shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 263 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

The word 'shambles' does not do justice to the handling of this whole affair since Marion Ross was so tragically murdered on 8 January 1997.

For the last 12 years the Scottish Government, Police, Crown Office and various other justice organisations have exhibited a level of incompetence and dishonesty that must be hard for some readers to contemplate or understand. This unfortunately has allowed the SCRO experts and their supporters to cover-up what was at best gross incompetence and at worst criminality.

The ongoing ‘Fingerprint Inquiry’ will hopefully examine all the resultant issues and will I believe finally get to the truth of what really happened.

Ms McBride’s ‘Employment Tribunal’ had nothing to do with the two erroneous fingerprint identifications by herself and her colleagues but was confined to deciding whether she was dismissed from her post unfairly.

The tribunal, rightly in my opinion, found in her favour because there seems little doubt that due to utter incompetence and a number of conflicting agendas the Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA) and its Chief Executive David Mulhern couldn’t even implement the employment law correctly or fairly.

It might also interest readers to know that for the last 2 years the SPSA has, through a mixture of incompetence and political intrigue, been trying to force Gary Dempster - (one of the three Aberdeen experts who spoke out against Ms McBride and her colleague’s ‘identifications’ in 2005) - from his job. He is currently considering legal action against his beleaguered employers.

I suggest that we all allow the ‘Fingerprint Inquiry’ to do its work and avoid any reaction to the ‘spin and speculation’ that some hope will thwart the Inquiry's goal of ascertaining the truth.

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

Legal action would seem the best way forward for Gary Dempster if this tribunal is anything to go by.

Bet Fiona will claim the scalp though and start shouting she was right about the print Y7 now.

Remember she now has to justify identifying Y7 and point out her 16 marks.

She will not be allowed to tell this enquiry she hasn't seen the print again since identifying it.

Remember she was the one that "Signed All The Initials" saying she knew they had looked at the print before her.

Can't wait to see Jack McConnell give evidence too to say why he calimed it was an honest mistake and why he paid out £750.000

Interesting times ahead for McBride & Co

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6UmtgzFZJho

[youtube]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6UmtgzFZJho[/youtube]

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

The outcome for Fiona McBride is outstanding! Perhaps this reinforces the doubts many have from the McKie enquiry (not that I am suggesting anything from a personal stance)

Remarkable milestone for the legal system!
_________________
Mr Fiscal

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

Exactly what do you find remarkable ?

Tribunal laws have nothing to do with Criminal Laws.

What doubts do you refer to ?

The only doubts I have is the credibility of those who "once" worked for SCRO including McBride.

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

Justice relates to every aspect of the Law.....not just Criminal Law.

And that is your opinion - not mine Very Happy

_________________
Mr Fiscal

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 263 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

On the basis of employment law alone the tribunal was probably correct in re-instating Ms McBride given the absolutely chaotic state of the SPSA management.

Unfortunately this only deepens the problem for her and her employers.

What to do with her now?

Having had her incompetence, at best, attested to by the Scottish Government, Crown Office and the SPSA itself she cannot prepare and give fingerprint evidence.

But then given that at least 4 experts within the SPSA who have publically agreed with her are doing just that then not to fully re-instate her would, I suggest, be discrimination.

'Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!'

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

They should sack the lot of them in my opinion.

But then again when they give evidence on behalf of the Crown they are protected by "Absolute Immunity"

We need only look at Sir Roy Meadows for proof of this but then again I think I would have preferred the following to SCRO lot:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3277057.ece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Morrison

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/a.../Jail-conman-forensic-expert.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b009nm9g

20 years a fake but he could probably have done a Far Better Job than SCRO