McKie / Peter Swan

[Curious]

I have been reading the posts about Ms McKie on this site for sometime.

As a fingerprint examiner I have read them with great interest and agree with what is being said by Pat, Iain McKie and other supporters.

I have myself never looked at the print that Pat took, as I would prefer to see original material before I make a judgement (this is my personal choice), but everything I have read points to a massive mistake, cover up, injustice, call it what you like and heads should roll for what has happened in Scotland.

HOWEVER...

I have also read what David Russell has said and I read that with great interest, as there are always two sides to every arguement. But, the other day I received an email (sender will remain anon) which I think seems to be doing the rounds in the UK and in this email it contained a PDF file with the precognition statement from Peter Swan (Ms McKie's first independent expert).

I read this statement, which was very long, and I have to say that afterwards my WHOLE VIEW & OPINION on this case has totally changed.

Like I said before there are two sides to every arguement and I have just read a part of the other side that seems not to have been told to anyone, (or has it) and I am now firmly split down the middle about what did go on during this whole case ?

There is obvioulsy lots more than what I have seen and also from SCRO's side and I now really want to hear their part and make up my mind about what happened.

Can the statement be shown on here or via a link ?

Can David Russell help us in this request or Peter Swan (if he uses this site) or even any other person so that it can be posted.

Like I said at the start, I have read and supported Ms Mckie on this, but what I have read from Peter Swan has truely changed my whole opinion on the subject and MUST be shown to the fingerprint community.

If you think we should have a link or have the statement posted on here then please answer on my poll.

[Les Bush]

Thanks to whoever you are for activating what should be an insight into the workings of Peter Swann. Hopefully it wont disappoint and be words only without any demonstration of analysis, comparison and evaluation. For the information of the author I've just completed reading the Mackay report and would also recommend you update your knowledge on the extent of that investigation and its findings. It is truly worth reading.

[Dogma]

I have been following the calls for an impartial review of all the related McKie matters and it seems almost impossible for everyone to agree on a proper venue. Here's an idea: I just happened across the name of Peter M. Swann in the IAI's membership directory. As a member of the IAI, Mr. Swann must adhere to its Ethics and Professional Conduct codes. Violation of either of these is cause for the IAI to conduct an investigation and if appropriate, based on the findings of that investigation, discipline the offending member. Perhaps some of you who have detailed and first hand knowledge of Mr. Swann violating either code would like to file a formal complaint against Mr. Swann and get things rolling? I do not know the identities of all of the SCRO participants, but if they are also members of the IAI, similar charges may be filed. Similarly, the Fingerprint Society also has a code of conduct, violation of which may lead to expulsion of the member. Perhaps similar charges may be filed by those with knowledge of the offending conduct.
I believe that these investigations and proceedings may be conducted in secret. However, the outcomes would be public knowledge and everyone would be free to draw their own conclusions based on the actions taken by the IAI or FPS.
By the way, the IAI code requires members with knowledge of code violations to report them to the president of the association.
Just a thought. Please continue to piss on each other. Sorry for the interruption.

[redlion62]

As is the way in this scandal the fingerprint community is the last place that SCRO and it`s support(er) would wish to show their handywork.
Whenever the fingerprint community has been given access to the material it has, almost to a man, failed to agree with the SCRO. An independent expert from the UK, held in such high regard that the British Home Office use him to assess other experts, and who convinced the Scottish Executive with a report after viewing the mark that the identification is erroneous( so they decided it was time to pay up) has been gagged and his report is being witheld from pulic view. Don`t hold your breath, `curious`. Can you smell something.....

[Guest]

Can the statement be shown on here or via a link ?

If you think we should have a link or have the statement posted on here then please answer on my poll.

Was this statement sent to Kasey?

[flying monkey]

IN THE COURT OF SESSION

SHIRLEY JANE McKIE
Pursuer
Against

THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS
AND OTHERS
Defenders

PRECOGNITION OF
PETER MALCOLM SWANN


Witness : PETER MALCOLM SWANN
Occupation : Fingerprint Expert
Date of Birth : 27 January, 1934
Address : 35 Woodlands, Horbury, Wakefield WF4 5HH
Telephone Numbers : (1) Home – 01924 264900
(2) Office – 01924 276986
(3) Mobile – 07985 513378

I was born in 1934 and educated at Normanton Grammar School in West Yorkshire. Upon leaving school, I trained as an Engineering Draughtsman. Between 1953 and 1955 I served in the Royal Military Police. Upon my Honourable Discharge from the Army in 1955, I joined the West Riding Constabulary (subsequently the West Yorkshire Police) as a Police Constable. In 1957, I took up a post in the Fingerprint Department of the West Riding Constabulary, situate at the Force Headquarters, Wakefield. I undertook a series of Courses in Fingerprint Classification, Searching, Identification and Examination of Scenes of Crime. In 1967, I was promoted to the rank of Detective Sergeant and had direct responsibility for maintaining 24 hour cover in the Fingerprint Department. My duties entailed the checking of Fingerprint Identifications and attendance at major Crime Scenes, to include Murders. In 1969, I was promoted to the rank of Detective Inspector and appointed Deputy Head of the Fingerprint Department. I took on additional supervisorial duties for the assessment of staff and lecturing students. My principal work, however, was to attend upon all major Crime Scenes in West Yorkshire. I was also called out on a regular basis to undertake work for other Police Forces, when our services were requested. In l970, I was seconded to work in Malta and thereupon undertook examination and the preparation of Expert Fingerprint Evidence in a major Case, at the request of the Maltese Government. In l97l I was promoted to the rank of Detective Chief Inspector and appointed Head of the Fingerprint Department, West Riding Constabulary. Apart from running the Department, I had direct and personal responsibility for Fingerprint Evidence on all major Crime Scenes. I attended upon residential Fingerprint Courses on specialist subjects undertaken by a number of eminent Bodies, to include Fire Brigades and the Metropolitan Police Training School in London. From 1971, I attended successive National Fingerprint Conferences. Between 1977 and 1987, I was Secretary to the Fingerprint Conference.

In 1974, I attended at the Crime Scene of the first of the thirteen Murders committed by Peter William Sutcliffe (the “Yorkshire Ripper” Cases). I also undertook extensive Expert Fingerprint work in connection with the IRA Explosion, involving the deaths of soldiers and their families in a coach on the M62 motorway. Extensive fingerprint work was undertaken on a number of cadavers. Throughout, I continued to undertake Expert work at a number of major Crime Scenes, giving Evidence in the ensuing Criminal Trials. In 1975, I undertook Expert Fingerprint work in the Leslie Whittle Murder Enquiry in Staffordshire. Thereafter, I continued to attend upon all major Crime Scenes in West Yorkshire and also undertook Expert Fingerprint work where other Police Forces had called upon our services, which was commonplace. I also had regular attendance upon all Regional Fingerprint Courses as well as Scenes of Crime Conferences. I lectured on a regular basis at Bishopgarth Detective Training School in Wakefield, in connection with the training of CID Officers. I also accompanied successive Chief Constables of the West Yorkshire Police upon a number of ACPO Technical Meetings.

