CLPEX Chat Board

Dear Bondi,

Shirley was called to give evidence in the Asbury trial when he was accused of murdering Marion Ross. During her testimony, she was asked about being inside the residence, and she denied being in the house, although she admitted she had gone as far as the front porch twice. This question was repeated at least once, and Shirley denied each time. I do not know if any testimony concerning the source of mark Y7 was given in the Asbury trial, but I doubt it would have been relevant. However, based upon the SCRO report stating the identification and her testimony in the Asbury trial, Shirley was charged with perjury.

Three of the four SCRO examiners gave evidence in the perjury trial as part of the Crown's case. I was informed the fourth examiner had been requested to appear but was off on medical leave. Presentation were prepared and given to the jury who heard their verbal testimony. Pat Wertheim and I were called by the defense and gave evidence. The defense rested after I testified and closing arguments were presented. I do not know if Shirley took the stand in her own defense in her perjury trial. Mr. Findlay called several witnesses prior to Pat's testimony. Pat was on the stand for nearly all day. The prosecutor, QC Murphy, did an extensive cross examination of Pat's testimony.

My testimony was roughly one third direct and two thirds cross. Removing time spent on qualifications, the ration is more 1 to 3. During cross, Mr. Murphy advanced many of the theories presented in these postings, and I replied to each. Mr. Murphy's questions seemed weak and unfounded, and my impression was he knew he was grasping at straws. I found no indication of the 66 degree twist other than that is the only way to explain distinct discrepancies. I also examined the mark in situ and noted the slight abrasion along the apex of the curved molding on which the finger made contact. These abrasion lines seemed more pronounced in the subsequent photographs, but the mark retains the continuity of all ridges. View in situ, the other indications of such extreme distortion are not present.

Based upon what can be seen of the core, the ridge structure in the upper portion and the way the majority of bifurcations open, I believe the mark is from a right thumb, not a left. I concede I could be mistaken on the slope of the loop, but in practical terms, the mark was found on the right side of the door frame. Contact would require someone's left hand to cross over the body and place the thumb on the molding at an uncomfortable angle. Admittedly, this has nothing to do with the source of the mark. The source was not Shirley McKie, left hand or right.

Mr.Grieve,

Thanks for the details, which I was unaware of.

WHat I cannot work out, though, is why the prosecution did not lead the officers as witnesses who were guarding the house. I understand that McKie was told not to go in the the house, or at least should not have entered the house without permission. That part is easy to understand.

But, if the Prosecution could show that she was in fact in the house, then surely that would have meant she would have been convicted anyway? The fingerprints evidence would have been unimportant?

The police officer (Brown) whose statement is on the website has uncovered some important possible evidence. There must be a list of all those who were in charge of the locus (as I think he points out). It would be easy for the prosecution to now trace them and bring a new trial against McKie, would it not? (I don't know if the double jeopardy rule applies in the UK).

Even though the officers responsible for securing the locus would have failed to follow orders, if subpeonad they would have to tell the truth... .or does everyone in Scotland tell lies on oath??

Dear Bondi,

I was never informed of the full prosecution evidence other than the SCRO personnel testifying the mark, Y7, was made by Shirley McKie. QC Findlay did introduce the logs recorded of access to the house, and these showed Shirley had not gone beyond the porch. I seem to recall that several of the officers assigned to the task of maintaining the logs were called and testified.

The prosecution did raise the issue of the key to the Ross house that was kept in the district office where Shirley was assigned. Examination of the crime scene was conducted for nearly ten days. In the evening, the house was locked and the key taken to the station. No special provision was made to secure the key, so the inference was that Shirley gained access during the night by taking the key from the station, thus an unrecorded entry was possible. I find the last minute recall of Mr. Brown as remarkable, especially since the prosecution evidence was challenged. Before Pat Wertheim testified, the prevalent opinion was the jury would return a not proved verdict. However, since 1999, there have been many examples of questionable behavior originating from the police and does not speak well for the professionalism of law enforcement with Strathclyde.

One other unexplained event was the examination of the door frame itself. According to the record, the door molding was processed with aluminum powder on day three with no results. The door molding was examined again on day nine or ten using black powder, and marks were revealed. This seemed to imply that contact was made after day three, but at least one of the marks revealed with black powder was identified by SCRO as the victim's. I discussed this with Terry Kent, who was asked to examine the molding once it had been removed for traces of aluminum powder. He found none. While a vertical surface is not likely to retain powder, the absence of even one flake is odd.

