mckie

[incandescence]

I hope you have a big wallet, Flying Monkey - speaking out against the McKies may fraught with risk. In the same manner that Mr McKie sought to silence Ms McBride by vetoing her request to conduct a live interview on Newsnight Scotland (he stipulated that her interview should be pre-recorded in order that it could be "edited" lest she say something that would lead him to sue her), apparently the MSP who is making an effort to represent his constituents (three of the SCRO six) has been warned off speaking about the matter by Mr/Ms McKie's lawyers/QC team - oh yes, by the threat of suing. Again.

Guess it proves the old adage about getting an inch and taking a mile. Some people get £750,000 and it obviously isn't enough.

I cannot believe the audacity of egocentrics who believe that they can dictate to elected representatives what they may and may not comment upon. Perhaps I should not be surprised - let a bully think they've got the loudest voice and who should be surprised that they feel they can rule the schoolyard.

And, lest I cause offence by appearing to miss the point about this being a "site about the science of fingerprints" and appear to be contributing only to the "lies and abuse", I'll talk technical with you when you show me the mark.

Oh yes, that's right - that'll be the ORIGINAL mark. You know - the one that was used to make the ORIGINAL identification decision; the one WITHOUT the brush mark contamination through the centre. NOT the one that was used to influence the perjury trial, NOT the one that oh-so-many foolish "forensic practitioners" the world over have chosen to hang their professionalism, our collective skills, and their own moral reputations by commenting on - a flawed mark viewed (I refuse to sully the phrase "analysed") on the Internet of all places.

[Les Bush]

As you said in conclusion, the truth will come out. The course being taken by the McKies is to finally establish the diversity and depth of the conspiracy to conceal the truth. As I stated in my latest posting you are terribly wrong if you truly believe there is credibility in the position of the SCRO. Take a moment and remove yourself from emotional responses and read carefully the report submitted to the Scottish Fingerprint Service by the members of the Grampian Police in 2005. Reflect deeply on what it was they examined and what they concluded. Think outside the situation of the images on the Internet and realise that original material was also viewed by fingerprint experts in Europe and what it was they concluded. Yes this site is about fingerprint science so lets keep our science as pure and unstained as possible and free of your weak speculations and mischievous intent.

[redlion62]

You, flying monkey, sir or madam, seem to have a bit of a `soap opera` mentality to this whole issue. You obviously need to get a bit more objective! What are you doing here anyway? This site is a useful forum for those interested in truth and justice from a fingerprint expert`s perspective. If, as I suspect, you are not a fingerprint expert then find somewhere else to get some attention! I`m all in favour of free speech but you might get a bigger audience somewhere else.

[redlion62]

For your information, a certain SCRO `expert` presented BOTH marks in his presentation to Senior Scottish Police Officers. Yes, the `original` and the `flawed` as you put it! And he identified both!!!!
Get your facts straight unless you too wish to be labelled a foolish practitioner.

[incandescence]

Les and Redlion,

Thank you for your replies.

Grab yourselves some coffee...this may take a while.

The point I'm making is that NO-ONE can truly believe ANYTHING in this case. Much is being made of conspiracy, but there's so much smoke and mirror work going on that the wrong target is still being "fingered" (to quote a recent headline in the Scottish "press"), and the establishment has continually closed ranks to silence any response.

There is another side to this story.

I agree - this site is a useful resource, and I particularly pick up on the constant references to "objectivity" in many of the discussion board threads. Can I just ask:

WHERE is the objectivity of the Europeans (to whom you refer) when they admit (after having been engaged by HMCIC as "Independent Experts") that prior to examining the originals in the McKie case, they had already viewed the images (and presumably the hype) on the Internet? The findings that were then presented incorporated images that had been taken from postings on the Internet since they were (in his opinion) the best material. Perhaps Dutch experts in general are just more confident at ignoring subjective bias when it comes to making a fingerprint identification than others.

A one off lapse in the review of the case, perhaps? Nope.