In l984, I was promoted to the rank of Superintendent, West Yorkshire Police and appointed Home Office Advisor on Fingerprints. The Home Office appointment entailed the conduct of research at Home Office establishments, to include Sandridge and Aldermaston, working on fingerprint development processes. I also participated in Working Parties dealing with automated fingerprint systems. I conducted lectures at various establishments and liaised with a number of separate Departments within the Home Office.

In l987, I retired from the West Yorkshire Police and began to undertake professional work as an Independent Fingerprint Expert. During the ensuing 19 years, I have been instructed to examine and report on Fingerprint Evidence in many high profile Cases and have also given Evidence, when required. I have worked on many of the major Terrorism Cases in the UK, also working for the Director of Public Prosecutions. I undertook Expert Fingerprint Work on the Perth Mint Case in Western Australia. I have also dealt with Cases from the Far East, Middle East, Europe and the USA. Several Cases have involved the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I have worked for both the Crown and the Defence. In all Cases, I give my Expert Opinion on the Fingerprint Evidence, regardless of whether I have been instructed by the Prosecution or the Defence. At this stage, I have nearly five decades experience as a Fingerprint Expert. I have initiated and checked countless Fingerprint Identifications. I have attended upon and examined Fingerprint Evidence at many hundreds of Crime Scenes, to include Cases involving multiple Murders and Terrorism. I have had extensive involvement through the Home Office in the research and development of many laboratory based processes for the examination of a number of substrates. I continue to keep up to date and have for many years, maintained my own Fingerprint Library, containing, for example, Journals and Technical Publications relating to Expert Fingerprint Work. My Expert work has been Peer Reviewed. I also remain a Fellow of the Fingerprint Society, a Fellow of the Academy of Experts, a Member of the International Association for Identification, a Member of the Forensic Science Society, a Member of the Society of Expert Witnesses and I am also registered with the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners (“CRFP”).

My first involvement in this matter was in May, 1998 when I held a lengthy meeting in my then Office at 17 Barstow Square, Wakefield with Shirley McKie and her father, Iain McKie. We spent the better part of the day discussing Fingerprint Evidence, Procedures and the possibility of fingerprints being lifted and transplanted. At that time, I was given the background facts and told by Ms. McKie that she was a serving Detective Constable in Strathclyde Police and that Mr. McKie was a former Superintendent in the same Force. At that stage, neither Ms. McKie nor Mr. McKie made any allegations against the Scottish Criminal Record Office (“SCRO”) and appeared to have high regard for the expertise of its Fingerprint Officers. The first formal communication by Ms. McKie’s then Solicitors, Levy & McRae was by a letter dated 12 May, 1998 from Peter Watson, a Solicitor Advocate with that firm. Mr. Watson provided me with the Petition Warrant and Ms. McKie’s Statement. He then requested my Curriculum Vitae and related documentation. On 14 May, l998 I wrote to Levy & McRae and by then, was able to confirm that I had already undertaken a lengthy meeting with their client and her father. Levy & McRae wrote to me on 22 May, 1998 and confirmed my appointment as Defence Fingerprint Expert in the Case. I exchanged further correspondence and telephone calls with Levy & McRae, concerning Inspection of the Crown’s Exhibits. On 10 November, l998 a note was faxed to my home by Angela McCracken, a Solicitor with Levy & McRae who was handling the Case. Mrs. McCracken stated that Ms. McKie’s Senior Counsel, Bert Kerrigan QC and Junior Counsel wanted to meet with me at my Wakefield Office the following day, for a general discussion about the Case. At that stage, I was in Australia, acting as a Fingerprint Expert in another Case. The required meeting with Bert Kerrigan QC and Mrs. Biggart subsequently took place on 8 December, l998 in my Office situate at 17 Barstow Square, Wakefield. During that meeting, we had a length discussion about Ms. McKie’s Case and all aspects of fingerprinting and associated matters. I understand that subsequently, Ms. McKie was dissatisfied with Mr. Kerrigan’s services and he was replaced by Donald Findlay QC.

On 22 February, 1999 Angela McCracken of Levy & McRae wrote to me and confirmed the arrangements for me to attend Glasgow on Tuesday, 2 March, l999 in order to undertake Expert Inspection of the Crown’s Exhibits. Mrs. McCracken also confirmed that at 2 p.m. on that same date, I was to attend Consultation with their Senior Counsel (Mr. Findlay). On 26 February, 1999 Mrs. McCracken wrote to me and provided me with three videos, Volumes I, II and III of the copy Productions and photographs, apparently obtained from the Procurator Fiscal’s Office. On 22 February, l999 Mrs. McCracken of Levy & McRae wrote to me, confirming the arrangements for Expert Inspection of the Crown’s Exhibits in Glasgow on Tuesday, 2 March, l999. I was notified that we would also be meeting with Senior Counsel at 2 p.m. on the same date. In the same letter, Mrs. McCracken provided me with a copy of the Crown’s Fingerprint Report together with other relevant Crown Productions. On 26 February, 1999 Mrs. McCracken forwarded to me my airline ticket, together with three videos, Volumes I, II and III of the copy Productions and photographs, apparently obtained from the Procurator Fiscal’s Office. I undertook review of the albums of photographs and, as I recall, a number of Comparison Charts. I recall one particular Chart of the disputed Mark, which was not too clear, and probably a second or third generation copy. In my examination of that Chart, I identified 16 ridge characteristics, which were in agreement. I was satisfied that it was a positive identification.

