CLPEX Chat Board

Looking forward to a wee drink and a peaceful visit in a quiet pub now more than ever, Daktari. Could the observations of these two be right? You didn't deny them, but you are very clever so you may just allow incorrect observations to stand in order to throw the hounds off your trail. Tell me, Daktari, might we meet at a pub in Edinburgh or would it more likely be in Belfast?

Okay, I got an email asking me what the heck Belfast has to do with fingerprints in Scotland. Isn't the judge from Northern Ireland? Will he hold his inquiry there? Or in Edinburgh? Or in Glasgow? He can hold it on Arran for all I care, or the Hebrides or Inverness. But I don't know Scottish legal procedures, nor British legal procedures. So won't some of my British friends (or adversaries) help me out here. Where will the inquiry be headquartered?

Pat,

I understand the venue is likely to be Edinburgh, but things still need to be confirmed.

It’s funny Pat, but the more and more you delve the more information comes out.

I found an article online which is of great interest. It contains quotes from Unison, the Union representing the SCRO Experts.

If we were to believe McBride and company the Experts were forced out of their jobs. Martyrs and victims. But their Union somewhat paints a slightly different picture:

A Unison spokeswoman said: "It is impossible for anybody to understand the stress they have been under." She added: "We will support them if they don't leave. If they do leave, it will be through their own choice."

The key sentence being the last sentence.

IF THEY LEAVE IT WILL BE THROUGH THEIR OWN CHOICE!

So they CHOSE to leave, accept the money and the gagging order. Clearly their Union is saying this was their CHOICE to LEAVE!

Not to stay and fight. Unison even says they would have backed them if they had chosen that route. So why did they CHOOSE to leave? It does make you think. If you had done nothing wrong would you have CHOSEN to leave? Or would you fight to clear your name? Even worse to lie about being victims and being forced from your jobs, when it is now clear it was their own choice!

Those poor Experts. Gagged. Forced from their jobs. My heart bleeds for them. Even Unison is exposing them for what they really are.

Spineless cowards, who took the money and ran!

The very thing they accused Shirley of doing at her Case. Absolutely pathetic.

At least their Union is able to expose their lies. Only yet another example of the desperate attempt for sympathy by the SCRO Experts.

The article is also interesting because it has comments from The Faculty of Advocates in Scotland. Again their comments are an eye opener.

Remember the Parliamentary Inquiry, which McBride lied by claiming had cleared them of any wrong doing?

On the McKie case, vice-dean Valerie Stacey QC declares: "The issue is that some evidence and circumstances suggest that this is not a dispute between experts on whether or not a print matches, but rather suggests that the work of the SCRO [Scottish Criminal Records Office] is not only unprofessional but unreasonable or unacceptable." She adds: "In this context, the Faculty is very concerned at the risk of a lack of confidence in expert evidence of fingerprint identification, forensic evidence generally and indeed the criminal justice system as a whole. It is our view that in order to restore confidence and move on from these events a public inquiry is necessary."

The Faculty is scathing of evidence from SCRO officers during the parliamentary inquiry, when it was admitted that experts would not tell outsiders when there had been a dispute among them about a print. Instead, defence counsels have been told to accept prints as 100% bona fide. Stacey concludes: "Without a full inquiry into these events, then defence challenges are now likely to be made or attempted [into fingerprint evidence] as a matter of course."

Need I say any more???

Things just get better and better in Scotland!

