shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Watcher · Joined: 04 Jul 2009 Posts: 25

Supposing you had a child that suffered from a serious medical condition. An operation was available but because of the risk to the child it was a requirement by law that four doctors independently confirm that the child meets certain criteria so that it justifies the risk of having the operation.

The hospital confirms to you that four doctors with the appropriate experience and expertise have reached the conclusion that your child meets the criteria to have the operation but the final decision is yours.

It subsequently transpires after the operation that although these four doctors had reached this conclusion the hospital had also received opinions from a number of other doctors (equally experienced and qualified) that your child did not meet the criteria.

1. is this further information something that you consider you would want to have been told?

2. is this something you should have been told?

3. if it subsequently emerged that all 4 of the doctors who said your child met the criteria were actually wrong in their assessment and in fact had not reached their conclusions independently how would you feel?

Watcher · Joined: 04 Jul 2009 Posts: 25

At the end of his statement to the Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament Hugh Macpherson wrote as follows –

Finally can I intimate that due to sub judice, etc. and abiding by the rules I have never solicited or been able to actively seek support from other experts with regards the identification of marks Y7 or QI2.
In conclusion I would appreciate the opportunity to put my views forward to the Justice 1 Committee.

Hugh Macpherson
Principal Fingerprint Officer
27 April, 2006.

I do not follow why the matter being sub judice would have prevented either Mr Macpherson personally or the SCRO as an organisation seeking an opinion from external professional experts on a confidential basis on whether Y7 or QI2 were correctly identified.

However, even if the above were the case, surely with the announcement that Mr Macpherson is a core participant at the Inquiry he then would be entitled to seek professional views relating to these matters from anybody he choose to consult.

And this is where I do not understand the evidence presented so far. If Mr Macpherson has correctly identified Y7 and QI2 then this is an objective determination and another expert will be able to come to the same conclusion. Mr Macpherson must know that there will be some people watching the Inquiry who will have a particular scepticism about his opinion because of the number of reports which have concluded that Y7 and QI2 were incorrectly identified. So if I were Mr Macpherson I would know who the leading world authorities on fingerprint identification are and I would be able to ask them to review the print and give their opinion. In my submissions to them I would have the benefit of the detailed markings and analysis made by the principal contradictors but I would be able to explain where each of those experts had gone wrong.

The end result would be that I would be presenting to the Inquiry confirmation from say, the top three world authorities on fingerprint identification that I was correct. If my identification is correct it just doesn’t make sense that this has not been presented. However maybe this is evidence is going to be presented before the end of the Inquiry? If it is not then I am at a complete loss to understand why it has not been obtained?

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

It has always been a mystery why after 13 years of debate across the world fingerprint community with many images of all the prints being made available electronically that no experts outside of SCRO except Malcolm Graham, Peter Swann, Martin Leadbetter and John Berry (the last three being close friends) have ever come forward to challenge the assertion that the SCRO experts were wrong in two identifications.

As Watcher says it would have been a simple matter to have some of the word’s top experts do an independent assessment of the SCRO work. Unfortunately on the many occasions such work has been done it has never came out on the SCRO side and hundreds of experts world wide have verified the SCRO mistakes.

There is an excellent debate going on at CLPEX with useful testimony extracts being provided.

http://clpex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1190&start=420

johny · Joined: 21 Oct 2009 Posts: 1 Location: Ayr

Iain,

Forgive me if this has been covered already, I'm coming into this a bit late in the day. Having read references to the 'Mackay report' and the 'Macleod report' I looked them up, the links are here for easy reference:

Mackay
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/04_05_06_mckiereport.pdf

Macleod
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk...tice1/papers-06/j1_s2_06_24_9.pdf

I've been following the posts on this forum and clpex, plus the inquiry transcripts. The two reports linked above are pretty conclusive, it seems likely to me that the inquiry may come to a similar conclusion. If so, what is likely to be the consequence of that?

Watcher · Joined: 04 Jul 2009 Posts: 25

I was astounded to read the following comment from Mr Macpherson:

You said yesterday, Mr Moynihan, that I had to prove or
was this to prove my identification. I don't have to prove anything to anyone anymore. I lost my job in March 2007 so, as far as I'm concerned, I don't have to prove anything to anyone.

On the basis of Mr Macpherson’s evidence Shirley McKie was arrested, charged and prosecuted. Following her acquittal statements were made by him that the identification was correct. Evidence was given to the Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament both in writing and in oral evidence that the identification he made was correct. On the basis of any failure on the part of Mr Macpherson (and others) to accept any error a public inquiry has been necessary to try and determine the truth and the lessons that need to be learnt. Mr Macpherson has maintained his position in the face of the knowledge that a number of independent experts have come to a view completely contradictory to his own. This whole case including the Public Inquiry will have cost the taxpayer millions of pounds.

Mr Macpherson has every right to assert what he honestly believes to be the case – Mr Macpherson has every right to bring to the Inquiry whatever evidence he has that he made the correct determination of the fingerprints.