On 2 March, l999 I attended at the Offices of Levy & McRae in Glasgow and met with Mrs. McCracken. We then both attended at the High Court of Judiciary, SaltMarket in order to view the Crown’s Exhibit, a door standard. We entered a very small room, containing Exhibits. The door standard was propped up against one wall. I examined the door standard, both sketching and measuring it. I also noted the Mark in question. The Mark was on the face of the standard, 19 to 19 ½ inches from the top, the total length being 76 inches. It was a black powdered Mark, still being clearly visible in situ. In my opinion, it was a genuine Mark resulting from contact between the thumb and door standard. There was nothing I could see to suggest that the Mark was other than entirely genuine. There was an actual size copy of the Mark and a Fingerprint Form on a desk. During that Inspection, I examined Exhibit 102, being the door standard, a Fingerprint Form in the name of Shirley Jane McKie, an actual size photograph of the Mark on Exhibit 102 and other Exhibits connected with the Case. I am able to produce my sketch and notes. As a result of that Inspection, I confirmed that the Mark was the left thumb print of Shirley McKie with at least 16 ridge characteristics in agreement in both detail and position. The appearance of the Mark had all of the signs of having been made by the natural thumb. The Mark’s disposition, that is to say the way it lay on the Exhibit, evidenced the natural manner in which the thumb had made contact. The ridge structure and presence of sweat pore detail all added to the genuineness of the Mark. There was no sign of any disturbance to either the Mark or the area around the Mark. After the Inspection, accompanied by Mrs. McCracken I met with Donald Findlay QC and Victoria Young, Advocate, Ms. McKie’s Senior and Junior Counsel. Mr. Findlay asked me if I had seen the Mark. I confirmed that I had seen it in situ on the door standard. He asked me whether it was genuine and I confirmed that it was. He asked me whose fingerprint it was. I stated that it was the left thumb print of Shirley McKie. I confirmed that the Mark on the door standard, the photograph of the Mark in the Production and the left thumb impression of Shirley McKie on the Fingerprint Form were all one and the same subject. I stated that the Mark on the door standard was the left thumb print of Ms. McKie. I have my original note of the discussion with Mr. Findlay. Mr. Findlay terminated the meeting abruptly and left the room, accompanied by Miss Young. Shortly after that, I returned to Wakefield.

Upon my return to Wakefield, I prepared my Fingerprint Report, with my Findings. That Report was completed and signed by me on 16 March, l999. I made all of my Findings independently as a Fingerprint Expert. I did not adopt nor rely upon the Identification made by SCRO. My job as a Fingerprint Expert was to arrive at my own Findings and that is precisely what I did. The Mark Exhibit Y7 had clearly been developed by the application of black fingerprint powder. It had been located between 19 and 19 ½ inches from the top of the door standard. My Identification of Exhibit Y7 and its positioning was consistent with Ms. McKie having held or touched the door surround at that point. She must have been on the bathroom side of the door, so as to leave her Mark in such a position. In making my Identification of Exhibit Y7 as being the left thumb print of Shirley McKie, I identified at least 16 ridge characteristics in agreement in both detail and position. As stated, the Mark had been deposited by the natural thumb and there was no evidence whatsoever of interference with the Exhibit. In the circumstances, the only conclusion that could be drawn from my Expert Findings was that Ms. McKie had entered the bungalow and touched the door standard. Having served in the Fingerprint Department of the West Yorkshire Police for some 30 years, I am very familiar with the consequences of inadvertence on the part of Police Officers who have made unauthorised entry into a Crime Scene and “innocently” left their fingerprint. I can recall many examples of such conduct, to include one occasion when I had reason to draw to the attention of the then Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police that I had found his palm print on a fireplace at a Crime Scene. The Chief Constable looked aghast, but admitted it immediately. In respect of the Identification of Ms. McKie’s left thumb print, there can be no doubt whatsoever. It was a conclusive Identification.

Having drafted and completed my Primary Fingerprint Report in the Case of Her Majesty’s Advocate v. Shirley Jane McKie, I received further correspondence from Levy & McRae. In this connection, I received a letter dated 12 March, 1999 from Mr. Watson of that firm, in which he provided me with correspondence exchanged with Shirley McKie. Mr. Watson asked me if I could deal with the matters raised in Ms. McKie’s correspondence. I was provided with a letter dated 7 March, l999 from Ms. McKie to Mrs. McCracken at Levy & McRae. Ms. McKie’s letter incorporated a series of questions to be answered by the Fingerprint Experts. Ms. McKie knew that I had identified Exhibit Y7 as her print, albeit that she had not, at that stage, received my written Report. Ms. McKie wanted Levy & McRae to provide her with that firm’s “Brief” to me, that is to say their instructions. Ms. McKie complained that I had not seen her or taken her prints, prior to undertaking Expert Examination in Glasgow. She questioned why I had apparently accepted the elimination prints provided by the Prosecution. (By letter dated 3 March, l999 Levy & McRae provided me with the original left thumb print of Shirley McKie, and such document remains in my possession). She asked how it was known that the Fingerprint Forms had not been fabricated. She questioned whether the fingerprint on the door was the same one which had been there, when initially examined. A substantial number of written questions were then raised. On 16 March, l999 I wrote to Levy & McRae and provided them with my two Fingerprint Reports, each dated 16 March, l999. The first such document was my Primary Report. The second Report constituted my response to all of the questions raised by Shirley McKie in her letter of 7 March, l999. In responding to those questions, I conclusively confirmed that Exhibit Y7 was her left thumb print. Ms. McKie even questioned whether someone, who had the same fingerprint as her, had access to the locus. In further advising, I confirmed that the fundamental basis for fingerprint identification is that we all have different fingerprints. No human has ever been found to have the same sequence of fingerprint characteristics as another. Whilst we all shared common patterns and types of ridge characteristics, the overriding factor is that, irrespective of pattern or characteristic type, the sequence in which they appear in a human fingerprint has never known to have been repeated. At that stage, and having been examining fingerprints for 41 years, I was able to confirm that to my knowledge, there would be no-one else with the same fingerprints as Ms. McKie or, indeed, anyone else. As to whether there had been a “cover-up”, I advised her that I could not subscribe to any such suggestion. Quite simply, there was no evidence whatsoever of any “cover-up”. I confirmed, therefore, that my conclusion remained the same, namely, that Exhibit Y7 was the left thumb print of Shirley McKie.

In the event, after submitting my two Expert Fingerprint Reports, I heard little more from Levy & McRae. I do, however, recall that some months later, I received a telephone call from a gentleman who stated that he was from the Procurator Fiscal’s Office in Glasgow. The gentleman concerned asked me if I would be willing to answer some questions, simply responding yes or no. I said that I would be prepared to answer. He then asked me if I was involved in the Shirley McKie Case and I said yes. I was then asked if I had examined the Exhibit and again, I said yes. I was then asked if I had submitted my Expert Findings and I replied yes. At the time, I had no appreciation as to why that call had been made. In 2005, however, my Solicitor obtained a Certified Transcript of Proceedings in respect of the Trial, Her Majesty’s Advocate v. Shirley Jane McKie. I have noted the Transcript for Tuesday, 11 May, 1999 when Ms. McKie was Cross-Examined by the Advocate Depute as to the involvement of any Defence Fingerprint Expert, prior to her subsequent Fingerprint Expert, Pat Wertheim. In reading that Transcript, it is clear that Ms. McKie gave false answers. I now realise precisely why I was telephoned by the Procurator Fiscal and in particular why those specific questions were put to me.

