CLPEX Chat Board

Yesterday saw Arie Zeelenberg's 17 points he disputed go Unchallenged by SCRO and their lawyers.

Not once did the Lawyers representing SCRO refer back to Arie's presentation nor his 17 points of discrepancies.

These actions speak volumes.

Arie was asked however to explain why he threatened McKenzie & Dunbar and his answer, well he said if you see a colleague running towards a cliff what would you do ?

You would warn him wouldn't you.

Arie explained that because of their actions in denying they were wrong Scotland was looked upon as the Laughing Stock of the Fingerprint World.

He tried to warn them that their children would look back at History and see their Fathers and Grandfathers were found to be liars and when he said this to them at Tulliallan they actually agreed and said they had been thinking the same.

No Threat, just friendly advice.

Mr Zeelenberg has been the most comfortable witness I have seen in the witness box throughout this Inquiry with every aspect of his evidence and looking at the man it is clear he was not capable of making the threats SCRO tried to attribute to him.

He also claimed he would never have been in any Position of Authority to make any threats to anyone in Scotland.......I have to agree.

At the end of the day what mattered more to Mr Zeelenberg was his ethics and Justice................He did not want to see people wrongly sent to Gaol.

Arie Zeelenberg also pointed to a culture in Scotland where experts are not allowed to speak out against other experts certainly not their colleagues and this still exists says Arie within SPSA.

This culture must stop and the Fingerprinting must be taken away from the Police Services to allow for Independence and to stop the presure placed upon these experts.

Although Daktari (McKenzie's Son) claims on another thread that the SCRO workers are facing their accusers head on, His Father and Mr Dunbar were absent throughout Arie Zeelenberg's evidence.

This is strange because after all they were the ones to accuse Mr Zeelenberg of threatening them and their families.

As for the claim today from Mr Holmes that his clients were told they could not comment on Y7 and QI2 they have persistently done so throughout with Ms McBride being the ringleader and Mr Geddes doing his level best to get Marion Scott from the Sunday Mail to do a story through Mr Les Broon.

Mr Holmes might not have been told about the Herald article that Ms McBride actually posted here on this site CLPEX yet he made an allegation today which was totally wrong that they have been prevented from speaking out about their findings.

The real truth of the matter is Daktari posted the article here:

Topic: McKie's facing court appearance?

And what Fiona McBride claimed:

"I then worked on the case for Scottish ministers right up until the settlement was made. Scottish Executive solicitors were still telling me to confirm my accurate identification of the print when Jack McConnell stood up in public and said it had been an honest mistake'.

Confirmation they used Les Broon:

Les Brown, a former police detective, has been working with Ms McBride and the other experts to try to clear their names. He said: "To me this would appear to be unfair dismissal. I have been investigating this for the past year this is disgraceful. She has not done anything wrong.

In doing so they broke the rules of Disclosure they are bound by when working for the Crown

Another herald article can be found here:

Topic: McKie's facing court appearance?

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/di ... 09.0.0.php

Thanks again Mr McKenzie Junior.

I take it your father sanctioned all these postings and perhaps helped and encouraged you along the way ?

If it was up to me he would be questioned again and recalled to go over everything you have posted over the years.

The ironic part here is: while he is claiming to have been gagged, and indeed took the money and ran, you are posting his words on this forum.

That's right isn't it Mr McKenzie.

Perhaps the Inquiry team will see fit to question you over who's words you have been posting..............Interesting.

Are you also a fingerprint officer Mr McKenzie Junior ?

Please tell us what position you hold ?

Arie Zeelenberg's "Unchallenged" Presentation can be found here:

AZ_0061 at the Inquiry Site :
http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... &Submit=Go

Congratulations Mr Zeelenberg for standing up for Justice.

It was an Honour and Priviledge to meet you.

Transcript of yesterdays evidence can be found here:

http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... 1.221.html

For me Mr Holmes done more damage to the Scottish Experts with his opening question here:

MR HOLMES: In paragraph 8 of your statement you say that
9 you:
10 "... believe that there was a concerted effort to
11 discourage and discredit anyone within the fingerprint
12 community in the UK who opposes SCRO or even wants an
13 open and free evaluation of the marks ..."
14 By whom?
15 A. What do you mean "by whom"?
16 Q. You say that you believe that there was a concerted
17 effort to discourage and discredit anyone who opposes
18 SCRO. I am asking on whose part this effort has been
19 made.
20 A. If it's concerted effort I think it implies many people
21 do that. I can give you some examples of what indicates
22 it was a concerted effort. The study and discussion of
23 the print was systematically blocked and discouraged by
24 everybody involved. The Internet material was
25 discredited and if you would use it you were mentioned
page 3
1 in the public domain by police management, you were
2 addressed as incompetent.
3 I look at the treatment of the early contradicters
4 from the Lothian & Borders Police. They are never heard
5 of since. I've spoken to, on some locations (sic), of
6 one of them. If I look at the treatment that Gary
7 Dempster received. He stood up to be counted. I see
8 that people who wanted to sign our petition were
9 threatened or were not wanting or unable to sign openly.
10 I see how Mr Dave Charlton is treated in the public
11 domain. He wanted some discussion about the
12 fingerprint. He was then an editor of the Fingerprint
13 World Society issue.
14 I have my own contacts with the Scottish staff. If
15 I am in the UK and I meet a lot of fingerprint Experts
16 in the UK I just see that no-one, really no-one, is
17 prepared to talk about this fingerprint. They just fear
18 to raise the matter at any time. I think the management
19 has been very effective in that.
20 The police management was airing untenable positions
21 outside their knowledge domain. We see police chief
22 coming to the public domain and saying you cannot say
23 this and they are talking about fingerprints and they
24 uphold terrible positions suggesting that the
25 fingerprint -- that there is difference of opinion
page 4
1 within fingerprint experts and they even went against
2 their own experts in that. Their experts said we are --
3 one of us is right or wrong and the police chiefs came
4 and said, well, you know, experts differ.
5 So there is so much. There's a court ruling that
6 Shirley McKie was innocent and she was acquitted and
7 people went openly against it. There's so, so much that
8 was telling you that everybody that went against anybody
9 who was in the public domain. Even when I assisted
10 Mr Dror and he acknowledged me he later told me just for
11 the fact that he mentioned my names he received hate
12 mails. I think that's -- I leave it to that.

Hate mail because he was mentioned, Wonder where that came from ?

Laughing stock of World

Q. The following paragraph of your statement, if I can move
17 on to that, please, states that the question of whether
18 Shirley McKie is the donor of Y7 has been answered by
19 the official bodies that dealt with it and the
20 fingerprint community at large.
21 Does this mean that you fail to see the need for the
22 present proceedings?
23 A. No, I've always been an advocate for these proceedings
24 and that's also why I'm here. But if you refer to where
25 this comes from, I think HMIC has investigated it, the
page 6
1 Minister for Justice came to Parliament, we have
2 other -- Justice 1 has received it. I think Mr Mulhern
3 accepted that it was a mistake. The International
4 Association for Identification has investigated it now
5 and I have met numerous, numerous, numerous experts who
6 have seen it and I wonder, I really wonder what's going
7 on in Scotland and, if I may say so, they regard the
8 profession in Scotland as the laughing stock of the rest
9 of the world.

Q. You go on to explain your position further in
16 paragraph 15 of your statement. You say that:
17 "If there is a matter of competency, the litmus test
18 is mark Y7 itself. If one is unable to assess that this
19 mark is not identical to the print of Shirley McKie,
20 then either competency or otherwise, serious causes must
21 be taken into account."
22 Is that to say that the test for competency is
23 whether the expert in question agrees with your
24 assessment of Y7?
25 A. Not necessarily. I say we have a fingerprint in front
page 10
1 of us and every independent assessment of this came to
2 the same conclusion, that it is not identical to the
3 fingerprint of Shirley McKie. If we want to measure any
4 type of competency, then if somebody is unable to see
5 all the differences then he has a serious problem.
6 Q. So if somebody does not agree with your stated view of
7 Y7 then they are not a competent expert?
8 A. I am not asking you to agree with my conclusion. I'm
9 asking you to look at my evidence and all the
10 discrepancies there are between the fingerprints and I
11 contest that I think everybody that has looked at it can
12 see what I'm saying.
13 Q. What you are saying in that paragraph is that the litmus
14 test for competency is the assessment of mark Y7 itself.
15 Is that not tantamount to saying that any expert that
16 does not agree with your assessment of Y7 is not a
17 competent expert?
18 A. I'm not saying that. I'm not agreeing with my
19 assessment. I'm asking you to look at the fingerprint
20 and the fingerprint is telling everything there is and
21 there is no competent expert in the world that I know of
22 that disagrees with this position

.