I cannot speak directly to the practices in Scotland concerning telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but the personnel assigned to the court house were enlightening concerning character. They shared their opinions of the various prosecution witnesses in terms that were less than flattering.

This is very interesting and I had not understood it before. My own work involves scenes analysis, covering gathering of evidence from a number of sources. The source of evidence has to be traceable from start to finish. I agree with the observations that the opinions of those who have not seen the originals that SCRO saw has to be carefully considered as they would have access to the best evidence available.

There is a lot of criticism of Mr.Wertheim for not seeing the originals. Did he see the original door post? Of course he would have original inked prints from McKie, but is it not a proper point made by SCRO that the originals available to SCRO were the best that an opinion could be given from?

I know from correspondence that D.Greive also gave evidence: did you also have access to the best evidence?

If you did I don't understand the arguments being put by FM and DMF. But if you did not, is it not a valid point to make?

Also, I have seen the brush mark on Pat Wertheim's photo of the mark, but don't understand how this affects the top part of the print where there appear to be differences. I should emphasise that I do not have the experience of others in looking at prints, but I can see what seem to be differences ABOVE the brush mark.

I know all of this is quite detailed, but I am anxious to have an informed understanding. This case is beginning to attract some attention in the court in NSW now and it is a matter of time before a defence barrister starts asking tricky questions about it....

Dear Bondi,

I am happy to answer your query, ‘What I cannot work out, though, is why the prosecution did not lead the officers as witnesses who were guarding the house?’

The short answer is they did – everyone of them.

Every police officer who was on guard duty or carrying our forensics etc within the house was asked, “Did you see Shirley McKie in the House” and upwards of 30 witnesses said ‘No’. Not one single witness testified otherwise.

Her Sergeant, who with Shirley was part of the murder team, accompanied her on her two visits to the house and testified that she never at any time entered the house.

At her trial the prosecution was forced to argue that she had entered the murder house during the afternoon/evening of Saturday 11 January following the murder. Evidence led by Scenes of Crime officers proved that whoever left the disputed print must have been in the house before Friday 10 January.

This evidence together with that of the guard duty officers, police and forensic teams working within the house completely vindicated Shirley and of course condemned the SCRO experts because if Shirley was never in the house she could not have left the print.

You would think that the fact that both judge and jury did not believe the SCRO experts, that the identification was proven to be wrong in court and has been condemned in enquiry after enquiry over 7 years would have led to some form of admission but sadly no.

http://www.shirleymckie.com/documents/2 ... 0.5.06.pdf

The unsubstantiated lies of a retired senior police detective, published as part of the parliamentary enquiry, who will unfortunately not be a witness at the enquiry, bear a remarkable similarity to the prosecution claims as above. Gossip that Shirley had been allowed into the house by a police officer ‘who fancied her’ were initially circulated by senior police officers in 1997before the Asbury trial to discredit Shirley. At this time they even suggested she was having sex in the house.

I do not know the motivation of these sick individuals who seek to retry Shirley but hopefully they will all be called to account under oath at the Parliamentary Enquiry or the Judicial Enquiry we hope will follow.

I have been happy over the years to communicate with many experts privately about aspects of the case and will continue to do so. I am happy to provide information to interested parties via the website www.shirleymckie.com or by e-mail at justiceforshirley@btinternet.com

I continue to refuse to respond to many of the recent dishonest and malicious postings on this site in the knowledge that genuine experts want nothing to do with this sort of communication.

Dear Bondi,

Pat Wertheim photographed the mark in situ during his initial visit with QC Findlay at the end of March, 1999. The removed door molding had been released to Mr. Findlay's custody for Pat to examine, a condition I still find strange, and a practice that would not occur in the US. Evidently, Mr. Findlay was trusted as an officer of the court and given the actual evidence. According to what Pat told me, he was allowed to photograph the mark in Mr. Findlay's presence and later fingerprinted Shirley in the office. No conversation between Pat and Shirley was allowed.

