Truth and Reconciliation?

[Iain McKie]

Truth and Reconciliation?

The question is what do we want the ‘Fingerprint Inquiry Scotland’ to achieve?

Identify the incompetents and criminals – as an act of revenge - or look to the future improvement of fingerprinting as a forensic science and Scotland as a just country to live in – as an act of reconciliation and moving on.

My plea in calling for ‘truth and reconciliation’ is the latter.

It is fair to say that the pursuit of ‘truth and reconciliation’ across the world has not always been successful and that governments in particular find great difficulty with the truth. Perhaps however it is time to give truth a chance.

http://www.articlearchives.com/crime-la ... 623-1.html

http://www.greensborotrc.org/truth_reconciliation.php

I have no doubt in my mind that some of the SCRO experts and their supporters wish they could turn the clock back but the pressures of the time to remain quiet, lie or support their colleagues determined otherwise.

As I stated at the opening session of the Inquiry this is a once in a lifetime opportunity for those who have lied to put the record straight and move on.
Quote:

‘MR MCKIE: Sir Anthony, I just want to say on behalf of Shirley and myself and our family how much we welcome this Inquiry. We believe that it will get to the truth. I feel over the years there have been lots of lies told and lots of misinformation and I believe this Inquiry can bring that to an end. I would also like to say in completion that I believe there should be, to some extent, an atmosphere of truth and reconciliation in this Inquiry and it matters more to find the truth than to be vindictive about any particular witnesses.
Thank you very much.

THE CHAIRMAN: I am grateful to you. That is very much the spirit in which I would like to conduct the Inquiry’.

Truth and reconciliation is not the soft option but it is the only option if the pain and trauma of the past 11 years is ever to be assuaged. That said it is never easy to say, “I got it wrong”, particularly in the secretive, unaccountable organisational culture that infects many Scottish justice institutions where to make a mistake is bad but to admit it is even worse.

The choice is however stark. Speak the truth – and move on. Lie under oath – and potentially open up years of further trauma.

[Taggart]

Iain,

I wholeheartedly back your call for the Inquiry to be based on “truth and reconciliation”.

Unfortunately for many individuals who will shortly have to stand alone in that witness box under oath, the truth as such is going to cause a huge problem.

What “truth” will they go with?

Miss McBride’s evidence that only someone who was not an expert would possibly examine the top of the print?

Peter Swann’s evidence that any competent expert would not be fooled by the top of the print?

SCRO’s evidence that the top of the print is out of sequence?

Peter Swann’s evidence that there is not one single characteristic out of sequence?

SCRO’s evidence that the Internet images are too poor for comparison?

Berry’s evidence showing how he managed to “identify” 16 points on the Internet image?

As daktari has all too clearly demonstrated the real “truth” is a major problem. I suspect many will take the usual defence of attacking and discrediting those who oppose them.

There are however some within their number who genuinely know the “truth” and I suspect as the Inquiry grows ever closer they may well have to make a huge decision.

Stick together, as has happened up until now? But what when the real pressure mounts? When the major inconsistencies are exposed and scrutinised? They will have several options available. Stick to the original version? Okay an option, but if the SCRO Experts chose this option they will ultimately discredit Swann, Leadbetter, Berry and Graham.

Similarly if Swann chooses to stick to his version he will destroy the SCRO Experts evidence.

The reality is they are in a lose - lose situation.

However from the evidence I have seen I believe there are seriously weak links within the SCRO camp.

Take Alan Dunbar. Former Quality Assurance Officer within SCRO. Amazingly he has chosen to represent himself at the Inquiry without any legal representation. He has chosen to “split” with his former colleagues for the Inquiry. A mystery for sure.

My understanding is Alan Dunbar is one of those who knows the “truth” and has had problems in the past over this issue.

I have seen evidence regarding certain actions of Alan Dunbar in 1999. At a Scottish Fingerprint Meeting Dunbar was asked about the mark Y7, and in 1999, he openly admitted he had never seen the mark!

There are only two possible scenarios here. Either Alan Dunbar openly lied about his involvement, or he was telling the truth about his non-involvement.

Either way Alan Dunbar is going to have some answers for the Inquiry.

This is only one example of a major inconsistency within the SCRO camp. I could highlight a significant number, but let us wait until the Inquiry to reveal any more.

Lies have been told, and they will be exposed.

Would you want to be standing under oath not knowing what is going to hit you next? Not realising that one of your colleagues have previously produced evidence that destroys your very own defence?

As you rightly pointed out those who have been tortured for the last 11 years of this can finally seek some form of peace. And move forward in life knowing that even after all this time they have done the right thing.

As I mentioned in another posting the SPSA is now realising that certain experts still employed within their organisation need to be dealt with.

There are still huge issues surrounding their involvement given two of them wrongly identified the fingerprint as belonging to Marion Ross.