Police chief criticises McKie inquiry plan

Nothing would be gained from re-opening the Shirley McKie case, and doing so could result in a long-running and costly echo of the Bloody Sunday inquiry, according to Scottish Police Services Authority chief David Mulhern.
The SPSA is responsible for the new Scottish Forensic Service, successor to the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO), which was at the centre of the long-running and politically damaging McKie case.
McKie was accused by SCRO of leaving a thumbprint at a murder scene in Kilmarnock in 1997. She subsequently challenged this ruling, leading to a perjury trial and compensation case against the previous Executive.
In 2006, the Parliament’s then Justice 1 Committee held an inquiry into the affair, making a number of recommendations regarding the undertaking of fingerprinting services in Scotland.
The new Scottish Government has a manifesto commitment to launching a new inquiry into the McKie affair, and a spokesperson for the Government confirmed this inquiry would go ahead.
Mulhern says these recommendations have been taken on board by the SPSA and that the Justice 1 inquiry should stand as the final word on the matter.
“I think the parliament report did allow the boil to be lanced and allowed people the opportunity to say what they wanted to say and there was a sense, I think, from the people involved directly that somebody external had listened to the issues, and I think, allowed them impartially.
“We now have resolution, so I’m not sure that any inquiry that sought to re-open that would give us anything further but I know there is the intention to have something and personally, I am interested to see what that is intended to do,” he said.
Asked if he felt another McKie inquiry could become like the Bloody Sunday inquiry, where parties with fixed positions argued for years at great public cost, Mulhern said: “Yes, I think that’s a very good analogy.”
Elsewhere, Mulhern describes how he sees the SPSA expanding over the next five years, and explains how his organisation will deliver efficiency savings across Scotland’s eight police forces.

Well I think that message is crystal clear. The Chief Executive of the Scottish Police Services Authority does NOT want the Public Inquiry into the McKie case.

NOTHING TO BE GAINED apparently. THERE IS RESOLUTION apparently. The FLAWED Parliamentary Enquiry should STAND AS THE FINAL WORD ON THE MATTER apparently.

Is there a hidden agenda here?

Is there nothing to be gained from a Public Inquiry? Really? Like the truth perhaps? WHAT went wrong? WHY it went wrong? Funnily enough questions that still need answered.

Oh but this Chief Executive thinks there has been resolution. And that worked how? Rewarding individuals for making monumental mistakes? Not exposing them for what they were?

Truly unbelievable.

But wait if there has been RESOLUTION with NOTHING to be gained, why has he found it so difficult to answer the following two questions raised in Parliament?

S3W-8193 - Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP) (Date Lodged Thursday, January 03, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive whether any remedial action has been taken by the Scottish Police Services Authority in respect of any of its fingerprint experts who gave written or oral evidence to the Justice 1 Committee’s Scottish Criminal Record Office and Scottish Fingerprint Service inquiry stating that their colleagues’ fingerprint identifications of Shirley McKie and Marion Ross were correct and what the reasons are for its position on the matter.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Monday, January 21, 2008): These are operational matters for the Scottish Police Services Authority. I have asked the Chief Executive of the Scottish Police Services Authority to write to you.

S3W-8192 - Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP) (Date Lodged Thursday, January 03, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive whether any fingerprint experts who still support the fingerprint identifications of Shirley McKie and Marion Ross remain employed by the Scottish Police Services Authority and, if so, whether they are authorised to appear as expert witnesses for the Crown and whether it is satisfied that they are competent to do so.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (Monday, January 21, 2008): These are operational matters for the Scottish Police Services Authority. I have asked the Chief Executive of the Scottish Police Services Authority to write to you.

January 21st, and guess what? Still NO response. But surely if everything was resolved, as the Chief Executive stated, then these are two fairly easy questions to answer?

He knows there have been misidentifications, a fact he has stated publicly.

He knows individuals have made these misidentifications.

He knows three individuals (Alister Geddes, Terry Foley and Edward Bruce) publicly stated through MSP Ken McIntosh, they had positively “identified” the mark Y7, so it automatically follows the Chief Executive is fully aware that three people in his current organisation are GUILTY of misidentifying a fingerprint.

But he believes there is RESOLUTION.

So why is the question so difficult to answer?

Because those three experts REMAIN in full time employment within the SPSA, protected by the Chief Executive. They still believe they are correct, and to date have NOT been dealt with by the SPSA. These three STILL appear on the list of Crown Witnesses in Scotland.

