Susan May Case No Bloody Print

[Big Wullie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-24473836

Another scandal involving Peter Swann and consulted for the defence originally again.

I have seen his report in this case and no where in it does he mention having visited any police station to view original material.

He claims it was in the Aunties blood despite there never having been any tests originally carried out for blood let alone the blood of the Auntie.

If anyone wants to see his report just PM me and I will forward it on.

There might even come a time when I will publish the whole report here and let the world see just how incompetent he really was.

I actually wrote to CCRC in England asking them to review all cases he had worked on after the McKie case and they never did answer me.

Had they reviewed every case they had looked at then Susan May's surely should have rang alarm bells.

[Big Wullie]

What really bothers me about this case is another forensic expert told the CCRC 10 years ago that more work needed to be done on the fingerprints in this case and their answer was:

We would have accepted that but PETER SWANN has confirmed it was hers for the defence.

Here lies a similar fact to the Shirley McKie case.

For my money Peter Swann looked at other experts reports and basically just confirmed their findings.

Similar to what he did with Shirley McKie.

I have had the benefit of reading this report and retaining a copy for my records and can also confirm that although there was a 16 point standard in play at the time of Susan May's trial Swann said in his report for the defence that he could only find 10.

My question here is, why did the CCRC not see this dispute 10 years ago and end this nightmare for Susan May.

Arie Zeelnbergs report finds absolutely no evidence of blood.

In any event looking at the history of this case, no tests were ever carried out to see what blood group or who's blood it was.

What happened at Susan May's trial was an expert said it reacted in a way he would have expected blood to react.

Only problem as pointed out by Arie Zeelenberg was a bloody fingerprint would have been visible and photographed (perhaps even tested I would suggest to ascertain who's blood) the fact the wall had to be enhanced would also support the contention there was no Bloody Print.

[Big Wullie]

Here is a peach to support Swann saying it was a bloody Print:

Taken from the website of Susan May here:

http://www.susanmay.co.uk/



lol, how the CCRC could have accepted Swann's report is beyond me.

[Big Wullie]

More disturbing and ignored throughout the years is this point:

Clothing fibres were found on Hilda's hand, which were not found to match any of Susan's or her aunt's clothing. The police unhelpfully filed this exhibit under 'hairs'.

And this point:

Unidentified fingerprints were found in the house and an unidentified footmark in a wardrobe.

[Pat]

I see in other news that our old friend Iain McKie is still leading the fight for justice, too. See http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/l ... e.22437736

In a letter to the editor (the "Sunday Herald," Scotland) responding to a recent news article, Iain writes:

Lawyers and judges should accept expert evidence is not infallible
Wednesday 16 October 2013

AS Shirley McKie's father I was interested in Susan Swarbrick's interview with Tom Nelson, director of Forensics Services at the Scottish Police Authority ("Forensics for Dummies - I admit it was a great read", The Herald, October 14).

In 2011 Mr Nelson generously took the lead in apologising publicly to Shirley for the failures of his fingerprint experts and when further apologies quickly followed from the Secretary for Justice, Lord Advocate and, the then Strathclyde Chief Constable, Steven House, our family was able to finally let go and Shirley could start rebuilding her life.

Welcome as these apologies were, however, and much as I respect Mr Nelson, it would be wrong of your readers to believe that all is well in the field of expert evidence. Lessons have still not been learned.

In the current BBC Scotland TV series, Crime Scenes Scotland: Forensics Squad, which legitimately highlights some of the successful work of Mr Nelson's experts, renowned criminal defence lawyer Donald Findlay QC, who successfully defended my daughter in her 1999 trial, warns "DNA and its significance has grossly (been) overstated by the prosecuting authorities and certainly over-valued by the public at large". He observes that unlike in the fictional world of television's CSI, forensic experts are not able to neatly wrap up the case, "within 47 minutes and 8 seconds. Unfortunately life doesn't work that way."

Those of your readers who doubt Donald Findlay's warnings about forensic evidence only have to Google the name of Willie Gage, who I and many others believe was wrongly convicted of murder in 2002, to find out that here in Scotland many of the prosecutorial authorities, lawyers and judges continue to act as if expert evidence was indeed infallible and the fiction of TV was mirrored in real life. There is a consistent failure to test this evidence effectively and take account of the thousands of cases across the world where erroneous expert evidence has condemned people to prison or even death.

