shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

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

Hi Scotkaz

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

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

Pat

I fully accept you as the expert in your field and accept what you say regarding there being more to fingerprints than counting to 16, I would never dispute this.

However if what you are saying about Evett & Williams then this must mean that SCRO have acted criminally would you agree.

The have acted without integrity and honesty at the very least and they should be charged.

Much was said by Mr Holmes today about Peter Swann backing SCRO but he never mentions the fact he really does not back their findings, How can he be backing them when he Identifies a right thumb while their assertion is it is a left thumb.

It was also suggested today that instead of the 16 points Identified by SCRO might only be 8 points under the English System as they give a lake ans Island only one point whereas SCRO counted this as two ridge endings.

How would a Jury be expected to comprehend all the different terminologies like bifurcations, ridge endings and the likes if SCRO could not show this in court with their Inaccurate Images produced by their Hard To Use "Charting PC" which would not show the image they were trying to photograph in the first place.

Do I understand this right.

For an Identification no matter how many points are highlighted or can be seen there must be no characteristics dissimilar
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

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

Steve Horn · Joined: 23 Apr 2007 Posts: 11 Location: West Lothian

Ms Climie’s testimony showed her distress over what happened to Shirley McKie. This from MR SMITH yesterday:

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

I posted the following on CLPEX regarding Friday's Evidence from the Inquiry:

Daktari

I think you will find she used the words "I Believed"

She certainly showed more Humility than you lot have ever shown, and showed she has suffered severe guilt.

She also "Believed" you all had identified the exact same 16 points, just shows how ignorant the prosecutors were then eh ?

But i think they might want revenge for being mislead, and this Inquiry has certainly opened the eyes of Ms Climmie I think her evidence was.

She is certainly showing more interest than she did before, and was even seen back today listening to the evidence.

Wont be able to pull the wool over her eyes again Daktari.

Or how much the wool was pulled over their eyes with you lot who did nothing to disclose the facts properly, Certainly Crown Office were never made aware when experts did not agree, What happened was you looked and looked until you could get 4 experts to sign the agreement without disclosing to the Crown or Defence the ones who did not agree, is this not right Daktari ? (Crumbling)

Had Crown known 5 experts in SCRO could not find 16 points their position is made clear, They would not have prosecuted would they Daktari ?

At least she had the decency to admit she was wrong and Shirley should never have been prosecuted, and while on this subject, did I hear someone today saying they might have to concede something

Talking about Guilt, I was wondering how Geddes will be feeling after hearing from Bell that he had not ever heard any complaints about the Charting PC and it was in operation since before he took over the helm at SCRO, Ain't that strange after hearing Geddes who was his subordinate say it was difficult and awkward to use and produced Inaccurate Images.

Just a thought here: was the Charting PC used in the Lockerbie case by any chance ?

Were you involved in the bullying we heard of today and the culture that the more senior you were at SCRO the more you saw.

There was a culture that the Juniors would not go against Seniors.

You lot really take the biscuit.

Oh did I also hear Bell claim the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General are their clients and workers had no right to divulge details about any crime scene to anyone outwith Crown Office, This surely will not go down well with Noddy & Co who spoke to Les Broon and Marion Scott, a reporter with the Sunday Mail.

Mr Bell made his point very clear today, he took offence to Iain McKie protecting his Daughter, but added he was well within his right to do so and what parent would not have done the same.

This offence he took blinded his judgement for sure and angered Bell no end to the point he took it personal.

Aw wit a shame, but then again none of you Numpties have ever shown any remorse for your treament of Shirley when she was strip searched in front of Colleagues did you ? nor any remorse for the ones bullied within your own work places, in fact I actually saw some idiots smirking today when this evidence came out, which shows the mentality you lot have.

Even Mr Bell thought the American experts were more articulate and showed more integrity and interacted with the jury more than you lot would ever have been capable of.

Well done to Pat and Co who have stood by Shirley throughout this nightmare.

Oh while on the subject of Integrity and credibility why would Bell refuse to disclose the Prints in dispute to other experts in Scottish Bureaus ? answer because he wanted to keep it "Inhouse" nad did not want others looking at the Originals incase they were forced to take sides.

Look what happened to the Endinburgh lot when they took sides, They all got the sack for daring to go against their own.

And what about the peer pressure we heard about today ? care to comment on that aspect of the evidence today.

SCRO or SPSA as it is known now is crumbling before our very eyes.

I hope at the very least Geddes and McBride are charged for leaking evidence to the Public, Would they have signed the Official Secrets Act since they were working on behalf of the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General and could this be another charge after the Inquiry.

Perhaps Geddes will have a welcome party at his door when he returns from his holiday with his P45

I think Ms Climmie stated she would not have proceeded had she known other experts had not identified the 16 points.

Crown have been hoodwinked with SCRO for years and I wonder how many other Inaccurate Images they got away with producing in criminal trials and exactly what ones have been looked at since Y7 and QI2 ?

Any ideas on the numbers Daktari............. Probably not eh

You have a good weekend because I think Crown Office and the Police will certainly have plenty to think about over this weekend in light of all this new evidence which surfaced today.
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

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

Watcher · Joined: 04 Jul 2009 Posts: 25

There seems to be one consolation which will arise from the Inquiry that is taking place and that is that in the end Scotland is going to have a national hero or national heros.

Both Shirley McKie and the SCRO were fully aware of how important the matter of this identification was. Both have steadfastly refused to amend their positions about the print.

