into that area to discern ... I don't know what else
15 I can say regarding that.

16 Q. So the inconsistency then may simply be this: you are
17 deriving points from one position but not from the
18 other?
19 A. Yes.

Incipient not showing

20 A. What I believe you have is an incipient ridge like so
21 (indicated) to the left-hand side of the bifurcation.
22 Unfortunately, as we've previously discussed on many
23 days sometimes one feature like an incipient ridge will
24 show in one print but not show in the mark and I believe
25 the incipient would be in that region (indicated) but it
page 5
1 just doesn't show.

Q. I am grateful to you. So you do not see whether it is
3 an incipient or a continuation of the left ridge as
4 joining the bifurcation, you simply do not see the ridge
5 structure in that location?
6 A. No.
7 MR MOYNIHAN: I am grateful to you.
8 If we could save that image, please.
9 MISS BAHRAMI: That's saved as FI2910.18.

With the prospect of boring everyone to tears I will close with this:

1 Q. What I am suggesting to you is immediately above -- if I
2 take the mouse -- immediately above point number 13,
3 there is a change in colour from black, to grey, to
4 black and you attach significance to that as a ridge
5 ending, a defining characteristic?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Whereas beneath the shape, because point number 13 is
8 really against a black, almost a circle, beneath the
9 black circle there is similarly a gap between it and the
10 next black shape which I am roughly pointing to just
11 now --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- and I can mark with an arrow.
14 What I am asking you to explain, in effect, is why
15 recognise and, indeed, attach matching significance to
16 one gap, a small gap, in ridge detail while in fact
17 being prepared to literally overwrite and see a
18 continuing ridge in another gap?
19 A. If I could -- I mean, what you could argue is that where
20 I'm indicating at the moment ... (indicated) there's, if
21 you like, a small dot and it could be argued that just
22 below point 13 there's a small dot and you could argue
23 that there's a gap between the small dot and the ridge
24 coming up. You can argue that the ridge coming up stops
25 there (indicated) and there's a small dot.
page 40
1 Also to the right of point 13, if you come down that
2 ridge, now back in '97 we wouldn't be able to use,
3 basically, this but what there appears to be is a pore
4 shape like so (indicated) and, similarly, that appears
5 on QI2 and below that there is a ridge like so
6 (indicated) and again below that there is a ridge like
7 so (indicated).
8 So, yes, I've given weight to what I see as a small
9 island above point 13 but I've also have these
10 supportive features to the right of 13 and below 13.

Dots, Black and Grey areas used when it suits.

I must admit I much prefer the versions of Pat Wertheim, Arie Zeelenberg and Mr Grigg which are clearly pointed out and in great details.

_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

http://williambeck.wordpress.com/about/