http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=433322006
The link above relates to an article which makes the claim the Gift Tag, which was evidence in the David Asbury case, was forged. (Couple or three) of questions in relation to that.
1 Was it not examined by the defence experts at the time?
2 Why has it taken 10 years to discover it was forged
3 Is it possible that because the print is so clear, that forgery is the only possible way that defence experts can explain it away to gain their money and retain their reputation?
Gift Tag a Forgery
-
Pat A. Wertheim
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:48 am
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
There you go again.
mark twain -- As I have stated before, I make it a practice not to respond to anonymous critics. If you have the courage to identify yourself, I would gladly carry on a running conversation with you, as I have with Mr. Russell on previous occasions.
But your batch of questions was based completely on erroneous premises, which leads me to make an exception to the rule of not responding. So here are the answers to your questions:
1 Was it not examined by the defence experts at the time?
Answer: Yes, it was. I saw it in the Procurator Fiscal's office in spring, 2001. I notified David Asbury's solicitor there was a serious problem with the gift tag. At that point, however, the critical piece of evidence against Mr. Asbury was the "identification" of Marion Ross' fingerprint on Mr. Asbury's sweets tin. Mr. Asbury's attorneys chose to concentrate on proving to the court that the identification of Ms. Ross was erroneous, which they did to the court's satisfaction, thus leading to his conviction being overturned and the decision by the prosecutor NOT to pursue the case further.
2 Why has it taken 10 years to discover it was forged
Answer: Come, come, mark twain, surely you can count to ten. Marion Ross was killed just nine years ago. I raised the issue of possible fabrication five years ago when I first examined the evidence. You count years the same way the SCRO counts points -- with gross exaggeration while ignoring all conflicting information.
3 Is it possible that because the print is so clear, that forgery is the only possible way that defence experts can explain it away to gain their money and retain their reputation?
Answer: Wrong again. mark twain. In the first place, I risk my reputation by going public with this information. In the second place, I have not asked to be paid for my observations. Rather, I insist that the only way to resolve the issue is with a judicial inquiry. And although the press has never included a complete story of my interviews, I have consistently stated that any inquiry should be governed by an independent judge and advised by independent experts -- neither those from the SCRO nor me nor any of my supporters.
4 From another current post, you raise the question of why people would go to Gary Dempster's defense but not support Mr. Russell's call for an independent inquiry.
Answer: First, because Mr. Dempster is correct. That's pretty simple. Second, you base that question on an entirely false premise. When Mr. Russell was posting recently and I was conversing with him on this forum demanding an independent inquiry (he at least has the courage and integrity to use his name), I suggested an international petition, written by him and posted on this site for the readers to "sign." The webmaster replied immediately and offered to set up such a petition in a manner to ensure integrity of the process. At that point, Mr. Russell simply ceased to respond or post further, much less present a petition for the world of fingerprint experts to sign. Well, Mr. Russell is, after all, a busy man with more pressing issues, I'm sure.
You expose your motives in your posts, mark twain. For example, in this thread, you focus solely on attacking the critics. What if the signs of fabrication (not forgery -- learn your definitions) are correct? Should there not be an inquiry into all of the issues surrounding this case, including the gift tag?
But your batch of questions was based completely on erroneous premises, which leads me to make an exception to the rule of not responding. So here are the answers to your questions:
1 Was it not examined by the defence experts at the time?
Answer: Yes, it was. I saw it in the Procurator Fiscal's office in spring, 2001. I notified David Asbury's solicitor there was a serious problem with the gift tag. At that point, however, the critical piece of evidence against Mr. Asbury was the "identification" of Marion Ross' fingerprint on Mr. Asbury's sweets tin. Mr. Asbury's attorneys chose to concentrate on proving to the court that the identification of Ms. Ross was erroneous, which they did to the court's satisfaction, thus leading to his conviction being overturned and the decision by the prosecutor NOT to pursue the case further.
2 Why has it taken 10 years to discover it was forged
Answer: Come, come, mark twain, surely you can count to ten. Marion Ross was killed just nine years ago. I raised the issue of possible fabrication five years ago when I first examined the evidence. You count years the same way the SCRO counts points -- with gross exaggeration while ignoring all conflicting information.
3 Is it possible that because the print is so clear, that forgery is the only possible way that defence experts can explain it away to gain their money and retain their reputation?