What Mr Macpherson cannot say is that he has nothing to prove – this Inquiry is his chance to show that he is right and if he is unable to do so he will live with the consequences for the rest of his life. The media are not bothering to report the proceedings of the Inquiry and instead are waiting for the verdict of Sir Anthony. When this is provided there will be a worldwide surge of publicity with the principal players undoubtedly featuring on the front page of the newspapers. There will be television and radio reports and interviews.

Following this initial flurry there will then be much more detailed reviews. Books will be written from a number of different perspectives. Rarely does a case bring into the public domain all of the paperwork and evidence that has been published in this case. There will be documentaries that will explore all of the evidence and seek interviews with the individuals involved. I would be very surprised if this does not turn into a film.

Mr Macpherson's place in all of the above is going to be determined by the evidence he brings to bear because this will inform Sir Anthony’s final decisions – if Mr Macpherson thinks that he has nothing to prove I don't think he could be more wrong.

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

It is hard for me to keep up with who said what during the past decade, but wasn't Mr Macpherson one of those who has been screaming that he has been denied his day in court?

Don't you think he would consider this his final chance for exhoneration? Strange, then, that he would state under oath that he doesn't have to prove anything to anyone. If that is his attitude, why even bother to testify?
_________________
Pat A. Wertheim
foridents@aol.com

Watcher · Joined: 04 Jul 2009 Posts: 25

At paragraph 97 of his witness statement Mr Tom Nelson Director of Forensic Services (SPSA) writes -

FoolsGold · Joined: 07 Sep 2009 Posts: 14

I quite agree. This "benefit of the doubt should be given to the accused" is simply a way of getting into the public a generalized mindset that:
there were doubts,
There were multiple scientific views,
that each scientific view was well-founded,
that any differences in the scientific views were simply matters about which learned professionals often disagree,
that those disputed scientific views are on detailed minutiae beyond the ken of the ordinary individual,
that the "benefit of the doubt" rhetoric implies a strong possibility of actual guilt, but is also a recitation of our point of view of justice requiring that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

All the above statements are utter nonsensical propaganda.
The disputed print was clearlly not that of the Police Detective McKie.
There was never at any time any basis for a dispute over that issue.
The determination of the fingerprint is a relatively simple matter for anyone having the least bit of knowledge and experience in fingerprint identification.
Statements made by examiners and administrators were clearly politically motivated and not in any way supported by the evidence.
Nothing about these "disputed" fingerprints relates in any way to giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

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

Some points to ponder.

http://www.shirleymckie.com/documents/McBridewhatdidsheknow.pdf

Your thoughts would be welcome.

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

Fiona Tells Us How Things Worked At SCRO, and how they went to court to give evidence in cases they knew nothing about.

You did I heard you:

5 Q. But back in 1997 while eliminations were reported to
6 court and they were important things, it would not be
7 normal for anybody to be in a position where they might
8 go to gaol on the basis of the elimination standard.
9 That would generally only arise where people had found
10 16 points in sequence and agreement.
11 A. You had dire and crucial and I did -- I heard you asking
12 whether people had any experience of it. I did.
13 Q. Tell us about it.
14 A. I checked a case and I can't remember the details I just
15 know that I couldn't reach the 16-point standard. I'm
16 guessing here that it was probably a robbery because I
17 did robberies around that time, although it may have
18 been prior to that time and it might have been -- I
19 don't know what would have been dire and crucial about
20 the case if it wasn't the robbery section perhaps it was
21 something about another case I was working on for
22 specials or something but at least a serious crime. I
23 couldn't get 16 and I reported it to Alan Dunbar and he
24 instructed me to mark it as an identification, however,
25 fewer than 16. I did the casework as usual and at the
page 100
1 end of it I presented to Alan Dunbar and he took it
2 through to the Chief Super of the time -- and I don't
3 now who the Chief Super of the time was -- and I think
4 he came back and said that's fine but at that time you
5 didn't have to appear in court with whatever you'd
6 actually checked. Nowadays that's the case.
7 If you sign for a identification you definitely go
8 to court with it, whereas in those days, because of
9 annual leave, et cetera, it was handed out to whoever
10 happened to be available for when roughly they thought
11 the court case was going to be, with substitutes to
12 cover with different annual leave dates.
13 He came back and said that's fine and I heard no
14 more about it. So either the case was progressed or the
15 Fiscal didn't need it or -- I don't know what happened
16 after that.

Appallingly what she is saying is experts would be substituted due to annual leave and that in those days experts were not required for court and even if they were they would be allowed to substitute experts.

some questions here perhaps Brain Of Britain can answer:

Would the substituted experts agree with the points identified blindly ?

Would they tell the jury the points were on the charts produced ? (From the charting PC that we have heard was not accurate)

Would they tell the jury they had Identified the marks ?

Would they tell the jury they were 100% certain of this Identification ? (that they were only substituting)

Would they ever tell the jury they were only substitutes ?

To me they have committed perjury if they have acted in this manner.

I really cannot get my head around this evidence from Ms McBride.
_________________
http://justiceforwulliebeck.webs.com/index.htm

http://williambeck.blogspot.com/

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