Let us now look at the "other misident" on another mark in the case - the one that had been examined by yet more "Independent Experts" and that has now been overturned - ie the identification now stands (a fact now agreed by Mr/Ms McKie). Am I alone in my shock that (i) four people were suspended from their jobs on the basis of that "misidentification", (ii) two other people were removed from operational duties for the same reason, and oh - that's right - (iii) the Scottish Legal Establishment to a man lost its water and released a convicted murderer on an unopposed appeal for the same reason? What now that the Danes have made a mistake? Lots of hush, I feel, or maybe my hearing isn't what it was - I mean, I also seem to have missed all the fanfare and statements that Mr Asbury surely must have issued, proclaiming his innocence, whilst "wrongly imprisoned" for three years? Or is just that there were none? I wonder why...

HOW objective are the majority of the "180 experts around the world" who have voiced their professional opinions very loudly about the alleged "McKie misident" having viewed it via the Internet?

Bear in mind that a close associate of Ms McKie's subsequent lead fingerprint expert said in an email (not to me, I hasten to add) "The Internet simply does not do justice to the mark".

Now, to avoid being tarred with joining the bandwagon of selective editing, misinformation and misquotes, I will put that into context by saying that the email referred to above had been written in the spirit of making the recipient aware that there were high-resolution scans of the negatives of the mark and the inked print available on a CD, and that the recipient of the email may wish to review the CD and pass back their comments. This is because the writer of the email felt "those who have taken sides prematurely based on photocopies and/or Internet copies of the mark may still have a way out. Damage may be minimised by simply admitting this fact. It is certainly better than holding onto an erroneous id". Objective? Incidentally, it reads just as well as if it came from the opposite standpoint.

We are all aware of the research being carried out in our field relating to predisposition to psychological bias in fingerprint comparison decision making processes. I think you've talked yourselves out of an argument here...objectivity in this matter can only ever be sparse when people are constantly being spoon-fed a reinforced version of one side of a story.

Truth and Justice... I like that, Redlion. When you read my next point you will see why I probably have more right to be angry at the loss of truth and justice in this matter than most of the empty vessels who expound on it.

Was Shirley McKie ever in Marion Ross's house? I have no idea. I've never seen the mark. Have you?

Is it an identification? I have no idea. I've never seen the mark.

Ergo - I CANNOT state an opinion.

Ms McKie says she wasn't in the house - and (I know...it's a personal thing, but hey, sue me) an individual's personal averment counts for something in my book. Not because it's legal testimony, not because it's under oath, not because someone is a policeperson, not even because there's a murder victim but because we all have to sleep at night and be able to look each other in the eye in the morning. However...she has also said (on at least one occasion) in Court that no other Expert had looked at the mark prior to her US lead expert. The fact is, THAT IS A LIE. I know it's difficult, but say it after me...IT IS A LIE. Then ask yourself -

WHY would she need to do that?
WHY would she then try and gag that individual?
WHY would she seek to have him disciplined for doing his job?
WHY would the Procurator Fiscal's department (who had spoken directly with the initial defence expert and clarified his involvement with the case) then allow her to LIE in her testimony?
WHY are the original exhibits (granted the key one in question is now damaged) being withheld from involved parties trying to get their side of the story out into the public domain?
WHY did the Lord Advocate allow the use of the (now found to be erroneous) Danish report go unanswered by SCRO and set a convicted murderer free?
WHY did Ms McKie accept £750,000 just at the point when it was ALL going to come out in Court? My understanding of the situation is that when she was offered that same amount last year it was turned down since "the money wasn't important - getting to the truth was". You had your chance for PROVEN justice on the 7th of February, Shirley - the fingerprint world, obsessed as we are with truth and justice, was waiting - why not take it? If, as you and your father maintain, it's all so obvious that there are mistakes, lies and cover ups going on - it would all have come out, you could have come back at a later date for the money that could be seen to be rightfully yours, AND JUSTICE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERVED.
WHY no public enquiry?

Questions, questions, questions...

