CLPEX Chat Board

The Scottish Police Services Authority, under the command of David Mulhern, now appears to be totally hell bent on "destroying" vital forensic services within Scotland. Not only do they have a Chief Executive who failed to support a Public Inquiry into the McKie debacle, has chosen to protect discredited Experts and allow them to operate within the Criminal Justice System, his latest plan is to close the Aberdeen Forensic Laboratory, including the Fingerprint Department.

The plan apparently is to then close the Edinburgh Laboratory. The organisation appears to be nothing short of dishonest.

Strange that the two fingerprint Bureaus who are ear marked for closure are the two who publicly spoke out over the SCRO misidentifications!

If the SPSA get their way the power will return to the Glasgow Bureau, which to this day fails to accept their errors.

The SPSA have published a professional glossy paper trying to "justify" their actions. What is happening in Scotland is nothing short of disgraceful. Cover over the cracks of the past, and try and move forward.

It can be seen at:

http://www.spsa.police.uk/news/deliveri ... t_scotland

and clicking on the link at the bottom of the article.

There is also a petition set up on the Scottish Parliament website over these concerns. If anyone cares to add their name to the list, and offer their support to their colleagues in Scotland, it can be accessed at:

http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.u ... nID=%20292

I am sure they would appreciate any support.

Thanks for your time

Motion lodged within the Scottish Parliament 25 November 2008

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2 ... onid=15216

S3M-02957# Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) (Scottish Labour): Aberdeen Forensic Science Laboratory— That the Parliament notes the proposals made by the Scottish Police Services Authority for the closure of the forensic science laboratory in Aberdeen; welcomes the direction issued by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to the authority in May 2008 that it should engage in fresh consultation with interested parties; considers, with regret, that the authority’s consultation document published in November 2008 amounts to no more than a further case for closure; believes that the authority has thereby appeared to suggest that the conclusion of its consultation has already been determined in favour of closure, and further believes that the continued provision of forensic services to Grampian Police and Northern Constabulary by the forensic laboratory in Aberdeen is one of a number of options worthy of proper consideration in a meaningful consultation process.


Supported by: Richard Baker, Nanette Milne, Rt Hon George Foulkes, Michael McMahon, Mike Rumbles, Dr Elaine Murray, Helen Eadie, Trish Godman, Robin Harper, Alison McInnes, Mary Mulligan

Lodged on Tuesday, November 25, 2008; Current

I understand if the epetition can can achieve 5000 signatures they will act on this ussue.

Your support would be greatly appreciated by your forensic colleagues in Scotland who are being made to suffer at the hands of the SPSA, which in reality is nothing more than SCRO with a different name.

http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.u ... tionID=292

Remember the very same Chief Executive, who is behind the move to close laboratories, is on public record, (and lying to the Scottish public), by stating after the McKie case everything has now been "resolved" within the SPSA, despite allowing three of the experts who have supported the identification to remain in post unchallenged!

http://www.holyrood.com/content/view/1173/10552/

My understanding through sources within the SPSA is his days are numbered and he will not survive the public inquiry, if he hasn't jumped before being pushed that is....

The plan apparently is to then close the Edinburgh Laboratory. The organisation appears to be nothing short of dishonest.

Strange that the two fingerprint Bureaus who are ear marked for closure are the two who publicly spoke out over the SCRO misidentifications!

If the SPSA get their way the power will return to the Glasgow Bureau, which to this day fails to accept their errors.

Disturbing for sure.

Ann Horsman quotes Taggart

The plan apparently is to then close the Edinburgh Laboratory. The organisation appears to be nothing short of dishonest.
Strange that the two fingerprint Bureaus who are ear marked for closure are the two who publicly spoke out over the SCRO misidentifications!If the SPSA get their way the power will return to the Glasgow Bureau, which to this day fails to accept their errors.

and finds that

Disturbing for sure.

Take another look Ann, remember who you are quoting.
Look closely at the highlighted, value-laden, words. Get real Ann!

'Apparently' and 'appears' are allegations, added up to make the unsubstantiated statement 'ear marked for closure', rolled into a threat ' power will return' to Glasgow.
No mention either of the new Tayside Bureau building being bulit, right now, in Dundee!

Here's a wee clue. When it was set up the Scottish Criminal Records Office was intended to develop into a central resource, based in Glasgow, to be shared by all Scotland's Police Forces. Hence Scottish and not Glasgow or Strathclyde. Some senior police officers resented, inter alia, what they saw as a diminution of their authorities and fought for the retention of their own Bureaus. It was always the intention, well before the brutal murder of Marion Ross, to create one central Fingerprint Bureau for the identification of latents collected by local SoCOs (CSIs), etc.
It is not, much as Iain McKie would like you to believe, some devilish master plan thought by ex-Holyrood pupil David Mulhern to punish those Bureaux who, based on internet images and a plain impression, dared to disagree with their colleagues in Glasgow! After all, we're all into Truth and Reconciliation now, aren't we?

a mark being found, that bears so many similarities

I'm still waiting for you to show me those similiaries.