Pat had the film developed and printed, and he asked me to examine the photos of the latent and compare them to the inked standards. We were all on holiday in Edinburgh at that time. Pat also gave me four different presentations prepared by SCRO which contained reproductions of Y7 and the charted enlargements. He refused to tell me what his conclusion had been, nor would he provide any additional information. I only knew he had been asked to meet with Mr. Findlay to examine the mark for signs of fabrication. I reviewed everything provided that evening, then resumed the next morning. By the time we went for breakfast, I had finished.

When I met Pat, I informed him that the mark was genuine and that the photograph of Y7 from SCRO was substandard. I also informed him that the presentations were the poorest I had ever encountered, deliberately cropped and blurred to prevent technical review. I added that any such manipulation presented to a jury was designed to obscure, not enlighten, and I hoped that was not standard practice. I told him my comparison of the mark he had photographed to the inked left thumbs eliminated any of them as the origin of the mark. I did state that I would like to further my examination in a better environment. Pat asked me if I would be willing to meet with Mr. Findlay, and I agreed.

The following morning, I met with Mr. Findlay and his associate, Victoria Young, at the hotel. I informed Mr. Findlay of my conclusion with the provision that I wanted to continue my examination back in the States. Mr. Findlay agreed and when I returned home, I was able to better view the copies of Y7 and compared them to Pat's photos. The abrasion represented no major concern and I wrote a report to my findings.

When I was in Glasgow for the perjury trial, I asked permission to view the wood molding for the reason you suggested, to examine the best evidence. During a recess in the trial, I was escorted into the court room and allowed to do so. I compared the mark in situ with Pat's photographs and the copies of Y7. I saw nothing to alter my conclusion. During a interview with a representative of the prosecution, the issue of a twisting motion had been raised, and I looked for indication of this. The deposition of the mark did not reveal any indication of this type of twisting action. Later, I did comment to Pat that his photographs were excellent as opposed to the photo marked Y7. However, I was disturbed by the almost cavalier manner at which the evidence had been stored and handled. Nothing was done to protect the mark from damage, and the abrasion marks are not surprising since these occurred at the top of the curve.

Over the years, I have collected information about the actual investigation of the crime scene. I have concerns about how it was conducted and what was examined for evidence. I have some sympathy for those who did the evidence collection, for the Ross home was a mess. Marion Ross was a pack rat who apparently threw little out, nor was the house cleaned very often. Over 400 marks were recovered, although I question the significance of what was examined.

In my last posting, I responded to your inquiry about the behavior of police in Scotland. My comments were about some Strathclyde and SCRO personnel, not general policing in that part of the world. In 2000, I was interviewed by police detectives assigned to HMIC as part of their inquiry and who were, I believe, from Aberdeen. I was impressed by their professionalism and demeanor as well as the thoroughness of their investigation. I also met some Strathclyde police who were the finest example of competent officers.

So FM and DMF, why are you so silent?

As far as I can see, the facts are these:

1. Pat Wertheim had access to the originals. He had access to the door frame to photograph (which if it had been contaminated had been contaminated not by him but by mis storeage).

2. Pat had access to Shirley's inked marks.

3. He therefore had access to the best evidence.

4. David Greive similarly had access to the best evidence available.

5 They independently concluded that there was no match between the two. If true, the independent view reached is powerful and something that maybe SCRO should try.

I have read so many lies about this that it makes me sick. The observers have endured the first line of defence being that SCRO were the only ones that had available the proper evidence, and the images on the net posted by pat were inferior. If David Greive is correct, then what was said by the SCRO supporters about this is a lie. No doubt Mr.Finlay could support what is said by Dave. Or would Finlay be a liar too?

So who has the best images of Y7?

I know that Bob McKenzie, one of the bosses at SCRO (who has reduced himself to making the most appalling allegations about Mr.Zeelenberg) USED the internet photo for a presentation after all of this blew up.

So: the best was used by Pat and Dave, and even McKenzie reckoned Pat Wertheim's photo was better than SCROs..

If all of this is right, the only question left is: who is right about the comparison?

I was also interested to see the allegations by Pat on Panorama that the presentation had been cropped. Why was the top of the comparison document cut off? Was this to hide something? Did SCRO tell the jury why they did it? Did they tell ANYONE why they did it before Shirley's trial?

How much of this do you accept DMF and FM?

