shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Edie · Joined: 12 Jun 2009 Posts: 1 Location: Kelvindale

In reply to Sami, the rumour about Patrick Docherty appeared in the Sun with quotes from an incredulous Iain Mckie, it was also covered in Mr Mckies book.

I'm glad it has been debunked, another in a series of unhelpful red herrings. Like the Gary Gray issue.

Like the alleged Lockerbie connection (repeated again in Mr Mckies recent nauseating article in the Herald)

The experts will have their day before the chairman soon, Mr Holmes was unequivocal about his intentions.

As somebody said earlier on, so long as people have been telling the truth they are fine. Bitter SOCOs and forgetful cops are quite the least of it.

_________________
Whats for you won't go by you.

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

I sat and listened to Gary Gray giving evidence the other day and I can assure you he did not sound convincing nor believable to me.

The Guy Moffat was more convincing and sounded more truthful for my money.

Gray sounded as if he was really concerned Y7 would turn out to be his, and only time will tell now but I really hope it is after the treatment Mr Moffat has endured because he dared to speak out against this corrupt lot.

Much like the treatment meted out to all the others who dared go against SCRO.
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

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

kevin donald · Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 198

As far as anything that has come out so far it seems that the people handling the Murder of Mrs Ross have not done a very good job of looking into the murder.

Maybe a call should be brought against this Division and a relevent force asked to investigate all murder inquiries done in the last 20 years and operational manners and procedures done in the dealings of high profile cases.

This lot make Laurel & Hardy look like Sherlock Holmes.

Also noticed Andrew Affleck had a hearing yesterday with Bail being refused Trial judge one Lord Hardie.

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

Collette McKAY gave evidence today that she had spoken to a police officer and he told her : "his partner had let Shirley into 43 Irvine Rd"

Page 30 here:

http://www.thefingerprintinquirys.../2009-06-17%20PM%20Transcript.pdf

She had been asked to
14 show a probationary police officer round the Fingerprint
15 Bureau

She then went on to claim this was a Mr Alsitair Morgan and that during the course of this he told her:
His friend a Mr Lee's had told him he let Shirley into the crime scene at 43 Irvine Rd, The house of Marion Ross (RIP).

She also claimed Les Brown had contacted her asking about this incident and what the Probationary officer had said.

She was caught telling lies about Les Brown Phoning her and had to retract her statement after being shown her own handwritten statement claiming:

Fiona McBride had asked her to "Call Les Brown"

Seems convenient if you ask for my opinion that Fiona McBride would ask her to contact Brown.

I have no doubt when McBride is asked about this her assertion will be that she wasn't trying to get witness's to tell lies to Brown and it was just a coincidence that this was someone from her offices caught telling lies and claiming it was McBridde who asked her to contact Brown.

Alsitair Morgan was called to give evidence directly after this McKay woman and no points for guessing what his evidence was:

He has never discussed this with anyone let alone someone from SCRO Office.

Just another nail in the coffin of McBride & Co if you ask my opinion.

The Inquiry also heard today that up to three or four Officers within SCRO looked at photos and prints "Together" (At the same time) before concluding Y7 belonged to an Officer.

This knocks on the head the assertion that they all looked at these prints individually and did not know who had looked at them before them as this would add peer pressure.

The Inquiry also heard an officer say he would never direct SCRO, Iain Hogg claimed: he would not normally give them any type of direction.

I see however in the statement of Alister Geddes dated 30th April 2009 that it was normal for police officers to phone them up and give them "Red Hot Suspects" surely this is a direct Direction ?

The collusion is abundantly clear from the evidence I have seen.

I cannot wait to hear Mr lee's evidence now.

Oh and of course Les Brown will be called to answer to his allegations.

In a court of law the evidence of Ms McKay would never have been allowed as unfounded Hearsay Evidence, This crap would never have been deemed admissible.

Mr Morgan's evidence speaks volumes and shows the desperation SCRO have stooped to.

Ms McKay would have had us believe this all happened and she did not record what he said nor when it was, nor could she identify him later and she was only herslf when this was said.
_________________
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

Constable Lees put to bed today the rumour that he let Shirley McKie into the murder scene at Irvine Rd Kilmarnock.

He has emphatically denied this as nonsense
_________________
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

Senior Officer Enters Murder Scene Via Back Door

James Kerr told the inquiry today that he entered the Murder Scene at 43 Irvine road via the back door and did not bother to Log In nor did he see fit to advise the Log keeper that he had shoe box's to take door handles from the property.

He admitted he had a set of keys for the back entrance and used it regularly.

According to the Log Keeper Mr Lees Kerr was not at the scene because he had not logged in.

There was evidence that Magazines were taken from the Living Room to the front door porch for the log keepers to read while they kept watch, with no regard that they might be contaminating evidence or destroying evidence.

We have also heard that the whole area should have been taped up from the front gate by Mr Kerr and no one allowed entry till all forensic tests had been carried out, but that Log Keepers had actually urinated at the side of the building and went to the Garage across the road for refreshments and to use the toilet.

The whole sorry fiasco from scratch is being shown as an absolute farce of a scene.

Instead of using evidence bags or boxes the detectives visited shoe shops asking for boxes to transport door handles again with no regard to the boxes contaminating the scene.

