IAI 'Y7' Committee findings

Charles Parker · Post by **Charles Parker** » Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:59 pm

It was suggested that rather than daktari being an SCRO ‘supporter’ nothing could be further from the truth. In fact they are a McKie ‘supporter’ who uses this forum to keep the debates going.

Gee, you think maybe the tail is wagging the dog!

Daktari · Post by **Daktari** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:54 am

Claire, here is the one they don’t want you to look at

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/busin ... ages/e.jpg

Where next for SCRO lot?

Why, the Maryhill Community Centre of course.

Someone asked for an

independent report that supported the SCRO identification of Y7

Seems like they’ve got me on that one. Maybe it’s a trick question.

Didn’t Shirley aver that no other expert supported the SCRO position?
Wasn’t she asked, under oath, if any other expert had examined the mark?
Now why on earth would Shirley have lied about that?

Seems like I will have to throw myself on my sword.

You’re just too damn clever for me.

Big Wullie · Post by **Big Wullie** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:26 am

Wasn't the only one out of the SCRO lot that wasn't gagged Fiona McBride ?

Perhaps the answer to who Daktari is then.

I am also wondering what Court in Scotland if any will ever use her evidence for a SAFE conviction.

What Court will ever be able to rely on her evidence without Y7 being brought up.

what workers in SPSA will want their work associated with hers ?

She will only drag them down to her level.

Taggart · Post by **Taggart** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:33 am

Claire, here is the one they don’t want you to look at

I presume the ‘they’ you refer to are certain experts from SCRO? Given you want to use the evidence from the doyen himself over the use of rolled impressions perhaps you will be so kind as to clarify the following for Claire, in light of the following evidence given to the Justice 1 Enquiry

Robert Mackenzie (Scottish Criminal Record Office): I am the deputy head of the Glasgow bureau of the Scottish fingerprint service…..The plain impression of the left thumb on the second form, which was taken on 18 February, was the best material that I had available to me….The two images that I said could be worked with were of a plain nature…There is lots of other vital information in the one plain impression from which I worked…What we had was limited, in that the two rolled impressions that I saw were smudged, particularly to the right-hand side, but the plain impression was sufficient for me.

who you believe to be telling the truth, given the evidence is clearly contradictory?

Are you prepared now to accept that the evidence of Robert Mackenzie is flawed given his use of plain impressions?

I’m sure it only fair you clear this matter up for Claire.

I'm also sure she would appreciate your comments on which of the three SCRO images is the 'original' image.

Big Wullie · Post by **Big Wullie** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:26 pm

Daktari

Is your eyes failing you, I asked the following on page 1:

Re: IAI 'Y7' Committee findings
by Big Wullie on Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:33 pm

Daktari

I have asked you time and time again:

Has Peter Swann or Martin Leadbetter sat any IAI competency tests or proficiency tests.

Simple Question Really

I salute IAI for their Findings.

Where next for SCRO lot

If you cannot answer that's Ok but please just say you do not know or you do know.

Charles Parker

It was suggested that rather than daktari being an SCRO ‘supporter’ nothing could be further from the truth. In fact they are a McKie ‘supporter’ who uses this forum to keep the debates going.

Absolutely no chance.

There is no way Iain McKie would make any of the derogatory or downright disgraceful comments that have uttered forth from the mouth (Or Nether Region) of daktari.

He has too much respect for all involved.

Total Nonsense.

Taggart · Post by **Taggart** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:27 am

Wullie,

The suggestion that daktari is a ‘McKie supporter’ was brought into this forum by myself.

I certainly do not believe it is Iain Mckie, as you state he has no need to resort to such tactics; however you must remember there are hundreds of people worldwide who support Shirley. (against the mere handful who support the SCRO)

We only have to look closely at their latest posting to see how they love highlighting evidence which actually plunges the knife further in to the SCRO experts.

If I am wrong they will have no problem explaining to Claire that Robert Mackenzie’s evidence is flawed.

And no problem telling us which of the three SCRO images is deemed to be the ‘original’ image.