This is the reality that bears tragic testimony to the fact that real life does not mirror the fictional infallibility of CSI or the airbrushed "reality" of the BBC's Crime Scenes Scotland: Forensics Squad.

Iain A J McKie

It is good to know that you and Iain are still keeping a few of them honest in the UK. Keep up the good work!!!

[Big Wullie]

Thanks Pat

We like to think we are doing our bit but this Swann Character really got away with murder.

Best

Wullie

[Tazman]

It happens on both sides of the pond.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/1 ... story.html

[Big Wullie]

It happens on both sides of the pond.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/1 ... story.html

At least they took action against this expert Tazman.

In Scotland nothing has happened since the McKie and Asbury mistakes and now we see another from Swann.

No action was ever taken against any of them involved in these cases why ?

They are $@#% scared of public perception here.

There is absolutely no evidence they ever checked other cases these experts were involved in either.

Their answers to such cases here are to sack the experts that went against them and told the truth.

Scotland really is so backwards.

Indeed experts that never accepted they made any mistakes are still working here.

[Big Wullie]

It happens on both sides of the pond.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/1 ... story.html

You actually just reminded me of a case in the UK which shocked everyone:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... years.html

A Google search reveals all about Gene Morrison:

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Gene+Morrison

So you see in the UK you can lie about credentials and no checks done by the courts to ascertain if they are correct.

Never saw a big influx of appeals regarding this guy either.

[Big Wullie]

Another example of experts credentials not being checked in the UK.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/mar/23/ukcrime.law

His spectacular fall from grace has raised worrying questions about the way the credentials of expert witnesses are verified by the police and the CPS. No one, it seems, asked to see his qualifications and instead simply took his word as a guarantee.

Come to the UK claim to be an expert and get an instant job with the CPS and COPFS, as long as you say what they want you to No-One will check your credentials.

[Big Wullie]

It is with great sadness I announce the passing of Susan May.

I am absolutely gutted at this sad sad news and appalled that the CCRC have dragged their feet with the report from Arie Zeelenberg which Sue kindly provided me with a copy.

They have had Arie's report for over 5 months now and they knew Sue was terminally ill and dying with cancer and did nothing to hurry up their decision

I am also equally appalled the CCRC used Swann's report not to carry out any further work on the fingerprint evidence in Susan May's case 10 years ago after Professor Allan Jamieson recommended such work be undertaken.

The Bastard Swann did the same with Susan May as he did with Shirley McKie and basically just confirmed other experts findings to support the conviction.

I am absolutely distraught over this case and in bits, because of all the cases I have ever looked at I am 100% sure Susan May is Innocent.

Rest In Peace Special Lady

We Will Fight On In The Name Of Susan May.

[Big Wullie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-24788242

It really was a pleasure to have known Sue.

[Big Wullie]

Where Have We Seen Images Like This Before ?





Yes Correct the Fingerprint Enquiry Scotland by Peter Swann.

Who would have thought he would do the same to others.

No Blood in the furrows Says Arie Zellenberg:

https://www.facebook.com/sue.may.1232?fref=ts

It is not surprising but here is a reminder of some of his evidence at the Enquiry:

1 Q. So, therefore, I cannot see by looking at chart D what
2 the assumed relative movement is of these points?
3 A. Well, the fact of the matter is, however it's happened,
4 I'm not sure that the sketches we just had in front of
5 us there then, I'm not a mathematician or a what have
6 you,

I would agree Mr Swann, more like a Has Been than a what have you lol

[Big Wullie]

Another blinder from Peter Swann:

1 as far as I'm concerned. The characteristics are there,
2 I know where they are because I can see them, I know
3 where they are on the fingerprint because we can see
4 them; so, therefore, it's moved. How it's moved:
5 because it's moved round like that (indicated).
6 But, I mean, why the characteristics have fallen in
7 those positions then so be it. That's the way it's
8 happened, and nobody really can, I suppose, give you a
9 more definitive answer than that.

[Big Wullie]

First Generation from the Daily Mail Swann Said:

18 Q. Thank you very much.
19 What I am interested in is the fact that this is
20 taken from an image in the Daily Mail and, therefore,
21 one does not know what generation of copy this actually
22 is?
23 A. This is a first generation from the Daily Mail
24 publication but how many down the line that is I've no
25 idea.