Answer: Wrong again. mark twain. In the first place, I risk my reputation by going public with this information. In the second place, I have not asked to be paid for my observations. Rather, I insist that the only way to resolve the issue is with a judicial inquiry. And although the press has never included a complete story of my interviews, I have consistently stated that any inquiry should be governed by an independent judge and advised by independent experts -- neither those from the SCRO nor me nor any of my supporters.
4 From another current post, you raise the question of why people would go to Gary Dempster's defense but not support Mr. Russell's call for an independent inquiry.
Answer: First, because Mr. Dempster is correct. That's pretty simple. Second, you base that question on an entirely false premise. When Mr. Russell was posting recently and I was conversing with him on this forum demanding an independent inquiry (he at least has the courage and integrity to use his name), I suggested an international petition, written by him and posted on this site for the readers to "sign." The webmaster replied immediately and offered to set up such a petition in a manner to ensure integrity of the process. At that point, Mr. Russell simply ceased to respond or post further, much less present a petition for the world of fingerprint experts to sign. Well, Mr. Russell is, after all, a busy man with more pressing issues, I'm sure.
You expose your motives in your posts, mark twain. For example, in this thread, you focus solely on attacking the critics. What if the signs of fabrication (not forgery -- learn your definitions) are correct? Should there not be an inquiry into all of the issues surrounding this case, including the gift tag?
-
mark twain
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:37 am
Surely the forum is where questions should be asked.
Now Mr. Wertheim I am sure you aware of why I do not give my name, given that Mr. Dempster and Ms Bride are under investigation for talking about this case, I think for me to give my name would not be very wise.
1. If that is so, I wish you had reported to the relevant authorities so that it could have been investigated at the same time as the SCRO was.
Just for reference purposes I should point out that SCRO never come into contact with articles only photographs of the articles which means that at least I can’t be tarred with that.
2. Oops my mistake, my apologies, but can I correct you on a couple of thing:
I do not use counting to make an identification, I use exactly the same method as yourself to reach my conclusion, counting only comes into the decision process when deciding which of the impressions can be used in court as this is the current national standard which I have to follow.
Oh and another mistaken belief is that I do not look for points of difference, I do and if I find any which cannot be explained I do not consider it an identification.
3. I fail to see how coming out with this information will risk your reputation surely if correct it would enhance your reputation (Please note I am not saying you are wrong). As to the Judicial Inquiry I think you will see from my posts that I wholeheartedly agree with this as I would like to see what went wrong in this case (no need to let me know your opinion) and find out the problem avoided in the future.
4. I would hope that you had already organized a collection of “signatures” given your connections with so many of the community. Yet again we agree that the whole case should be looked, I have never said anything different. In fact the only people not wanting an Enquiry is the Scottish Executive
As to my motives I have one motive and that is to have this case fully examined and for all the evidence used by the SCRO experts to be supplied to the fingerprint community for them to study and reach their conclusions only in this way can the community learn from this case (I know you think this is whining but gosh darn it I believe if someone makes an identification using that evidence then surely any criticism should be carried out using that same evidence).
Now Mr. Wertheim I am sure you aware of why I do not give my name, given that Mr. Dempster and Ms Bride are under investigation for talking about this case, I think for me to give my name would not be very wise.
1. If that is so, I wish you had reported to the relevant authorities so that it could have been investigated at the same time as the SCRO was.
Just for reference purposes I should point out that SCRO never come into contact with articles only photographs of the articles which means that at least I can’t be tarred with that.
2. Oops my mistake, my apologies, but can I correct you on a couple of thing:
I do not use counting to make an identification, I use exactly the same method as yourself to reach my conclusion, counting only comes into the decision process when deciding which of the impressions can be used in court as this is the current national standard which I have to follow.
Oh and another mistaken belief is that I do not look for points of difference, I do and if I find any which cannot be explained I do not consider it an identification.
3. I fail to see how coming out with this information will risk your reputation surely if correct it would enhance your reputation (Please note I am not saying you are wrong). As to the Judicial Inquiry I think you will see from my posts that I wholeheartedly agree with this as I would like to see what went wrong in this case (no need to let me know your opinion) and find out the problem avoided in the future.
4. I would hope that you had already organized a collection of “signatures” given your connections with so many of the community. Yet again we agree that the whole case should be looked, I have never said anything different. In fact the only people not wanting an Enquiry is the Scottish Executive
As to my motives I have one motive and that is to have this case fully examined and for all the evidence used by the SCRO experts to be supplied to the fingerprint community for them to study and reach their conclusions only in this way can the community learn from this case (I know you think this is whining but gosh darn it I believe if someone makes an identification using that evidence then surely any criticism should be carried out using that same evidence).