At some stage, I recall someone telling me that Ms. McKie had been Acquitted. I also recall being told that some Experts from the USA had said that Exhibit Y7 was not Ms. McKie’s fingerprint. Subsequently, I was able to obtain a photograph of Exhibit Y7 and to check it again. However, my view remained unchanged: Exhibit Y7 was the left thumb print of Shirley McKie. I obtained some excellent copies of the Fingerprint Evidence and spent some very considerable time undertaking re-examination and preparing a Comparison Chart. At that stage, I prepared a Comparison Chart on Exhibit Y7 evidencing 21 ridge characteristics in sequence and agreement with the left thumb print of Shirley McKie. My Findings were Peer Reviewed by other Fingerprint Experts. I was also fully aware of the extensive work being undertaken by an eminent Fingerprint Expert, John Berry, who had confirmed the Identification. Mr. Berry’s Expert Findings have been communicated to the Office of the Solicitor to the Scottish Executive.

I am aware that on the allegations of Shirley McKie and her father, Iain McKie the SCRO Fingerprint Experts were suspended and subjected to Criminal Investigation. In connection with that Investigation, I was visited by Officers of the Tayside Police and was interviewed. I provided the Tayside Police Officers with my Findings, to include the Comparison Chart. That would have been in the Autumn of l999. I also recall having made a Statement to the Tayside Police dealing with matters, and confirming that Exhibit Y7 was the left thumb print of Shirley McKie. However, at the time of making my Statement to the Tayside Police, I had still not resolved one issue, which concerned certain characteristics at the top of the Crime Scene Mark. Irrespective of that fact, the position remained that there were in excess of 20 ridge characteristics in sequence and agreement in the area below, so as to fully satisfy me as to the Identification. It was after the meeting with the Tayside Police that I resolved the issue of the characteristics at the top of the Mark and in so doing, realised the severity of distortion that had occurred, when the Mark had been deposited on the door standard. Thus, it was assessed to be a 66 degree anti-clockwise movement of the tip of the thumb, which resulted in ridge characteristics seen at 12 o’clock on the Crime Scene Mark, appearing at 2 o’clock on the rolled impression (not the plain impression) of Shirley McKie’s left thumb. Latent print distortion is a problem that can easily deceive the inexperienced Expert or Examiner and cause even the most knowledgeable Expert to take a second look. Ridge structure movement, due to pressure and other forces, may create the illusion that two different, but similar prints are involved. As all Fingerprint Experts should be aware, however, ridged skin is extremely flexible and plastic in nature and when subjected to pressure, may change the appearance of the pattern, causing the ridges to change the direction of flow. It may also result in ridge characteristics being out of position, when compared to the inked or known donor print. This is exactly what had happened with Mark Y7. Almost every latent print is distorted to some degree, but some are distorted to the extent of creating a problem in recognition. Some loop patterns, which is what we have here, whether right or left slope, will lean more or less in the Crime Scene Mark when compared to the inked print, giving the impression, not of similarity, but of difference. That too appears to have occurred with Exhibit Y7. Having said that, there can be no excuse at all for any competent Expert to be deceived by an apparent difference in ridge flow or the position of ridge characteristics, because of external forces. Movement can be severe, resulting in distortion, but as all competent Fingerprint Experts are well aware, Identification is based on the sequence of ridge characteristics in the two prints, Crime Scene Mark and inked print, and not on ridge flow or pattern which are simply “class characteristics”.

In January, 2001 I received a letter from the then Chairman of the Fingerprint Society, putting to me various allegations of Unprofessional Conduct, by reference to the Identification of Ms. McKie’s thumb print and a Report by H.M. Chief Inspector of Constabulary. It was suggested that I had given Evidence of Identification during the Trial. I duly responded, also pointing out that I had not been called at the Hearing. In the event, between January, 2001 and June, 2005 I was subjected to serial Complaints made by Shirley McKie and her father, Iain McKie. At the outset, their principal objective was to try and force me to withdraw my Identification of Exhibit Y7 as Ms. McKie’s left thumb print. They also sought to prevent me from making any Statement in connection with the Case, alleging both Breach of Confidentiality and of Legal Professional Privilege. The Complaints of Professional Misconduct to the Fingerprint Society were orchestrated by the McKies. Repeated Complaints were lodged by the McKies with the Fingerprint Society. I am aware that on 12 August, 2003 Iain McKie (with the express authorisation of Shirley McKie) wrote to the Fingerprint Society, demanding why they had failed to interview me or relevant Witnesses. The McKies wanted to know whether Committee Members of the Fingerprint Society were “Friends and Supporters of Mr. Swann and/or SCRO”. By that stage, the McKies’ Complaints had been dismissed by the Fingerprint Society. However, Shirley McKie and Iain McKie then pursued serial Complaints against me, this time with CRFP (Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners). I will come back to the matter of the ensuing CRFP Disciplinary Proceedings. It is, however, important to understand the relevance of Shirley McKie’s actions, both in respect of the Fingerprint Society and CRFP. Ms. McKie and her father, Mr. McKie attempted to use both the Fingerprint Society and CRFP to force me to withdraw my Identification of Exhibit Y7 and effectively, to gag me from making any disclosure within what may be termed the Fingerprint Community. At the same time, Shirley McKie and her father were orchestrating a Media Campaign, alleging that she had been subject to a Conspiracy by SCRO Experts and others. Eventually, in signed Witness Statements submitted by Shirley McKie and Iain McKie to the CRFP, they alleged that disclosure of my Expert Findings “was potentially harmful to (Shirley McKie’s) reputation and Civil Case for Damages against Strathclyde Police and the Scottish Criminal Record Office” (Witness Statement of 29 May, 2004).

I had been aware that four of the SCRO Fingerprint Experts had been suspended from their duties, with effect from early August, 2000. I also became aware of the ongoing Criminal Investigation. On 13 June 2001, in connection with the Criminal Investigation of the SCRO Officers, I received a letter from William Gilchrist, Regional Procurator Fiscal of the Regional Procurator Fiscal’s Office in Paisley. He notified me that he had been asked to investigate the Fingerprint Evidence in the Cases of HMA v. Shirley McKie and HMA v. David Asbury. He referred to an Analysis prepared by the National Training Centre at Durham. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he wished to interview me and to show me the Analysis prepared by Durham. He declared that he was anxious to know whether that Analysis would alter my own position, as regards the Identifications which I had made in relation to the Cases of Shirley McKie and David Asbury. I subsequently met with Mr. Gilchrist at the Academy of Experts in London on 16 June, 2001. Whilst Mr. Gilchrist and I showed each other extensive material, to include Fingerprint Charts, it was agreed at the outset that there would be no exchange of copies. Mr. Gilchrist told me that he had been charged with investigating the Conduct and Evidence of the four Experts in SCRO who had given Evidence in Shirley McKie’s Trial, to see what further action was necessary. Mr. Gilchrist showed me Reports prepared by Fingerprint Experts from Holland and Norway. Mr. Gilchrist appeared to be struggling with those Reports and went on to show me the material prepared by Durham Training School. They had produced a Chart, with characteristics Marked. It was evident, however, that they had followed the same approach as the McKie “Experts” and had tried to Mark detail in disagreement. The Evidence prepared by Durham Training School was totalling flawed. I also examined the “Court Production” prepared by Pat Wertheim. Again, Mr. Wertheim’s Evidence was totally flawed and, indeed, demonstrably so. I then showed to Mr. Gilchrist my prepared Chart of the same characteristics which had been Marked by Mr. Wertheim. I demonstrated that they were in sequence and agreement with the characteristics on Ms. McKie’s left thumb. I explained to Mr. Gilchrist that he had failed to understand what had happened due to latent print distortion and in this Case, the fact that the Mark had moved through 66 degrees. I spent some time explaining that to Mr. Gilchrist and I was satisfied that he understood my Findings. Upon conclusion of our meeting, I distinctly recall Mr. Gilchrist telling me that he could not, upon his return to Scotland, put in an adverse Report upon the four Fingerprint Officers.

