In the lead up to the judicial enquiry I intend to highlight some issues that I hope it will investigate. While I have every confidence that the enquiry under Lord Chief Justice Campbell and his team will finally reveal the truth I am also aware that before any evidence is taken there is a massive amount of sometimes contrary information to understand and assimilate. My ongoing analysis of the thousands of documents I have been able to access has revealed a number of important issues that I hope the enquiry will turn its attention to. During the lead up to the enquiry I will highlight these issues on http://www.shirleymckie.com and also provide a briefing on progress of the enquiry.
Enquiry briefing link: http://shirleymckie.myfastforum.org/Iss ... ut184.html
Judicial enquiry briefing
-
Iain McKie
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:23 am
- Location: Ayr, Scotland
- Contact:
Judicial enquiry briefing
As always my thanks to all experts who have supported Shirley over the years.
-
Iain McKie
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:23 am
- Location: Ayr, Scotland
- Contact:
Re: Judicial enquiry briefing
After more than a decade of fighting for the facts to be revealed about the two fingerprint errors that blighted the lives of so many people the judicial enquiry is now underway with the launch of the enquiry website.
http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... ry/21.html
After years of speculation, lies and innuendo it is time for Daktari and the other SCRO supporters to put up or shut up. The public platform they craved is a reality and I for one look forward to hearing them giving evidence on oath.
I will continue to update readers on enquiry issues at http://shirleymckie.myfastforum.org/Iss ... ut184.html and over the period of the enquiry will supply daily updates on my reflections from that day's evidence.
http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... ry/21.html
After years of speculation, lies and innuendo it is time for Daktari and the other SCRO supporters to put up or shut up. The public platform they craved is a reality and I for one look forward to hearing them giving evidence on oath.
I will continue to update readers on enquiry issues at http://shirleymckie.myfastforum.org/Iss ... ut184.html and over the period of the enquiry will supply daily updates on my reflections from that day's evidence.
As always my thanks to all experts who have supported Shirley over the years.
-
Big Wullie
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:59 am
- Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom.
- Contact:
Re: Judicial enquiry briefing
Hi iain
I just hope this ends the nightmare for Shirley and the truth comes out at last about the incompetents at SCRO
and that Fiona McBride is held to book for signing other expert's Initials.
Labour The last Government ruling body in Scotland that covered up the last Enquiry by using the highly disputed evidence of Peter Swann
to not charge any SCRO workers should hang their heads in shame.
Quite clearly he Identifies a left thumb print while they Identify a right one, Huge difference if you ask me
I just hope this ends the nightmare for Shirley and the truth comes out at last about the incompetents at SCRO
and that Fiona McBride is held to book for signing other expert's Initials.
Labour The last Government ruling body in Scotland that covered up the last Enquiry by using the highly disputed evidence of Peter Swann
to not charge any SCRO workers should hang their heads in shame.Quite clearly he Identifies a left thumb print while they Identify a right one, Huge difference if you ask me
-
David Fairhurst
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:11 am
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: Judicial enquiry briefing
Wullie,
We really need to clear up this whole left-right business.
SCRO claim the identification as Shirley's LEFT thumb as does Peter Swann and others.
The confusion arose when certain examiners were asked what they concluded about which thumb it may be from their analysis of Y7 BEFORE comparing it with anyone.
Some SCRO examiners ( I can't remember which ones) said that it looked more like a right thumb before comparison but then went on to identify it as Shirley's left thumb.
Peter Swann says it was always a left thumb to him and he agrees with the SCRO conclusion of its identity.
Curiously, if you ask around, I think you'll find that most of the other camp, Pat W, Allan B, John McC, and ME, agree that it is most likely to be a right thumb. But it isn't Shirley McKie's; neither her left nor her right.
We really need to clear up this whole left-right business.
SCRO claim the identification as Shirley's LEFT thumb as does Peter Swann and others.
The confusion arose when certain examiners were asked what they concluded about which thumb it may be from their analysis of Y7 BEFORE comparing it with anyone.
Some SCRO examiners ( I can't remember which ones) said that it looked more like a right thumb before comparison but then went on to identify it as Shirley's left thumb.
Peter Swann says it was always a left thumb to him and he agrees with the SCRO conclusion of its identity.
Curiously, if you ask around, I think you'll find that most of the other camp, Pat W, Allan B, John McC, and ME, agree that it is most likely to be a right thumb. But it isn't Shirley McKie's; neither her left nor her right.
