CLPEX Chat Board

Rather than contribute an emotional response Id like to invite the author of this thread to a test of skill. It appears and I use that word very loosely that you claim to understand fingerprint identification science. Well lets not wait any longer and invite you to comment on the images that are available. Sorry if that puts you on the spot ( not really) but we have images that can be validated as having originated from the same piece of timber that the SCRO claim their print was developed. Give us your thoughts on the examination of those images. We have all seen them and formed our conclusion. What is yours? Dont worry about any other issue just the images themselves, focus your intellect on what you see and not any other issue. I'd be interested in continuing this thread if you come back with a reply. Scared?

Mr Bush, how old and contaminated is your piece of timber (ooh sounds naughty)...sorry (not remotely) if that puts you on the spot.

The Terrified? (But still) Delightful Miss Fabulous

I have avoided getting involved in spitting contests with people who intentionally distort the truth and even stretch it beyond the breaking point, but some of the lies told by three anonymous employees or supporters of the SCRO cry out for response.

First, I have reread the transcript of my testimony at the trial of Shirley McKie for perjury, and I cannot find any reference to “God-given talent” as the basis for my expertise, although I will proudly give credit to Him for whatever talent has been given me. What I did find in the transcript was six pages in which the calling attorney led me through a series of questions on my training and experience. In an article I wrote for the JFI titled “The Ability Equation,” I refer to five factors that contribute to one’s ability: Training, Experience, Talent, Motivation, and Daily Variables. I frequently refer to “God-given talent” when discussing that paper, because without a natural talent for working with images, a person will have great difficulty in fingerprint comparison. To take that to an extreme, Helen Keller would have made a lousy fingerprint examiner. But short of blindness, even conditions such as dyslexia and form blindness are handicaps in any field where visual discrimination and acuity are critical. It has been my observation training a few thousand students that those with strong interest in the arts generally make very good fingerprint examiners, while people with no interest in any forms of art generally have less patience and more difficulty at fingerprint comparison. I would consider artistic talent a “God-given talent.”

Second, I am tired of the whining that the SCRO experts want a chance to present their case. In Shirley McKie’s trial they had a chance and lost, not because I am a “showman” but because the jury understood the evidence – a unanimous verdict of “not guilty” is a clear indication the jury understood the “identification” was erroneous because, in Scotland, a verdict of “not proven” is an alternative for juries who are merely confused by a “showman.” The SCRO experts also had their chance at David Asbury’s trial, but the appeals court in front of which I did NOT testify found the SCRO’s evidence “unsafe.” But most importantly to present “their side” of the story, all of the SCRO experts were asked to present their case to the inquiry team of James Mackay and Scott Roberson. Did the SCRO experts take that opportunity to explain themselves? NO!!! They showed up with their lawyers in tow and answered “No comment” to most of the questions asked of them. Because two sets of initials on the original latent print identification did NOT match the initials of the respective experts, the four were asked for handwriting samples – which they REFUSED to give. We have since learned from Fiona McBride’s admission that she forged those two sets of initials.

If the SCRO experts are so eager to give “their side” of the story, why did they refuse to talk to the official enquiry team and refuse to give handwriting samples??? Let’s not forget that the strong recommendation of that enquiry was that the four be prosecuted for perjury. They had their chance to explain themselves at the most critical time and, quite simply, refused.

Third, we hear all of the quibbling from SCRO that my photographs are not the original evidence and are not reliable. However, SCRO expert Robert McKenzie himself used one of my images that apparently he had downloaded from onin.com/fp at a meeting in Tuliallen. In using my image, he charted it with Shirley McKie’s inked thumb print to PROVE the IDENTIFICATION!!! If that isn’t overt admission that my images are valid and are good enough to work with, I don’t know what is. It is also further proof that the SCRO is solidly entrenched in denial.

Fourth, there is the allegation that the evidence was overwhelming that David Asbury was the murderer of Marion Ross. If that were true, would the prosecutor not have refiled the case when the appeals court reversed the conviction because of the erroneous identification of Marion Ross on Asbury’s sweets tin? By the way, the tin in question, full of candies, was given to David Asbury three years earlier by his sister at Christmas. His entire family remembered it and knew David used it as his “piggy bank.” When Shirley McKie found the tin in David’s closet, it was packed full of cash, about £1,400 as I recall. For an unemployed blue-collar laborer to have such a large stash was considered reason to focus the investigation on him. Never mind that when he explained he had withdrawn his life savings to buy a car, and the police checked out his story, they confirmed that he had, indeed, withdrawn the money from his account. Then there was the other fingerprint, his thumbprint on the gift tag of a Christmas present in Marion Ross’ house. I have discussed my suspicions of that gift tag on another thread at this website, so I won’t repeat myself here. Suffice it to say that the evidence is questionable, but was explained by David’s statement that he had been by to visit Marion Ross the week prior to her murder. No other fingerprints were identified to him (oh, yes, there was one other identification to David – on a piece of currency that was in his home. Now there’s valuable evidence!) There was no other evidence. His conviction for murder relied primarily on the single fingerprint on the sweets tin that was identified to Marion Ross. Once that was proven to be an error, the entire case collapsed. Sorry, I believe that David Asbury did not murder Marion Ross. Another man has been bragging about the murder, a man convicted in a similar murder of another old lady just a few miles from Marion Ross’ house. Why have the police not reopened the investigation? Probably for the same reason the SCRO still insists the identifications were correct. There is something much deeper and more troubling going on here than two erroneous fingerprint identifications.