A short while after my meeting with the Procurator Fiscal, I was asked to make a Presentation to a group of Fingerprint Experts. The request arose from an Expert who had been asked about the McKie Case in Court and who had been unable to deal with the enquiry, having no direct knowledge of the Case. Some 25 to 30 Experts were present and I took them through the Fingerprint Charts in the McKie Case. I produced various Fingerprint Charts which I made available to all those present, who were at liberty to consider them privately and in their own time. I invited critical comment upon my Identification of Exhibit Y7 as being the left thumb print of Shirley McKie. After extensive review, not one of the Fingerprint Experts who was present challenged the Identification of Exhibit Y7.

I remained so concerned by the allegations being made by Shirley McKie and her father and their continuing control of a Media Campaign, attacking the SCRO Fingerprint Experts, that on 4 April, 2002 I wrote to Andrew Brown, who was the then Chief Constable of Grampian Police and Chairman of the SCRO Executive Committee. I referred to the Expert Fingerprint Work undertaken by John Berry and myself and the corresponding Peer Reviews. I also confirmed that such Evidence had been reviewed by not less than 50 Fingerprint Experts, none of whom had raised any doubts as to the positivity of the Identification. I referred Mr. Brown to the allegations made by Mr. McKie during the Fingerprint Society’s Annual Conference in Cardiff in March, 2002. I referred to my attempts to communicate with the Office of H.M. Chief Inspector of Constabulary in Glasgow and to set the record correct, as to my involvement as an Independent Fingerprint Expert in the Case of Her Majesty’s Advocate v. Shirley Jane McKie. It had been alleged in that Report that “an Independent Fingerprint Expert was called by the Defence and confirmed the Findings of the SCRO Experts”. However, I had not been called by the Defence and the Report of H.M. Chief Inspector of Constabulary was inaccurate. In my letter to the Chief Constable, I referred to my meeting in London with the Procurator Fiscal, telling him that I had been shocked by the incompetence of those Experts who had denied the match between Exhibit Y7 and the left thumb print of Shirley McKie. Not one of the foreign Experts, let alone those at Durham Training School, had grasped the fact that it was a very complex Mark and that the established anti-clockwise movement had immediately disposed of the so called ridge characteristics in disagreement. I pointed out to the Chief Constable that some of the Procurator Fiscal’s Exhibits evidenced the fact that Experts such as Mr. Wertheim had alleged “points of disagreement”, whilst at the same time ignoring in excess of 20 ridge characteristics in sequence and agreement, in the remaining Crime Scene Mark. I expressed my grave concern that Ms. McKie’s Lead Experts had publicly declared that it had only taken them 90 seconds to establish the Misidentification of Exhibit Y7. I had already satisfied the Procurator Fiscal that my Comparison Charts entirely corroborated the SCRO Fingerprint Experts’ Evidence of Identification. Subsequently, the Chief Constable responded, duly noting my Submission, but pointing out that since the Case of David Asbury was sub judice, he could not comment. Subsequently, on 7 May, 2002 I sent to Jim Wallace QC, the then Minister for Justice two Comparison Charts. The first showed the alleged characteristics “in disagreement”, produced in Court by the Defence, during the McKie Trial. The second Comparison Chart had been prepared by Mr. Berry and demonstrated the movement of the impression when deposited, resulting in characteristics appearing out of position. Again, the response was that the matter was sub judice. I remained deeply concerned. I was aware that on 14 May, 1999 two American Experts, Pat Wertheim and David Grieve had given Evidence for the Defence in the Trial, Her Majesty’s Advocate v. Shirley Jane McKie. As stated, Mr. Wertheim claimed to have made his Expert Findings on Exhibit Y7 within 90 seconds. Subsequently, he claimed to have performed that Expert Assessment in 60 seconds. I am aware that the Media used Mr. Wertheim’s false claims to support headlines attacking the reliability of Fingerprint Evidence throughout the Jurisdiction. Indeed, one headline read “90 Seconds to Destroy 100 Years of Forensics”. However, and as stated, the Procurator Fiscal had made Mr. Wertheim’s Court Chart available to me, during our meeting at the Academy of Experts. Mr. Wertheim, in attempting to prove that Mark Y7 was not the thumb print of Shirley McKie, had used an acetate sheet, overlaying an enlargement of Mark Y7. He had Marked on that sheet a number of characteristics which appeared at 12 o’clock, declaring that those characteristics did not appear on Ms. McKie’s thumb print. Mr. Wertheim was correct on only one issue and that was, indeed, that the characteristics did not appear at 12 o’clock on Ms. McKie’s thumb print. Had Mr. Wertheim persevered and spent more than 90 seconds in his assessment, he would have found the “missing” characteristic detail at 2 o’clock. The Evidence, therefore, presented by the American Experts in the Perjury Trial had not only been flawed, but was based upon examinations conducted by so called Fingerprint Experts who had failed to grasp even the basic principles of Fingerprint Identification Work. Did those Fingerprint Experts restrict their comparisons to the tip of the thumb and thereby totally ignore the numerous characteristics in agreement around and below the centre of the ball of the thumb? I have illustrated those numerous characteristics in Comparison Charts and they prove beyond all doubt the positivity of the Identification. Together with other Comparison Charts, they show the alleged “missing” characteristics at the tip.

