CLPEX Chat Board

I have just watched on Newsnight Scotland web broadcast (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... efault.stm and select newsnight player and then select SCOTLAND). It was interesting to see Alan Bayle confirm that he had mis-identified the palm print that he was so proud to go on TV about and say otherwise. Which brings into questions his validity with McKies print !!!

To Mr. Bayle, the self proclaimed "foremost expert on ridgeology in the United Kingdom"

Proverbs, Chapter 16, Verse 18:

"Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall"

Son of Adam:

I do not know what each of the SCROs was told or shown prior to going in to the witness box. I am sure you do. However, are you seriously suggesting that Fiona McBride did not, at any time after she was shown the defence presentation, mention it to her SCRO colleagues during the course of the trial? It would be natural and expected for her to come out the witness box and speak to her co witnesses and advise them of what had happened. (I think the other two had given evidence by then)

She said in her evidence before the Parliamentary Inquiry that she and others spoke with the prosecutor after the verdict. Did she tell him then that the presentation was flawed? Did she ask to take it away to review it? The Procurator Fiscal is from the prosecutor’s office. He or she does not present the case in evidence. That is left to a High Court lawyer (the Mr.Murphy referred to in the parliamentary inquiry). It is wrong to imply that the Fiscal decides what evidence is led. That is only generally true, but if it is suggested that McBride could not conduct herself in a particular way in the witness box under cross examination because of what the PF had done, that is ridiculous. She was free to answer questions as she wished. She was also free (as were the others) to discuss matters with the prosecutors in advance of the hearing. From the evidence they were aware BEFORE going in to the witness box that there was a dispute from the defence. When did they find this out, Son of Adam? That was the obvious chance to say to the prosecutor, what evidence are they relying on? Or were they so confident that they thought a jury would not accept it.

It should be understood that the SCRO worked closely at all times with the prosecution authorities. They knew where they were. They could have picked up the phone at any time and asked to see the item again at leisure, and provided detailed comment.

Were they gagged? This is of course a good explanation for the delay in bringing up the defences if true. But is it true?

These factors are vital. They were not gagged while giving evidence in the McKie case. I accept that being ambushed in the witness box is unfortunate if it happened, but as I said above, if use of a plain print rather than a rolled was important that instant and reflex response would have been easy for McBride to give from the witness box. To quote a recently used phrase in court, a moron in a hurry would have seen that one (if, of course, it is a valid point).

They were not gagged immediately following the trial, and I assume that they reported to their superiors straight away on their position. Did they? Did they ask their superiors for the defence presentation at a time when they were subject to huge public criticism?

Of course not. Otherwise we would have expected all of these “defences” to come out in the Tulliallan presentation. Or were McKenzie and Dunbar unimpressed with them?

They were not gagged when the Black inquiry took place. Did they tell the Black inquiry about all of these matters?

They were not gagged during the Mackay and Robertson Inquiry. They refused to say anything to them, a matter commented on by M and R in their Report.

They were not gagged when giving statements to their own lawyers. At the early stages of the case they were represented separately and not by the Executive. They did not say in their written case that Y7 was correctly identified. They avoided the issue in the written case.

They were not gagged when the executive took over the case for them. They gave statements to the executive (but REFUSED REPEATEDLY) to give statements to the McKies lawyers. If they told the executive’s lawyers all the facts, why were they not in the written case for the Executive? Or was this another failure by someone else….

They were not gagged during the HMIC inquiry.

I don’t know the details of the other inquiries, and whether or not they were gagged. But it is not true to say they were gagged so that they could not tell anyone about it. All of these important points did not end up in the written case. There are two explanations: either they did not tell those they spoke to, or there is fault by a whole series of others. Again, it was someone else’s fault and not SCROs.

Incidentally, Peter Swann was not “gagged”. He gave information to the Executive who did not even produce his charts. Fault of the Executive again, or Swann came up with this at a later stage? The fact no one uses his information is not gagging. Did he publish any article about it? If he was worried about being sued, the best defence to such an action is “truth”. Or did he not think he could persuade a court that the ident was correct?

Who gagged him, S of A?

I don’t understand your question about the two week training course and PW. I have seen articles published immediately following the verdict in the McKie case which suggests that Pat Wertheim lied about his qualifications. These came from SCRO or their sympathisers and were completely untrue (and, incidentally, not repeated later). That is what I referred to. Were you unaware of that? Do you agree that it is completely unacceptable to do something like that?