I do note that daktari started a posting this week titled ‘Sunday Post’ about an article in today’s newspaper. I haven’t seen the paper as yet, but I have noticed the posting has been removed. Perhaps to save me buying the paper daktari will post it on here to let us read it, or at best give us a resume of the story.

Wullie, I am not sure if you realise that Martin Leadbetter runs a Fingerprint Competency Service!

This taken directly from the website

http://www.casltd.org.uk/index.php?page=home

Martin Leadbetter RFP FFS BA (Hons) has more than 40 years experience in fingerprint identification. He is currently chairman of the Fingerprint Society, A Distinguished Member of IAI, UK Representative for the IAI and a member of its editorial board and is a Registered Forensic Practitioner with CRFP. Originally trained at New Scotland Yard, he recently retired as Head of the Fingerprint Bureau for Cambridgeshire Constabulary. He has recently been a consultant to the European Commission, worked for the Forensic Science Service and was a consultant and training officer for Sagem. He has conducted many bench-marks of AFIS Systems throughout the world and in all continents.

The UK represenattive of the IAI apparently! Not to mention distinguished! And a member of the editorial board! (does that mean he wil be involved in publishing the full IAI report in the Journal?)

I look forward to the future altered entry

Martin Leadbetter RFP FFS BA (Hons) has more than 40 years experience in fingerprint identification. He is currently chairman of the Fingerprint Society, A Discredited former Member of IAI, former UK Representative for the IAI and a former member of its editorial board and is a Registered Forensic Practitioner with CRFP.

As for the CRFP? Can they continue to bury their heads? Will every forensic practitioner accept if they do nothing?

And the Fingerprint Society? I wonder how many members will be renewing their subscriptions this year. Perhaps Richard Case wll be able at some point in the near future let us know the membership numbers? And to show it is flourishing perhaps he could publish the member numbers for say the last three years too? Or are the membership numbers a closely guarded secret?

Finally for Claire’s sake I would like to highlight Martin Leadbetter’s fingerprint report on Y7 which can be found at

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/busin ... wan_01.pdf

starting at page 64. The key phrase for me is in paragaraph 4

‘I would stress at no time have I seen any original material. However, some of the material availed to me has enabled me to conduct a professional analysis.’

???? Didn’t the SCRO experts try and crucify anyone who used non ‘original’ material????

Big Wullie · Post by **Big Wullie** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:30 am

Hi Taggart

There is nothing above which states Leadbetter has ever sat any IAI competency tests or proficiency tests.

Because he is a Distinguished member or UK representative of IAI does not mean he has sat the tests.

Peter Swann claims to have 48 years experience in fingerprinting too but has been retired for 21 years.

Come on Daktari please answer the question if you know.

Pat A. Wertheim · Post by **Pat A. Wertheim** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:22 am

Taggart wrote:I do note that daktari started a posting this week titled ‘Sunday Post’ about an article in today’s newspaper. I haven’t seen the paper as yet, but I have noticed the posting has been removed. Perhaps to save me buying the paper daktari will post it on here to let us read it, or at best give us a resume of the story.

Taggart, I had forgotten about Daktari's post telling everybody to check today's "Sunday Post." But your prompt brought it back to mind. No article? Dak's post removed? Okay, Dak, what gives? The usual misinformation?

And what about Taggart's hypothesis (that's a scientific term you might not understand) that you are actually a "McKie supporter?" We are testing that hypothesis here (another scientific concept you probably don't understand). So help us out by answering the question. And to put it to the test, won't you join Taggart and me for a scotch when I come over for the Inquiry? I know you agreed to meet me privately, but why not us three "McKie supporters" make it a threesome?

clpexco · Post by **clpexco** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:27 pm

Pat A. Wertheim wrote: Taggart, I had forgotten about Daktari's post telling everybody to check today's "Sunday Post." But your prompt brought it back to mind. No article? Dak's post removed? Okay, Dak, what gives? The usual misinformation?

Actually, the post had to be removed because in addition to providing notification of the article, it was also overly derrogatory and contained personal attacks.