Do you also accept that the brush stroke is irrelevant to the question of identification? It has been implied that this was mishandling by Pat, but it seems it was sloppy storeage by SCRO or the police. If you are going to criticise, get your facts right. Or in your branch of law enforcement does evidence mean something other than that based on the facts?

From what we see in the discussion above, the locus log keepers DID give evidence.

Why has Brown not named his sources? Oh, sorry, hearsay which is second hand is "evidence", DMF.... according to you.

We are told at the start of this string that the papers are publishing what many people always knew. Who knew it? Evidence from one unattributed source is not evidence at all, far less independently verified evidence.

Why did the prosecution not investigate this gossip (I would not call it evidence) from Brown? Why was settlement achieved in the case when Brown had told the prosecution of his information? The answer is clear. Either they did investigate it and it was groundless or Brown could not provide it. Or, it was so laughable that it was not worth even going there.

So, Mr.Brown, if you are reading this (and I suspect you will) why did you wait till now to reveal it, using the protection of not being sued? Is it for self publicity?

Don't be such a coward. Make the allegations outside Parliament. If they are true and you can prove them, you have nothing to fear...

Lets hear from you now FM and DMF. Don't be so quiet, we would love to hear your comments....

This link will take you to the panorama site to see the programme if you have not seen it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/p ... 986570.stm

I have pointed out above that the only good journalism is balanced journalism and it is not good to see that the SCRO were not given their chance to say what they thought. I know from press reports that they have complained that their bosses have gagged them from speaking about this publicly – which is not good for the public. Panorama did not give a properly balanced report and should have allowed SCRO or those who are supposed to support them a chance to have their say.

There are too many questions to be answered. Surely the call for a public inquiry is the only way to have them answered?

In the late 1990s there were serious allegations of corruption in NSW police. A Royal Commission was conducted under the scrutiny of Justice Wood which found that corruption did exist. A new commissioner was appointed, (Commissioner Ryan) who cleaned out the corrupt officials.

The public now have considerable faith in the NSW police department.

The first stage with SCRO is a proper investigation by a judge. Can a Royal Commission not be established in Scotland?

If there is no wrongdoing, a judge saying so will allow the public to move on. If there was, then those responsible should not only lose their jobs and pensions, but be prosecuted.

Maybe it's me, it could be that im just not intelligent enough or that I have just missed a few things, but I have some questions i would like answered as honestly as possible (if possible) by you regular posters here please, to help my understanding of the Mckie affair. I'll try and be as systematic as i can, thank you:

1. Why was Ms McKie instructed not to go into the house where the murder took place?

2. The 4 SCRO experts - there have been two suggestions about their conduct; did they make a mistake or did they deliberately conspire to identify the print as Ms Mckies in the full knowledge that it was someone elses? surely it has to be one or the other: Mistake or deliberate misidentification?

3. If it was deliberate..... Why? ...Motive?

4. Was Peter Swann the first expert to be approached by the McKie's?

5. (a)Is it true that Ms Mckie said under oath that she did not know if any other expert other than those mentioned had seen (and indeed identified as Ms McKies) the print in question, when Peter Swann was not one of the people mentioned and is it true that Peter Swann had in fact already been hired by the McKies to look at the print ? (b) Is it true he identified the print as Ms McKie's, a finding that the Mckie team did not argue with at the time?

6. Is it true that Peter Swann was bound by confidentiality or was his findings in some way not relevant?

7. If Peter Swann was bound by confidentiality, why is he now breaking that? Is he allowed to do this?

8. Why did the Scottish Executive wait so long before seeking settlement?

9. Was it the Scottish Executive or the McKie's who asked for settlement?

10. Why did the McKie's settle if they wanted to once and for all clear Ms McKie's name and as has been stated was (and i think i can quote here - correct me if i'm wrong) "...never about the money"?


I think that 10 is enough for now, i've a feeling the responses to theses will just raise more questions for me anyway!

Thank you for giving me your attention, i await your responses.

