There they go again.

[sark]

Apologies for butting in but it is the divisions between experts to be be used by any competent defense which matter. At least "the charting PC did it" made me smile.

[son of adam]

Sark, your comment "At least "the charting PC did it" made me smile." is the type of post that makes me feel extremely uncomfortable when I log onto this forum. I have no understanding of the kind of mentality of a person that would twist a sentence completely out of context in order to make a person look bad in some way.

The four experts were interrogated at length in relation to the quality of their enlargements. They admitted they weren't happy with having to use a device which produced poor quality images, however the charting pc is what their department used at that time. They were also questioned on the cropping of the enlargements. The four experts stressed that the images were cut NOT to hide anything but to show the relevant area which disclosed 16 points in sequence and agreement and experts produce enlargements merely for illustration purposes for members of the court. The original photographed impression and the elimination form along with the enlargements were contained in a book. Hugh MacPherson made a point that Glasgow are the only department which uses case relevent enlargements for court. By doing so, they have nothing to hide. I appreciated what he had to say on the subject of 'generic' enlargements which are used in other parts of the UK - I imagine if they gave their presentation in court using 'generic' enlargements, these would also have become a bone of contention.

[Kafka]

Has a public or personal apology been given by the Danes to the scro 4 at any time? I would be interested to know. Has the media reported this before yesterday's revelation at the Scottish parliament? Can anyone provide some answers?

Interested Kafka

RL just wondered how you are able to make pre-judgements!

[Dick Dastardly]

Kafka

The Danes said in their report that there was no sufficient material to match the marks. They had not been provided with the correct material by the prosecution which clearly showed the relevant points of comparison.

No apology is necessary or appropriate. It is not clear whether SCRO provided the prosecution with the wrong material, or the prosecution were acting on their own in selecting the incorrect material. The prosecution should apologise to the Danes, if any apology is necessary.

As soon as they were provided with the correct material, they agreed with the ident.

There is a danger, Kafka, when you make comment without knowing the facts that you will look rather foolish, especially when you distribute propaganda for SCRO. Your time would be better spent encouraging FM to respond to the nine questions I posted on the other thread {"McKie in murder house"]. FM seems to have time to compose and distribute pathetic libel, but not actually answer the questions put. SCRO regularly changes its position and when cornered, goes strangely quiet.

Why so quiet now, FM?

DD.

[Kafka]

Yes you are correct I am not privvy to the Danes reasons for mislabelling, hence, why I ask these questions. It does not seem foolish to question the so called facts or try to find out the truth. It would seem you are not sure about these yourself as you said you did not know who supplied productions. Please refrain from calling me a fool as it does not make for constructive criticism - you merely have to say your 'peace' in a respectful manner.

If you have anything more to add please feel free to try to be polite. I do not know where you are going with scro 'spin'. These are my own comments and my own thoughts 'I think'.

Cheers Kafka (Woof! Woof!)

[RL Tavernaro]

Kafka,

1. What pre-judgement do you believe that I have made, and why?

2. Please re-read my post on:
Sat May 27, 2006 7:51 pm Post subject: Viewing productions,
where I commented on a tendency for pre-judgement based on history and other evidence, etc. What part(s) do you not understand?

[Dick Dastardly]

Kafka:

I am not suggesting you are a fool. My concern was simply this - if you assumed that the Danes made a mistake that was their fault, it is unfair on them.

And in response to your question about making the Danish position public, the judge was told all of the details of this in March this year. That no-one picked up on it is unfortunate, but the mass of detail in this saga is huge.

While dealing with detail, it was said at the Inquiry this week by SCRO that the presentation by charting machine was "unacceptable". It is unfortunate that they did not tell the jury this in the trial. When Miss McBride was asked where specific points were, she said that because she was an expert she could see them. It was a clear opportunity for her to say to the jury: I am sorry but these images are unacceptable for my presentation. Before the evidence last Tuesday, did SCRO ever publicly state that the machine was producing unacceptable images?

This is a genuine question that I would be interested in hearing the answer to.

