shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1141 Location: Glasgow

From Friday's Inquiry

From the Inquiry today Les Brown took up most of the day by not directly answering questions put to him.
He continually diverted from the direct questions and at one stage he appeared to accuse the Inquiry team of planting his signature and altering his statements.

Every single witness he has claimed could back up his allegations against Shirley have refuted what he says leaving him alone in his allegations.

He called Marion Scott of the Sunday Mail a Liar.

He refuted what all the other witness's said about his evidence like Kerr Reid, DCI McAllister, Morgan, Lees, McKinlay, and claimed they were all not telling the truth but refused to call them Lairs or accuse them of Perjury and his excuse was because he had once worked with all these people Though he was quick to say Shirley committed Perjury.

He was asked: if the Inquiry found Y7 was not Shirley's print, would he accept this, His answer was a firm NO, Clearly a biased view.

It also transpired he had contacted Marion Scott pressing her to do a story and he was acting on instructions of SCRO.

If he is the best witness SCRO can produce then my God they are doomed.

He claimed there was 5 police who could clear this saga up but when pressed he claimed he did not know their names, confirming this was a figment of his imagination.

One minute he kept notes but never kept crucial notes he claimed Policemen had said to him nor the dates yet seemed to confirm he investigates serious crimes still to this day, but does not see the need to take notes of interviews or dates.

Mr Brown claimed never to have referred to Police as SOCO's this was not a way he would address Police he knew not to be SOCO'c he tried to claim until that is he was confronted with his own statement where low and behold he had indeed referred to SOCO's.

Probably the time is right for Mr Brown to retire from the game, I think he has done one Inquiry too many and is suffering from memory loss or something.

“Maybe he has been bombarded by Fiona for too long with her protests that she has done nothing wrong that he is brain dead” Certainly he cannot see past SCRO and Fiona McBride.

One thing is for sure he has NO witness's to back up a single claim he has made to the Inquiry team and I actually feel he has wasted public money sending them on Wild Goose Chases and for this and the seriousness of his allegations he should be charged.

For what it is worth I actually feel sorry for the man but he has put Shirley and her family through hell and back with his incredible stories which he actually admitted today he doesn't even believe himself.

How can someone submit allegations to this Inquiry with absolutely no proof whatsoever, is the big question the Inquiry team should be asking themselves.

If anyone knows of a witness list referred to By Les Brown today on Iain McKie's Site, could they please forward a copy to me before Les Brown gives a copy to the team on tuesday.

According to Brown a list exists on the Net

I thought I had heard it all until Les Brown's evidence to this Inquiry was what someone said to me today, I agree wholeheartedly.

I for one want to know why they wasted their time

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

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

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

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 510

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1141 Location: Glasgow

Cheers Scotkaz

Like all the other porkies he has told over the years.

He is a sad old man.

I would still like any to decypher his reply if they can and tell me what this means:

Answer:
A. Yes. Can I remind you they are all out of step except
my son.

Many Thanks

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

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

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

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 510

Dunno what the my son part means but basically he is saying everyone is lying except him and this elusive son. Maybe code for something? who knows.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1141 Location: Glasgow

Yesterday saw Les Brown Buried.

Marion Scott of the Sunday Mail gave evidence to the inquiry along with a Professional Golfer to the effect that Les Brown was talking a whole load of Chinese Whispers to use the phrase from the Golfer.

Marion Scott found nothing to substantiate anything said by Les Brown or Fiona McBride and when she said this Les Brown's wife was seen making a twisting sign at the side of her head to Fiona McBride.

After her evidence Les Brown left the hearing and never returned.

We then heard that some SCRO workers thought it was OK to identify someone from just 8 points on any fingerprint despite the court requiring 16 points.

We also heard with great concern that the 16 points needed for court purposes no longer exists, and that it is sufficient for experts to claim it is your print just by the quality of marks rather than the quantity which to me raises great concerns.

It raises the following question:

If the SCRO got it so drastically wrong, not just with Shirley but also Asbury when 16 points were required then why is this standard being lowered ?

I really have grave concerns about this move to scrap this requirement of 16 points needed for court.

I am left with the feeling that our system has more Shirley McKie's and David Asbury's after hearing an expert saying he was happy and 100% sure of a print when only 10 characteristics were present despite the requirement of 16.

Blind tests were carried out where experts could only identify 10 points but they now claim they can now identify "16" years later and this is because they are more experienced. (Never heard so much crap in all my life)

Once again experts are departing from their statements: Mr Foley said earlier that his identification took only five minutes which has now turned into twenty minutes.

I am sure that tomorrow brings more shocks and cannot wait to hear more from these so called experts and watch them explain their 16 points in both botched prints.

The last word today must go to the fact when the Tin taken from Asbury's house was sent to SCRO it had a note saying: "Ident Required For Deceased" which was not a regular thing to appear on such application form.

My interpretation of "Ident Required" meant a heavy hint they wanted SCRO to find Marion Ross's print on the Tin, however readers can read the transcripts and form their own opinions.

An expert also told the inquiry he was surprised to see he had signed a print, and last on the list of four, because he had no recollection of having looked at this print. ?

I am starting to have doubts of fingerprints ever recovering their status in courts ever again after hearing how things were done by these experts who kept no record of how many points they had Identified.

Why not visit the Inquiry and hear the evidence and watch these so called experts divert the very questions being put to them and see how they all iof a sudden suffer from memory loss and have no recollection of the most serious issues in this case.
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

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

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1141 Location: Glasgow

Yesterday we heard from Mr Foley that screens were not cleaned and marks left by other experts could be seen by the next expert to try to make a comparison.

More than one officer would look at prints together.

They were free to discuss prints.