I am aware that advice was sought by H.M. Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Scotland from Fingerprint Experts in the Netherlands, Arie Zeelenberg, Holland and Torga Rudrud, Norway regarding the evidential value of Exhibit Y7. When I met with the Procurator Fiscal in London in 2001, I had sight of their Reports. In considering their Reports, I came to the conclusion that those Experts had no understanding of the severe distortion that had occurred. The subsequent Comparison Charts they had produced, in an endeavour to prove Misidentification, demonstrated an inability to correctly “Mark-up” ridge characteristics in agreement. Instead, they Marked characteristics “in disagreement” as being the same. That only emphasised to me a total lack of expertise and professional ability on their part. Their Report and Comparison Charts were, in my Expert Opinion, useless for the purpose requested, that is to say to satisfy HMCIC Scotland that the Mark was not that of Shirley McKie. The Evidence of the so called Experts brought in from America, Holland and Norway is demonstrably flawed. The available Comparison Charts now conclusively prove beyond any doubt that Exhibit Y7 is the left thumb print of Shirley McKie.

I am aware of more recent claims on behalf of certain staff within Grampian Police Fingerprint Department that Exhibit Y7 was not the thumb print of Shirley McKie. It was claimed that after a visit to the Department by Ewan Innes, Head of the Scottish Fingerprint Service, in May 2005, some staff had “discovered” material connected with the McKie Case in the belongings of a retired member of staff. It was said that the material used had been validated by Mr. Wertheim, with approval from Mr. McKie. The employees concerned then produced a Report, claiming that there had been Misidentification. However, having studied their Findings, I would point out that the photograph of the Crime Scene Mark relied upon by them, was not the original used, as stated in the response of Mr. Wertheim. A scrape Mark can be seen quite clearly, just above the centre core. That is not on the original photographed Mark and does inhibit to some extent the comparisons made. Further, on all of the left thumb impressions reproduced by the employees concerned, not one single impression showed the right-hand side. Indeed, a quarter of the print is missing, with all the detail that such an area would contain. The ensuing “Fingerprint Report” was both elementary and flawed. In particular, the material used by the three employees concerned should not have been relied upon. That was particularly so in respect of ten impressions of the left thumb, all of which omitted the area in question. Not one of those Marks was a rolled impression. Instead, each such Mark was a plain impression. Had those three employees of Grampian Police Fingerprint Department used a rolled impression, then they must inevitably have arrived at a different conclusion. Even then, they would have still been in difficulty, using the material, as presented. Those three employees apparently decided to undertake the Fingerprint Comparison Exercise some seven years after the event. However, it would have been reasonable to expect any competent Fingerprint Expert prepared to carry out work of such importance and sensitivity, to have used appropriate material. That is particularly so when they were dealing with a very complex Mark, which was distorted and with measured movement of 66 degrees at the tip. Had those Fingerprint Experts used appropriate material, and worked with competence and diligence, then inevitably, they would have identified Exhibit Y7 as the left thumb print of Shirley McKie. I have produced Fingerprint Comparison Charts to demonstrate that the Findings of the three employees from Grampian Police Fingerprint Department were flawed.

I would also make clear that I have carried out extensive Expert Fingerprint Work in the Case of Her Majesty’s Advocate v. David Asbury. In particular, I have carried out comparisons between Mark UC01050197Q12 on a Marks & Spencer tin, with the right forefinger impression of Marion Ross. As a result of my Expert Fingerprint Work, I identified in excess of 16 ridge characteristics which were in agreement, both in detail and position. As a result of those Findings, there can be no doubt at all that such Mark is the fingerprint of the late Marion Ross. Indeed, with such number of ridge characteristics in agreement and sequence, there is no room for any margin of error. Again, I am in a position to produce Comparison Charts confirming such Identification beyond any doubt.

I now turn to the Disciplinary Tribunal Proceedings pursued against me by CRFP, upon the Complaints of Shirley McKie. Both in Statements and in written notification, CRFP received confirmation from Ms. McKie that her father, Iain McKie had express authority to act on her behalf. In the event, Shirley McKie and her father attempted to use the CRFP to prevent me from making disclosures, particularly as to my involvement as her Defence Expert and the fact that I had identified Exhibit Y7 as her left thumb print. Shirley McKie’s originating Complaint was that I had “failed to act accordingly in relation to (her) Case by failing to conduct (my) original examination of the Productions in an effective and efficient way”. Ms. McKie alleged specifically “(that I) failed to re-take (her) fingerprints and relied on the prints provided by the SCRO that have subsequently shown to be wrong”. Ms. McKie further alleged that I had breached the Rules of Professional Conduct by “failing to acknowledge (my) mistakes”. Ms. McKie alleged that “following the wide publicity” given to her Case, it was evident “that a mistake had been made”. It was alleged, therefore, by Ms. McKie that I “well knew (I) had made a mistake and was aware that a miscarriage of justice could have occurred.” Comprehensive Submissions were made by Ms. McKie concerning the Fingerprint Evidence in the Cases of Her Majesty’s Advocate v. David Asbury and Her Majesty’s Advocate v. Shirley Jane McKie. Numerous Complaints were made by Ms. McKie, to be investigated by CRFP. It mattered not that the same Complaints had already been dismissed by the Fingerprint Society, under virtually identical Codes of Professional Conduct. I will not give a full account of the Disciplinary Tribunal Proceedings. Those Proceedings are heavily documented and have been the subject of detailed Submissions to Colin Boyd QC, The Lord Advocate and others. It is, however, material that in respect of Ms. McKie’s Complaints to the CRFP, I secured, for the first time, Legal Representation. In this connection, I was represented by David Russell of Towells Solicitors, Wakefield. In the event, upon issue of Convening Order, the CRFP commenced Disciplinary Proceedings against me. I was Charged with Breach of Confidentiality and Breach of Legal Professional Privilege, by reference to alleged, specific events. The Statements of Facts served by the CRFP’s Lawyers recited events concerning my Identification of Exhibit Y7 as the left thumb print of Shirley McKie. In connection with the Proceedings, I required, and was served with, Witness Statements made by Shirley McKie and Iain McKie, each of which was endorsed with a Statement of Truth, in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules in England. The substantive Complaint was that my disclosures were “potentially harmful to my (Shirley McKie’s) reputation and Civil Case for Damages against Strathclyde Police and the Scottish Criminal Records Office. There ensued a series of Hearings in Chambers before Philip Butler (Barrister at Law and Judge), Chairman of the Disciplinary Tribunal. In this connection, my Solicitor made extensive enquiry concerning the Court of Session Proceedings in the Action Shirley Jane McKie v. The Scottish Ministers and Others. My Solicitor produced Evidence that Shirley McKie had made false Statements in those Proceedings and in particular, had pleaded false averments. Pursuant to an Order for Directions made by the Chairman on 21 September 2004, as amended on 9 November 2004, a Statement was duly served on my behalf on 25 November 2004, a copy of which was served upon Shirley McKie, as well as the CRFP’s Lawyers. Numerous false averments were pleaded by Ms. McKie, to include one identified by my Solicitor in Minute of Amendment for the Pursuer, namely, that “no Expert who was asked to provide an Opinion on the matter of comparison of the prints prior to the Pursuer’s (Perjury) Trial stated that there was a match between the prints.” Repeated claims had been pleaded by Ms. McKie that “no Fingerprint Expert, other than those within SCRO, had maintained that the claimed match is a valid one.” My Solicitor researched the McKie Campaign and notwithstanding the production of several thousand documents by Shirley McKie, found that not one disclosed my involvement as her Defence Fingerprint Expert. In particular, notwithstanding the fact that Ms. McKie had made allegations of Criminal Conduct against the SCRO Fingerprint Experts for the better part of 5 years, there had never been any public disclosure that her own Defence Expert had identified Exhibit Y7 as her left thumb print, thereby agreeing with the Expert Findings of the SCRO Experts. The matter was gone into in great depth and further Hearings took place before the Chairman of the Disciplinary Tribunal. In the event, in a Hearing of the Disciplinary Tribunal heard at the Judge’s Chambers in Manchester on 29 November, 2004 an Order was made, recognising that upon the Opening of the Disciplinary Tribunal Hearing, I would be at liberty “to pursue an Application as to Abuse of Process based upon the motivation of the Complainant, Iain McKie, and his daughter, Shirley McKie.” Under the Order of the Disciplinary Tribunal Chairman, a number of Directions were given, to include one that I should disclose by 6 December, 2004 “copies of all documents in the nature of Court Pleadings in the Civil Case of McKie v. The Scottish Ministers and Others in the Court of Session as are in his possession and identified in the Statement served on his behalf dated 25 November 2004”. My Solicitor complied with that Order and served upon CRFP a Bundle of Pleadings in the Court of Session Proceedings and in addition, the Appeal Judgment of The Rt. Hon Lord Wheatley, handed down in the Outer House, Court of Session on 24 December, 2003. There was Citation of His Lordship’s Judgment and again, a series of false statements relied upon by the Pursuer, Ms. McKie were identified. It was expressly alleged, on those averments, that His Lordship had been misled. My Solicitor also gave notice that in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct for Forensic Practitioners and the Nolan Principles on Standards in Public Life, formal notification was to be given to the proper Authorities in Scotland, to include the Lord Advocate. The specific requirement upon Forensic Practitioners and others, was that such disclosure should be given where there were “good grounds for believing that there is a situation which may result in a miscarriage of justice”.