That last one is easy - look at who the players are here...look at the mistakes that have been made, and see why an enquiry is the last thing that is ever going to ahead (and trust me: NO-ONE wants an enquiry more than the staff at the Glasgow Bureau of the Scottish Fingerprint Service). Four/six fingerprint experts are an easy and expendable target when you're the Lord Advocate, First Minister and the Justice Minister ringmastering a debacle such as this.

Now, I'll leave you with this: think about the silence that has been maintained by the family of Miss Marion Ross, made all the more dignified that you can hear it over all the petty infighting by people more interested in airing loudly an opinion about a matter they cannot ever legitimately speak. People who have never seen the mark in question and who are too easily swayed by friends and colleagues; maybe it's misplaced loyalty similar to what you will perceive as mine. Just remember - I'm not saying I agree/disagree the mark...that's well outwith my hands now since the orginal is unlikely to ever reappear for me to see, and even if it does it's not in its original state.

Better to shut up and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it. I'm happy with the veracity of my facts, Redlion...can you say the same?

[g.]

Incandescence,

You raised two issues in your post that were extremely shocking to me. I am asking if you could elaborate further, as for me they truly reach to the heart of the matter.

Where is the original evidence/exhibits? Who THEN has actually examined the original evidence? (referring both to the McKie and Asbury marks). You implied that many that have given opinions have not had access to the evidence, or viewed flawed or faulty or less than acceptable images and therefore have opinions based on poor grounding.

All of the following then are questions that derive from the nature of the evidence: Please note, I am asking these questions not to be antagonistic, but this gets to the heart of the matter. Why could high quality images no longer be made available? Does no one truly have access to these images? Don't photographs exist in the case file or somewhere in the vaults of the SCRO?

1) Did Swann see the original images?
2) Did Wertheim and Grieve see the original images?
3) Did the Dutch see or choose not to see the original images?
4) When all these enquiries were initially performed what evidence was used?
5) This is news to me...you stated "the Asbury print is now being held to be a valid identification? and the McKies have agreed? When did this occur? How was this conclusion reached? Did I understand you to say the Dutch have reversed themselves? How? When?
6) Is the Asbury print no longer available in its original form? And if not, how did someone now reach a conclusion that it was valid identification?
7) Did the Lothian Borders 14 not see adequate evidence?
8. What about the Grampian 3 most recently? I thought they gave a very thorough account of the quality and source of their evidence?

In the end what I am getting from your post, what is most relevant to all of us examiners, is that you are maintaining that no one has seen the original evidence, and all reproductions viewed have not done the prints justice as they do not show all the information?? Is this accurate?

I can speak for myself personally. I had the opportunity, while meeting with Pat Wertheim, to see polaroids that he produced from evidence in Scotland. I saw photographs (of the tin and McKie mark) that he physically created from the original evidence...if that isn't sufficient, then I would love to see better photographs side by side to Pat's and see what the differences are.

If there is better evidence, why has it not been made available? And I am not implying by any means that it should be "posted" here, but if the original evidence exists at SCRO or in the courts, why isn't it being provided for experts to examine?

Furthermore, I would think that it would be in SCRO's best interest, perhaps for example, to say to the 180 that signed the petition, "look here are the best photographs obtainable of the evidence and why we believe these identifications to be 100% valid". Perhaps a second set could show the points in agreement that they maintain and a written report explaining their conclusions. Knowing many of the 180 on that petition, knowing them to be fine, objective, dispassionate scientists they would SURELY reexamine the evidence and provide a conclusion. AND if the evidence showed to be a true ident, then perhaps they would retract their opinion. I know I would, if I was shown valid, accurate evidence and reason for me to reconsider my position. I think that is the very nature of science to update our conclusions with the introduction of new evidence. I would think that it would be in SCRO's best interest to convince these experts, who in turn could provide a stronger position for the SCRO. Again this assumes, that the identifications are valid. However, clearly the key here is transparency. If they are in the right, then transparency would obviously be on their side. Correct?