[son of adam]

Apologies for again appearing to be a 'doubting thomas' with regards to the Danes working from the wrong productions. The S.C.R.O four gave evidence stating that they had provided a report in relation to their findings did they not? This report I would imagine like any other report prepared by any other fingerprint examiner in the world would have listed the marks compared, the fingerprint forms compared the and the results of the comparison so I find it highly unlikely (especially with such a high profile case as this one) that the Danish experts would not as a matter of course cross check the marks and the forms with the report in order to be certain they were examining the correct or incorrect evidence. Surely they would have had to have been 100% certain with this before making a report of an erroneous identification.

I still open the question from my previous post - "After viewing the live discussion, I became interested in what the four witnesses from S.C.R.O. had to say about Pat Wertheim's productions. Unrecognisable to the productions they worked with, the impression damaged due to brush marks, plain impressions used instead of rolled, omitting some relevant points, etc. Can I ask you RL Tavernaro did you make your comparison using Pat Wertheim's images, the ones posted on the internet? Could you be open to the suggestion that as one of the MSP's proposed today that anyone that has studied Pat Wertheim's internet images have possible been misled by them? "

I would like that to include the other Scottish Bureaux. Did you compare from Pat Wertheim's internet images? If so, could you be open to the possibility that you could have been misled by them?

[Dick Dastardly]

S of A

A point you have made that may be worth making is that if the Danes did not ensure that they had the correct materials, there may be room for criticism. The limit of my knowledge is that the images they were provided with were not the ones that SCRO used in their final analysis. The difference is that their expertise in analysis is not in question. Whether they were misled about the materials, or they failed to check, I do not know.

Your further questions rather assume that the Wertheim images had been in some way contaminated and were not capable of further analysis. There was a sneaky suggestion by one MSP that the door post might have been deliberately contaminated. In fairness to them SCRO did not adopt that approach in answering the question.

The real issue is: who damaged the mark? (and it is wrong to assume it was Mr.Wertheim when it was apparently not properly stored) and does the damage make any difference?

Mr.Swann had access to the mark early on as he indicates. What is absent from his statement as far as I can see is any indication that he took his own photographs which might be expected of any expert. These would be pre damage and might help???

But the fact remains that the original photograph taken by SCRO is available somewhere with the prosecution; but McKenzie and Dunbar were happy to use the Wertheim version at a presentation at Tuliallan. That alone suggest that it is as good as if not better than the original SCRO version.

I am a little suspicious of the SCRO position in this: they seem to be saying that there is no image now available which can be used to get the correct answer about the match. Surely all of this could be sorted out by asking someone like Bruce Grant or Danny Greathouse to give an opinion on the simple issue: is Y7 Shirley McKie's?

[son of adam]

Dick Dastardly, in answer to your question in relation to the doorframe, I would say that of course it matters. If there has been some damage to the latent from contamination due to handling or as suggested at the Inquiry that the latent would have disintegrated over a period of time therefore it stands to reason that by the time Pat Wertheim photographed the doorframe some two years after the crime, there could not possibly be ample evidence of the original mark.

With your statement regarding Messrs Dunbar and MacKenzie, I am interested to hear the context in which they used Pat Wertheim's images at their Tuliallan presentation. Perhaps they had to make their presentation using both S.C.R.O's and Pat Wertheim's sets of images to put their point across and to perhaps show differences. It does not make sense to me for Robert MacKenzie and Alan Dunbar to be happy with Pat Wertheim's internet images if they are in complete support of the S.C.R.O four. However, until we hear their version of events at Tuliallan, I suggest we do not assume to know anything.

[Dick Dastardly]

I was rather assuming that the official minutes of Tuliallan would be accurate when I read them. However, if they are accurate it is clear that the internet images were being used to SUPPORT the ident. Either the internet image was of use or it was not. It cannot be useful sometimes, but declared irrelevant when it does not suit the purpose that the expert seeks to make.

It is also worth knowing that Mr.Stewart said in his evidence in the McKie trial that he considered that the entire image was made by one person (i.e. the top and the bottom portion). It is noted in the official minutes of Tuliallan that "Mr Dunbar stated that he accepted if it was one piece it was not that of Shirley Mckie".