That is resolution folks. Move forward papering over the cracks and hope it will go away. Resolution is clearly not about sorting out important issues, and trying to restore public confidence in fingerprint evidence in Scotland.

One way or another those two questions will need to be answered. After all the SPSA is answerable to the Scottish Executive. So watch this space.

And if that wasn’t bad enough let me highlight just how corrupt and sad the world of Forensic Science is becoming in the UK.

Just to reiterate, Mulhern fully accepts that individual’s MISIDENTIFIED mark Y7. This is a FACT.

I came across this yesterday, and it completely beggars belief.

You will recall the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners is:

a regulatory body whose objective is to promote public confidence in forensic practice in the UK.

TO PROMOTE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN FORENSIC PRACTICE.

Sounds like a good idea, after all the miscarriages of Justice, and events like the McKie case where experts seriously damaged the integrity of fingerprints by making errors, and then cover them up, and fail to recognise or apologise for them

Well I see the CRFP have a new Board member as evidenced on their own website.

http://www.crfp.org.uk/about/structure/council/members/

Members of the Board

Mr David Mulhern QPM
Chief Executive, Scottish Police Services Authority: nominated by the Crown Agent of Scotland

TO PROMOTE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN FORENSIC PRACTICE.

So the Chief Executive of the SPSA, who knows the mark Y7 was MISIDENTIFIED, has been appointed to the Board of the CRFP.

Which brings with it certain responsibilities I assume.

And at present he KNOWS that FOUR members registered with the very organisation he sits on the BOARD, have MISIDENTIFIED mark Y7.

Namely Martin Leadbetter, Peter Swann, Terry Foley and Alister Geddes.

So where does his loyalty lie? With the restoration in Public Confidence in Forensic Science?

Or is it with the continual cover up to stop the truth coming out? To protect individuals? To protect his organisation? Or simply to protect himself?

Read again his comments at the top of tho posting and I'm pretty sure you will see EXACTLY where his loyalties lie. And it has nothing to do with the integrity of the Science, or with the restoration of public confidence.

He is going to have an interesting time at the Public Inquiry for sure.

But before then he is going to have to answer these two questions! And then watch this space……

On this forum in 2007 Daktari commented.

Iain McKie maybe brave when defaming a dead man but I wonder how keen he will be to appear in court when we eventually get him there.

It’s not about getting the McKie’s per se. It’s about getting the McKie’s into court and under oath. That’s what we (that word again) all want I would have thought. Whether a Criminal or Civil, even an Employment Tribunal will do.

While it appears that this wish will be granted towards the end of the year at the up and coming Judicial Enquiry an earlier opportunity arises at the Employment Tribunal instigated by Fiona McBride against the Scottish Police Services Authority for unfair dismissal.

I would like to make it clear that I will be only too happy to appear before the coming Tribunal as a witness if either party feels it might help ascertain the truth.

Iain,

With the use of the words “when WE get him there” and “it’s about getting the McKie’s into court under oath”, it must be the McBride Tribunal they refer, given they nave no power who they can cite to a Public Inquiry.

So imagine, unless daktari is lying yet again, you can safely say you will be called to her Tribunal. Otherwise where does this leave the credibility of dakatri’s posting?

And remember it was daktari themselves who started the thread “McKie’s facing Court Appearance?”

I would quite frankly be astounded if you were cited! McBride would obviously be citing witnesses who can give evidence to support her claim.

Unfortunately daktari dodged the questions what she was sacked for, but we can assume the “misidentifications” of the fingerprints were not part of her dismissal. I say this because the others would have suffered the same fate, but we all know the lined their pockets at the Scottish Public’s expense. Despite us knowing know that was their own choice.

The following is taken from the guidelines regarding Employment Tribunals in Scotland.

Can I bring witnesses to the hearing?