The detailed, fully documented Submissions made by my Solicitor, were copied by the CRFP Lawyers to Shirley McKie. Each and every allegation was put to Ms. McKie, in order that she might have an opportunity of answering and providing an explanation. However, Ms. McKie never responded. Instead, her father, Mr. McKie attempted to take control of the situation. By a letter dated 10 February, 2005 from Mr. McKie to the CRFP’s Lawyer, he claimed repeatedly that their QC “has taken full responsibility for the form of the complex Court of Session Pleadings”. Mr. McKie, on behalf of his daughter, repeatedly claimed that as an Expert, my “Findings have been totally discredited”. Mr. McKie went on to allege that such Findings had also been “discredited within the UK and across the world”. Notwithstanding a long-winded tirade from Mr. McKie, there was no explanation whatsoever as to the false averments pleaded in the Court of Session. By this time, the Disciplinary Tribunal Hearing was fixed for Hearing in London, to commence on 6 June, 2005 with a time estimate of 10 days. My Solicitor had made tentative arrangements for a number of Witnesses from Scotland to attend upon the Disciplinary Tribunal Hearing. My Solicitor had expressly required an Order that the Disciplinary Tribunal Hearing should take place in public, notwithstanding the fact that it was concerned with alleged Breaches of Confidentiality and Legal Professional Privilege. There was also an express requirement that Shirley McKie and Iain McKie should attend the Hearing personally and be available for Cross-Examination, on Oath. However, it became apparent that Ms. McKie would not give Evidence. Initially, there was an attempt to Adjourn the Disciplinary Tribunal Hearing, which was resisted. Thereafter, formal notice was given by CRFP that the Disciplinary Tribunal Proceedings were withdrawn and that all Charges against me were dismissed. Nevertheless, my Solicitor maintained that there should be a Public Hearing, to deal with remaining issues, to include my Costs. We were offered a Hearing in private, which we declined. Thereafter, Professor Evelyn Ebsworth, the then Chairman of CRFP revoked his own Convening Order and formally terminated the Proceedings. I am aware that on 8 June, 2005 Alan Kershaw, Chief Executive of CRFP wrote to The Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract, in order to explain their actions. Mr. Kershaw recounted to His Lordship how, after uncovering the false statements in the Court of Session Proceedings, I had given notification to the Scottish Authorities. As to the specific issue, CRFP summarised it thus:- “Scrutinising the formal sworn Statement Mr. and Miss McKie had put into the Scottish Court in support of their Civil Action, (Mr. Russell) found two instances of a claim that no Fingerprint Expert outside the SCRO had ever identified the disputed print as that of Miss McKie. That is, of course, precisely what Mr. Swann had done and the statement was, therefore, prima facie, a false one.”

Mr. Kershaw then stated to His Lordship “This led inevitably to the claim that Mr. McKie and Miss McKie could not be relied upon as Witnesses in our Proceedings”. Finally, Mr. Kershaw recounted how, on 11 March, 2005 he had discussed the matter with the Chairman of the CRFP who made an immediate decision that all Charges should be withdrawn and the Disciplinary Tribunal Proceedings abandoned. The CRFP’s Disciplinary Tribunal Proceedings against me were not abandoned lightly. Indeed, it was a high profile Case for CRFP and the first Disciplinary Case pursued by them, against a Forensic Practitioner.

My Solicitor has made a series of disclosures to the Scottish Authorities, commencing with his letter of 30 November, 2004 to the Lord Advocate. Subsequently, my Solicitor gave the McKies notice that he would put all such material into the Public Domain. In consequence, and for the first time, the McKies have been forced to admit my existence. More recently, the McKies alleged that my involvement was irrelevant, since I had been retained as a Defence Expert solely to advise upon the issue of the “lifting and transplanting” of fingerprints. Thus, it was alleged that I had not been instructed to advise as to Identification of Exhibit Y7 and Ms. McKie’s left thumb print. That is, however, patently untrue. There is extensive correspondence and documentation, confirming that Ms. McKie expressly instructed me to act as her Defence Expert in the Identification of the Crown’s Exhibits in Her Majesty’s Advocate v. Shirley Jane McKie. I can produce all correspondence and documentation to evidence that, to include letters written personally by Ms. McKie.