Mr Geieve, i wonder if you could help me understand something in what you said in an earlier post. I hope you don't mind me including some quote here and hope i have not removed the context with my crude editing:

"

David L. Grieve wrote:Dear Bondi,

Pat Wertheim photographed the mark in situ during his initial visit with QC Findlay at the end of March, 1999. The removed door molding had been released to Mr. Findlay's custody for Pat to examine, a condition I still find strange, and a practice that would not occur in the US. Evidently, Mr. Findlay was trusted as an officer of the court and given the actual evidence. According to what Pat told me, he was allowed to photograph the mark in Mr. Findlay's presence and later fingerprinted Shirley in the office. No conversation between Pat and Shirley was allowed.



"When I met Pat, I informed him that the mark was genuine and that the photograph of Y7 from SCRO was substandard. I also informed him that the presentations were the poorest I had ever encountered, deliberately cropped and blurred to prevent technical review. I added that any such manipulation presented to a jury was designed to obscure, not enlighten, and I hoped that was not standard practice. I told him my comparison of the mark he had photographed to the inked left thumbs eliminated any of them as the origin of the mark. I did state that I would like to further my examination in a better environment. "

"The abrasion represented no major concern and I wrote a report to my findings."

When I was in Glasgow for the perjury trial, I asked permission to view the wood molding for the reason you suggested, to examine the best evidence. During a recess in the trial, I was escorted into the court room and allowed to do so. I compared the mark in situ with Pat's photographs and the copies of Y7. I saw nothing to alter my conclusion. During a interview with a representative of the prosecution, the issue of a twisting motion had been raised, and I looked for indication of this. The deposition of the mark did not reveal any indication of this type of twisting action. Later, I did comment to Pat that his photographs were excellent as opposed to the photo marked Y7. However, I was disturbed by the almost cavalier manner at which the evidence had been stored and handled. Nothing was done to protect the mark from damage, and the abrasion marks are not surprising since these occurred at the top of the curve. "

Its especially the bits in bold i need help with. If the door frame was so poorly protected, then surely anything lifted or photographed from it and subsequntly analysed / compared etc would be of a very substandard quality and would affect someone's ability (whether expert or Mr wertheim) to reach any firm conclusion either way?

However you say earlier that the SCRO sumissions were substandard too, so it seems to me in simple way of observation that both sides submissions are poor? How could you then fine CONCLUSIVELY either way that the print was or was not Shirley McKies?

Mr Question Boy, here are your answers.

1. Why was Ms McKie instructed not to go into the house where the murder took place?

a) Miss McKie was known to have a "morbid fascination for gruesome crime scenes."

2. The 4 SCRO experts - there have been two suggestions about their conduct; did they make a mistake or did they deliberately conspire to identify the print as Ms Mckies in the full knowledge that it was someone elses? surely it has to be one or the other: Mistake or deliberate misidentification?

a) Not a mistake...(shame Peter Swann's request to give his presentation of Miss McKie's mark, on national television was denied by Shelley Jofre and her Panorama documentary...why would Miss Jofre deny this request? Oops, another question!)

3. If it was deliberate..... Why? ...Motive?

a) Not deliberate.

4. Was Peter Swann the first expert to be approached by the McKie's?

a) Yes, Peter Swann was the first expert to be approached by the McKies.

5. (a)Is it true that Ms Mckie said under oath that she did not know if any other expert other than those mentioned had seen (and indeed identified as Ms McKies) the print in question, when Peter Swann was not one of the people mentioned and is it true that Peter Swann had in fact already been hired by the McKies to look at the print ? (b) Is it true he identified the print as Ms McKie's, a finding that the Mckie team did not argue with at the time?

a) The answer to all the above questions are, yes, true. David Russell, Peter Swann's solicitor posted that part of the transcript of Miss McKie's Perjury Trial on CLPEX. ..

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.

You will find the answers regarding Peter Swann (including questions 6 & 7) on Peter Swann's precognition also posted on CLPEX...here is a small section...I would urge you to read the full precognition

"I was Charged with Breach of Confidentiality and Breach of Legal Professional Privilege, by reference to alleged, specific events. The Statements of Facts served by the CRFP’s Lawyers recited events concerning my Identification of Exhibit Y7 as the left thumb print of Shirley McKie. In connection with the Proceedings, I required, and was served with, Witness Statements made by Shirley McKie and Iain McKie, each of which was endorsed with a Statement of Truth, in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules in England. The substantive Complaint was that my disclosures were “potentially harmful to my (Shirley McKie’s) reputation and Civil Case for Damages against Strathclyde Police and the Scottish Criminal Records Office."

