The price of truth

[Iain McKie]

BBC News story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4813252.stm

The Scotsman: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=417882006

Delegates might be interested to know as they head for Tulliallan and the Fingerprint Society conference hosted by SCRO that the head of that organisation John McLean has instigated a disciplinary investigation against the Grampian expert Gary Dempster who recently spoke out against SCRO. In a joint report with Grampian colleagues - the first Scottish experts to publicly speak out - it was concluded that the SCRO experts were was wrong in identifying Shirley’s print. Mr Dempster later went further by stating that in his opinion it was not an ‘honest mistake’ as stated by the First Minister in the Scottish parliament.

When Fiona McBride one of the 6 experts at SCRO responsible for the errors recently spoke out to the media (as it is her right to do) there was no threat of discipline against her.

After nearly ten years the SCRO cover up continues and the culture of bullying and intimidation is alive and well.

I appeal to experts across the world not to stand by and allow Mr Dempster’s career to be destroyed . Please send your comments to the e-mail addresses shown below.

( For full story see today's Breaking News at: www.shirleymckie.com )

………………………………………………………………………………………….

e-mail to: Chief Constable McKerracher, Grampian Police

servicecentre@grampian.pnn.police.uk

copy to: Mr John McLean, SCRO:

scro@scro.pnn.police.uk

Mr Mike Rumbles MSP:

Mike.Rumbles.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

Aberdeen Unison:

unison@aberdeencity.gov.uk

[llain]

Sigh , yet again we are brought down to half truths and miss information -

For your information Fiona McBride is subject to the very same disciplinary procedures as Mr Dempster as of the 7th of March 2006.

Please, at least try to give the whole truth and not an edited version as you see fit.

[Iain McKie]

Dear llain

As a general point I would appeal to all contributors to do so in their own name or at least have their identity known to the moderator of this site.

I feel anonymous posts devalue the strength of debate and allow unsubstantiated claims, accusations and insults to be made. I have always identifed myself and provided contact information for replies.

When the SCRO was asked whether Ms McBride had been threatened with discipline they refused to answer so I am obliged to the apparently anonymous contributer for this information.

Oppressive behaviour be it against Gary Dempster or Fiona McBride is still oppressive. It remains an issue of the utmost importance to a judicial enquiry and the question must be asked, 'why have the Scottish Executive and SCRO sought to gag so many people?'

I will ensure that my complaint against disciplinary action being instituted refers to both experts.

Best wishes,

Iain McKie

[mark twain]

Just a couple of errors Iain.

1. I have in my posession a copy of a letter dated 7th March which states that Ms McBride is been subjected to a similar review by Strathclyde Police. Strange all those fabulous journalists werent aware of this?

2. I do believe that Lothians were the first experts to speak out.

I think in this case you should apologise for misleading the followers of this site, either by accidental/deliberate omission.

[David Russell]

For the record, under instructions from the Scottish Executive, the Director of SCRO asked Strathclyde Police to appoint an Investigating Officer to carry out an Investigation into the alleged misconduct of Fiona McBride, one of the four Fingerprint Experts. It is alleged that Miss McBride had breached Media Policy and "brought the organisation into disrepute." However, Miss McBride has done nothing more than to publicly defend SCRO and to deny the McKies' poisonous allegations.

The Scottish Executive's actions were taken to gag the four SCRO Fingerprint Experts. That is the only way in which the Scottish Ministers will regain control and thereby prevent the holding of an Independent Judicial Inquiry. The SCRO Experts had remained silent until the Settlement of 7 February, having previously been promised their day in Court. On 9 February, the First Minister, Jack McConnell MSP made false Statements to the Scottish Parliament, telling MSPs that all Parties had approved the Settlement, accepting that there had been "an honest mistake." Formal Complaints have been lodged against the Ministers, to include McConnell, alleging Breach of The Scottish Ministerial Code.

Given the Scottish Executive's misuse of the Strathclyde Police in an attempt to gag Miss McBride, I lodged a further Complaint Submission against the First Minister, Justice Minister and Lord Advocate on 15 March. On 14 March, the failure of The Office of the First Minister to discharge its Investigative duty under the Ministerial Code was referred to The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, Professor Alice Brown. A formal report was sent to Lord McCluskey on 13 March.