Kafka: you ask about me making pre judgments, and you imply that I jumped to a conclusion that should be withdrawn because of Bayle’s apology and mistake. What conclusion is that? I have tried to stick to facts here or facts to be reasonably drawn from known facts. I have not associated myself with Bayle’s comments at all, either on this thread or otherwise, as I have not seen the evidence. You may not like what I say, and I am always happy to have an open mind. But please do not accuse me of jumping to wrong conclusions in the same way as Bayle. You have assumed that because I correspond on this thread that I agree with Bayle. You also correspond on this thread, but it does not mean you agree with him. You clearly seem to have disagreed with him. Had YOU seen the evidence at any time to make comment on Bayle’s opinion, or did you simply assume he was wrong?

Instead of picking your way to find fault in points made against SCRO, why not address the questions that are raised that suggest there might be fault for SCRO. I have acknowledged on several occasions that SCRO may have complaints that are justified: do you acknowledge that SCRO may have failed at any stage?

DD - "Kristian Rokkjaer and Frank Rasmussen from the Fingerprint Department of the Danish Police travelled to Scotland to examine the SCRO evidence in the Case. Of the bank note print, their Report says:- "On the photograph marked QD2, at least four clear details were seen. These details cannot be found on David Asbury's right little finger, nor on his other fingers as indicated in the SCRO's Report."

This report is authentic. As you can see for yourself, the Danes compared a photograph marked QD2 against David Asbury's fingerprint form.

My sympathy goes to all the fingerprint practitioners of S.C.R.O. Every case they prepare is now under scrutiny. It is the only bureau that I can see that has evidence checked not only by their own experts but also by independent experts in order to keep the Allan Bayle's out there off their backs.

Allan Bayle, yesterday at the Justice 1 Inquiry when probed about how vocal he has been towards a recent alleged misidentification of a palm print apologised to the MEDIA?? for his error. It's worth mentioning it's not the first S.C.R.O ident he was wrong about. He then had to be forced to apologise to the S.C.R.O experts involved. He mumbled something. I'm not convinced.

Allan, you have been your own undoing. As you can read from the latest comments on this thread, there are people out there, and it's probably fair enough on their part that have been waiting for you to fall from a massive height. Fingerprint people should always remain humble. Hopefully for you Allan, that is a lesson learned. And you, the Danish experts. This message applies also to those that were quick to jump on the 'there they go again' bandwagon.

I enjoyed yesterday's debate very much. I'm sure the jury is still out on this one as far as the Justice 1 Committee are concerned. Both presentations were very strong. I myself hope to see imp Y7 one day in its original state to compare against a rolled impression. What Peter Swann said in relation to the rolled impression revealing characteristics to me made complete sense. In this business, we should try at all costs to leave as little room for error as possible. Take plains and rolled. It's the only way to cover all the bases. Pat Wertheim's 'like for like' analysis is the surest way to miss something.

DD - I only know that the S.C.R.O experts and Peter Swann were gagged because that's what I heard them say at the Justice 1 Inquiry. The media campaign for the last 7 - 9 years has been completely on the side of the McKie's so I assume it is true that yes, they have been gagged. You heard Fiona McBride say herself that Newsnight refused her live airtime. The reason? Iain McKie threatened to sue the Newsnight team.

I participated on this thread merely because I had some thoughts similar to those of Dave Charlton. I have since then become very involved through investigation and research in an attempt to answer some of my own questions. I'm afraid DD, other than that, I am not in a position to fully take part in your debate. It has, however, been most interesting.

Dick Dastardly wrote:However, are you seriously suggesting that Fiona McBride did not, at any time after she was shown the defence presentation, mention it to her SCRO colleagues during the course of the trial? It would be natural and expected for her to come out the witness box and speak to her co witnesses and advise them of what had happened. (I think the other two had given evidence by then)

Was a sequestration order, or its UK equivalent in force during the trial? (An order by the judge preventing anyone from discussing one witness' testimony with another witness until the trial ends.) If so, then the SCRO witnesses would have violated that order if they talked with each other about their own testimony or about others' testimony. This would not prevent the witnesses from raising red flags to the prosecutors, of course.

Dick Dastardly wrote:That is only generally true, but if it is suggested that McBride could not conduct herself in a particular way in the witness box under cross examination because of what the PF had done, that is ridiculous. She was free to answer questions as she wished. She was also free (as were the others) to discuss matters with the prosecutors in advance of the hearing.