-
Big Wullie
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:59 am
- Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom.
- Contact:
Re: Judicial enquiry briefing
David
Someone is pulling your leg.
As far as I am aware all of SCRO said it was a right thumb print and Peter Swan was the only person to claim it was a left thumb print.
SCRO also claimed the top portion was unusable while Mr Swann claimed he found similarities on the top portion.
SCRO as far as I am aware cropped the top part to hide their wrongdoing and cover up their mistakes.
The videos from Holyrood's last Enquiry are available to the new Enquiry i believe, Whatever will they make of them.
Bear in mind they used Swanns evidence as back up for SCRO and resulted in SCRO workers not being charged despite his clear contradiction of which hand the print came from.
Surely this amounts to a fundamental irregularity.
Compilation of Swann's evidence for your view and things to come.
Bear in mind also this fact, Peter Swann claimed he took the print from The Daily (Dandy, Beano,Fable sorry) Mail and his impression was the best.
He also took it for granted that the Daily Mail had published Shirley's print and he did not seek confirmation of this.
I don't know where they found Swann but I bet SCRO wish they had never heard of him eh ?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jh-YH5IbUrs
Someone is pulling your leg.
As far as I am aware all of SCRO said it was a right thumb print and Peter Swan was the only person to claim it was a left thumb print.
SCRO also claimed the top portion was unusable while Mr Swann claimed he found similarities on the top portion.
SCRO as far as I am aware cropped the top part to hide their wrongdoing and cover up their mistakes.
The videos from Holyrood's last Enquiry are available to the new Enquiry i believe, Whatever will they make of them.
Bear in mind they used Swanns evidence as back up for SCRO and resulted in SCRO workers not being charged despite his clear contradiction of which hand the print came from.
Surely this amounts to a fundamental irregularity.
Compilation of Swann's evidence for your view and things to come.
Bear in mind also this fact, Peter Swann claimed he took the print from The Daily (Dandy, Beano,Fable sorry) Mail and his impression was the best.
He also took it for granted that the Daily Mail had published Shirley's print and he did not seek confirmation of this.
I don't know where they found Swann but I bet SCRO wish they had never heard of him eh ?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jh-YH5IbUrs
-
Daktari
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:50 am
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Judicial enquiry briefing
WrongAs far as I am aware all of SCRO said it was a right thumb print and Peter Swan was the only person to claim it was a left thumb print.
Wrong againSCRO also claimed the top portion was unusable while Mr Swann claimed he found similarities on the top portion.
And again.SCRO as far as I am aware cropped the top part to hide their wrongdoing and cover up their mistakes.
You are right about one thing though when you said they always come in threes if you were talking about your mistakes!
-
Big Wullie
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:59 am
- Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom.
- Contact:
Re: Judicial enquiry briefing
OK Daktari
So what is your idea of the truth then if I am wrong ?
Please correct any wrongs above.
Weekend off from the enquiry then eh ?
So what is your idea of the truth then if I am wrong ?
Please correct any wrongs above.
Weekend off from the enquiry then eh ?
-
Taggart
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:33 am
Re: Judicial enquiry briefing
Wullie, for once I have to totally concur with daktari here. SCRO did state on various occasions that the top of the print WAS unusable, but as daktari very kindly pointed out Swann did NOT claim he found “similarities” in the top of the print.“SCRO also claimed the top portion was unusable while Mr Swann claimed he found similarities on the top portion.”
Wrong again
What Swann actually stated was the entire top of the print was as clear as the rest of the print. In fact Swann stated that he could not find a single characteristic in disagreement. Completely at odds with SCRO. And strangely McBride stated that this disagreement was not a difference of opinion at Justice 1!!!????
I am unsure exactly how Swann’s evidence will help SCRO under oath when in fact he totally disagrees with them over two thirds of the print!
And let us not forget how he was able to discover part of the print turned 66 degress yet not a single charecteristic out of sequence!!
I for one would not be relying on the doyen given his past history of lying to Justice 1.
But thankfully the transcripts of the Public Enquiry will be posted after each session so we will be able to follow all the evidence closely.
So thanks to daktari for clearing that up for us.