The SCRO Experts, to include Fiona McBride, will not be gagged by the First Minister or anyone else. They will continue to demand an Independent Judicial Inquiry. It was, of course, one week ago that I used CLPEX to throw down the gauntlet to the McKies, challenging them to join us in an Alliance of Necessity and to force the Ministers to concede a Public Inquiry. I proposed that we made a joint approach through Lord McCluskey and proceeded on Petition. I had an enthusiastic response from Pat Wertheim but, as he observed, he could not speak for Iain or Shirley McKie. However, the McKies have remained silent. Why is that?

Notwithstanding the McKies' failure to work with us in forcing a Public Inquiry, I wrote to Lord McCluskey on 13 March and asked him to act as Honest Broker, to receive Submissions from the Principal Parties. I concluded my letter to his Lordship by stating:

"With a joint approach on behalf of the McKies, SCRO and, indeed, the Independent Fingerprint Experts, the Call for an Independent Judicial Inquiry would be irresistable."

Clearly, Shirley cannot respond since she is too busy counting money and working on her tan. Equally, Iain remains in rabble-rouser mode and is content to waste his time stirring-up the gutter Press. So we will forget about the McKies and just get on with the business ourselves. We will do everything within our power to commission an Independent Judicial Inquiry. The McKies' greatest hope must be that we fail. The SCRO Fingerprint Experts rank with the very best in the World; they always have and they always will. They were right on the Fingerprint Identifications of Shirley McKie, David Asbury and the late Marion Ross. That will be confirmed upon any Judicial Inquiry.

[mark twain]

Iain

You answered your own questions about anonimity.

When the SCRO was asked whether Ms McBride had been threatened with discipline they refused to answer so I am obliged to the apparently anonymous contributer for this information.

Oppressive behaviour be it against Gary Dempster or Fiona McBride is still oppressive. It remains an issue of the utmost importance to a judicial enquiry and the question must be asked, 'why have the Scottish Executive and SCRO sought to gag so many people?'

Surely you of all people understand that families, mortgages, debts etc are foremost in the minds of these people but professionalism means they must speak, before making conclusions about evidence they have never seen. When they do have something to say they must protect their family and themselves first, before embarking on this course.


When anyone tries to make a post here in defence of SCRO they are attacked by the McKie camp (Understandable giving the different views) but now they have to worry about their jobs? Where can they go

THIS MUST NOW BE DIRECTED TO THE FINGERPRINT COMMUNITY

For all of us to continue we must unite and call for the "ORIGINAL EVIDENCE AS USED TO MAKE THE IDENTIFICATION/ELIMINATION" (this does not include defence evidence, court enlargements)be made available to every member of our community.

For this you must all petition the Scottish Executive!! (See Iain for addresses)

When all the differing opinions come in (as there will be in such a high profile case) we must prepare presentations which can be used to prepare a forum to ensure that the reasons that this case happened be explained.


Hope this explains all this better to people not directly involved.

[redlion62]

It is interesting to note that, apparently, the hosts and organisers of this conference have specifically requested that speakers at this conference are to make NO MENTION of THEIR MISTAKES. They also remark that the numbers attending are up on last time. What a joke! The biggest crisis ever within the fingerprint community, brought about by idiots within its own ranks, and nobody is allowed to speak about it!!
It beggars belief! Or should nothing surprise us anymore?
I applaud Mr Dempster and his supporters, of which there are many in Scotland.
Shame on anyone who attends this conference and decides not to debate the Asbury and McKie errors. By doing so they are hammering nails into the coffin lid of their own profession!

[thedelightfulmissfabulous]

Mr redlion62,

Could you possibly not speak unless you have something interesting to say? That would be lovely thank you.

The Delightful Miss Fabulous

[Les Bush]

Hello Iain and others,

I've sent my email to the recipients and cc to yourself and Gary. Hopefully it will do some good in staying off any action until an inquiry is convened and we get the outcome. As my subject heading states, "its hard not to support Gary Dempster". It would be reasonable to assume that in any other environment he would be congratulated for defending the science and the system of justice. Apparently not in his home country. Even though we are internet experts on the McKie case images there is a ground swell of support for their authenticity both in Scotland and abroad. As professionals we can make examinations and form conclusions on a range of material types, images, photographs, lifts, exhibits and photocopies or faxes. We are not limited by the material just the evidence its quality and quantity. My challenge to any expert who is posting to this thread is to examine the material that is available and to forget about any other issue. Use your professional capability and form a conclusion and then get back here with the result anonymously or not. By sitting on the fence your position is not credible and untenable in the court of scientific reason.

