Justice 1 Reports

[sharon cook]

Could someone spell out for me in simple English what QD2, Q12, and Y7 are? I think Y7 is the mark from the doorframe inside Marion Ross' house, but what are the other two? It's very confusing to read about one mark being confirmed and the other not without known which is which. Thanks

[Taggart]

Daktari,

Thanks for your detailed response to my last posting:

“Get a life mate!”

Although not sure where that fits in with one of your previous postings?

“A number or people recently has passed comment of the amount of ‘free speech’ that is allowed on this board. Whilst we have our disagreements I think that this board does provides a service in allowing opposing views to be aired. It’s such a pity that Iain McKie and others have done so much to suppress and demean any opinion that does not suit their ends. Still, as someone has already said, No lie lasts forever.”

Glad we got that sorted. I know how terribly frustrating it must be for you when you have shown such devotion to your expert friends and then one of them goes and discredits themselves by making public statements which are clearly borne out of frustration, but none the less are factually incorrect.

I would like to remind you that it was indeed yourself that started this very thread where you were kind enough to provide us with the link to the Report you claimed you had been waiting for. I followed your link as you asked, and have analysed what I read. Nothing sinister, I assure you. I welcome any thoughts or comments you have on your analysis of the very same report.

I would also welcome any comments from readers of these postings to see if you agree with daktari that I should go and “get a life”, or if you are finding my postings interesting and informative? Please feel free to send me a private message and let me know, or indeed let me know on here.

Will post again very soon on more evidence hidden deep in the submissions to Justice 1.

Sharon,

With regard to the question you posed, hopefully I can help.

Y7 was the fingerprint developed on the door frame above where the body of Marion Ross was discovered. Later “identified” by SCRO as belonging to Shirley McKie.

QI2 was the fingerprint developed on a sweet tin found in the bedroom of David Asbury, containing money. Later “identified” by SCRO as belonging to Marion Ross.

QD2 is the fingerprint developed on one of the banknotes found within the same tin. Later identified by SCRO as belonging to David Asbury.

[Taggart]

I had hoped to post again with more evidence of discrepancies and issues with the written evidence submitted to Justice 1 and how it tied in with other evidence given orally and with other facts in the case. However it truly frightens me with what I am uncovering. The discrepancies I am finding are now more than just discrepancies, and it is now blatantly obvious there are a number of significant lies and deceit being told in the Enquiry by certain individuals.
As a result I feel it would be wrong now to post them on this website, as I feel they will be best raised elsewhere.
I sincerely hope you have enjoyed my postings and the evidence which I have highlighted. Please trust me when I say I have only scratched the very surface. What lies beneath is far more sinister.
I will if I feel the need, still contribute to these postings, but will no longer be analysing the evidence and posting. That will all be done privately. I hope you all understand. I will leave you with a quote from Charles Stewart in his written evidence to Justice 1. See if you all agree???

"I consider that even in this limited submission that I have shown the "expert" witnesses the McKie's have periled their case on are unreliable and have problems with the truth. They are unreliable as they change their story every time they are challenged."

Need I say any more???

[Daktari]

Sharon, here's some interesting information on QI2 I read on another Comments Board
David Asbury appealed his conviction because of 'unreliable' fingerprint evidence. Specifically, Mark QI2, that two Danish experts said was a misidentification. The Danes later recanted saying, they had not seen the correct material. On February 19 last year the Sunday Times had this on their front page. Four days later, on February 23 the Sun carried a story on its front page, headlined 'Fingered' that, whilst quoting extensively from Iain McKie, claimed that another person had been 'in the frame' for Marion's brutal murder and had actually confessed to his cellmate. Ian McKie even referred to “secret police documents” that he had seen.
But on March 4, 2006 the Herald ran an article saying the police had issued a statement saying that the person named in the Sun article had been 'interviewed during that inquiry and had been eliminated as a suspect'.
Strathclyde Police have issued statements saying they are not looking for anyone else in connection with this killing.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Dear Sharon,

The Danish experts we hear about were asked in secret to review some of the fingerprint evidence in the murder of Marion Ross. Their conclusions have since become public and have stirred debate only because the SCRO supporters have tried to confuse QD2 with QI2.

QI2 was the fingerprint on David Asbury's Marks & Spencer candy tin. SCRO "identified" it as Marion Ross' fingerprint, which is an erroneous identification. The Danes confirmed from the first that it was NOT Marion Ross' fingerprint. All of the experts except Peter Swann and his small team (and, of course, SCRO) have agreed all along that QI2 was erroneously identified to Marion Ross.