-
Iain McKie
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:23 am
- Location: Ayr, Scotland
- Contact:
Re: Judicial enquiry briefing
7 October 2008
Venue announced for the Initial Hearing:
The Initial Hearing for the independent public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Shirley McKie case will take place on the morning of Monday 20 October 2008 at the Glasgow Royal Concert Hall at 10.30am, and is open to members of the public. The venue will be open from 9.30am.
The Glasgow Royal Concert Hall is in the Glasgow city centre, located at the top of Buchanan Street. It can also be accessed from Killermont Street. The hearing will take place in the Exhibition Hall.
A procedural hearing is being planned for the morning of Friday 21 November 2008 at 10.30am at the same venue.
http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... 75.46.html
Venue announced for the Initial Hearing:
The Initial Hearing for the independent public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Shirley McKie case will take place on the morning of Monday 20 October 2008 at the Glasgow Royal Concert Hall at 10.30am, and is open to members of the public. The venue will be open from 9.30am.
The Glasgow Royal Concert Hall is in the Glasgow city centre, located at the top of Buchanan Street. It can also be accessed from Killermont Street. The hearing will take place in the Exhibition Hall.
A procedural hearing is being planned for the morning of Friday 21 November 2008 at 10.30am at the same venue.
http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... 75.46.html
As always my thanks to all experts who have supported Shirley over the years.
-
Iain McKie
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:23 am
- Location: Ayr, Scotland
- Contact:
Re: Judicial enquiry briefing
ISSUES FOR JUDICIAL ENQUIRY
In the lead up to the judicial enquiry I intend to highlight some issues that I hope the enquiry will investigate. While I have every confidence that the enquiry under Lord Chief Justice Campbell and his team will finally reveal the truth I am also aware that before any evidence is taken there is a massive amount of sometimes contrary information to understand and assimilate.
..................................................................................................................................................................................
’Why no prosecution of the SCRO experts?’
As our enquiry team carries out it’s analysis of thousands of documents, reports and statements collected over the past 11 years a fascinating trail of evidence is being revealed explaining why the Lord Advocate decided not to prosecute the experts after their criminality had been identified in James MacKay’s 2000 police enquiry report.
We could never understand why this decision was taken in the face of an overwhelming mass of evidence pointing to the SCRO experts being wrong. Unfortunately at the Justice 1 Enquiry two major witnesses who could have cast light on the decision were never called to give evidence despite a plea to the convenor Pauline McNeill to do so.
The latest analysis reveals that the then Procurator Fiscal, Mr William Gilchrist, who carried out his own enquiry on behalf of the Lord Advocate and Harry Bell head of the SCRO possibly worked hand in hand to ensure that the experts never faced a court and were driven more by self interest and the needs of the Lockerbie prosecution than by any desire to reveal the truth. As with the experts the only other explanation is total incompetence – not something they were guilty of in the past.
We have also discovered that statements made by the Lord Advocate and other Crown Office officials in relation to Mr Gilchrist’s enquiry were inaccurate – whether purposely so remains to be assessed by the coming inquiry.
In addition the Lord Advocate’s decision to grant the experts immunity from prosecution in 2001 looks shakier as time goes by and it appears that even now these experts could be prosecuted if evidence is revealed of a concerted effort to hide the truth and thus pervert the course of justice since they were granted immunity.
While the Inquiry will not have the power to examine such claims directly it will be empowered to refer any such matters for further investigation.
Some issue to come:
• Why no admission of mistakes?
• Misuse of the sub-judice rule.
• Why are experts who support the misidentification still working within the SPSA?
• The Lockerbie link.
• The issue of ‘difference of opinion’.
• How many police/experts were aware of criminal behaviour?
In the lead up to the judicial enquiry I intend to highlight some issues that I hope the enquiry will investigate. While I have every confidence that the enquiry under Lord Chief Justice Campbell and his team will finally reveal the truth I am also aware that before any evidence is taken there is a massive amount of sometimes contrary information to understand and assimilate.
..................................................................................................................................................................................
’Why no prosecution of the SCRO experts?’
As our enquiry team carries out it’s analysis of thousands of documents, reports and statements collected over the past 11 years a fascinating trail of evidence is being revealed explaining why the Lord Advocate decided not to prosecute the experts after their criminality had been identified in James MacKay’s 2000 police enquiry report.
We could never understand why this decision was taken in the face of an overwhelming mass of evidence pointing to the SCRO experts being wrong. Unfortunately at the Justice 1 Enquiry two major witnesses who could have cast light on the decision were never called to give evidence despite a plea to the convenor Pauline McNeill to do so.