There seem to me to be two alternatives

If Y7 is indeed that of Shirley McKie then the SCRO experts that correctly identified this print have been heroic in maintaining the correct identification despite the pressure to let the matter drop. Having correctly identified the print, checked it, checked it again and again they have never wavered when asked to change their opinion. Many others will on this account have not done their job as well as SCRO but SCRO will have put science and fact before convenience and maintained the facts. Having been vilified for simply doing their job correctly they will vindicated and there will not be honours or gratitude great enough to reward them.

If Y7 is not that of Shirley McKie then despite the full pressure of the police force, the threat of prison and at the cost to both her health and career Shirley McKie will have told the truth that the print was not hers. The personal cost for doing so will have been huge. For having the bravery to maintain the print was not hers and to continue with that account despite all the pressure to say otherwise would show a remarkable strength of character that would be truly heroic.

Everything hinges on the Inquiry determination of whether Y7 is that of Shirley McKie.

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 526

Crown Office lost vital fingerprint documents
By Tom Gordon, Scottish Political Editor

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/...t_vital_fingerprint_documents.php

KEY PAPERS from the unjust prosecution of policewoman Shirley McKie have gone missing from the Crown Office, it has emerged.

Parts of the indicting file, which recorded the detailed thinking of prosecutors before McKie's trial for perjury, disappeared at least four years ago, but the absence has only now been admitted.

The revelation came in testimony before the fingerprint inquiry, the official investigation into the McKie scandal.

McKie, a former detective constable, was tried and acquitted for perjury in 1999 after denying she left a thumb print at the home of murdered Kilmarnock woman Marion Ross in 1997.

Her refusal to accept that the print was hers cast doubt on fingerprint identification by the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO). Her acquittal undermined the conviction of David Asbury for Ross's murder. McKie's defence team successfully challenged the SCRO opinion using other expert witnesses.

McKie received £750,000 compensation for the loss of her career in 2006, and Asbury's conviction was also quashed.

Now Gillian Climie, a procurator-fiscal depute who prepared the prosecution case against McKie, has revealed the file of her working notes and drafts has disappeared.

In a witness statement read to the inquiry, she said: "I understand that the Crown Office High Court Unit indicting file' for Ms McKie is missing (and has been missing since 2005 or earlier, this information was supplied to me by Crown Office when I inquired in March 2009)."

In later oral evidence, Climie was questioned by Ailsa Carmichael, the junior counsel to the inquiry, who said: "We don't have the file that covers the period when Ms McKie was actually indicted."

Climie replied: "And I'm very disappointed about that as well because it puts me in a very difficult position."

Sir Anthony Campbell, the inquiry chair, then intervened: "We are very conscious of that. It is regrettable that we don't have it."

Climie also said she felt it was not in the public interest to prosecute McKie, as a police disciplinary hearing would have been better.

"The McKie case has been a tragedy for the Scottish criminal justice system as a whole and a personal tragedy for Ms McKie and for the SCRO experts directly involved," she said.

The missing paperwork covers the six months leading up to McKie's prosecution in April 1999.

A Crown Office spokesman said: "It is not the case that the whole High Court file for the McKie case is missing; the outer cover for the McKie High Court file is no longer available.

"Unfortunately, it appears that some papers relating to the prosecution of Shirley McKie originally contained within the folder are missing.

"The consideration of available written and oral evidence is a matter for the inquiry and it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this stage."

allan mcleod · Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 157

So, Ms Climies has revealed that her working notes and drafts has mysteriously and suddenly disappeared. - How conveinent.

Well, if thats the case the Lord advocate should and must instruct a police enquiry to investigate why and who within the Crown office would want to thief and dispose of these vital documents. I suggest the first to be questioned must be non other than the Lord Advocate herself along with her sidekick Frank Mulholand the Solicitor General and ex Lord Advocate Colin Boyd.

Someone nicked these documents. or was instructed to destroy them. - Why ?? Who are they protecting by stealing / destroying these files ??

We Wonder !!!

Watcher · Joined: 04 Jul 2009 Posts: 25

If you were not yourself an expert but were in charge of a specialist unit who gave evidence of a expert/technical nature in a high profile case what would you do if some defence experts fundamentally disagreed that your unit had made a correct identification?

I think you would want to be completely sure that your own experts had not made an error. I think you would initially ask your experts to carefully review their original analysis in light of the presentations made by the defence experts and to give you a detailed written report urgently.

If your own experts confirmed that they had made an error then you would know that was the case and could deal with the implications.

If however your own experts maintained that they had not made an error would you not then establish who the world’s leading authorities in the subject were and ask at least one of those authorities to let you have their independent opinion?

Would you not do this immediately after the discovery of two expert opinions who gave evidence on oath that your own team were fundamentally wrong?

Am I missing something here?

In his evidence on Friday afternoon 3rd July – Page 21 when cross-examined about getting an independent view Mr Bell said

“If I had gone to an independent and he had come back and said it was Shirley McKie’s fingerprint, I can sit with confidence and say I don’t think Mr McKie would have accepted that…”

Mr Bell may indeed be right about Mr McKie but surely that was not the point. The point was not to satisfy Mr McKie but to satisfy Mr Bell and everyone else. If the SCRO had turned around and said something like:

“ we appreciate that there is a difference of professional opinion here so we have sent all the material to expert x in Germany for an independent review. We have spoken to the Head of Forensic Science in Germany and he has recommended that the materials be looked at by x who is one of their leading experts in this field. All of the prosecution and all of the defence materials are being made available and both the defence experts and the SCRO experts will cooperate fully with the examination so we can resolve as soon as possible.”

Would that not have been the obvious thing to do?

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

Watcher