Daktari · Post by **Daktari** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:53 am

Here's all of what Robert said:
" The background to the comparison is that, as someone said, one can work only with the material that one has to hand. The material that I had to hand was two police elimination forms. My initial decision was based on those—first, on 17 February 1997, and secondly, on 18 February. When the material came back and I was asked to revisit the case, I did not want to look at the perjury form, and I did not, because my initial decisions were not made from that. My decisions were made from a one-to-one comparison of mark Y7 and, first, an elimination form on 17 February and, secondly, another elimination form on 18 February.
There are differences between fingerprint forms that are taken from individuals. There are differences in quality, differences in the way in which the fingerprints are rolled and differences in the pressure used. Mr Berry mentioned rolled impressions. On this occasion, unfortunately, Strathclyde police had not made a good job of the rolled impressions when it took the elimination prints.
When, eventually, I revisited the case, and from my memory, I noted that the 18 February form was slightly better than the 17 February form. Four options were available to me: two rolled impressions and two plain impressions. I have mentioned in another forum that the second form was the original form. In fact, it came back from the fiscal's office labelled "original form" but it was the second form. The plain impression of the left thumb on the second form, which was taken on 18 February, was the best material that I had available to me, and the photographed impression was also the best that I had seen."

The truth of the matter is that the scuff is so insignificant that I probably never even noticed it when I was taking the photos.

But not so insignificant that it is specifically highlighted on

http://onin.com/fp/problemidents.html#first_case

but then again they show a picture of nine plain impressions
under the heading;

"These eight inked prints were scanned from one piece of paper. "

Still, I suppose attention to detail outweighs the ability to count up to ten.

NB Claire these pesky plain impressions pop up all over the place!

Taggart · Post by **Taggart** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:13 am

Daktari,

Thanks for confirming that Robert Mackenzie did indeed use a plain impression. Your posting is more than enough to let Claire see that in this case the you do not need a rolled impression as stated by Swann.

I am still unsure by your postings whether or not you support Plain McKenzie or Rolled Swann? If you are unable to clarify then we must assume that either would suffice and you are doing nothing more than distorting (yet again) the truth.

You were kind enough to give us the following statement from Mackenzie and perhaps you can help me understand something which has always puzzled me

When the material came back and I was asked to revisit the case, I did not want to look at the perjury form, and I did not, because my initial decisions were not made from that. My decisions were made from a one-to-one comparison of mark Y7 and, first, an elimination form on 17 February and, secondly, another elimination form on 18 February.

Mackenzie was asked to re-visit the case by SCRO management. He openly admits he refused to carry out any comparison during this re-examination using the actual charge set. Given this is the actual set for the perjury charge, and the one the 4 SCRO experts must have relied upon during their evidence why did he not undertake, why did Mackenzie carry out what could only be described as a totally flawed re-examination given he failed to use vital evidence. Would any competent expert not have examined all the available evidence? Was Mackenzie merely being incompetent, or did he know that if he looked at a different set, he would be unable to obtain the same result?

‘I did not want to look at the perjury form’.

Did not want to? His actions are at very best incompetent, given his management had asked to re-visit the case. Any suggestions daktari??

And interestingly no comment on which of the three SCRO images is the 'original' image.

Can you also confirm for us that Miss McBride is all set to return to her desk this Friday??

Daktari · Post by **Daktari** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:46 am

Perhaps I can help

When the material came back and I was asked to revisit the case, I did not want to look at the perjury form, and I did not, because my initial decisions were not made from that. My decisions were made from a one-to-one comparison of mark Y7 and, first, an elimination form on 17 February and, secondly, another elimination form on 18 February.

I was asked to revisit the case,

Why?
Robert was told that there potentially serious consequences for a serving police office and he was asked to double check his indentification.
Why?
As you are aware Shirley Cardwell (Now McKie) had been disciplined before for ‘contaminating’ evidence. She had been specifically intructed not to enter the house.
Had she admitted to disobeying this instruction she was facing possible loss of job, loss of pension and, worse of all, having to face her father’s wrath for damaging what he imagined was his glorious reputation.
Shirley McKie had many reasons to lie.
Robert McKenzie had and still none.