The latest analysis reveals that the then Procurator Fiscal, Mr William Gilchrist, who carried out his own enquiry on behalf of the Lord Advocate and Harry Bell head of the SCRO possibly worked hand in hand to ensure that the experts never faced a court and were driven more by self interest and the needs of the Lockerbie prosecution than by any desire to reveal the truth. As with the experts the only other explanation is total incompetence – not something they were guilty of in the past.
We have also discovered that statements made by the Lord Advocate and other Crown Office officials in relation to Mr Gilchrist’s enquiry were inaccurate – whether purposely so remains to be assessed by the coming inquiry.
In addition the Lord Advocate’s decision to grant the experts immunity from prosecution in 2001 looks shakier as time goes by and it appears that even now these experts could be prosecuted if evidence is revealed of a concerted effort to hide the truth and thus pervert the course of justice since they were granted immunity.
While the Inquiry will not have the power to examine such claims directly it will be empowered to refer any such matters for further investigation.
Some issue to come:
• Why no admission of mistakes?
• Misuse of the sub-judice rule.
• Why are experts who support the misidentification still working within the SPSA?
• The Lockerbie link.
• The issue of ‘difference of opinion’.
• How many police/experts were aware of criminal behaviour?
As always my thanks to all experts who have supported Shirley over the years.
-
Daktari
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:50 am
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Judicial enquiry briefing
Iain, I was just wondering if Colin McKerracher had replied to you yet?
If he has, are you going to publish it?
See you at the Inquiry!
If he has, are you going to publish it?
See you at the Inquiry!
-
Taggart
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:33 am
Re: Judicial enquiry briefing
Iain,
Your posting regarding the decision not to prosecute the Experts is fascinating, and ties in with some analysis I am carrying out at present.
What I am uncovering is not only going to be invaluable to the Inquiry Team, but I can tell you will leave certain individuals dreading having to stand up and give evidence under oath.
It would be a shame to spoil things, but what I will say is certain individuals have to be seriously worried, and your latest topic regarding failure to prosecute may well rear its head at or soon after the Inquiry.
What we often forget is certain individuals (Alister Geddes, Terrance Foley and Edward Bruce) have never been criminally investigated. Amazingly all three are still employed and being protected within the SPSA. But for how long I wonder?? And on what basis??
My understanding is the Inquiry may not just be concentrating on mark Y7 but may also concentrate on QI2. And then watch the lid come of this thing.
I have just been given access to quite an extraordinary precognition, the contents of which are regarding one of the SCRO Experts, namely Alan Dunbar, that is truly staggering to say the very least!
I will be passing this onto the Inquiry team, but I sincerely hope Mr Dunbar is ready with some answers under oath!
Your posting regarding the decision not to prosecute the Experts is fascinating, and ties in with some analysis I am carrying out at present.
What I am uncovering is not only going to be invaluable to the Inquiry Team, but I can tell you will leave certain individuals dreading having to stand up and give evidence under oath.
It would be a shame to spoil things, but what I will say is certain individuals have to be seriously worried, and your latest topic regarding failure to prosecute may well rear its head at or soon after the Inquiry.
What we often forget is certain individuals (Alister Geddes, Terrance Foley and Edward Bruce) have never been criminally investigated. Amazingly all three are still employed and being protected within the SPSA. But for how long I wonder?? And on what basis??
My understanding is the Inquiry may not just be concentrating on mark Y7 but may also concentrate on QI2. And then watch the lid come of this thing.
I have just been given access to quite an extraordinary precognition, the contents of which are regarding one of the SCRO Experts, namely Alan Dunbar, that is truly staggering to say the very least!
I will be passing this onto the Inquiry team, but I sincerely hope Mr Dunbar is ready with some answers under oath!
-
Daktari
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:50 am
- Location: Glasgow
Re: Judicial enquiry briefing
What we often forget is certain individuals … have never been criminally investigated.
Perhaps you can help?
Exactly what criminal investigations are you suggesting?
Did you forget that their colleagues have been investigated by several bodies?
Without a single allegation sticking.
Maybe it’s you’re old favourite the MacKay Report, but you know as well as I that if the Report would have contained a single shred of sustainable evidence it would have been leaked well before now.
Remember too that the so called allegations of criminality were planted there by one Iain McKie.
Maybe amongst your ever increasing pile of secret documents you may come across Colin McKerracher’s reply to McKie.