You can bring witnesses to the hearing to give relevant evidence.
Even if you have not been told to, it is helpful if you let the tribunal know beforehand how many witnesses you plan to bring. You may have been ordered by the tribunal to produce a written statement of your own evidence and for your witnesses. But even if you have not you may wish to consider doing so.
However, in Scotland you should not do so unless ordered by the tribunal.
If you believe that a witness may have something of value to contribute to the evidence they should attend the hearing, rather than relying just on the contents of signed statements. This is especially important if you believe that the other side would challenge what the witness has to say. It is your responsibility to make sure that your witnesses come to the hearing.

The key word in the first sentence is RELEVANT. Let me suggest if McBride cites you as a witness it would be the equivalent of professional suicide!

Why would she cite you so you could tell the Tribunal about her actions at the Royal Concert Hall? When she attended along with les Brown, and heckled and handed out propaganda in complete defiance of her Employer, the SPSA. Of course maybe they are not aware of her actions while still employed. But to call you to expose her actions would be a huge own goal.

Had you any part in her dismissal? I think not.

Were you responsible for her public comments to the media, breaching her Employer’s instructions and guidelines? I think not.

Were you responsible for her swearing at the Chief Executive in front of the Office? I think not.

Were you the reason for her to be “escorted” to her desk and then “escorted” from the premises for her despicable behaviour? I think not.

Did you write her script claiming Justice 1 cleared them of any wrongdoing? I think not.

So what do you have to offer that is RELEVANT to her actual dismissal?

Mind you desperate people do try desperate things.

I suggest it would you would be a better used witness on BEHALF of the SPSA AGAINST McBride?

Interesting to see that obviously her Tribunal will be held under OATH. Will give us an insight into what lies we can expect at a Public Inquiry in similar circumstances.

Until then Iain, I wouldn’t be holding my breath waiting for your Tribunal citation!

I came across the following comments below on a forum on The Herald Website. They make incredibly interesting reading!

Funny how the man who is Chairman of the Fingerprint Society is so vociferous the Society should not get involved in the McKie case, and even stranger how he can be so vocal in his support of McBride when he himself has NEVER seen original material!!

It does if nothing else show the close relationship between Leadbetter and McBride. I wonder how many members of the Fingerprint Society were aware of his public support for McBride when she was appointed as Editor?

I suggest this is nothing short of extreme naivety. Or desperation? Or self protection?

Posted by: Martin Leadbetter, Hertfordshire on 9:07am Sat 5 May 07

Regrettably, Fiona McBride has been sacked without having been found negligent or guilty of any act of incompetence, dishonesty or malice. Her only offence was to have had pride in her work and to have had the guts to stand up for her rights in a dignified manner, despite the bullying tacticts to which she was subjected. This is a national disgrace, not only for Scotland but for the whole of the UK and all its public services. This whole long and sordid saga could not have been handled worse by the judiciary, politicians, public figures, the media et al if they had tried.

The fingerprint in question is not one that's easy to copmpare. For Mr Wertheim to claim that he was able to come to an accurate conclusion in less than '90 seconds', something which he was later even able to reduce to 'less than a minute', just beggars belief.

Miss McBride was apparently offered alternative employment as a clerk in a menial position, where her considerable expertise would have not been used and at almost a third of her current salary: the police authorities should be bowing theirs heads in shame. I understand that Miss McBride is aged 42, thus she could have spent another 23 years in her employment as a fingerprint expert on £30,000 per year. I calculate that she has now been robbed of a minimum of £690,000, almost as much as Shirley received in compensation. I would certainly hope that Miss McBride will now be sueing for unlawful dismissal and after tax deduction I assess she should be due about £500,000.

Figaro.

A National disgrace Martin? Really?

Well I hope she takes your advice and sues for £500,000!

We all need a good laugh......

So Mr. Leadbetter thinks it "beggars belief" that a competent examiner could reach a conclusion in under a minute?

His partner, Mr. Swann, went on and on at the Justice 1 inquiry about how long it takes to make an identification and challenged me on quoting such a short time.

