Absolute Rot!

[charlton97]

''I seriously doubt Mr Wertheim's qualifications and experience,"

"I think he lacks even the most basic knowledge of fingerprint work, and I am quite sure that at the time he was engaged by McKie he had no knowledge of fingerprints whatsoever.

"I think he is an absolute charlatan."

You know, this case has thrown up some rum comments over the years, but the quotes from todays business at Holyrood takes the biscuit. Dispute evidence by all means, but to assert that Pat Wertheim is a 'charlatan' is completely bogus and ridiculous. Pat Wertheim, Kasey and the likes of Ron Smith have been regular visitors to UK shores to teach many many UK experts in advanced techniques for holistic friction ridge analysis. To my knowledge their courses have been sanctioned and accredited by UK authorities (Kasey/Pat...correct me if I am wrong in this).

I am not taking anyone's side here, but the comments made in Holyrood were so off beam and against what most UK experts probably believe. Pat and I have our professional disagreements from time to time, but I respect him as an expert in his field. Pat can sometimes be his own worst enemy and can be a bit 'showy' on occassions. But he is anything but a charlatan. He is a well read, well researched expert. Respected by many. There is no place in our profession for fellow experts accusing one another of being 'charlatans'.

[Les Bush]

The world is watching how the soccer teams from different countries play their game. Unfortunately Australia lost to Italy at the eleventh hour with what was a dubious decision for the penalty. Sometimes players will do things which are outside the spirit of the game and its rules, they will do it for the team and the reward. What we see happening as Dave has reported is the situation where the opponents of Pat Wertheim are playing the man and not the ball. Such is the spirit of their quest to suppress the truth. No real surprises, just a shame for their country.

[ian harrison]

Just as there are rules of the Beautiful Game, there are rules of conduct and standards for members of Forensic Societies and Associations to which these 'experts' belong.

If this was a game of soccer they would have been red-carded long ago.

How is it these 'players' are still allowed on the field???

[son of adam]

It was clear that there would be anger expressed at today's hearing. I cannot support 'name calling' in any situation, but I did understand it today. I agree that Malcolm Graham's words were very strong, however what we all have to bear in mind in this instance is the years of negative publicity he has had to endure over the part he played in this high profile case. The same has to be said for all the experts that identified Y7 as Shirley McKie. Their integrity and expertise has come into question. They've been accused of negligence, malpractice and criminality. Several news documentaries were produced enabling Iain McKie, Allan Bayle and Pat Wertheim to have free reign to assault these experts with insults and accusations, during which time, The S.C.R.O four, Robert MacKenzie, Allan Dunbar, Alister Geddes, Terry Foley, Peter Swann and Malcolm Graham were of course not in a position to defend themselves. We all know now that they were silenced by Sub Judice and every gagging order in existence, so you can imagine, these people are not for one minute going to hold back when they've waited so long to have their say.

I invite everyone to put themselves in their shoes. I personally would find it extremely difficult to suppress emotion having been a victim of a hostile, one sided media campaign for 7 - 9 years. I don't know of anyone that could.

I strongly suggest before any one else has thoughts of expressing similar views, please review archive threads, Justice 1 footage and newspaper articles. What you will find is that today 'the shoe was on the other foot'.

[Jan LeMay]

Victims? Please! They had 7-9 years to put a stop to the "hostile, one sided media campaign" just by admitting their mistake and moving on. After all, it worked for the FBI. They have their opportunity to speak and clear the air once and for all and their strategy is to drag others through the mud with them. I assure you that the majority of us, if placed in their shoes, would act very differently!

[Dick Dastardly]

Son of Adam: who gagged Malcolm Graham and Peter Swann? They were free to speak out. The fact that no one listened to them is a different matter. The truth, if they speak the truth, can be said at any time in public. I seem to remember this being discussed on another thread...

Iain Harrison: I see you are in NZ. Are you able to comment on Peter Swann's suggestion before the J1C that the NZ supporters of the McKie position was misrepresentation by the McKies? Do you have any inside knowledge on whether the McKies or Swann are correct?