Will you share that with us?
I don’t Iain is all that keen to make it public..
We’re all dying to see it!
Anyway, hope to see you at the Inquiry.
Yeah, that’s right, at the Inquiry that the McKies didn’t want to go ahead.
The words ‘hoisted’ and ‘own petard’ spring to mind. Let’s hope so!
Perhaps you can help?
Exactly what criminal investigations are you suggesting?
Did you forget that their colleagues have been investigated by several bodies?
Without a single allegation sticking.
Maybe it’s you’re old favourite the MacKay Report, but you know as well as I that if the Report would have contained a single shred of sustainable evidence it would have been leaked well before now.
Remember too that the so called allegations of criminality were planted there by one Iain McKie.
Maybe amongst your ever increasing pile of secret documents you may come across Colin McKerracher’s reply to McKie.
Will you share that with us?
I don’t Iain is all that keen to make it public..
We’re all dying to see it!
Anyway, hope to see you at the Inquiry.
Yeah, that’s right, at the Inquiry that the McKies didn’t want to go ahead.
The words ‘hoisted’ and ‘own petard’ spring to mind. Let’s hope so!
-
Big Wullie
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:59 am
- Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom.
- Contact:
Re: Judicial enquiry briefing
Daktari
Where are you getting your information from ?
From the moment I have known Iain McKie he has been continually pressing for this enquiry.
It is people like past and present Lord Advocates and your own people at SCRO now SPSA that are afraid of this enquiry
The last enquiry was nothing more than an attempt to restore SCRO and try to restore Public Opinion which has severely backfired.
McLeod found 15 differences.
MacKay found Criminality.
Experts worldwide supported Shirley like the following :
Pat wertheim, America.
Allan Bayle, London.
John McGregor, Aberdeen.
Ken Clacher, Dundee.
Jim Aitken, Edinburgh.
Arie Zeelenberg, Netherlands.
Scott Robertson.
Mike Thomson, Durham.
John McLeod, "Hired By The Scottish Executive"
All (32) Police that guarded the house confirmed Shirley had not entered the house "Under Oath"
Colin Boyd Resigned when he couldn't get DNA from the fingerprint and after Lord McLuskey severely criticised him with an article entitled "We shrunk the Lord Advocate"
Lord McLuskey said of the Lord Advocate
Quote:
We don't want him barking - but the occasional growl would be reassuring. It is late -
but not too late - to start.
"Boyd did not Growl He Resigned" Far Too Late
See the article in full here:
http://www.shirleymckie.com/documents/L ... .10.06.pdf
Malcolm Graham Apologised twice to Iain for his mistakes.
15 Jurors found Shirley Innocent.
McConnell admitted an "Honest Mistake" In Parliament
McBride & Co Refused to speak to MacKay, revoking their right to Silence yet have claimed they wanted to tell their story, Strange they chose to remain silent eh ?
£750.000 Paid out to Shirley in Compensation.
"And Fiona McBride still denies any wrongdoing" ?
The Lord Advocate used the evidence of Peter Swann in not bringing any charges against any SCRO workers yet when looked at closely, Swann's evidence is totally contradictory to that of McBride & Co at SCRO.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DeqkQNvc7UQ
Peter Swann said it was a left thumb print while SCRO claimed it was a right thumb print.
Clear evidence that Swann does not support SCRO, yet his evidence was accepted by the Lord Advocate or Procurator Fiscal Mr William Gilchrist as evidence for them not to charge any SCRO.
This surely is Totally Flawed and when proven at this enquiry that this "fundamental irregularity" took place, SCRO should be charged with "Criminal" conduct.
My Sincerest and best wishes to Shirley and Iain and all their family who have supported them throughout.
I hope this enquiry finds the truth and is open and honest, Not something that can be attributed to SCRO and their supporters over the years
Where are you getting your information from ?
Your suggestions are ludicrous and LaughableYeah, that’s right, at the Inquiry that the McKies didn’t want to go ahead.
From the moment I have known Iain McKie he has been continually pressing for this enquiry.
It is people like past and present Lord Advocates and your own people at SCRO now SPSA that are afraid of this enquiry
The last enquiry was nothing more than an attempt to restore SCRO and try to restore Public Opinion which has severely backfired.
McLeod found 15 differences.
MacKay found Criminality.
Experts worldwide supported Shirley like the following :
Pat wertheim, America.