[thedelightfulmissfabulous]

How can you possibly say the internet images have any authenticity Mr Bush when they were taken from the door frame many months after Miss McKie's mark had already been lifted? No fingerprint expert would give an opinion IF THEY KNEW that the images had come from an impression that most definately will have broken down from contamination over a long period of time. You withheld this vital piece of information from all that have studied these images. It's about time the experts knew exactly what they have been examining.

The Delightful Miss Fabulous

[mark twain]

My challenge to you Mr Bush is to examine the evidence originally examined by the SCRO experts when they made their initial findings.

From your previous post, you seem to be willing to accept evidence no matter where it comes from, sorry but how do you authenticate the source? or does that not matter.

As to examining the evidence available, yes fine, but the real point is that the evidence used to make the original ident is not available, which is not because of the Experts but the Scottish Executive.

To you personally. I offer this challenge, join the true impartial experts here and ensure that the evidence ( i.e. the material used in the original identification) is available, by petitioning your professional society and the Scottish Executive to have that evidence released.

Is that not a professional and most of all fair response?

[Les Bush]

To the last two postings the challenge remains the same. There is material to be examined and it relates directly to the McKie case. The international experts have agreed on a result signed the petition and are prepared to discuss and defend if necessary their independent conclusion. Forget about all the issues apart from the detail in the latent and inked. Use your skill and report the result but also be prepared to defend your position as we would under peer review. Have a look on this site for the Analysis done by Kasey or Glen and see what we are seeing. Have a look on Onin for the historical materials. Dont turn away in blind anger or use elusive arguments just accurately apply the scientific principles and see what you get. As we say down under "have a go".

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Hello, Les. As you may have noted, I avoid addressing these anonymous slanderers directly. But once in awhile, untruths are perpetuated which cry out for response.

1) Miss D-M-F's basic facts are so wrong that she is obviously out of the loop. The latent print erroneously identified to Shirley McKie has NEVER BEEN LIFTED. The truth of the matter is that the Strathclyde Police dusted the door frame with black powder, developed the latent print, photographed it, and later removed a roughly 4 foot section of the doorframe to preserve the print. Unfortunately, they did not preserve it carefully, but allowed it to be brushed slightly in that streak across the middle. My photograph is actually a little sharper than their original photograph that does not have the streak through the middle, but by comparing the two photographs you can easily see that streak across the middle neither added nor subtracted any detail. It simply lightened the powder in that narrow region. The entire rest of the latent print was on the doorframe when I photographed it exactly as it was when originally photographed by the Strathclyde Police or the SCRO. To a competent latent print examiner trying to determine who left the print, there is no significant difference between the original photographs used by the SCRO or those taken by me two years later.

2) The anonymous SCRO supporters scream that we should use only original photographs knowing full well that neither the Strathclyde Police nor the SCRO will ever make those photographs available to the world fingerprint community. That way they can continue to dismiss our conclusions as not being based on original evidence. The flaw in that argument is that the original photographs and my photographs are equally good for comparison purposes, and conclusions made from either are equally good -- or equally erroneous.

This isn't about the quality of the photographs. It is about competence, and more so about integrity and honesty.

[mark twain]

Now Pat you should know better, it is not SCRO or Strathclyde Police who are in possession of the evidence, it the Scottish Executive.

Myself I have seen (not compared) enlargements and photograhs from both sides of the argument each claiming their conclusions are right.

Guess what my opinion is ???

Bet you guessed wrong, I have no opinion, I believe that if you you wish to criticise someones evidence then you should use their evidence to prove them wrong. By the way if you have an original SCRO print why did you not publish it and then you wouldn't have people annoying you.

I notice your friends are quick to e-mail on Mr Dempsters behalf but not so quick to rise to Mr Russells challenge regarding an enquiry.

Surely the Fingerprint Community deserve to see the material on which the original comparison was done (see, not giving any opinion on the findings )

[mark twain]

Now Pat you should know better, it is not SCRO or Strathclyde Police who are in possession of the evidence, it the Scottish Executive.

Myself I have seen (not compared) enlargements and photograhs from both sides of the argument each claiming their conclusions are right.

Guess what my opinion is ???

Bet you guessed wrong, I have no opinion, I believe that if you you wish to criticise someones evidence then you should use their evidence to prove them wrong. By the way if you have an original SCRO print why did you not publish it and then you wouldn't have people annoying you.

I notice your friends are quick to e-mail on Mr Dempsters behalf but not so quick to rise to Mr Russells challenge regarding an enquiry.

Surely the Fingerprint Community deserve to see the material on which the original comparison was done (see, not giving any opinion on the findings )