But this print is an EXCLUSION. How long does it take to make an exclusion when you start finding that all of the points are out of sequence after the first target group? Even in that first target group in Y-7, the points are NOT in the same relative position. NOTHING matches!!! Nothing -- not anywhere in the print!!! It doesn't take a competent expert a week to do a simple exclusion in a case like that. Ninety seconds is plenty! And most of that time I spent in a state of total bafflement, asking myself "What the hell were they thinking when they called THIS an ident???"

I did a Google news search on the case this morning and came up with this article in today's "Times Online" from the UK.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 647570.ece

I wonder who will play the part of Fiona?

Okay, I got an email asking me what the heck Belfast has to do with fingerprints in Scotland.

Was it not the Belfast Bureau who examined two years of work by the four FP experts at SCRO who were involved in the Shirley McKie case and did not find a single error?

I repeat my recent posting above.

On this forum in 2007 Daktari commented.

Iain McKie maybe brave when defaming a dead man but I wonder how keen he will be to appear in court when we eventually get him there.
It’s not about getting the McKie’s per se. It’s about getting the McKie’s into court and under oath. That’s what we (that word again) all want I would have thought. Whether a Criminal or Civil, even an Employment Tribunal will do.

While it appears that this wish will be granted towards the end of the year at the up and coming Judicial Enquiry an earlier opportunity arises at the Employment Tribunal instigated by Fiona McBride against the Scottish Police Services Authority for unfair dismissal.

I would like to make it clear that I will be only too happy to appear before the coming Tribunal as a witness if either party feels it might help ascertain the truth.

Was it not the Belfast Bureau who examined two years of work by the four FP experts at SCRO who were involved in the Shirley McKie case and did not find a single error?

I’m always puzzled by why you should continually raise this issue. Think about things logically. We know there were TWO misidentifications in ONE case. Surely if this was just down to incompetence chances are the Belfast Bureau would have found other instances of incompetence?

But nothing. 100% accurate! But still TWO misidentifications in ONE case. Alarm bells not ringing?

Al you are doing is excluding incompetence and pointing towards something far more serious.

And since you enjoy questions so much, may I ask one back?

Was it not the Belfast Bureau who examined two years of work by the four FP experts at SCRO who were involved in the Shirley McKie case and did not find a single error?

Was it not the Belfast Bureau who TWICE examined the evidence in the Mark Sinclair Case and on both occasions DISAGREED with the conclusion of SCRO?

If you believe in the competence and integrity of the Belfast Bureau you must believe in their conclusions in the Mark Sinclair Case?

Or do we simply ignore that because that destroys our argument?

Do you accept the findings of the Belfast Bureau in the Mark Sinclair Case daktari?

Tell me you do, and then I will take your comments more seriously, and not see them as some half hearted attempt to excuse the inexcusable.

If you can’t then we can assume you don’t really believe these two years checking actually means anything can we, if they aren’t credible?

Your call……………………

Iain, I understand the SPSA has already sent out letters to witnesses they are calling to the Tribunal. I can only expect your one from McBride's lawyers is in the post.

If of course you don't get one, we will see exactly how desperate daktari and co are by making threats on CLPEX and then failing to follow them through. They want you in Court? Under oath? I'm sure you have absolutely nothing to fear from that. But what does it tell us about the fear from McBride if you are NOT cited? Apart from the ability to spout hot air?

I did a Google news search on the case this morning and came up with this article in today's "Times Online" from the UK.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 647570.ece

I wonder who will play the part of Fiona?
_________________
Pat A. Wertheim

I wonder who they'll get to play the part of Pat Wertheim.

Any suggestions?

ER wrote:
I wonder who they'll get to play the part of Pat Wertheim.

Any suggestions?

Good Lord! You could lose sleep worrying about who would play you.


John Larroquette?


Larroquette


Wertheim

Iain,

perhaps you will forgive me if I suggest who could play you ;.)))

I think perhaps the Big Yin!! (Billy Connolly) !!! ;.))

There is a likeness!!

Cheers