Certainly true, but to be fair to the SCRO witnesses, I'm sure they aren't the only ones to be frustrated by the manner in which a prosecutor questions them or presents and argues their work.

Son of Adam:

You have missed the point about the Danes. As I pointed out, the photograph of the mark on the TIN was in incorrect lighting. Nothing you have said suggests that that was otherwise. It may have had the label QD2 on it; but if the photograph does not show the detail, the match cannot be made. Incidentally, the report they produced was in Danish and was translated by another person. I suspect that their opinion was to the effect that they could not find the points suggested, rather than actually excluded it.

That seems to come through on the quotation that you give from the report. We come back to the issue: if they did not have provided to them the correct materials, they cannot be criticised – other than for not asking for the right stuff. There is no dispute that they had available the prints of David Asbury to compare.

I watched Allan Bayle on TV again at the Justice Committee. He actually said that he apologised to the media “and others” for his error, first time he said it. I agree that a full apology at the outset to SCRO would have been in order. I am not an apologist for Mr.Bayle, but he clearly recognises he did not act correctly.

Son of Adam, you too are making the same mistake as Bayle by blaming the Danes and placing them in the same category as Bayle. Have you actually SEEN what the Danes had available to them on both occasions they looked? Have you seen the differences? If you had, you would not be critical of them.

Your assertion that SCRO were gagged appears to be based upon what they said to the Justice Committee. I take it that you now agree with what I said above about numerous occasions when there could have been statements made by them, that were not and could not be McKie controlled.

Any threat to sue, as again referred to, can not succeed if truth is being spoken.

LJ Steele asks about a sequestration order. There is no such procedure in Scotland. The only rule is that a witness who has given evidence does not speak to a witness who has yet to give evidence. My point above is that there was plenty time between completing evidence and hearing Pat Wertheim giving evidence for the prosecutor to be educated about the matter. This would be known to any experienced witness in Scotland. It is especially interesting that the SCROs stayed in the court house but perhaps did not make that approach.

The prosecutor in question was a senior, experienced and respected prosecutor of many years practice in the High Court. It would have been totally out of character for him to miss an obvious line provided by prosecution witnesses. That is especially so when he used information provided by Swann about his involvement. No stone was being left unturned.

Hope this answers the questions.

DD - No, I would not agree with you that S.C.R.O and Peter Swann were not gagged. This last month is the first the public have heard anything they have had to say in relation to this case. No one can deny here that public information has all been one sided, so let them have their say. They've earned it. The Justice 1 Committee will presumably accumulate nine years of evidence, what happened to the four, what didn't happen to the four and will ultimately make a decision.

Correct me if I'm wrong DD, the Danish Experts examined a bank note, not the mark on the tin. I am not blaming the Danes for making an error. It is how they dealt with what they thought was an error. It is in my view that there are Experts out there that are not impartial in respect of the work of S.C.R.O, the Danish Experts included. The S.C.R.O four were suspended from duties as a result of the Dane's report according to yesterday's hearing.

As for what you have to say with regards to Allan Bayle, it appeared to me from watching yesterday's live stream that he was backed into a corner. Making an identification error is not his wrong doing. He's been on an S.C.R.O. 'witch hunt' and that unfortunately for him is his undoing.

HOI Dick

You ask a lot of questions and write essays about scro - you seem so sure the Danes were right about mislabelling or poor lighting excuse. I take it you are basing this on first hand knowledge and not making assumptions upon their word.

You seem to assume alot here - just wondered where you got your info from. First or second hand knowledge mmmmm...I wonder, I know, I trust the word of others. Take your pick!!!!!!!

TNC

Kafka

I have a question which I hoped would have been answered yesterday at Holyrood - which exhibits did the officers from Edinburgh and Aberdeen Agencies compare from? Y7 in its original state against Shirley McKie's rolled left thumb print or Pat Wertheim's internet images which has his version of Y7 and a plain impression of Shirley McKie's left thumb print? Would you be in a position to answer this DD or perhaps even you Kafka? Anyone at all?

Kafka

You betray your bias with the title "SCRO are right".

I, on the other hand, have tried to stick to the facts so far as we know them. You will note that I have not said either that SCRO are right, nor that they are wrong. I prefer to debate facts as reasonably known to me.

You may not like what you read, because of bias you have. I can feel that you are beginning to reduce yourself to the petty name calling that has been happily absent from this site for a while. I will not debate any issue with you if you engage in that kind of comment.