Allan Bayle, London.
John McGregor, Aberdeen.
Ken Clacher, Dundee.
Jim Aitken, Edinburgh.
Arie Zeelenberg, Netherlands.
Scott Robertson.
Mike Thomson, Durham.
John McLeod, "Hired By The Scottish Executive"
All (32) Police that guarded the house confirmed Shirley had not entered the house "Under Oath"
Colin Boyd Resigned when he couldn't get DNA from the fingerprint and after Lord McLuskey severely criticised him with an article entitled "We shrunk the Lord Advocate"
Lord McLuskey said of the Lord Advocate
Quote:
We don't want him barking - but the occasional growl would be reassuring. It is late -
but not too late - to start.
"Boyd did not Growl He Resigned" Far Too Late
See the article in full here:
http://www.shirleymckie.com/documents/L ... .10.06.pdf
Malcolm Graham Apologised twice to Iain for his mistakes.
15 Jurors found Shirley Innocent.
McConnell admitted an "Honest Mistake" In Parliament
McBride & Co Refused to speak to MacKay, revoking their right to Silence yet have claimed they wanted to tell their story, Strange they chose to remain silent eh ?
£750.000 Paid out to Shirley in Compensation.
"And Fiona McBride still denies any wrongdoing" ?
The Lord Advocate used the evidence of Peter Swann in not bringing any charges against any SCRO workers yet when looked at closely, Swann's evidence is totally contradictory to that of McBride & Co at SCRO.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DeqkQNvc7UQ
Peter Swann said it was a left thumb print while SCRO claimed it was a right thumb print.
Clear evidence that Swann does not support SCRO, yet his evidence was accepted by the Lord Advocate or Procurator Fiscal Mr William Gilchrist as evidence for them not to charge any SCRO.
This surely is Totally Flawed and when proven at this enquiry that this "fundamental irregularity" took place, SCRO should be charged with "Criminal" conduct.
My Sincerest and best wishes to Shirley and Iain and all their family who have supported them throughout.
I hope this enquiry finds the truth and is open and honest, Not something that can be attributed to SCRO and their supporters over the years
-
Iain McKie
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:23 am
- Location: Ayr, Scotland
- Contact:
Re: Judicial enquiry briefing
It appears my correspondence with Colin McKerracher, Chief Constable of Grampian Police, about past comments he has made, has caused some interest among the ex SCRO experts.
Below are the links to my original letter and his reply. I have already responded to him and will update readers once he has received my latest letter.
http://shirleymckie.com/documents/McKeracher.doc
http://www.shirleymckie.com/documents/M ... her001.pdf
The first hearing of the Judicial Inquiry will take place on Monday 20 October in Glasgow. If the evidence our enquiry team has amassed is anything to go by some startling revelations are to be expected over the next few months.
It is my personal hope that a spirit of truth and reconciliation imbues this Inquiry rather than hate and revenge. It seems important that witnesses are encouraged and allowed to speak the truth confident that while they might be called to account for previous lies and illegitimate actions their voluntary revelation of the truth will be taken into account in deciding what action, if any, is to be taken against them.
I have absolutely no doubt that if this Inquiry is held in such a spirit the truth will finally be revealed. I also hope its recommendations will help everyone caught up in the trauma of the past 11 years to put the hurt behind them.The memory of Marion Ross demands no less.
http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... ry/21.html
Below are the links to my original letter and his reply. I have already responded to him and will update readers once he has received my latest letter.
http://shirleymckie.com/documents/McKeracher.doc
http://www.shirleymckie.com/documents/M ... her001.pdf
The first hearing of the Judicial Inquiry will take place on Monday 20 October in Glasgow. If the evidence our enquiry team has amassed is anything to go by some startling revelations are to be expected over the next few months.
It is my personal hope that a spirit of truth and reconciliation imbues this Inquiry rather than hate and revenge. It seems important that witnesses are encouraged and allowed to speak the truth confident that while they might be called to account for previous lies and illegitimate actions their voluntary revelation of the truth will be taken into account in deciding what action, if any, is to be taken against them.
I have absolutely no doubt that if this Inquiry is held in such a spirit the truth will finally be revealed. I also hope its recommendations will help everyone caught up in the trauma of the past 11 years to put the hurt behind them.The memory of Marion Ross demands no less.
http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... ry/21.html
As always my thanks to all experts who have supported Shirley over the years.