The members of “Jaffa Cakes Eaters Anonymous” need to return to the back room at the bakery and gorge themselves there instead of spreading their anonymous lies and slander on a website usually visited by serious fingerprint examiners discussing science.

Pat A. Wertheim

"I have avoided getting involved in spitting contests with people who intentionally distort the truth and even stretch it beyond the breaking point, but some of the lies told by three anonymous employees or supporters of the SCRO cry out for response."

"The members of “Jaffa Cakes Eaters Anonymous” need to return to the back room at the bakery and gorge themselves there instead of spreading their anonymous lies and slander on a website usually visited by serious fingerprint examiners discussing science."

Mr Wertheim...are you having a laugh? People in glass houses...

I have no doubt that the MacKay Report and what you say happened at Tulliallan is a distortion of the truth (a bit like your internet images) so let's stick to the facts...

1.Miss McKie perjured herself in court.
2.Your images were taken from the door frame many, many months after the mark had already been lifted.
3.The impressions taken from articles found in David Asbury's home belong to Marion Ross and David Asbury.
4. The SCRO experts have not spoken until now as they were not allowed to comment on the case under judicial law.

I thank you all for your time.

The Delightful Miss Fabulous

Well done Pat,

Crystal clear where the truth is coming from. My invite to the author still stands. If you have no interest in the images that we are all focussed on then you are really waisting your time on this forum. It is a test of skill, ability and talent. My offer is genuine, if you produce a result I am prepared to continue this thread. If not your credibility and all those you associate with as being worthy of credit are also taken down. Unfortunately that is the situation you have created by airing your suspicions with their mischievous innuendo. It appears there is a growing number of your ilk who remain in the shadows seeking opportunity. Until the essential public inquiry is complete the McKie family are bearing the burden of your misplaced and misguided speculations. Your postings creates more empathy for the McKies but only because what you write is counterproductive to what you seek to achieve. Give me a result.

Sorry Mr Bush...were you actually serious?

The Delightful (and laughing) Miss Fabulous

The SCRO Experts demand a Judicial Public Inquiry. The Expert Fingerprint Evidence in the Case of Shirley McKie has never been Judicially determined. Yes, she was acquitted in the Perjury Trial, but so what? Let me remind you of Lord Johnson's Summing Up to the Jury:

"But do bear in mind that this is not an equal struggle, it is a contest in which the Crown must win and the Defence need prove nothing. At the end of the day, this is not a public inquiry where you are obliged to reach a positive decision."

However, the McKie supporters say that the Jury were so impressed by the Fingerprint Evidence, that they returned their Verdict within minutes. Great, but what did Lord Johnson also tell that Jury in his Summing Up:

"But the fact remains, that she has told you she is innocent and, if you believe that, that's the end of the matter and you need take the matter no further. If you are satisfied to that effect simply conclude that she is an honest and straightforward witness and you can come back to me in 5 minutes' time and tell me that; you needn't take the matter any further, and you needn't even start to consider the question of fingerprints."

It has been alleged against Shirley McKie, by reference to the involvement of her Independent Defence Fingerprint Expert, Peter Swann that she committed Perjury during her Perjury Trial. What is the chronology?

12 May,1998 Peter Swann is retained by Levy & McRae, Ms McKie's Lawyers.
(Iain and Shirley McKie spent a full day with Mr Swann at his Office in Wakefield, England.)

8 December, 1998 Mr Swann has a lengthy Consulation in Wakefield with Ms McKie's Senior Counsel, Bert Kerrigan QC and Junior Advocate.

2 March, 1999 Mr Swann attends the High Court, Glasgow, accompanied by Ms McKie's Lawyers and conducts Expert examination of Exhibits, to include Y7.

2 March, 1999 Mr Swann meets with Ms McKie's new Senior Counsel, James Findlay QC, the Junior Advocate and Solicitors. He reports that Exhibit Y7 is the left thumb print of Shirley McKie.