6. Is it true that Peter Swann was bound by confidentiality or was his findings in some way not relevant?

a) see answer to question 5

7. If Peter Swann was bound by confidentiality, why is he now breaking that? Is he allowed to do this?

a) see answer to question 5

8. Why did the Scottish Executive wait so long before seeking settlement?

a) Hmm...this is a tricky one...what I DO know is that there were dates set and adjourned for quite some time leading up to the final date of settlement. There was a meeting with the Scottish Executive attended by the McKie's from which the McKie's walked out...not happy with the Scottish Executive's offer.

9. Was it the Scottish Executive or the McKie's who asked for settlement?

a) Perhaps the answer to question 8 will answer your question?

10. Why did the McKie's settle if they wanted to once and for all clear Ms McKie's name and as has been stated was (and i think i can quote here - correct me if i'm wrong) "...never about the money"?

a) I would suggest that you have answered your own question...

Mr Grieve,

"However, I was disturbed by the almost cavalier manner at which the evidence had been stored and handled. Nothing was done to protect the mark from damage, and the abrasion marks are not surprising since these occurred at the top of the curve."

Then you must concur that the door frame from which Mr Wertheim took his photographs from was severly contaminated after two years of storage and handling? Mr Wertheim used these photographs in his presentation at Miss McKie's Perjury Trial.

Mr Bondi,

Mr Robert MacKenzie...the reports he made in respect of the threats that Mr Zeelenberg made against his family/other experts families is not an allegation...it is documented in a report by Mr Zeelenberg himself.

The inked marks that Mr Wertheim had taken of Miss McKie's left thumb print were 'plain impressions' not 'rolled'. A properly rolled print was required to carry out a full comparison.

The charts used by SCRO were marked up on a 'charting p.c.'. The 'charting p.c.' has the facility to dot, line out and yes, to crop an image. Does it matter if background noise is cropped out when the important details are displayed? Revealing SIXTEEN POINTS IN SEQUENCE AND AGREEMENT.

Must dash...there are other innocents that require my fabulousness!

TTFN!

The Delightful and most fabulous Miss Fabulous!

Question Boy:

My comments concerning evidence possession were the contrast between what is done here as opposed to what seemed to be normal protocols in Scotland. While Mr. Findlay was an officer of the court, our attorneys enjoy the same status, if not to the same level. We would never release evidence of any kind to the defense and expect total safe keeping. I just found the release in his custody odd. An officer of the court here might "accidentally" wipe the impression away. In reality, that is no great harm. A colleague of mine once had the accused eat the evidence during a court recess. The exhibit was a forged check, and the defendant reasoned that without "best evidence," the case would be dismissed. The judge simply accepted a photograph of the check with the warning to both sides that no mention would be made of what happened to the original.

The cavalier manner to which I referred is also unusual to me, but apparently not there. The door molding was electively removed by the crime scene officers, something we do not do routinely here. I once met with Russian examiners who always carried a chain saw to crime scenes and frequently cut away seconds of walls, door, and who know what all. Even they felt bad at the destruction done to victims' homes, often on routine burglaries.

The purpose of retaining the mark in situ is to eliminate any question as to location, angle of contact or any other factor that might come into play. We would simply take photographs of the developed mark in place and leave the molding in place. However, if something were removed, we would take greater care to protect the item. Our protocols seem to be more strict.

The mark was photographed by SCRO while still in their custody. While Bondi emphasized "best evidence," thus the actual mark, I don't completely agree. A good photographic reproduction can actually improve the impression, although, as the copy of Y7 showed, a poor photograph can detract. I understand SCRO did take additional photographs of the mark while still in their possession.

The abrasion did not alter the ridge detail and had no significant effect on the mark. Contrary to the fanciful speculation of some contributors, no supernatural transformation occurred. The removal of a slight amount of powder decreased the contrast slightly, but this was in a very limited area as noted by Pat Wertheim's photographs. Continued abrasion could make the condition more severe, so I was puzzled by how little care was demonstrated in handling. But no ridge features were added or subtracted and no essential information was destroyed. I once had a defense attorney ask me if a random collection of dirt and grease could appear to be a fingerprint that just happened to be arranged like his client's skin. I could safely answer that was not possible. I can safely answer that no amount of damage could transform the mark on the door molding into Shirley's fingerprint.