He could only find 10 points at Blind Test where they were not told whose print they were comparing but 9 years later he expects us to believe he for some strange reason can now find 16 points in sequence.

For an elimination they would stop at 10 points an not continue to 16.

They still discuss Identifications amongst themselves.

Some staff might not have come forward after the blind test for fear or due to pressure (Why would they not come forward if they supported the SCRO)

There are 4 unidentified officers failing to come forward.

Foley has never worked on a case where 172 prints where eliminated to a 16 point standard.

Foley refused to adopt his statement attributed to him by two police officers who interviewed him regarding the Mackay inquiry.
The two officers are incorrect said Foley.

Sheriff Gilchrist was next on the stand and provided the following evidence:

Swann claimed 21 characters in sequence then said only 11 where clear 10 unclear.

As a prosecutor he relied entirely on Fingerprint evidence and had no reason till Shirley McKie to doubt it.

Malcolm Graham was touched upon and the mention of only 7 points in the lower part were mentioned.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1141 Location: Glasgow

Yesterday saw Sheriff Murphy take the witness box and remain there the whole day.

He was the Advocate Depute who prosecuted Shirley McKie, also the son of (I believe) the original Ross Harper and Murphy founder.

His evidence in chief was that on the evidence he receieved he was intructed to prosecute.

Though he was instructed by Crown Office to seek an English Expert Opinion he did not do this.

He went on a bit about Pat Wertheim and Terry Kent and did not know about Peter Swann's evidence he said, Though no one asked him if he recalled if Swann had Identified a left or right thumb print.

His evidence was actually quite boring and he seemed to pause for long spells a couple of times.

I am now convinced that the done thing is not to adopt your statement/s even when you have signed them.

If you are an Expert, Crown Office, Advocate Depute, Sheriff or Police Officer then you will not be charged with Perjury for departing from your ststements even when you have had the opportunity to read over them before signing them.

You will get an opportunity to change them at the Inquiry when you are in the witness box.

It is OK and Competent for you to claim this was not the point you were trying to make, or this was the statement takers opinion of what I was trying to say, or I do not recall saying that but I might have done so and so on.

I wonder what tomorrow will bring ?
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

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

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1141 Location: Glasgow

Friday 26th June 2009

From The Inquiry today Friday 26th June 2009

Alister Geddes took the stand today and remained there throughout the day having to return next week to complete his evidence under Cross Examination by Andrew Smith QC.

From what I heard today I am not surprised they got it so drastically wrong with QI2 and Y7.

Mr Geddes claimed the only changes in SPSA since 1997 was the way they present evidence in court today.

The reason he did not give evidence was he could only see 10 points, which went against his colleagues who claimed to see 16.

Crown and the Defence were never told of this to his knowledge.

16 points were needed for court purposes so if officers signed an identification sheet they had identified 16 points.

No record was ever kept of exactly what 16 points they actually identified apart from the Charting PC photos produced for court purposes.

There is no record of what 16 points (If they ever existed) each individual expert identified or if the officer only identified 10 points then exactly what points they identified.

This is appalling to say the very least in my opinion and damned well criminal.

It could be that some people are serving very heavy sentences with no record of the evidence that has put them there in the first instance, This really beggars belief, for better words of “Takes The Biscuit”

Wonder how many appeals will be submitted on the back of this disclosure.

Talking about disclosure.

It also came to light that the Charting PC which produced the enlargements for this case Y7 & QI2 was producing “Inaccurate Images”

So people are locked up with no record of the 16 points which put them there and by a machine which does not produce accurate images.

Scots experts are allowed to claim from an Island or Lake, 2 points, by claiming 2 “Ridge Endings” instead of 1 point for a Lake or Island.

Mr Geddes could not say if other experts in England worked the same but certainly the Netherlands didn't.

None of which has ever been revealed to Defence teams or Crown Office to my knowledge.

Again I am left wondering if there will ever be more challenges against these experts on the back of this evidence now coming to light.

Mr Geddes claimed in the box that despite Les Brown not being an active Policeman he relayed evidence to him regarding the murder of Marion Ross and Y7 at the house of Les Brown in the company of Fiona McBride

I wonder how this will sit with his position within the SPSA and if he has ever signed any official secrets acts relating to his job and evidence gathered for criminal purposes.

Surely this evidence should only ever be revealed to the Police and Crown for whom he is employed, and Defence teams when asked, and should never be relayed to members of the Public ?

Wait for the chap at your door Mr Geddes or the call to come into the office perhaps for a wee chat.

I really thought I had heard it all until today's evidence.

If we are reliant upon these incompetents who produce Innacurate Images for court and keep no records of their work, then the detection of crime and particularly the use of Fingerprints in detecting crime is Doomed.

I fear fingerprints as evidence in Scotland will only recover when this case is resolved and the experts who got it so drastically wrong are held accountable for their actions.

To be fair, Geddes has never given evidence and only found 10 points of similarity, but none the less he claims to have Identified Y7 as Shirley McKie's so he should be shot with the crows so to speak
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

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

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 259 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

SUNDAY HERALD: 'SHIRLEY HUMILIATED'

Prosecution QC ‘shocked’ at police humiliation of McKie
Inquiry told by top lawyer how detectives strip-searched female cop
Tom Gordon, Scottish Political Editor

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/...ce_humiliation_of_mckie.php[/img]

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 510

I cannot imagine the pain and humilation Shirley was put through with these people.

I hope and pray she has recovered from this traumatic event.

I hope to that she gets a proper apology for all that has been done wrong to her.

I can also imagine how you as a parent feels at how your girl was treated.

You have shown everyone and so has Shirley that we must always stand up for what is right and true.

I admire you so very much.