How about one?

Can you show me one similarity?

All of your rambling about who said what and when is just so inconsequential.

Put up or shut up.
Time to walk the walk.
Put your cards on the table.
Go big or go home.
Do or die.

who, based on internet images and a plain impression, dared to disagree with their colleagues in Glasgow!

Just for clarity Daktari, can you confirm the Internet images you refer to are the same ones authenticated and used by John Berry, and if the plain impressions you refer to are similar to the plain impressions openly used by Robert Mackenzie and Alan Dunbar of SCRO?

Hoped you could oblige and provide clarity so I can get “real” as you so clearly put it.

Perhaps I can help,

The internet images I was referring to are
[i] ‘internet material provided by Mr ... stice….pdf

You know that lots of research has been done on the variance of the number of characteristics found, on the same mark, by various experts. While numerous theories have been postulated as to why this is a regular occurrence, I am unaware of anyone suggesting there is anything sinister.
Perhaps some research carried out into the number of discrepancies found or at what point does an expert mentally give up of finding an explanation for a discrepancy throw some light on this.

It is, frankly, rather childish to expect that every expert who looks at a mark will find exactly the same number of matching characteristics. It would like sitting in a courtroom where every witness gave exactly the same story, one would intuitively and instinctively smell a rat.
Unless, of course, they were British police offices who, as Lord Denning told us in 1980 "It is inconceivable that a police officer would lie under oath." I'll gloss over the fact that he had to admit he was wrong eleven years later.
Police officer lying under oath? An apology eleven years later? Hmm.

Thanks for firstly confirming the Internet images you highlighted are the exact same ones used by John Berry in his examinations.

If they are good enough for Berry clearly they must be equally as good for anyone else who looks at the very same images.

So thanks for clearing that up for us.

It is, frankly, rather childish to expect that every expert who looks at a mark will find exactly the same number of matching characteristics.

I totally agree. IF of course the prints being identified are a match in the first place.

However what I cannot get my head round, and I am sure you will only be too glad to assist, is what about prints which are not a match? Or if there is a clear difference of opinion?

Peter Swann has stated there is not one single characteristic in disagreement in fingerprint Y7.

Swann’s findings = every single characteristic in agreement.

However the SCRO Experts openly admit there are characteristics in disagreement. Robert Mackenzie highlights 45 points in agreement in five separate areas.

SCRO Expert’s findings = every single characteristic not in agreement.

You must accept that both cannot be correct.

Care to share with us which of the findings you believe to be correct?

Thanks for firstly confirming the Internet images you highlighted are the exact same ones used by John Berry in his examinations.

Sorry I don’t think I did that. Better check with your pal, Alex Neil

Peter Swann has stated there is not one single characteristic in disagreement in fingerprint Y7.

Swann’s findings = every single characteristic in agreement.

However the SCRO Experts openly admit there are characteristics in disagreement. Robert Mackenzie highlights 45 points in agreement in five separate areas.

SCRO Expert’s findings = every single characteristic not in agreement.

Peter Swann has stated there is not one single characteristic in disagreement, which cannot be explained, is what I think you mean.
After all, did John Berry not say the same thing?

Care to share with us which of the findings you believe to be correct?

Love too, and once you learn to the truth you will be reconciled to the fact that all the above agree that Y7 is Shirley’s.
See you at the Inquiry.

Yesterdays Sunday Mail ran an article highlighting to the people of Scotland that three discredited experts continue to provide expert evidence to Scottish Courts.

http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/newsfe ... -21218102/

Shirley McKie fingerprint trio still used as witnesses

Mar 22 2009 By Marion Scott

THREE fingerprint experts who backed a discredited colleague in the Shirley McKie scandal are still used as witnesses.
Terry Foley, Edward Bruce and Alister Geddes wrongly agreed with Fiona McBride that a print found at the home of murdered Marion Ross belonged to ex-detective McKie.
McBride was sacked and six others who backed her no longer give evidence.
McKie was dismissed by Strathclyde Police over claims she entered Marion's Kilmarnock house in 1997. She eventually won £750,000 compensation.
Her dad Iain, an expolice superintendent, said: "If anyone has been convicted on the evidence of these three men, those cases could be challenged."
Gerry Considine of the Glasgow Bar Association said: "It would be rather uncomfortable for the Crown if any of these three were challenged."
Tainted fingerprint evidence led to David Asbury, 32, from Kilbirnie, Ayrshire, being acquitted of murdering Marion, 51.
The Scottish Police Services Authority have been ordered to pay McBride £30,00 for unfair dismissal but are appealing a ruling to reinstate her.
The SPSA said of the three: "They are part of our service and will operate as you would expect."

[/i]

I draw your attention to the last statement made by the Scottish Police Services Authority who provide the forensic services to the Scottish Police forces and the Crown Office.

They state the three experts “…operate as you would expect."

