CLPEX Chat Board

I saw this article but I didn’t read it the same way. This seems to be a good example of the main topic of Steve Scarborough’s Weekly Details on “Leaps of Logic”. Fingerprint examiners are all too eager to jump on the critics when they take a statement and over embellish it until it takes on a whole new meaning, but not recognize when they are doing the same thing. I guess this shows that we’re all susceptible to reading what we want into any statement (I include myself in this group).

First, being offered a deal to retire and accepting the offer are two separate things. It does say in this article that Ms McBride insisted she would not be taking any deal, therefore implying the 4 examiners were forced into early retirement (no longer working for the SCRO) is very misleading.

Second, Lord Boyd said it was unlikely that any of the four officers who identified Ms McKie's print would be called as experts in court again. He didn’t state, “the four SCRO officers were no longer being relied upon to prepare court evidence”. I’d guess that any person involved in an investigation would temporarily be removed from duties until the situation was resolved. This seems like a normal course of action, it even happened with the FBI examiners involved in the Madrid erroneous ID. I really don’t think anyone should read too much into this practice. People use to say that anyone making an erroneous ID could never testify again but actual court cases have shown us that this belief had no justification behind it. I would guess that Lord Boyd got his information from a fingerprint person who wasn’t aware of the current view on this. It may be different in Scotland but in the US thoughts on this have changed. Anyway, my real point is that reading that it’s ‘unlikely’ for them to be called again and then restating it as “no longer being relied on” is twisting information just like our critics do. It makes me wonder what other information about the McKie case has been twisted to sound different than it really is???

Michelle

I certainly did not intend to mislead, and still think my take on this matter is correct. What is important to understand is that the Lord Advocate is absolute head of all prosecutions in Scotland. A public statement that the SCRO officers have - to put it neutrally - a difficulty in giving evidence because of the notoriety of the case, together with his acknowledgement of an incorrect ident, makes it practically impossible for them to ever be involved in court work.

It may have been shorthand in the way it has been put, but the Scottish press, TV and radio media certainly took it the way I and Nigeus took it, and did not over analyse it.

My own view is that they are not being fairly dealt with. I hope that they challenge what the Executive is doing by refusing the "offer", and if they are sacked or their job is changed that they take this to an appropriate independent appeals tribunal. If they made a mistake - honest or not - the pressure put on them to go is another attempt to stifle an analysis of who is really to blame for this. And if they did NOT make a mistake, then it is scandalous that they are being forced out. Their lives have been ruined whatever the truth. Some may say that if they got it wrong, they might deserve it; but until this matter is finalised before a proper, independent tribunal, the suspicion will not go away.

I may say now, before the result of the Parliamentary Inquiry is known, that I do not care what they say. Whether they say that SCRO was right, or hard done by, or Shirley was right and hard done by, is not relevant. That inquiry is not a fair, open and competent inquiry. I thought I should commit myself. Although on the information I have seen I firmly believe SCRO were wrong, a result for the McKie camp will not give me any pleasure as the inquiry has been unable to consider all of these matters properly.

DD.