How many of us have taken shoes back to a shop or tried shoes on in a shop which might later be sold to someone else hence the possibility for contamination or cross contamination.

There was also some hint today that Officers might have switched on the heating because they were cold, Again with no regard for preserving evidence.

If this was one of my relatives I would be calling for a full public Inquiry into the conduct of these officers.

Yesterday we heard evidence of Senior Officers telling Juniors: you cannot go changing your statements at this stage and that they need to stick to their statements.

Over 400 prints were found at this scene and not surprising with so many police inside the house before tests were carried out.

"Keystone Cops" instead of Kilmarnock Cops would be more fitting
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

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

kevin donald · Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 198

I think the Police officers who urinated outside this old ladies house at the back are really showing the contemp the held Marion Ross and her family.

Doodling on log books, they must have been really fed up when they did this.

This is a Murder inquiry we are talking about.

Shame on them, unreal charges must be brought against these idiots.

Outside force brought in to overview all their work on serious crimes is needed.

kevin donald · Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 198

Bias and the Big Fingerprint Dust-Up
Cognitive neuroscientist Itiel Dror finds that analysis of fingerprint data by human examiners can be ruined by unintentional bias. But he offers some relatively simple fixes that can improve the odds of reliable results.

http://www.miller-mccune.com/lega...bias-big-fingerprint-dust-up-1312

Pat A. Wertheim · Joined: 23 Apr 2007 Posts: 73 Location: USA

Not to take away from the valuable insights Dr. Dror is giving us into the workings of a fingerprint examiner's mind when biased in one way or another, but this article sensationalized an incorrect conclusion. The research cited in the article showed that three out of five experts excluded a suspect when given strong information he did not do the crime. There is a world of difference between and erroneous exclusion and an erroneous identification.

The marks used to trick the experts were ambiguous smudges and partial prints. The majority of crime scene marks examined in the daily course of an expert's work are not those "borderline" marks, but are clear marks that lead to correct conclusions. The question is whether we should even look at borderline marks. Do we really want to ignore a mark because it is "hard," and risk letting a rapist or murderer go free? Or equally reprehensible, we might be able to exclude a suspect so the police can move on to find the real criminal, but if we ignore a "hard" mark, that alone may lead to an innocent person's conviction on other circumstantial evidence or erroneous eyewitness identification. If we try to work with those borderline marks, we run the risk of making a mistake. Discarding them or ignoring them runs a risk of guilty going free or innocent being convicted, just as making a mistake risks a bad verdict in trial. Do we look at them? "Damned if we do, and damned if we don't."

Other research being done suggests that introducing bias can produce erroneous exclusions, as Dr. Dror's project proved, but that such bias seldom produces erroneous identifications. When pressurized with heavy bias, fingerprint experts tend to pull in and become more conservation. That is why they make erroneous exclusions. Trying to bias an expert into an erroneous identification is a different proposition entirely. I would not say it never occurs, but I would say that it is not valid to prove erroneous exclusions can be induced the way Dr. Dror did, and then try to imply that erroneous identifications are common. That is worse "science" by far than what this article accuses fingerprint experts of doing.

While Dr. Dror's research suggests those mistakes may be common, I assure you he introduced much stronger bias on much weaker marks than we are likely to see in a lifetime on the job. Bias occurs, and Dr. Dror is correct with his suggestions to remove bias from our job. But the conclusions, as presented in this article, paint a terribly inaccurate picture of fingerprints. It is still a highly reliable science.

What about cases like Mayfield? The FBI says they happen about one time in 11,000,000 correct identifications. That's pretty accurate, unless you happen to be that one person who was erroneously identified. But if you were the judge, would you ban fingerprints from the courtroom for an error rate of 1 in 11,000,000?

What about cases like Cowens and McKie and Asbury? Having been personally involved in those cases, I would argue there was more than mere bias of an honest examiner at work there. The evidence in those cases leads me to believe you need to look beyond honest mistake, not only on those, but on many of the other "misattributions" cited in the works of Dr. Simon Cole. In many cases, incompetence and dishonesty play a much greater part in the errors than honest mistake.

Dr. Dror's research pointed up a serious issue. To misinterpret his results for the sake of sensationalism and tabloid journalism is, in itself, an unjust use of "bias."
_________________
Pat A. Wertheim
foridents@aol.com

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

Can Anyone Explain

Can Anyone Decypher The Answer From Les Brown Here:

Q. Let me try to speed this up a bit. You seem very
19 concerned about using the word "liar" or "perjury" and
20 no doubt you can make your own judgment as to what it
21 comes to, but let's just think of the word "wrong". So
22 what Mr McKinlay, if he says what we expect, he will be
23 wrong; we've got Kerr Reid who was wrong; we've got
24 Mr McAllister or his father was wrong; we've got PC
25 Morgan who was wrong; we've got officer Lees who was
page 28
1 wrong; Marion Scott who was wrong; and, as far as
2 Mr Kerr is concerned, you have altered paragraph 46 of
3 the statement. You remember that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What I am going to suggest to you is can you explain why
6 we've got, by my count, six people who are wrong and you
7 are right?

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

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

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

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