Any idea what that is? What would we 'expect' from experts who made two erroneous identifications, and failed to admit their errors? Let me suggest we could well 'expect' further errors? Do the Scottish public genuinely expect vital expert fingerpint evidence to be provided by experts who have made serious errors, and to be offorded protection by their employer? Is this what they are to 'expect'? That any victim of crime could suffer a trial being jeopardised by experts failing to admit known and accepted errors? That the Crown Office themselves are knowingly jeopardising trials by their failures.

Let us not forget that two of these three experts have already given expert evidence in Court under oath. And all three have provided the Crown Office with expert reports.

It is hard to believe the SPSA is refraining from taking any action against the three experts until after the Inquiry. Of course by that point there will have been a settlement with David Asbury, and their further gross ‘incompetence’ will have been highlighted. I am led to believe the Marion Ross misidentification is not being challenged.

I use the word ‘incompetence’ given none of these three experts has ever been officially investigated as any part of any police investigation.

I am in no doubt however that after the Inquiry that will alter. They will be investigated for criminality. And then what?

Obviously given the ‘protection’ being given to the experts by the SPSA and the Crown Office they too become vital witnesses.

And let us not forget the incredible decision taken by the Crown Office to offer the original six experts immunity from prosecution over this case. This includes Mackenzie and Dunbar who were never even investigated.

When I say immunity I would also take that with a wee pinch of salt. Almost daily there is vital new evidence being uncovered, which seriously questions the actions of the experts.

This will be presented to the Inquiry for further investigation. All I know is I would not want to be hit with it under oath at the Inquiry.

Of course there is the opportunity for certain individuals to tell the truth, and bring the twelve years of suffering they have brought on themselves to an end.

I would not even begin to contemplate the alternative!

After months of trying, McKie finally managed to get someone to buy his story about Fiona McBride’s colleagues. I suppose his days of championing truth and reconciliation must have come to an end and his vindictiveness returned (as if it was ever away)
It must be painful for him when it only appeared on page 26 and was by-lined by some junior reporter whom he managed to dupe. Not painful enough some might say.
Long gone are the days of front-page splashes and editorial features by such luminaries as Iain McWhirter, Liam McDougall and Eamonn O’Neill.
Why was Alex Neill MSP not quoted? He used to have plenty to say about the SCRO along with his sidekick Allan Bayle?
What Iain McKie hasn’t quite twigged yet is that the McKie Affair is coming to an end. The Inquiry, that he tried in vain to stop, will make public more evidence that will make people question the fallacy of a misidentification.

Daktari,

The Inquiry…..will make public more evidence that will make people question the fallacy of a misidentification

Of course a large number of fingerprint experts will get the opportunity very soon to see a major presentation regarding Y7.

On Monday 30th at the IAI Spring meeting at Chesapeake Bay is the following presentation:

2:00 PM - 3:00 PM IAI Y7 (McKie print) Committee Report
Robert Garrett, President, International Association for Identification

I suspect this presentation will be one every delegate will want to see, and I wonder out of the hundreds of delegates who will see and hear it will leave the presentation believing your colleagues were correct?

As you are also no doubt aware the Public Inquiry team are fully aware of the IAI’s involvement, and I believe they will be certainly be utilised by them.

I am however delighted to see you and your colleagues are heading towards the Inquiry; completely blinkered, believing you are all correct.

If I was one of the three experts who have never been criminally investigated I would be having serious thoughts prior to this Inquiry. Next Monday will see the noose tighten significantly. Especially as they will have to attempt to discredit the President of the IAI!

And let us not forget the SCRO experts claim they did not make an ‘honest mistake’.

And they were prepared to send and innocent person to prison for up to five years by their actions.

I would appreciate any feedback from any IAI delegate who is fortunate enough to see Mr Garrett’s presentation next week.

In particular I would appreciate any information, in confidence if you desire, clarifying what actions are being taken by the IAI against any member who wrongly identified the print?

Daktari, next week will give hundreds of experts who perhaps have never studied the print a first hand opportunity to see if as you claim that the misidentification is indeed a fallacy.

I wouldn't be holding my breath dear boy....

So someone, with a vested interest, who thinks Y7 was not deposited by Shirley McKie will make a presentation!

Wow!

So did Allan Bayle!

So did John McLeod!

So did……. !

You can fill in the rest.

You are going to have to clarify exactly what you mean by stating that Robert Garrett, IAI President is 'someone with a vested interest' and provide us with the proof.

Or are we seeing yet another example of your usual defence mechanism, attack? Or rather your only defence.

I see you refused or were unable to tell me which of the three images used by SCRO was the 'original' image.

How can you expect the IAI Y7 Report to be taken seriously when it contains so many schoolboy errors?

The Report describes Marion Ross as an elderly woman, she was fifty-one years old when she was brutally murdered.

It tells us that Shirley McKie hired her own fingerprint examiner(s) who refuted the findings of the examiners of the SCRO.
Excuse me, but didn’t she hire Peter Swann and didn’t he agree with the SCRO?

Also leads us to believe she filed suit against the service in which she ultimately prevailed.
Ms McKie’s claims were never tested in Court.
She opted to settle (for far less than she originally asked for) rather than face the people she, and her father, had accused.

Bring back Allan Bayle!