More seriously is the fact that none of those experts have ever been criminally investigated.

I suspect that as a result of the Inquiry there will be substantial new evidence that will be given that will help any future police investigation.

I would be seriously worried if I belonged to a certain camp at present.

But as you suggest if any of those concerned wish to progress along the “truth and reconciliation” route they will finally earn some respect.

Judgement day is fast approaching and I for one cannot wait….

[Iain McKie]

As I see it we have two main problems.

Individual experts who for their own reasons have lied and a justice system that has changed little in culture for over a century and in which lies are countenanced if not occasionally encouraged. (See the Oscar Slater story)

http://www.google.com/search?sour...006 ... car+slater

My basic stance is that given the choice I would seek to change the system rather than punish the individuals. There is nothing systems like more than to focus public feelings of revulsion and revenge on individuals while, at best, only tinkering at the edges of their own self interest. All too often in the past the individual has been offered up as a sacrifice for a system’s failings.

It is noticeable at the Inquiry that the Justice organisations such as the Crown Office, Police and SPSA are very much engaged in a watching brief apparently intent on as little hands on involvement as possible. How happy they would be to see the spotlight focussed firmly on individuals tearing each other apart while they hid away in the shadows.

While I agree with Lydia that given the power they wield experts should not be above the law I am also acutely aware that unless the truth is revealed at the Inquiry the system flaws that sanctioned those lies will only be perpetuated.

Somewhere sometime this cycle must be broken and given the trauma I and my family have experienced over the years I feel we have the right to support a ‘Truth and Reconciliation’ approach even if it means that some who have caused the harm will be protected from the full rigours of the law.

As Pat Wertheim has stated of course the ‘truth’ comes first and ‘reconciliation’ later. I suspect for some the former will be a step too far but I am also confident that there are those, as Taggart suggests, for whom the truth will be a welcome release.

[Taggart]

It is noticeable at the Inquiry that the Justice organisations such as the Crown Office, Police and SPSA are very much engaged in a watching brief apparently intent on as little hands on involvement as possible. How happy they would be to see the spotlight focussed firmly on individuals tearing each other apart while they hid away in the shadows.

The current actions of Elish Angiolini, the Lord Advocate, are incredibly interesting, given the lengths her predecessor, Colin Boyd, went to, to withhold vital information, both to the Justice 1 Enquiry, and to Iain McKie leading up to the Civil Case, where a number of important documents were blocked. The total refusal to hand over the full Mackay Report to the Parliamentary Enquiry being a prime example.

What we now find is a complete reversal. The last Lord Advocate’s actions now being totally exposed by the announcement of the present Lord Advocate that the full Mackay Police Investigation Report will be handed over to the Public Inquiry Team. Along with all papers they hold in connection with the case.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind these actions are a deliberate attempt to shift the focus away from the Crown Office, and straight back to the SCRO Experts. Damage limitation on the part of the Lord Advocate.

She has also promised to hand over all the charts and productions prepared by the SCRO Experts in preparation for the Civil Case.

As the year of the Inquiry has finally arrived I would like to make a rather controversial statement.

I believe the forthcoming Inquiry will turn out to be a huge turning point for the future of Fingerprinting as a Science.

Far more damaging than any Daubert Hearings have been.

This will see two opposing sides giving evidence as to the correctness or otherwise of the identification of two fingerprints in the Marion Ross case.

And at the end of this Inquiry there will be a definitive deliberation we can be assured.

And the reality is the Inquiry can only report with two possible conclusions. The Identifications are correct, or they are incorrect.

The third scenario that the print contains insufficient characteristics to individualize has in effect been ruled out by all parties.

The vast majority have nothing to fear from this Inquiry.

If I was a betting man I know exactly where my money would be on the final deliberation. Well actually we already know from the overwhelming evidence available that the fingerprints in question are erroneous.

If anyone cares to question this I am sure any Kasey will be only too pleased to post charts demonstrating why I am wrong, should anyone be prepared to stand up for the SCRO Experts.

So let me suggest the Inquiry reports back that the fingerprints are erroneous. Now things get interesting. By their own admission, the SCRO Experts have publicly stated they at no time have made “honest mistakes”.

Where would that leave us? With only two possible scenarios. Either there was gross incompetence within the Scottish Criminal Records Office, or there had to be criminality involved.

So why do I suggest this has such major implications for the Science?

One side will be shown to be incorrect, but they will fail to accept the findings and fail to accept their errors.

In other words they will fall back on the “opinion” argument.

Can both sides be correct? No.

Can experts use the “opinion” argument for justification? No.

One hundred years of fingerprinting could be damaged beyond comprehension with this Inquiry.

Experts publicly contradicting experts. Those who are wrong trying to defend the indefensible at all costs.