5 March, 1999 Ms McKie and her Defence Lawyers review Mr Swann's Evidence of Identification in Consultation.

7 March, 1999 Ms McKie writes to one of her Lawyers, Angela McCracken. Ms McKie raises a series of questions concerning Peter Swann's Identification, which confirmed that Exhibit Y7 found at the Murder Scene of Marion Ross was her Fingerprint. Ms McKie comes up with a Schedule of Questions for Mr Swann to answer, to include: "Is there someone else with the same fingerprint who had access to the locus?"

12 March, 1999 Peter Watson, Solicitor Advocate of Levy & McRae writes to Mr Swann with Ms McKie's Schedule of Questions, concerning his Identification.

12 March, 1999 Mr Watson of Levy & McRae writes to Ms McKie and states:

"So far as Mr Swann is concerned. he was given all the material which we hold which includes precognitions, Crown Productions, the video and, of course, your fingerprints. We held nothing back from him. Mr Kerrigan met with him for an entire day, Angela McCracken separately met with him and Donald Findlay has met with him. As far as I am aware all the issues which both Senior Counsel wished to explore were explored and Mr Swann's report reflects the issues concerned. I will, as a matter of course, pass a copy of your letter to Mr Swann to determine whether or not he wishes to make any additional comments. As you know, we also have the expert from the United States, Pat Wertheim coming over."

16 March, 1999 Mr Swann sends his final 13 page Expert Fingerprint Report to Ms McKie's Lawyers. He answers every single one of her Questions and yes, it is still her fingerprint.

Now, having relayed the chronology of events, let us go forward a couple of weeks to the Perjury Trial, Her Majesty's Advocate v. Shirley Jane McKie aka Cardwell. The Official Court Transcript (Tuesday, 11th May, 1999. Evidence for the Accused Continued. Shirley Jane McKie aka Cardwell, Accused. SWORN) records Ms McKie's Cross Examination by the Crown as follows:

Crown: "Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen how many people were asked to look at the print Y7 for the Defence before Mr Wertheim?"
McKie: " I have no idea."

Crown: "Do you seriously not know whether the print was shown to anyone before Mr Wertheim?"
McKie: "I don't know who has examined the fingerprint."

Crown: "Do you know if anybody has?"
McKie: "I don't know who has."

Crown: "Do you know if anybody has, regardless of their identity?"
McKie: "I don't know. You would need to ask my solicitor that."

Crown: "So you don't know whether or not anybody else looked at the print, is that your evidence?"
McKie: "No, I don't know."

THAT WAS SHIRLEY MCKIE'S FALSE EVIDENCE ON SWORN OATH.

Perjury is commonly defined as the Offence of wilfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under Oath.

Now I could go on for several hours, but you know what, why do we not have an Independent Judicial Inquiry? We will take on the McKies, Wertheim and army before a properly convened Judicial Inquiry. I propose that we approach Lord McCluskey on a joint basis and each put to him our respective Cases for Judicial Inquiry. The matter can then be pursued on Petition, supported by the Scottish Public. The First Minister, Minister for Justice and Lord Advocate will be forced to concede. We will then invite the Lord Chief Justice in London to nominate a Senior High Court Judge to sit as Chair of the Inquiry. (Lord McCluskey has already acknowledged that it would be inappropriate to have a Scottish Judge appointed to the Judicial Inquiry.) We can then each make Representations to the High Court Judge, as to the Terms of Reference governing the Inquiry. I appreciate that Iain McKie, Shirley McKie, Pat Wertheim and assorted hangers-on will all claim that the Misidentification has already been Judicially determined (they will, of course, ignore the above evidence), but let me remind you of what Lord McClusky had to say on that issue:

"DESPITE THE SOUR TERMS OF THE LETTER BY DAVID RUSSELL (3 MARCH), I ENTIRELY SUPPORT HIS DEMAND THAT THE PROPOSED JUDICIAL INQUIRY SHOULD BE GIVEN TERMS OF REFERENCE THAT INCLUDE A DUTY TO EXAMINE ALL THE EVIDENCE BEARING UPON ALL THE ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THIS SAGA, INCLUDING THE FIRST, BUT FUNDAMENTAL, ISSUE OF FACT, NAMELY WHETHER THE SCOTTISH CRIMINAL RECORDS OFFICE OFFICERS WERE WRONG IN IDENTIFYING THE NOTORIOUS FINGERPRINT AS THAT OF DC MCKIE - AS MINISTERS CLAIM - OR RIGHT IN THEIR IDENTIFICATION, AS THE SCRO OFFICERS, AND THEIR UNION, AMONG OTHERS, MAINTAIN."