Thank-you in advance for your thoughts and I hope you can further shed some light on the issues that you have raised.

g.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Incandescence & Glenn

We get here to the heart of the matter. Incandescence has one valid point which I have never heard addressed by the McKies. If Shirley McKie testified that I was the first independent expert to view the evidence, without other qualifier on her testimony, then she was clearly wrong. But that is the ONLY point Incandescence brings forward that is not distorted.

Glenn, you asked the most pertinent questions, so I will answer them.

1) Did Swann see the original images?
Answer: Not originally. According to what I learned from the Mackay/Robertson inquiry, Peter Swann initially based his opinion of "identification" on looking at the charted enlargements prepared for court, that is, the ones that had been digitally degraded and cropped, with sixteen little red numbers and sixteen little red lines running into the photographs. According to what I heard from that inquiry, he did not see the actual photographs until he had already agreed with the identification as demonstrated in those charts. Interestingly, at the Fingerprint Society lectures in Liverpool in 1999, before I ever saw anything in the McKie case, Swann approached me to discuss the case. I found that highly unusual, that one consultant would attempt to influence another consultant before the second consultant had even begun an exam. But he did approach me and told me that the crime scene mark was not forged and that is was clearly Shirley McKie's fingerprint. "Of that there can be no doubt." I ignored his implication that I should confirm his results because I want to go into every examination with an open mind.

2) Did Wertheim and Grieve see the original images?
Answer: Yes. I not only saw the original images, I was given the doorframe itself with the latent print still in place, although through mishandling prior to my examination, the now-famous brush mark was present when I received it. I was also given two original photographs of the latent made from the SCRO's negatives at different exposures, one light and one darker. In addition, I took my own photographs. I used a Nikon FE-2 camera with a Nikkor 55mm micro lens, perhaps the best 35mm combination ever for photographing fingerprint evidence as it allows a negative at one-to-one. My photographs were actually a tad sharper than the SCRO photographs, which was acknowledged once by the SCRO who claimed it was unfair because they did not have access to the quality camera gear I have. Hmmm. I got my camera through the want ads used, and bought the lens in London at Jessop's Camera Store, again used. I shot several different types of film -- B&W with different ASA's, and color. I selected the best contrast negatives for printing.

While it has been suggested that none of the experts' opinions are valid based on the internet images, I would make two comments. First, I mailed literally hundreds of original photographs printed from my negatives all over the world. I mailed sets to all of the fingerprint experts I know who would be interested, and I also mailed sets to every person who contacted me and asked for a set. I spent well over $400 of my own money circulating original sets of photographs from my original negatives. Second, the images of the latent prints at www.onin.com/fp were scanned on a Nikon negative scanner directly from my negatives and are downloadable in uncompressed format. They are massive files. Printed on quality printers, those images give virtually flawless reproductions of the originals. The inked prints available at that website were scanned at high resolution directly from the inked prints of Shirley McKie and are also presented, I believe, in uncompressed format.

3) Did the Dutch see or choose not to see the original images?
Answer: Now we are talking apples and oranges. The fingerprints in question that Incandescence refers to are images two Danish fingerprint experts originally said was an erroneous identification to David Asbury. The latent print in question was on a piece of currency found in the sweets tin in his closet. So it was a fingerprint on a piece of paper money in Asbury's possession. The Danes were wrong in saying it was an erroneous identification, but the problem is that the SCRO sent the Danes faulty images. Arie Zeelenberg from the Netherlands reviewed the work of the Danes, found that they had been sent the wrong photographs and looked at the wrong fingerprint, and brought it to their attention. They then revised their report to reflect that it really was David Asbury's fingerprint on the currency found in David Asbury's possession. That print has never figured prominently in any of the debate, except that it was mentioned in one newspaper article.

Otherwise, Arie Zeelenberg (Dutch) saw original images provided by the SCRO and based his opinions on those when he concurred with the rest of the world that the SCRO is wrong in both the McKie "identification" and the Marion Ross "identification" on the sweets tin.