As far as the Danes are concerned, it was my understanding that they had only photographs of the mark on the banknote and not the note itself. I am prepared to be corrected on that if you provide me with confirmation of it being wrong (such as a copy of the document you rely upon). I have always made it clear that there may be criticism of the Danes in some respect if they did not have the source of information verified; but the criticism is not in the ident/non ident issue itself if the facts are as I understand them.

You may take it that I have seen the Dane's report; and the follow up from them with their complaint about the incorrect information. I have also had access to significant quantities of documentation. What have YOU seen Kafka?

Son of Adam: I don't know what the other agencies used for their opinions but suspect that it was the plain print rather than rolled. I am sure they can answer for themselves. However, I understand that there is a significant debate about whether rolled or plain impressions should be used at all; and perhaps whether the rolled impressions would have revealed the matches or explained the discrepancies.

Peter Swann’s presentation was never made public before his evidence was given to the inquiry. It was not lodged as an exhibit in the court case and could not be checked. It is now being checked, and if he is right, I am sure that someone will come out and support him.

I am sorry, Kafka, if you see this as an essay. The problem is that you don’t like it when I point out that what you say is wrong or ask legitimate questions that you don’t wish to address. If you rid yourself of your bias and enter in to the debate without that bias, you may be able to contribute something.

May I remind you of what you said:

I have been accused of being foolish on this forum by Dick and I feel that asking questions and having appropriate relevant discussions without resorting to name calling and backbiting important reminders. Your comments are somewhat refreshing to know there are people with manners out there.


Whatever you do, I shall try to keep my head about this.

Hi Dick

I applaud you!

Clap! Clap!

You are gracious in the midsts of defeat.

That is honourable indeed.

Please take a moment to reflect upon this.

I must metamorphorisis now and grow with wisdom.

The trial is done and I must go to my castle enriched with peace.

Kafka.

Son of Adam,

Aberdeen examiners had a copy of the SCRO photograph of Y7 to examine as well as the rolled impression. I do not know what Edinburgh compared. I had a copy of Y7 taken by SCRO and used it for my comparison. I also compared the photograph marked Y7 to the photographs taken by Pat Wertheim. I also had four copies of the rolled impression to compare to the plain impressions taken by Wertheim.

The full transcript of the presentations of Arie Zeelenberg and Peter Swann, plus questions and answers of them and other witnesses, is available at:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/busin ... tm#Col3348

Arie Zeelenberg presented a highly detailed and somewhat technical explanation of why the mark known as “Y7” is excluded from Shirley McKie and cannot be an identification. He further went on to show that in spite of their criticism of the “internet image” of Y7 as being unclear, the SCRO themselves have been using that image in their presentations, especially one at Tulliallen. He also demonstrated that if the SCRO presentation at Tulliallen is to be believed, then there had to have been five different touches of tiny portions of Shirley McKie’s thumb in the middle of someone else’s fingerprint – all in such a manner that every ridge and every furrow lines up perfectly with no breaks or smudges. Mr. Zeelenberg concluded that not only was the identification erroneous, there is evidence of intent to mislead in the way the SCRO prepared their charts.

More amazing, however, was the testimony of Peter Swann. Mr. Swann admitted that his original verification of Y7 as having been made by Shirley McKie was made solely on the basis of the degraded, cropped charted enlargement of Y7 and the sixteen numbers with lines going into the chart. In his initial verification, Mr. Swann never once compared a photograph of the latent print itself with an inked print from Shirley McKie.

Where did Mr. Swann eventually get an inked print? Would you believe from the newspaper? Here is his testimony –

Stewart Stevenson: I point to two charts that you used in your presentation—charts C and F. It might be useful if you had them to hand. I have a couple of factual questions before I ask my real question. A set of 16 points is identified on print 1 on chart C, and on the right-hand side, 16 points are identified on the print from the Daily Mail. Was that mark-up done by you?

Peter Swann: Yes.

-- Then Later –

Alex Neil: Your first comparison was with a print that was supplied by the Daily Mail. How did the Daily Mail supply you with that picture?

Peter Swann: It did not. I just bought the Daily Mail and saw it there.

Alex Neil: So the picture that you used came out of a newspaper? Would that be a normal and professional way in which to compare a print?

Peter Swann: It was a good mark and a good impression. You use anything that you can get.