We are confident on the Evidence. We rely upon the integrity of our Experts. Peter Swann was the McKie's first choice of Fingerprint expert. If Iain and Shirley McKie truly believed that this Case would be determined fairly and professionally by their Experts' Fingerprint Evidence, then just why did they spend five years trying to have Peter Swann disciplined for Breach of Confidentiality and Gagged through The Fingerprint Society and The Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners? His grievous sin was, of couse, to have identified Shirley McKie's Fingerprint. His mortal sin was even worse: he would not be silenced. Iain and Shirley McKie were hell-bent on getting the SCRO Fingerprint Experts sent to Prison and Peter Swann was in their way.

SO ON BEHALF OF PETER SWANN, ALL THE SCRO EXPERTS AND OUR FINGERPRINT EXPERTS OF UNIMPEACHABLE INTEGRITY, I THROW DOWN THE GAUNTLET TO IAIN MCKIE, SHIRLEY MCKIE, PAT WERTHEIM, ALLAN BAYLE AND THEIR BAND OF INTERNET EXPERTS. LET US JOIN FORCES - AN ALLIANCE OF NECESSITY - AND FORCE THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS TO ORDER AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL INQUIRY. HOWEVER, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS: WE WILL SECURE THAT JUDICIAL INQUIRY, WITH OR WITHOUT YOUR CO-OPERATION.

Here, here!!! Mr. Russell and I are in agreement on the necessity of an independent judicial inquiry. I believe I have read in the newspapers that Iain and Shirley McKie are also in favor of such an inquiry. Competing political parties in Scotland are demanding such an inquiry. The SCRO officially, as I understand it, wants such an inquiry. The general public wants an inquiry. The newspapers all want an inquiry. It seems that virtually every person in Scotland except the First Minister, the Justice Minister, and the Lord Advocate want an inquiry. Mr. Russell, please tell us what it takes to compel an independent judicial inquiry.

Whatever legal training David Russell has received he appears to be past his use by date I would recommend he takes up real fishing. No question relating to Peter Swann was put to Shirley. Where is your perjury? Inaccuracy/inability in the Crown and in SCRO but hopefully the public inquiry will bring back the performance needed to bring the Scottish justice into line with expected high standards of the Commonwealth.

My dear Mr. Russell -- As I was scanning this morning's Scottish newspapers, the following article caught my eye - http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=360362006 - and I immediately thought of the gauntlet you threw down yesterday. Of course, since I support your call for a judicial inquiry, I think it would be a splendid idea if you and I join forces in contributing to the "fighting fund" to force an open public look into this mess. How much are you in for?

Now that is the difficulty with the McKies. It is always about money. Shirley is down to her last £750,000 and now urgently needs financial help from the poor Scottish public. They have just given her three quarters of a million pounds and she needs more?

The Independent Judicial Inquiry is not about "fighting funds." It is about accountability, and the securing of a definitive and determinative Judicial Investigation. I work pro bono, so let us all share the financial burden, in order to put this together.

Please confirm that Iain and Shirley McKie expressly accept my proposal. Subject to that, each party should start preparing Prelimary Submissions, in support of the Joint Call for an Independent Judicial Inquiry. Clearly, once we have an agreement in place, the rest should be relatively straightforward. We want an Independent Judicial Inquiry. The McKies say they want an Independent Judicial Inquiry. All we need now is a Yea or Nay from the McKies.

I cannot speak for the McKies so for their cooperation you should consider contacting them directly. But for myself, I will cooperate with you on a call for an Independent Judicial Inquiry. If you have any documents prepared seeking such an inquiry, I am sure you would find at least as many signers on this forum as there were experts who signed the petition affirming that the crime scene mark on the doorframe was NOT made by Shirley McKie. You disliked the use of the internet for that purpose. Would you approve the use of the internet to circulate a petition calling for an Independent Public Inquiry? If so, why not post it here with the cooperation of the webmaster so that registered users could "sign" it online. I believe the webmaster would welcome such an effort on this site. Would this be of any benefit in the quest for this inquiry?

Pat A. Wertheim wrote: I believe the webmaster would welcome such an effort on this site.

Of course I would welcome such an effort, either on this site or elsewhere. It seems that a full-scale public inquiry is the only thing that will stop the insanity being displayed by supporters of the "identification" that simply isn't.

I spoke with the head of fingerprints at New Scotland Yard, and they have never received a request to review the evidence. In fact, since they have not, they would make a great and credible official body to review the impressions and contribute to the inquiry. I recommend that Bruce Grant be contacted in an official capacity for this endeavor.

Hi Kasey,

Before we recommend that Englands New Scotland Yard look at the evidence of a Scottish case do we know if they reviewed or were not invited to review the evidence presented in the McNamara case? This may be chasing skeletons but if there is going to be one chance at getting the McKie case right then whoever does so needs to be on the ball. If they werent invited to review an English case such as McNamara then where is their local profile? To date they have been very quiet on the McKie case and that shouldnt work in their favour for selection, if anything it goes against them for allowing it to continue. Les