4) When all these enquiries were initially performed what evidence was used?
Answer: The Mackay/Robertson inquiry had access to everything. Unfortunately, not all they sought was granted. The SCRO "experts" were asked to explain their position. They each came to the inquiry with a lawyer and basically answered "no comment" to the questions asked by Mackay and Robertson. They were also asked to give handwriting exemplars because initials on some of the evidence do not appear to match their initials or letters in the signatures on other evidence. They refused to give handwriting samples. So much for the SCRO's present whining that they have never been given the opportunity to present their side of the case. They were given that opportunity in the inquiry and refused.

5) This is news to me...you stated "the Asbury print is now being held to be a valid identification? and the McKies have agreed? When did this occur? How was this conclusion reached? Did I understand you to say the Dutch have reversed themselves? How? When?
Answer: This is the irrelevant fingerprint on the piece of currency, as I explained above. It was the Danes who called it erroneous, not the Dutch. It was the Dutch who corrected it. But the fingerprint in question was NOT the Shirley McKie print and it was NOT the Marion Ross print.

6) Is the Asbury print no longer available in its original form? And if not, how did someone now reach a conclusion that it was valid identification?
Answer: I believe this refers to the print on the currency, which is irrelevant. I saw the original door frame, which I believe is still available. I saw the original sweets tin, which I believe is still available. Interestingly, there is another latent print of consequence. A fingerprint in a photograph of a Christmas gift tag from Marion Ross' home was identified correctly as David Asbury's fingerprint. However, when I was given access to the original evidence in the Procurator Fiscal's (prosecutor's) office in Kilmarnock, that identification was not considered controversial because David Asbury freely admitted having been in Marion Ross' home for a visit the week prior to her murder. I photographed the photograph of the fingerprint on the gift tag and the charted enlargements that were in evidence. In another box of evidence I found a gift tag in an evidence bag and photographed it. Only later when I was examining my photographs back in the US did I realize the gift tag in the evidence bag is NOT the gift tag in the photograph. They both have bows and holly leaves, but they are different bows and different holly leaves. If the gift tag in the evidence bag is important, why is it important? I never saw reference to it in any of the reports. And what happened to the gift tag with the fingerprint? I did not see it in the evidence, only the one gift tag in the evidence bag. Now I understand the Procurator Fiscal is admitting the original gift tag has gone missing. What gives here? There are some suspicious lines in the photograph of David Asbury's fingerprint on the gift tag, the kind of thin lines I might expect to see in a piece of acetate with a photocopied fingerprint was laid on top of a piece of evidence and photographed. So where is that original gift tag now that it HAS become controversial?

7) Did the Lothian Borders 14 not see adequate evidence?
Answer: They apparently saw evidence of sufficient quality to convince them the identifications are incorrect. I know they had original photographs from my negatives. The SCRO, to the best of my knowledge, has not circulated any copies of their photographs except as ordered to do so by the courts.

8. What about the Grampian 3 most recently? I thought they gave a very thorough account of the quality and source of their evidence?
Answer: The Grampian officers had all of my stuff -- even my original negatives. And they had copies of everything that was originally supplied to me by the SCRO including the original SCRO photograph. And they had original inked prints of Shirley McKie.

Glenn, I hope this answers your questions. And to you, Incandescence, your "independence" is highly questionable. Your posting was fraught with far more erroneous assumptions and errors itself than you "exposed."

[g.]

Thanks Pat,

Many of those answers are what I had believed. In fact, I reached my opinions of the "tin" print and the McKie print from your photographs. And the details that you relayed in that posting were EXACTLY what you relayed 6 years ago when I viewed those photographs. I had no reason then, nor now, to doubt the veracity or probative value of the evidence. While I think it would all be "NICE" for us to see the original evidence 'in situ' on the tin and door frame, such circumstances are not always possible, and for 100 years, experts have rendered sound opinions from the "best evidence possible" e.g. high quality photographs taken of the original evidence.

Thank-you for clarifying the Dane v. Dutch mixup. I apologise, that was probably my error in relaying Incandescence's post. I believe he said "Dane" and I confused it with Dutch. BUT thank-you for clarifying about that print. I was not aware of that portion of the case.