All this shows is that there is at least considerable doubt about the matter. But it does make for a curiosity that the top portion was never demonstrated to the jury and no explanation was given as to why the top portion had not been placed before the jury.

Then again, the minutes may be inaccurate I suppose.....

[Dick Dastardly]

Sorry S of A: I forgot to bring this up.

The suggestion is that the latent in some way was contaminated or deteriorated.

SCRO were fully advising the prosecution during the McKie trial. Why did they not THEN say that the images taken by PW were worthless because they had been degraded or damaged? That would have been a simple line of cross examination. I wonder if they told the prosecutor? SCRO seemed to be keen at the inquiry to blame the prosecution for a lot, but I don't remember them saying that they told the prosecutor about this rich seam of cross examination material which would have destroyed PW and DG if correct.

It makes me wonder whether it has only recently been thought of, and if that is so, why only after the trial?

[son of adam]

Dick Dastardly, thanks for your input. I have not read the official minutes of Alan Dunbar's presentation and I am not certain of the authenticity of what you have read, however, Hugh MacPherson stressed at the Parliamentary Inquiry that there was no member of S.C.R.O that was in disagreement that Y7 belonged to Shirley McKie which would of course include Alan Dunbar and Robert MacKenzie.

I don't know if this will anwer your question -"SCRO were fully advising the prosecution during the McKie trial. Why did they not THEN say that the images taken by PW were worthless because they had been degraded or damaged? That would have been a simple line of cross examination. I wonder if they told the prosecutor? SCRO seemed to be keen at the inquiry to blame the prosecution for a lot, but I don't remember them saying that they told the prosecutor about this rich seam of cross examination material which would have destroyed PW and DG if correct. " The S.C.R.O four were examined and cross examined prior to Pat Wertheim were they not? It is more than probable that they were not afforded the opportunity to discuss Pat Wertheim's images a) if they were not aware of their existence and b) if that was not the line of questioning. It makes complete sense that the four have wanted to have their say if they felt that they had been badly let down by the prosecution.

[David L. Grieve]

Only three of the four SCRO examiners testified, and they did so before Pat testified to his presentation. Since the presentation had not be introduced, there would be no foundation for any challenge. I suppose they could have been recalled for rebuttal, for they were present in the court house during Pat's testimony. But that was not done. I don't know if that decision was strictly up to the prosecutor or if the issue had been raised with him. During my cross, several scenarios were offered by QC Murphy as possible explanations for my conclusion differing from SCRO, but none of these made any sense to me. The thrust of my cross examination seemed to center around a "misunderstanding" as to how the mark had been deposited. I remember being asked about the effects of a "twisting motion" to account for "juxtaposition" of some features and I answered there was no indication of that in the remainder of the mark. There were no questions suggesting Pat's photographs were in any way inferior or tainted.

I think the issue of damage or degradation to the mark in situ is being blown out of proportion. In my 40 plus years, I have observed latent prints improperly preserved lose detail and contrast, but this simply reduces the clarity of the information. The ridge structure is not alerted by the degraded image so that a mark that has been individualized suddenly becomes an elimination. Damage or degradation might prevent a conclusion from being reached, but it does not transform the individualizing features. The same is true with rolled and plain impressions. One might offer a clearer image, or include a larger area, but the ridge structure is not changed. What I examined in 1999 was a latent print that could be compared and identified if the correct inked standard was provided. I have no way of determining if the mark in 1997 revealed greater clarity or not, but the differences I noted between the mark and the left thumb prints of Shirley were not the product of age or degradation.

[Andrew Schriever]

Mr. Grieve brings up a good point that can't be understated.

It seems like a major thrust of the SCRO supporters arguement is that the images of the latent available on the internet (at ONIN) were taken after the latent was damaged somehow while in property. The suggestion is that it would be clear that the print was identified to McKie based on the original photos of the latent on the doorframe.

However, any competent latent examiner knows that damage to a latent can not turn a positive identification into a clear non-identification. So if the SCRO supporters would claim that the images available online is a valid identification, the 'damage' theory is debunked. And if the SCRO supoprters do support that the internet images support a valid identification, they can't argue that the internet images are not sufficient for identification purposes.

As someone said before, you can have it both ways.