QD2 was a fingerprint developed on a piece of currency inside the candy tin. The SCRO identified it to David Asbury. When the Danes were asked to review the case, the SCRO did not include the correct photographs of QD2 for the Danes to evaluate. Consequently, the Danish experts pronounced the fingerprint they saw as an erroneous identification. Subsequently, the SCRO provided the correct photographs and the Danes reversed themselves and pronounced it a correct identification to David Asbury. So, in effect, they confirmed that David Asbury had handled currency recovered from in his candy tin in his room.

Daktari is mistaken when he says the Danish experts reversed themselves on QI2. As usual, Taggart is correct and Daktari is wrong.

[Daktari]

For the avoidance of doubt I reproduce the whole Sunday Times article from Feb 19.
MINISTERS are facing growing pressure for a public inquiry into the Shirley McKie affair after a Sunday Times investigation discovered that fingerprint evidence involved in the acquittal of a convicted murderer was flawed.
Danish fingerprint experts, whose report in 2000 led to the acquittal of David Asbury, who had been jailed two years earlier for the murder of bank clerk Marion Ross, have admitted that some of their findings were wrong.

They have written to the Crown Office claiming that their conclusions — which also led to the suspension of four fingerprint experts at the Scottish Criminal Records office (SCRO) and prompted a police investigation — were partly based on the wrong documents.

The flawed findings were only one strand of the evidence used to acquit Asbury, but provide further ammunition for those who have questioned the handling of the whole McKie affair. The executive has been accused of settling with McKie rather than face an embarrassing court case, where fingerprint evidence would have come under close scrutiny.

The error came to light when Michael Pass, an independent expert, was commissioned by the Crown Office last month to examine the Danish report.

The case gained notoriety after McKie, a former detective-constable with Strathclyde police, was wrongly accused of perjury after it was alleged her fingerprints were found on a door frame at the murder scene in February 1997. She was awarded £750,000 in compensation by the Crown Office in an out-of-court settlement earlier this month, after a nine-year campaign to clear her name.

Last night opposition politicians said the latest findings provide compelling evidence to justify a full public inquiry. They plan to raise the issue in the Scottish parliament this week.

“I don’t think the position of the justice department and the Crown Office is sustainable, they are burying their heads in the sand,” said Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP’s deputy leader.

“We will push this matter in parliament this week and do everything we can to bring this into the open. There are a number of reports which the crown is refusing to publish including those connected to the Asbury case. All of that can’t just be brushed under the carpet.”

Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Conservative leader, said: “This is a fascinating development. The whole chronicle of events is shrouded with allegation and counter-allegation and uncertainty. The public interest now demands that the executive orders a judicial inquiry.”

Asbury, a joiner from Kilbirnie in Ayrshire, was jailed for life in January 1997 for the murder of Ross, a 51-year-old single woman who was stabbed in her Kilmarnock home.

Asbury denied murdering the woman and stealing a biscuit tin containing £1,400, maintaining that money in a tin found at his home was his life savings.

At his trial SCRO experts gave crucial evidence that a fingerprint found on the tin was made by Ross.

However, he was freed in August 2002 by appeal court judges after his lawyers successfully argued that he had suffered a miscarriage of justice.

They said the evidence of SCRO experts had been “substantially discredited”, citing evidence from the Danish report, which concluded that the print found on the tin did not belong to Ross, and that a fingerprint on one of the £10 notes thought to be from Ross’s flat was not made by Asbury.

They now accept that they reached the wrong decision, claiming they were supplied with the wrong documents.

Asbury is seeking £150,000 in damages for his wrongful imprisonment. Cameron Fyfe, the lawyer who is representing Asbury, said: “The appeal court took the view that the most important piece of evidence against my client was Ross’s alleged print on the tin and we are sticking by our assertion that that was not hers.”

It has emerged that in July 2000, a year before Asbury was freed, Robert McKenzie, the deputy head of the SCRO’s fingerprint bureau, was asked to examine the biscuit tin by William Gilchrist, a senior fiscal in Paisley. In his report McKenzie listed 29 matching characteristics with Ross’s right forefinger and said he was in “no doubt” of a match.

