CLPEX Chat Board

How can you expect the IAI Y7 Report to be taken seriously when it contains so many schoolboy errors?

The Report describes Marion Ross as an elderly woman, she was fifty-one years old when she was brutally murdered.

This will be the same ‘elderly’ woman referred to by Peter Swann in his oral evidence to the Justice 1 Enquiry?

Chart H is marked "QI2" and shows a mark on the Marks and Spencer tin that is the right forefinger of the deceased, Marion Ross….It is a tin that an old lady used in her house for knick-knacks, buttons, needles—you name it. It is that kind of tin, apparently. Money was put in it as well, I believe.

And in the written submission to Justice 1 by David Russell, Peter Swann’s lawyer?

It was Asbury who was properly convicted by Judge and Jury of the brutal murder of an elderly spinster, Marion Ross.

Are you able to confirm the evidence given to the Justice 1 Enquiry by Peter Swann and his lawyer contains basic schoolboy errors?

Go on, give it a go, you might actually enjoy it?

I won’t hold my breath, but I am greatly encouraged by your response however.

Fascinating your argument against the IAI report is not based on what they examined and their conclusion. You make no reference to any of that aspect choosing to desperately highlight non fingerprint issues. Well done! Award yourself a gold medal, and let us hope all the experts who saw Robert Garrett’s presentation were not put off given the fact they committed ‘basic schoolboy errors’ in their facts.

Your gold medal being awarded for the noble art of straw clutching!

Your desperation knows no limits.....

My dear Taggart, you overlooked two of the most glaring "schoolboy errors" in Dak's post, to wit:

Daktari wrote:Also leads us to believe she filed suit against the service in which she ultimately prevailed.
Ms McKie’s claims were never tested in Court.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, Taggart, but I believe Ms McKie's claims were, in fact, tested in court. If memory serves me correctly, the jury ruled fifteen to zero in her favor and the judge commended her from the bench for her courage in standing up for herself.

Daktari wrote:She opted to settle (for far less than she originally asked for) rather than face the people she, and her father, had accused.

Again, Taggart, please correct me if I am wrong. Wasn't the amount she "originally asked for" £750,000? And if I'm not mistaken, wasn't that the Government's offer that she accepted?

Same old same old from Dak, but sometimes, like you, I simply can't help myself. I just have to point out his false allegations.

Pat,
You are spot on. The evidence was indeed tested before a Scottish Court. And it was a unanimous decision in Miss McKie’s favour as you correctly state.
You have to wonder exactly how low Daktari can go!
I am always amused by this same old rubbish by daktari about not testing the evidence in Court, given the numerous occasion the SCRO Experts could have taken legal action themselves. The numerous BBC documentaries exposing them, their own management forcing them from their employment, the First Minister publicly stating they made mistakes, the book by Iain McKie, the various newspaper articles all stating the same thing. That they misidentified fingerprints.
And did they proceed to take any legal action? To take their case to a court and defend their position? Not once.
At least soon they will be able to get the day in Court they always claimed they wanted, but in reality shied away from, when they all raise their right hands and give evidence at the Public Inquiry.
Certain experts must be truly terrified. After all the Inquiry will give a definitive decision over the identification of Y7 and QI2. That is certain. And I would put my mortgage on what the findings will be.
And then what for those experts who claim they have not made any honest mistakes?
Criminal proceedings? Prison?
All I know Pat things are getting very desperate for one camp as the Inquiry approaches. Daktari helps us by confirming this with their total desperate attempts to defend the indefensible.
Judgment is getting ever closer…..

Perhaps I can help.......

You are to be confusing the Perjury case brought by the Crown
and the claim against the service that she filed suit for.

Originally Shirley Mckie asked for £1,200,000 compensation; she settled for £750,000.
At the exchange rate of the time, nearly a million dollars less!

Daktari wrote:Perhaps I can help.......

What was that, your April Fools' joke a day late?

Your obfuscation is shameless and your misstatements so blatant that some might even use the word "lies."

For one,

Daktari wrote:Originally Shirley Mckie asked for £1,200,000 compensation; she settled for £750,000.

Pay close attention and I will try and explain this again, although I am sure you know the truth of the matter and think that by continuing your obfuscation, newcomers might believe you. Shirley McKie originally asked for £750,000 when she first filed suit. She was rebuffed and the slander against her continued. As the months dragged on into years, she ammended the amount she was seeking upwards. Every right thinking person knew she would win the suit and she wanted to send the message that the longer the government put her off, the more she would seek in damages. Her lawyers told me early on that they expected the government would settle "on the courthouse steps." Sure enough, when I went to Edinburgh to testify, on the morning the court was to begin hearing evidence I was to take the witness box at 10:30. The government lawyers called Shirley's lawyers to the side as I was walking through the door into the courtroom at exactly 10:30. They offered her the £750,000 she had originally sought and she accepted. Shame the witnesses never got to testify in that one -- we wouldn't have to have yet another inquiry now if they had, and Shirley very likely would have got more than the £750,000 she had originally asked for and finally accepted.