I would wish to make a brief comment upon the Scientific Examination Report prepared by Mr. Wertheim and the questions put to SCRO Officers on Exhibits Y7 and Q12. The questions all follow from the Report of Mr. Wertheim, who attacks every characteristic Charted on Mark Q12. However, I find Mr. Wertheim’s approach to be very odd, indeed. In this connection, he refers to ever single point marked and then goes on to state why, in his opinion, every such mark is unsafe, when he is in actual fact recognising that they are there and he positions them. Mr. Wertheim does not the like the fact that, to start with, it is not a clear cut Mark in the sense that it is a Mark with, to coin a phrase, a lot of background noise, with all the other areas of ridge detail, the result of the tin having been well handled, certainly by Marion Ross over the time that she had it. Therefore, the detail or points of similarity have to be looked for, as opposed to in a clearer Mark, where they stand out like “chapel hat pegs”. Mr. Wertheim’s comments suggests that he expects to see like for like, in the sense that if a characteristic is in a particular position on one, it should be in exactly the same position on the other, ie the Crime Scene Mark and the right forefinger of Marion Ross. If only it was as simple as that, life would be a great deal easier in the Fingerprint World. Explainable dissimilarities, which are not uncommon, do occur, because the ridge skin is extremely flexible and plastic in nature. This can, and does cause ridge characteristics to appear as ending ridges when, in fact, they are bifurcations or vice versa. Skin flexibility can also cause ridge characteristics to move out of position. Fingerprint Experts are, or should be, well aware of that and accordingly, will compare the approximate position of ridge characteristics, rather than the exact position. Distortion, the result of excessive pressure and movement of friction skin on an object, can create apparent dissimilarities as can the excessive use of fingerprint powder when developing latent prints. As with his initial response to the Mark on the door standard, Exhibit Y7, because Mr. Wertheim could not see the points at the top of the Mark, he declared that it was not identical. Mr. Wertheim, however, seems to have no concept or understanding at all regarding movement, distortion etc or the fact that it is the overall sequence in which all these characteristics fall in relation to each other, that is the all important factor, not that one or two are slightly out of position.

It is common ground amongst those eminent Fingerprint Experts who have undertaken the most work in the McKie Case that Exhibit Y7 is extremely complex and that to enable and Examiner to come to an accurate and conclusive decision, considerable experience and expertise are required. In addition, considerable time is needed to unravel all of the Mark’s complexities. In Fingerprint Examination, in dealing with complex Marks, decisions, whether as to Identification or Misidentification, should not be made in haste. On that issue, I again return to Mr. Wertheim’s claim that he made his Findings on Exhibit Y7 within 90 seconds. The Leading Fingerprint Experts in England and, indeed, Scotland will invariably make Identifications in respect of Marks where there are legitimate dissimilarities. However, provided that there is a logical and feasible explanation for the discrepancy, an Identification will still be infallible and safe. All of my work on the Fingerprint Marks in the Cases of Shirley McKie and David Asbury have been fully Peer Reviewed by two of the most eminent Fingerprint Experts in the United Kingdom, namely, John Edward Berry and Martin John Leadbetter. Until his recent retirement, Mr. Leadbetter was Head of the Fingerprint Bureau for Cambridgeshire Constabulary. Mr. Leadbetter has been a Fingerprint Expert for 40 years and is a Life and Distinguished Member of the International Association for Identification; a Founder, Life Member and Fellow of the Fingerprint Society and a Member of the British Academy of Forensic Sciences. He was previously Secretary of The Fingerprint Society and Assistant Editor of the Society’s Journal, Fingerprint Whorld. Mr. Berry has over 50 years experience as a Fingerprint Expert and between 1975 and 1991, was Editor of The Fingerprint Society’s Journal, Fingerprint Whorld. My Comparison Charts have been countersigned by both Mr. Leadbetter and Mr. Berry. I duly produce my Comparison Charts and will seek to give Evidence of Identification. I
conclude by making one matter clear. My sole objective is to prevent what I consider to be a major miscarriage of justice. I am acting pro bono and thus, my work has not been funded by any Party.



…………………………………….
PETER MALCOLM SWANN

7 February, 2006.

[Iain McKie]

All the information provided by Peter Swann/David Russell has been rehearsed a number of times in various letters to many recipients. It is innaccurate, defamatory and full of innuendo and half truths and has been rejected by myself and others on many occasions.

The Mulhern Report commissioned by the Minister for Justice and published last month starts, 'The misidentification of a fingerprint as Shirley McKie’s in 1997.....'

This report was the 20th report and official statement to confirm the mistake made by SCRO and Peter Swann et al not only in respect of this print but also the 'Marion Ross print'. In total many hundreds of experts have spoken out in a similar vein from across the world.

Messrs Swann/Russell will have a chance to challenge their critics and myself when they appear at the ongoing parliamentary enquiry in the Scottish Parliament and this event will be televised on the internet. At last they will have the public platform they seek and will have to face the experts they have vilified.

Those interested will also have the opportunity to see more about Shirley's case on 'BBC Panorama ' on Sunday 14 May in a 40 minute special.

I will be publishing details of the various reports outlining the mistakes made by the SCRO and other experts on www.shirleymckie.com early next week and will continue to give updates on coming parliamentary enquiry sessions.

Meanwhile critics of the fingerprint profession must be rubbing their hands with glee as for reasons best known to themselves SCRO and Messrs Swann/Russell refuse to acknowledge their mistakes and in so doing split the fingerprint profession wide open.

[sharon cook]

Mr. Swan has a lengthy and impressive curriculum vitae and is quite articulate. Regardless of how well he can pontificate about 66% anti-clockwise distortion and the elasticity of skin, the fact remains that he is wrong. The SCRO did not use any points in the so-called anti-clockwise distortion of the tip, so whether or not the tip is distorted is irrelevant. Their court chart, as pathetic as it is, clearly shows ridge details in and around the core. Those ridge details do not match the ridge details in and around the core of Shirley McKie's left thumb print, no matter how you twist and turn the "marks."

Who said what to whom, and when, is likewise irrelevant. I would dearly like to see a professionally done court chart with a clear photo of the latent print and a rolled impression of Shirley McKie's left thumb, both the same size and both oriented correctly with, perhaps, two points marked. Besides the fact that the photo of the latent print done by the SCRO, (as seen on Ed German's website), is significantly out of focus and dark, there are far too many lines obscuring the ridge detail to be certain of any of it.

I had to print out both Pat Wertheim's in-focus photo and the SCRO out-of-focus photo, (again, from Ed German's site), and compare them to be sure they depicted the same latent print. I confirmed that they were photos of the same latent print. Then I attempted to compare the ridge detail in Pat's photo with the plain impression of Shirley McKie's left thumbprint and found that I could not find consecutive points corresponding in location, regardless of how I turned them.

As long as anyone is using those terrible photos originally put out by the SCRO, they could probably make them show anything they wanted. We need to throw those away and get sharp, clear, well-lit photos and go from there. I had decided that I wasn't going to post anymore about the McKie case, but I just couldn't let this tome go by. There's a whole lot of unecessary detail in Mr. Swan's statement and the bottom line is: he's wrong.