Pressure distortion upon deposition can be analyzed but not in the manner described in other postings. The properties of human skin provide a consistency in movement and reveal indications of the force vectors involved and the direction of movement. The elasticity of the skin can permit considerable distortion based upon how the contact was made, but certain physical conditions prevail when extensive pressure or movement is applied. Photographs can sometimes minimize the effects of distortion, especially when a three dimensional surface is converted to a two dimensional representation. I viewed the mark in situ to corrobate my analysis and had no trouble doing so. Any other concerns about the condition of the mark several years later are highly exaggerated.

Question Boy

Answers as requested:

1. She was not ordered to stay away from the house. No officer was permitted in the house except those who had specific permission. This is standard procedure in any inquiry. The suggestion of "morbid fascination" is one that is utterly spurious. Regrettably, typical of the level of debate we have from SCRO. Again, it is surprising that those directly involved in gathering of evidence such as DMF and others rely on such comments. Is that really the best they have?

2. Both are possible. It can commence with an error and then, when it is clear to them that an error was made, the failure to own up to it becomes fabrication. See Mr.Zeelenberg's comments to the Parliament on the web.

3. The motive was to ensure that Asbury's conviction was secured. To admit of error and retraction of ident of Y7 would jeopardize the chance of a conviction in Asbury's trial. As it was, the jury still convicted. However, at that time it was thought that the mark on the tin was correct. It was at a later stage that doubt was cast on it.

4. Don't know, but think so according to posting by Swann on Parliament web site.

5. Don't know. I have only seen part of the transcription of evidence. At first sight it looks like a fair inference that is being drawn. Mystery is, though, why QC Finlay allowed the case to go ahead if he knew it was not true. This is raised by Brown in his submission to parliament. He must have been happy with his client's answer in court or would have advised judge accordingly.

6. If you believe what Mr.Swann says, his statement reveals a lot. He is clearly a man who feels that he is entitled to speak to the other side in a case. It is not clear whether he thinks he is allowed to do this routinely. If he does, it is a new one on me for experts to talk freely about confidential matters.

7. Only he knows. There can be no motive other than to protect his own reputation having agreed with SCRO. If SCRO were wrong, so was he. And it would have come out eventually that he associated himself with SCRO. Equally, if SCRO are right, he wants to be in their camp too. From his statement he seems to say that he expressed his opinion from the SCRO productions BEFORE he had seen the door post and BEFORE he obtained inked prints from McKie. This would be far from good practice as an expert to provide an opinion without proper materials. He obviously assumed that SCRO were right and maybe was sloppy. How could he then go back and say: I should have asked for the right documents before I expressed my opinion as an expert, but now I have seen the full documents, I change my mind> That would be an admission that no expert should make.

8. http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006csoh54.html is the judgment of the judge dealing with costs. He said

18] It is not necessary to narrate the terms of the negotiations in any detail. A joint consultation was held on 21 September 2005 in advance of which the pursuer's advisers tendered a detailed schedule of damages that valued her claim at approximately £1.2 million. The advisers of the Scottish Ministers produced their valuation only at the meeting. They valued the claim at £328,000, but the Scottish Ministers' legal team advised that any settlement would have to discount that figure for litigation risk. Negotiations did not progress. On 3 November 2005 solicitors for the Scottish Ministers wrote to the pursuer's solicitors setting out a detailed quantification of the value of her claim and an offer in settlement. On 21 December 2005 the Scottish Ministers lodged a tender for £500,000. The pursuer did not accept it. On the same day the pursuer's solicitors sent a valuation that valued her claim at £1.205 million and indicated that they would settle for £1.1 million. A second settlement meeting between counsel took place on 2 February 2006, shortly before the proof diet. In discussions at that meeting counsel for the Scottish Ministers indicated that an increased offer would be made and on the following day a tender for £600,000 was lodged. In response, the pursuer's counsel indicated for the first time that they would accept £750,000 as a settlement. In negotiations on the morning of the proof (7 February 2006), the Scottish Ministers raised their offer in stages to the figure of £750,000 at which the action settled. That offer was made expressly without any admission of liability.

See above for other answers.