So presumably, it is all right for Mr. Swann to use images from newspaper articles for his comparisons, but nobody should use the images on the internet. Interesting. The questioning went on and Mr. Swann explained how he finally got real inked fingerprints of Shirley McKie –


Mr McFee: Last week, Charles Stewart said:

"I have never had a fingerprint form that has been taken high enough to the top of thumb to allow me to fully compare the top of the thumb to see whether it is continuous with the lower part. It could be continuous"
etc, etc. He went on to say:

"I cannot say definitely whether that happened, because I was unable to compare the top of the impression against the fingerprint form".—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee, 30 May 2006; c 3243.]

Where did you get the impression—which Mr Stewart does not seem to have had—to allow you to compare the top of the print?

Peter Swann: It came via a solicitor called Peter Watson, acting on behalf of Shirley McKie. He sent me a piece of A4 white foolscap. On it was written, in red ink, "Fingerprints of Shirley McKie". There were four impressions taken in blue ink.

Mr McFee: How important is it to take an impression properly?
Col 3386

Peter Swann: It is vital.

Mr McFee: Who took that impression?

Peter Swann: I have no idea, but it was somebody who knew what they were doing.

Somebody who knew what they were doing? On a piece of A4 white foolscap, in blue ink. Right. But wait – it gets better. We had assumed Mr. Swann had a photograph of the latent print to compare, but maybe not. When did Mr. Swann finally get a photograph of the latent print itself?

Mr McFee: When did you make your assessment that the top part of the thumbprint had been twisted by 60° or 66°?

Peter Swann: When I got, finally, an impression of the crime scene mark.

Mr McFee: Was that before or after the perjury trial?

Peter Swann: After.


So Mr. Swann made his initial identification only from the cropped, degraded charts of SCRO. Subsequently, he used a copy of Shirley McKie’s inked print he cut out of a newspaper. And then he got some fingerprints taken with blue stamp pad ink by a solicitor (lawyer) on regular paper. Only after Shirley McKie’s trial and acquittal did he ever get a full photograph of the latent print Y7 itself to compare to his newspaper cutting and blue fingerprints. Brilliant work, Mr. Swann!

On counting ridges between points, one Committee member pursued the following line of questioning –

Mike Pringle: Right. My question will probably show my ignorance of the situation. If we look at points 1 and 8 on the left-hand fingerprint on chart D, and then at points 1 and 8 on the print on the other side, there is obviously a substantial difference in the distance between point 1 and point 8. There is also a substantial difference between points 6 and 7 on the left-hand and right-hand charts. Why is there that difference?

Peter Swann: It is caused by the pressure that has been applied on the mark at the crime scene, and there could have been a twisting action that might possibly have had a bearing. The other print has been taken under ideal conditions. Pressure has broadened the ridges on the crime scene mark. The more you press down, the more you will flatten out the ridge structure and distances between ridges will appear to be wider.

Mike Pringle: I can see four different ridges between points 1 and 8 on the right-hand side print on chart D. Is that right?

Peter Swann: Yes.

Mike Pringle: There are four ridges between the two points on the right-hard print, but it looks as if there are about six or seven on the left-hand print.

Peter Swann: It does, I agree, but it is caused by the pressure that was applied when the mark was laid down.


Ah. Pressure adds ridges between two points. I’m glad to know that. I can only conclude that the Glasgow Bureau of SCRO applies the same pressure analysis techniques for counting ridges between two points that Peter Swann does. No wonder they reached the same erroneous conclusion.

Read the transcript. Then, if you cannot find a copy of the Daily Mail to get your fingerprint images, go to www.onin.com and download the uncompressed images there. Do your own analysis of the latent print and comparison with the inked print. Form your own conclusions.

For those of you who are not fingerprint experts, it is clear that those who claim and present this comparison as an identification do so in order to protect their reputations. As Pat Wertheim suggested during the inquiry, the truth will be known in the history books:

"I know what they will say 20 or 30 years from now. In the long run the case will not have an adverse effect on the science of fingerprints—it is a low speed bump on that road. I am comfortable with what the history books will say and I am comfortable with my place in them. The case has come up in cross-examination all over the world. Mr Bayle ran into it in Australia and in the United States I have been cross-examined about the case by attorneys who did not know that I was involved in it.

"The point is that, in the long run, history will record that an erroneous identification was made by the Glasgow bureau of the SCRO. I do not believe that the case will affect the science worldwide in the long run. How it affects the practice of fingerprints in Scotland in the short term is the issue with which the ladies and gentlemen on the committee have to deal."

Pay attention in class. Peter Swann compared all productions which included inked prints of Shirley McKie, photographed impression marked Y7 and enlargements. The evidence produced by S.C.R.O. The charts he made at a later date.