I did not want to look at the perjury form, and I did not,

Why?

because my initial decisions were not made from that.

As you are well aware at that time there were literally hundreds of McKie /Cardwell prints flying about.
Pat himself took over a hundred in less that ten minutes.

So why would Robert not want to look at the material(s) had based made his initial decision on?

The decisions were made from a one-to-one comparison of mark Y7 against two elimination forms.

Not the perjury form ?
No, not the perjury form.

What forms were used?

First, elimination form on 17 February and,
secondly, another elimination form on 18 February.

In short, he checked his findings against the material he had based his decision on.

I am surprised you appear to believe that Robert should have looked at the perjury form when his original identification was based on different forms?

karen M · Post by **karen M** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:18 am

is it not normal practice to use the charge set .......

Taggart · Post by **Taggart** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:58 am

Why?
Robert was told that there potentially serious consequences for a serving police officer and he was asked to double check his indentification.

Really? If only this was the case I could understand your response. However your posting is total misinformed. You seem to be back to being utterly desperate.

Anyone reading your latest offering would assume that Mackenzie was revisiting his original identification in 1997, given you tell us the ‘potentially serious consequences for a serving police officer’

However sorry to burst your bubble, and expose the actions of Mackenzie but let us look at the facts. Mackenzie was not revisiting the marks because of the ‘potentially serious consequences for a serving police officer’ as you suggest. The time for that was long past by the time Mackenzie revisited the case.

Let us hear further from Mackenzie over this re-examination

After the trial of Shirley McKie, in August 1999 I was asked by then Chief Superintendent Harry Bell, the officer in charge of the Glasgow bureau, to ask for the productions back from the fiscal's office and to revisit the identifications in the case, and the identification of Y7 in particular. What came back were two police elimination forms and a fingerprint form taken for the charge of perjury, along with photographs of the mark and the books that had been produced in court by the officers...However, the only material available was two elimination forms, the perjury form—and I knew early on that I did not want to get involved in that, because I had not made decisions on it

In August 1999. After the trial. There is further evidence to show that Harry Bell specifically requested his Deputy Head of Department, Robert Mackenzie to re-examine the case, given the verdict in the trial.

He was being asked to re-examine the case because the SCRO Experts had been challenged and found wanting during the Trial. They had been challenged over their identification and lost.

As Karen rightly highlights in Scotland the form taken at the time of arrest for the crime, in this case Perjury, becomes the main evidence in any trial. Mackenzie openly admits he received the ‘fingerprint form taken for the charge of perjury’ which is clearly the main form for the fingerprint evidence prepared by the SCRO.

Mackenzie was being asked to re-examine the evidence by his manager. This had to include an examination of the fingerprint form taken in relation to the charge.

However amazingly Mackenzie refuses to even compare it! Is this just down to sheer incompetence, or is there something more sinister behind Mackenzie’s failure?

In short, he checked his findings against the material he had based his decision on.

I am surprised you appear to believe that Robert should have looked at the perjury form when his original identification was based on different forms?

You are surprised that I am surprised? To be honest I am surprised that you are surprised that I am surprised!

As you are aware Shirley Cardwell (Now McKie) had been disciplined before for ‘contaminating’ evidence.

Nice try but yet further totally inaccurate information. Shirley McKie was never disciplined for ‘contaminating’ evidence as you would have us believe.

And still no thoughts on which of the three SCRO images is the ‘original’ image?

Someone suggested to me today that Fiona McBride will not be returning to her desk this Friday as specified in her Tribunal Judgement. Again I heard the story she is holding out for a cash settlement. You reluctance to confirm or deny indicates there may well be some truth in this story.

Miss McBride, of Clydebank, near Glasgow, said yesterday: "I was ecstatic when I heard the news.

"I have always believed that it was an unfair dismissal. I am now looking forward to going back to work. The result is absolutely brilliant."

I also wonder why you have chosen not to post her Tribunal Judgement?

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:03 am

Taggart wrote:To be honest I am surprised that you are surprised that I am surprised!

Taggart, I am surprised that you are surprised that he is surprised that you are surprised. 8)