DD and Mutley.

[son of adam]

If you were 100% certain you were right, would you admit to a mistake Jan and move on?

Malcolm Graham did just that as he assumed with all the reports that he must have been wrong. He even apologised - until he was afforded the opportunity to review the evidence and he realised that, yes, he was correct with his findings in the first instance.

There isn't one fingerprint analyst in the world that wouldn't apologise if it was brought home to them that they were in error. It's a different thing altogether to have no doubts about your conclusions.

Each and everyone of the experts involved in Y7 maintain their identification is unmistaken.

Could I ask you, Jan, what evidence do you have that they're wrong? Have you compared the Crown Productions?

[RUNNING FROM DAMASCUS]

Ok CHARLTON97, here's a little game we can all play at home. Ready? Here goes. If you had to choose 1 of the following to represent your character in a public forum, which would you choose?

1. CHARLATAN - One who claims Expertise or knowlege they do not possess.

2. LIAR - Pedler of false statements and deliberate falsehoods.

3. CRIMINAL - Sinner, transgressor, immoral person.

4. MALICIOUS - Evil minded, vicious.

Bet you all wriggled on the hook for a bit then opted for number 1. You can always play that hand with a naive charm. The other choices are seriously hardhitting negatives which, damage an accused in both professional and public life. Guess what? Numbers 2 -3 have been pinned on the "pro-Ident" experts by Pat on numerous occasions down the years.
Suffice to say, people in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones.
I'm not a football fan, I lost interest in the World Cup when Claudia let go of it but, while we're using football analogies, how about this. There never was a level playing field. We witnessed a debating competition where one team held the loud hailer and the other team had duct tape over their mouths.
Lets all calm down and be honest, at least to ourselves. How many experts out there were aware of Malcolm Graham, Peter Swann, John Berry or Martin Leadbetter's involvement until a few months ago? How many believed the "Geddes situation" until it was so eloquently dismissed by the man himself on Monday?How many of you knew Shirley had committed perjury during her trial (public record, not my slant)? Not many I'll wager. There is no shame in that however, that was the way the scheme was meant to work, and work it did. It worked up until the £750.000 payment when the ensuing uproar gave the McKie's what they asked for (but didn't really want), an inquiry. PHEW! At least it wasn't a Judicial inquiry where you HAVE to answer the questions put to you. And so, we were treated to Shirley refusing to answer questions and McKay repeating "confidential" in droning monotone ad nauseum.
I don't know if Pat's a charlatan or not but, if anyone out there has expressed a professional or public opinion on this case without having seen the original material, then YOU ARE!

[charlton97]

Mr Damascus,

please let us not get into another slanging match over who can and cannot say what. It seems to me that many people have had a chance to say their piece over past weeks on and off record.

Being objective in response to your last comments about original material.

1) only the latent mark in situ is the 'real' original material.

2) a lift is 2nd generation.

3) a photo is 2nd generation.

4) a photocopy of a mark developed by ninhydrin is 2nd generation.

One thing in common though, they are all usable so long as the continuity and audit trial for the item is secure.

Now, some of the comments out of Holyrood, don't quite make sense. For some to state that only the original material will do, to then proudly proclaim the identification of the rosetta characteristic in a newspaper image smacks of at best hypocricy. Where is the audit trail for the Daily Mail image. Was it compressed, uncompressed. Was it touched up using enhancement tools? I am sure the Daily Mail print was a very good one, and usable. But no more so than images found elsewhere that may or may not be originals. How many bad sets of prints and latents have we matched in the past? Too many to remember. The internet images for what it is worth are pretty good prints as far as they go. Areas revealed?? I don't know. I leave that to the professional arguers on this forum. But please, can people stop getting on their high horse trying to take the high moral ground over this issue. One argument can always be countered by another point of view.

I just say this. If I was an MSP, how would I view the fingerprint profession at this time? Thats right, a shambles. Full of experts who seem incapable of even agreeing on what is acceptable material to use as evidence. A mess indeed.