In your statement to Bondi, you say that Zeelenberg records that he threatened McKenzie and others. Can you please point us to that statement where he says so or anything that could be interpreted as a threat?

What McKenzie is saying is that he, his family and others and their families were threatened by Zeelenberg. When I read that I assumed that a threat was made that Zeelenberg would do something against the families of those there. That is not what he said. He pointed out the consequences if there was not a proper consideration of the matter. The fact that McKenzie calls this a threat to his family is emotive and a complete misrepresentation of the conversation as he well knows. It is, in any event, not relevant to the issue. It is typical of the way the SCRO have behaved: they would be as well to concentrate on the issues in the case and not start the "playground fighting" pointed out above. We have comments about Iain McKie; nasty comments about Shirley McKie; Pat Wertheim; Arie Zeelenberg. There are facts to be investigated here and SCRO (yes, we know it is you who are posting this) should realise that it reveals exactly the level you view this important matter to be on.

So: Rolled or plain, Mr.Wertheim?

So, there we have it. Pat Wertheim only took plain impressions and not rolled. His whole opinion is a sham for that reason, according to our champion of truth and justice, DMF. That is a new one as far as I can see. So you accept now, do you, that he DID in fact have access to the best evidence available on the door frame? And why did McKenzie use the Wertheim photo in his presentation if not better than SCRO's effort? PLEASE stop changing your reasons for rejecting the Wertheim and Greive opinion. Pat, if you are out there, tell us: did you take only plain and not rolled? I would be amazed if you only took plain prints from McKie....

So what anyway? A rolled print would give no more detail on the part of the print in Y7 in question, and arguably would give less detail. At least HE let the jury see the whole thing, unlike SCRO.

And there we have it DMF: yes the mark was cropped she tells us. But to exclude background "noise".

Did SCRO tell the prosecution that they had excluded part of it and why they did so? Did they tell the defence? Was it in their report to the court that they had excluded part of it? The answer, friends, is no; no; no. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but is that not just an itsy bitsy bit suspicious?

And why, all of a sudden, at a subsequent presentation, did McKenzie find 40 or so points of similarity most of which on this "useless" top portion of the print? Clearly it had improved with age...

Did SCRO look for differences before they decided that the defence (and the prosecutors) should not be allowed to see the top part of the print?

Question Boy also asks whether the frame was too poor for anyone to make a comment. That is a good point. If that was so and SCRO said, it is too poor to give an opinion, then no trial would have taken place. It is wrong for them to say that there is a match when they have insufficient material if that is in fact the case.

"If you have nothing to say, say nothing."

Plain impressions, of course.

For best comparisons, the inked print should most closely duplicate the direction and pressure of the touch that produced the latent print. There are two reasons we normally take rolled impressions to reproduce all of the ridge detail on the finger. First, complete sets of rolled impressions are used for criminal history files and all ten complete fingerprints are needed. Second, rolled impressions are used for comparisons because we normally take inked impressions before we know the area of latent print we will be comparing.

In this case, I had spent many hours analyzing the latent print in situ, the original photographs taken by the SCRO, and the cropped charts prepared by the SCRO before I fingerprinted Shirley McKie. I knew the area of fingertip (above the core) and the direction of touch (fingertip canted slightly clockwise). I took around one hundred inked impressions of Shirley McKie's left thumb with slightly varying angles and directions of touch in order to most closely reproduce the area of skin and distortion present in the latent print.

If you want to see a comparison with a rolled impression, I suggest you consider Court Production 189 prepared by the SCRO. They used a rolled impression that had the V-shaped smudge above the core that is not uncommon in rolled impression. This smudged rolled impression they used effectively removed about half the points that should have been compared. Of course, they cropped off the top half of the latent print and much of the rolled inked impression, as well, when they produced their chart.

My charts included the complete latent print and the complete inked print I used. Compare "like to like" for best results. It seems I heard somewhere "best evidence." That is exactly what I used and presented in court.

Mr Wertheim

"plain impressions, of course."

Of course?!!!

Your analysis of the scene of crime mark lead you to take one hundred plain impressions? Mr Wertheim! By NOT taking any rolled impressions you were NEVER going to find what you were looking for! Not in 90 years let alone 90 seconds! Oops! Rewind! Change that to 60 seconds...

The ASTOUNDED and ever Delightful Miss Fabulous!