As a note to my American colleagues here, it is important to understand that in Scotland, the outrageously high damages we hear of in the United States are not allowed. A person must be able to prove the actual damages without expecting an additional "punitive" award. In Shirley's case, her lost income plus her legal expenses plus her anticipated lost income over the period of a normal police career could well be documented to at least £750,000. The government knew without a doubt she would win that much anyway and possibly more, so the choice to reimburse her that amount for her losses was a move on their part to avoid the embarrassing testimony that would have made public to a gallery full of reporters the whole extent of the cover up. In the US, her case would have been worth tens of millions of dollars.

Keep trying, Dak, but don't expect to get away with your lies here.

Breaking news!
Tom Nelson, director of Forensic's for SPSA has just got an OBE.

Shirley McKie originally asked for £750,000 when she first filed suit.

Maybe you don't undertand the funny money over here but the Court of Session Closed Record A 4690/ 2001 actually states:the sum of ONE MILLION TWO HUNDERD THOUSDAND POUNDS (£1,200,000) STERLING
plus interest!
You can look it up on the Justice1 Committee 5th Report 2006(Session 2) Written Evidence
or SP Paper 558 page 51.
As I said earlier she took a hit of nearly one million dollars rather that appear in Court and defend her case.

Dak!

You'd gone silent for so long I figured you and that little Jack Russell terrier of a lawyer you have were too busy in court to throw darts here. I'm having a wee issue pinning down the exact dates I will be in Glasgow to testify, but I hope we're still on for a dram of single malt with Taggart at the pub where Fiona works. What say you?

The government knew without a doubt she would win that much anyway and possibly more, so the choice to reimburse her that amount for her losses was a move on their part to avoid the embarrassing testimony that would have made public to a gallery full of reporters the whole extent of the cover up.

The government knew without a doubt she would win?
Not if they had read the opinions of various Judges who continually threw out her claims of malice, a key element in the claim. Unfortunately the did not have the benefit of Lord McLuskey’s views or even that of Justice1 who all dismissed the claim of malice.

to avoid the embarrassing testimony that would have made public?
You will no doubt remember that the McKies, in their vindictive crusade against their own expert, Peter Swann, pulled out of the Hearing when they were told that both of them would have to give evidence under oath and that the Hearings would be in public.

a gallery full of reporters?
Maybe Shirley didn’t want the fact that she had lied under oath at her Perjury trial to get into the press.

Maybe that‘s why she took the million dollar hit!

Yet more utter turmoil in the shambolic SPSA as one of its most prolific Board members quits his post.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/di ... s_down.php

New blow for SPSA as board member steps downExclusive by LUCY ADAMS, Chief Reporter June 27 2009

One of the most high profile members of the board of the beleaguered Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA) has stepped down amid growing concerns about the body and its accountability.

Paul Rooney, convener of Strathclyde Joint Police Board and a member of Glasgow City Council since 2005, resigned this week. His decision follows a meeting of the Association of Chief Police Officers last week to consider how to tackle "unacceptable" concerns about the authority, particularly in relation to its handling of IT for all eight forces.

It is the latest in a series of departures - either from the authority or blamed on it - including that of Graeme Pearson, former director general of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency (SCDEA), the country's leading crime fighting unit.

Ricky Gray, former deputy chief constable of Strathclyde, retired early, blaming the SPSA whose creation he referred to as a "constitutional time bomb".

Last year Mervyn Rolfe, the chair of the board, stood down and earlier this year David Mulhern received a £90,000 out-of-court settlement and left after months of legal wrangling. Mr Mulhern, former chief executive of the SPSA, took the body to court to prevent them taking disciplinary action against him on 37 different "extremely serious" complaints as well as "significant issues of concern".

Established in 2006, the SPSA was set up to produce efficiency savings by centralising the provision and procurement of training, IT and forensic services. But questions were raised about its structure almost as soon as it came into being.

In his letter to Vic Emery, chair of the SPSA board, Mr Rooney wrote: "For some months I have been unable to dedicate fully the time and commitment required of an SPSA board member. My obligation first and foremost must be to Strathclyde Police Authority. With the many challenges which lie ahead, both for the Authority and SPSA, I feel it necessary that my attention is focused on the police authority."

While in office, Mr Mulhern made public his desire to centralise services and grow the responsibilities of the authority to take in areas such as motorway policing.

Such calls proved unpopular, as did the revelation that the body had to pay VAT on purchases. As a non-departmental public body, the authority has already been forced to pay more than £1.8m in VAT to the Treasury.

SPSA interim chief executive Jo Brigham said: "As well as highlighting our achievements, we have been honest in setting out where SPSA is not yet delivering all the benefits it might. We have been constructive in offering up practical suggestions for improving the relationship. ACPOS has welcomed us opening up debate on these issues and we are determined to build on that."