Let me ask Experts from around the World how you deal with the McKie Case if you are giving evidence? Have you been asked about this case in cross-examination? What are your responses?

This Inquiry will bring the science into the spotlight like never before. Defence agents will be given license to attack the credibility of the Science at every turn. Legitimately. And who could blame them? How are you going to be able to justify the actions of some of your peers? Blame incompetence perhaps? Try and avoid the questioning at all cost? Worth thinking about I suggest.

I believe the route of “Truth and Reconciliation” is still the way forward. There are those out there who will be struggling with their consciences at present over this Inquiry. Do they go forward in a futile attempt, naively hoping to somehow come out the other end unscathed, or do they finally do the honourable thing and end what must be a living hell for them?

This Inquiry is not a game, and could have potentially devastating consequences for some of the participants.

It is not a gamble I would wish to take, given the risks involved.

But then again I am have no need to fear the outcome of this Inquiry! Unlike some.

[printlady]

Let me ask Experts from around the World how you deal with the McKie Case if you are giving evidence? Have you been asked about this case in cross-examination? What are your responses?

How would I respond to questions about the McKie case? That’s easy, directly and honestly. Attempting to avoid the question or suggesting a difference of opinion or that an honest mistake occurred will only make your testimony (and integrity) appear weak. The error has been demonstrated and proven through physical evidence which has been recognized by the Scottish government. The SCRO experts were wrong and refused to admit it; political interests superseded justice and reason. Those that continue to argue against the truth have much to lose; their reputations, their careers and possibly being labeled deceitful and corrupt.

The real loser in this case is the Scottish political engine. They must do what they can to reinstate confidence in the government and in law enforcement. Perhaps this hearing process will facilitate that goal but only if they cut away the cancer.

[Taggart]

Printlady,

I appreciate your response, regarding how you would answer the McKie misidentification in Court.

You may well be aware that as part of the forthcoming Public Inquiry one of the issues the Chairman has identified as coming under scrutiny is with regard to training of Experts within Scotland.

What I am describing as the broad issues that I propose to consider are these:.....
fifthly, the training and qualification of fingerprint examiners in Scotland and the presentation of fingerprint evidence in Scottish court proceedings

This is going to prove a huge embarrassment to the Scottish Police Services Authority and in particular the Fingerprint Service in Scotland.

Why?

Because the misidentifications in the Marion Ross case do not figure in the training syllabus in Scotland.

Swept under the carpet and ignored. If any expert is asked about the McKie case in the witness box under oath they are advised to answer they haven’t seen the original material therefore cannot comment.

In other words Scotland has learnt very little from the misidentifications.

They have not been utilised as part of any training programme. No explanation has been given as to why they were misidentified.

What could have proved an invaluable training tool for Trainees and Experts in Scotland has been carefully and deliberately been ignored.

The Chief Executive David Mulhern refused to allow Experts to view the original material, therefore denying Scottish experts to learn from their colleagues errors.

The error has been demonstrated and proven through physical evidence which has been recognized by the Scottish government. The SCRO experts were wrong and refused to admit it; political interests superseded justice and reason. Those that continue to argue against the truth have much to lose; their reputations, their careers and possibly being labelled deceitful and corrupt.

I could not agree more. But it truly begs the question as to why the Scottish Executive and those responsible for the Fingerprint Service in Scotland still allow three Experts who they know are responsible for those very misidentifications to continue to operate within the Criminal Justice system, providing expert evidence for Court, and actually appearing in Scottish Courts as “Expert” witnesses.

The ‘cancer’ to which you refer is still very much thriving within the Scottish system.

This Inquiry will finally force remedial action by those in power, but at what cost?

The SPSA has finally opened its eyes to those three experts but how long till they finally rid them from the Service?

I am extremely interested to hear from Experts or Trainees throughout the World if the McKie case is used as part of any training courses, or if there is any guidance given how to deal with the case is asked in Court?

Have any Experts been faced with the case personally in Court and how have they responded?

Are there any thoughts as to what went so seriously wrong within SCRO?

I am delighted that there are Experts and Bureaux throughout the World who obviously have learnt lessons from this case, however it is nothing short of disgraceful that the country in which those errors occurred have failed to learn from them.

[Big Wullie]

Printlady

I think the rot is too far entrenched for the SCRO and Scottish Fingerprint to recover from.

Though they may regain some credence I feel if they put their hands up "now" and admit their wrongdoing and accept whatever punishment comes their way.

Remember they have not only destroyed the career of Shirley but they have put the whole family through hell for the past 11 years.

Can I suggest that at the very least they should all be sacked without any pensions never to work in the public sector ever again.

As for the fingerprints ever recovering, well.... I think this will take a very very very long time.

All anyone accussed in Scotland with fingerprint evidence has to do, is quote this sad case to put doubt into any Juror's mind as to the credibility and reliability of fingerprint evidence.