Another fingerprint expert, Peter Swann, a former Home Office adviser, claims to have identified more than 20 matching characteristics and will meet SCRO officials this week to make his findings public.

Last week it emerged that the Crown Office was told five years ago that after the original mistake had been made over McKie’s print it was covered up in a “criminal” manner.

On Friday Colin Boyd, the lord advocate — who is facing a motion of no confidence, justified his decision not to bring charges against anyone over the alleged cover-up.

In a letter to George Reid, the presiding officer, he said that he chose not to proceed with a criminal case because of “conflicting evidence” from fingerprint experts.

Iain McKie, Shirley’s father, said he believed that there had been a catalogue of errors by the SCRO followed by a crude attempt to cover their tracks. “The whole thing is a shambles. We are facing incompetence of an unparalleled nature,” he said.

A Scottish executive spokesperson said: “(The Pass) report was commissioned recently as part of the executive’s preparations for the civil court case brought against Scottish ministers by (Shirley) McKie. As there is a separate civil case against Scottish ministers involving David Asbury, it would be inappropriate to comment about any of the content of that report.”

[Thomas Taylor]

Let me see if I’ve got this right. Mr. Daktari holds out the newspaper to be the ultimate authority not to be questioned when an article supports his position, but does not accept the newspapers as accurate when they criticize the SCRO. Will all those who believe everything they read in the newspapers please raise their hands? Will all those who believe Mr. Daktari please raise their hands? Wow . . . . . same crowd.

[Dick Dastardly]

The newspaper article is incorrect in its facts. The correct facts have been stated time and time again on this forum.

The Danes retracted their report about QD2: the prints on the money, because they had been provided with the wrong materials.

They did not retract their opinion about QI2 (the print on the tin) at any time. As a matter of fact, Arie Zeelenberg had spotted that the Danes got it wrong BEFORE Pass had the materials, and told McKie's lawyers immediately. The Danes were aware of this before Pass even had the papers.

So the Sunday Times report is not based on the correct facts. All of this is a matter of record in any event.

[H. B. James]

Since daktari puts his faith in newspaper articles, I am sure he has read this one. He will likely argue with the facts but agree with the conclusion.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=262952007

[sharon cook]

Well, that was sufficiently vague on all counts as to be useless! It was about as accurate as any newspaper article I've seen on latent prints...which means, not very. But thanks for trying!

[redlion62]

Dear Daktari,
As you state that you are a researcher of cognitive psychology I am surprised that you are so easily led by what you read in the papers!

[M Semler]

A review of the Justice 1 Committee findings displayed similarities with the misidentification made by the FBI in the Mayfield case. These key elements should be examined by all fingerprint forensic units to ensure the opportunity for them to reoccur is mitigated.

Bias from the known prints – circular reasoning and mindset
Faulty reliance on level 3 details
Inadequate explanations for differences in the appearance of the prints
Failure to assess the poor quality of similarities
Overconfidence in the superiority of the examiners
Failure to follow the one discrepancy rule
Proficiency testing processes required improvement

Additional issues that contributed to the misidentifications made by the SCRO included internal problems within the agency that were not properly addressed by management.

Lack of expertise in forensics by administrative staff
The commissioned status of supervisors led to short tenure in positions of authority
The introduction of live scan systems was poorly planned and staffed leading to manpower shortages
No uniform procedures in place for identification and verification of fingerprints
The examiner making the identification ‘shopped’ for verifiers
Morale problems displayed a deep division between management and staff
Sagem digital projector was determined to be substandard
Less stringent process for identification of elimination prints

[Daktari]

You seem to be suffering from 'mindset' too.
Justice 1 never said it was a misidentification!

[M Semler]

The Committee indicated it was not part of the remit of the inquiry to give a view as to whether mark Y7 was correctly identified or not. It was their view that any opinion proffered by the Committee as to whether mark Y7 was or was not made by Shirley McKie would be reported as being the verdict of a re-trial of Ms McKie (paragraph 347). However, it is clear from the report that the Scottish government recognizes this as a misidentification (paragraphs 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 313, 320, 326).

Three additional points should be added to the previous list:

Pressure on junior FP officers to agree with senior FP officers on identifications, also deference toward senior officers
No dispute resolution processes in place
Improper cropping of the fingerprint image

[Daktari]

Very clever, but it doesn't explain why Peter Swann and Malcolm Graham indentified Y7 as Shirley's. No doubt they were part of the criminality and conspiracy that her father goes on about !