I look forward to seeing if Incandescence will offer a counter argument or rebuttal of the facts as you have relayed them Pat. I have known you to have the highest of integrity and again, your info has never wavered or changed, but sitting on the sidelines, it would be interesting to see if anyone can refute what you have offered.

If not, then I will take what say to be the reality of the situation.

Lastly, if accurate as you have portrayed, then with respect to the McKie door jamb print, it seems hard to swallow, that it was a completely valid identification until a swath of brush disturbed a portion of the print and then everything went "all wonky". Otherwise, wow, if we had the "original" then no problem, easily...an id. AND, even if this is the case, then it still doesn't explain the Ross id on the "tin".

Thanks,

g.

[Andrew Schriever]

I've held my comments through reading this thread until Glenn touched on something that I have been thinking since Incandescence's first post.

that it was a completely valid identification until a swath of brush disturbed a portion of the print and then everything went "all wonky".

Question: Can a print be a valid identification at one moment and then become a clear non-identification with a few strokes of a brush?

Incandescence seems to imply that, without the "brush stroke contamination", it would be clear to the world that the print is actually a valid identification.

I would argue that "brush stroke contamination" can not make a valid ID a valid non-ID, it can only degrade an identifiable print to the point that it is no longer identifiable.

But then again, maybe they use different types of fingerprint brushes in the UK.

[Patrick Warrick]

Pat,

Am I to understand that you are accusing SCRO of manufacturing a latent print on the gift tag that you refer to in your post? That's a pretty bold statement, and one I'm surprised you would make in this forum without something more to back that up. Especially because of the volitile subject matter surrounding this whole deal. You are extremely well regarded in your knowledge and experience examining fraudulant latent evidence. Have you subsequently examined the original photograph of the latent on the gift tag? I know I've haven't read everything posted about the McKie case, because frankly it gets very numbing after awhikle and I don't have the time. But this is the first I've heard of the suspicious print on the gift tag? Did I miss something?

It seems it shouldn't be that difficult to do some analysis of the photograph (since the gift tag is missing) to maybe get some more information. Of course, how this mess is playing out, the photograph is probably missing now.

I don't want to be confrontational about the issue. Far from it. I was just wondering is there more info on that latent that I've missed.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

Hi Patrick -- No accusation there, just observations. First, go back and read my article on latent print fabrication in the Nov/Dec, 1994, issue of the Journal of Forensic Identification. I have caught a few and have studied all of the published cases I could find. There are a number of things in common, things which are not conclusive proof of fabrication, but which show up over and over in fabrication cases but are rare in legitimate cases. Yes, I have seen the original photograph of the gift tag, and I re-photographed it. The fingerprint on the gift tag, correctly identified as David Asbury's thumbprint, has some of those characteristics one might see in a fabrication. I wrote a report to Asbury's lawyers about five years ago in which I reported that the gift tag evidence was suspicious and needed further examination, but they never followed up on that information. Now that the rumor is out from the prosecutor's office that the gift tag itself has been discovered missing, it is time to start voicing the problems I have observed. No accusations, but the need seems to be getting more pronounced for a closer look at that evidence. There may be a perfectly valid explanation for the "issues" surrounding the fingerprint on the gift tag and if that is the case, then I would accept that my suspicions are ill founded. But this case just keeps getting weirder and weirder. The ONLY way I can see to resolve it is with a judicial inquiry -- one headed up by an independent judge with subpoena power, and with total transparency and public reporting.

[redlion62]

Dear Mr *******? please accept my apologies for not replying sooner. I have seen verified copies of the mark and I can tell you it is not...repeat not] an identification. The same goes for the other mark claimed by the SCRO to have been made by Marion Ross. I suspect that you have loyalties to certain parties in this matter but you are backing the wrong horse. I have read Mr Wertheim`s comprehensive response to your posting and I am humble enough to admit that it would be impossible for a soul as simple as I to add anything further.