Why would Mr Holmes refuse to visit the Presentation of Arie after this invitation, One Wonders

23 Q. Having been employed by a Government agency to look at
24 Y7, did you not feel at all conflicted when you then
25 went on to act for Miss McKie herself during her civil
page 13
1 claim against the Scottish Ministers?
2 A. Not at all. Not at all. I think that if I see that a
3 mistake is made and if I look at the Code of Ethics from
4 the NSVI and other bodies, then you have an obligation
5 as an expert that if you see there is a miscarriage of
6 justice going on that you also have to take up the act
7 and I am an expert in fingerprinting and this profession
8 is quite dominated by the police and people who are
9 suffering from a mistake or whatever you call it, a
10 probable mistake, they have a hard time finding an
11 independent expert and I think it's improper for experts
12 to just to choose the side of the police and just help
13 also these people in the interests of justice.
14 I take it a step further, if I may, I have intimated
15 under the umbrella of ENSVI to erect an arbitrage body
16 that will enable people to address to us and if they
17 think a mistake is made we offer them an independent
18 consult, free from the best experts we can find in
19 Europe and that is one of the reasons and that is going
20 to be effected probably. The proposals are ready.
21 We're looking for funding and I think we all have the
22 obligations. We only serve one goal: that is the truth
23 and my profession.

Well done Arie and I hope this could eventually be rolled out for DNA experts too where they could give free advice.

The problem with Scotland for centuries lies within Legal Aid, people were normally refused legal aid to challenge these experts, This culture must change.

Anyone who claims to be Innocent surely has the right to Independent Expert advice.

If Shirley McKie was on Legal Aid this would never have paid for her to seek experts advice outside Scotland.

In fact I am sure Iain will correct me if I am wrong, but I think Shirley still had to pay for her independent Experts from her own pocket, as this was not covered. so our country as well as being the Laughing Stock of the world over the fingerprints I think if the rest of the world only knew what goes on at Legal Aid they would be horrified at this too.

It has always been taken for granted that if two experts said it was your print you were doomed, you were not allowed to challenge this, and how dare you.

What also came from this inquiry the other day is this:
These experts at SCRO's work was only checked a year before and after Y7 & QI2 and found to be fault free.

Why hasn't all their work been checked for mistakes ? are they afraid of what they will find.

One has to wonder if this culture of not going against your Boss existed then how many other mistakes have been made out of fear ?
Fear of losing ones Job, House & family etc etc ?

How many other mistakes have went unnoticed because they (SCRO) never told Crown Office or Defence teams there was any disputes (in-house) or otherwise.

How many other times have they went to trial knowing they have rejected experts evidence (Who could not find 16 points) to find others who will find their required 16 points, Some experts within SCRO could only find 8 points yet their evidence was never disclosed to anyone, they were simply just bypassed.

Perhaps His Lordship Mr Campbell might see fit to recommend that people be given access to Independent experts in Scotland in his final report.

Full disclosure of every aspect from start to finish should be disclosed to both Crown and Defence teams and this would entail knowing every single expert who has looked at the mark and their opinions.

Having sat and listened to this Inquiry I now feel the need to apologise also to Mr Moynihan for my earlier remarks of having no faith in him.

I now feel Mr Moynihan is doing a great job of getting to the truth in this Inquiry and leaving no stones unturned.

Well done Mr Moynihan

Arie Zeelenberg is a class act, and reading his testimony along with his responses to cross examination rekindled my considerable respect and admiration for his efforts in this sorry situation. His opening comments tell the tale, the question as to why he has bothered all these years. Indeed, there is little indication of understanding his personal reasons, let alone appreciation, that it is better to prevent errors than run the risk they will be caught before irreparable harm. I'm not referring to Y7, Q12 or any specific case but an examination of practices and how they can be improved. That is what I read in Arie's purpose, not condemnation but making things better.

While Arie and I have had little direct contact since Shirley's trial, there was an exchange that I recalled when reading his reply to accusations he had "threatened" Mr. Mackenzie and Mr. Dunbar. I was on a visit to one of our nothern labs when my wife reached me and informed me Arie had called. He had asked that I contact him as soon as possible. I telephoned him to learn he was about to meet with representatives of SCRO in connection the the HMIC report. HIs belief as to the purpose for the meeting would be an open dialogue about Y7, one devoted to the core understanding that the issue is about a fingerprint, not about the people involved, not about who has suffered more than whom, and certainly not about who can hurl the most stinging insult.

Arie's question to me at the time was my assessment of how other examiners viewed the situation in Scotland, specificially, how would examiners in other parts of the world react to an admission by SCRO that they had erred in the identification of Y7. I replied I would anticipate a most positive response provided there was an accompanying course of action to determine what went wrong and what could be done to prevent another occurrence. We had no way of knowing that Mayfield was ahead, but our discussion was similar to the actions taken by the FBI.

Arie reached me a few days later. I could hear the disappointment and sadness in his voice as he related what had happened. There had been no dialogue, just new charts with larger numbers of lines pointing to meaningless ambiguity as if the purpose of an examination were the quantity of chalk marks on the wall. Counting numbers is not examining ridges, and placing a mounted photograph on an easel is not a discussion about sameness and difference. One cannot listen when one is doing all the talking. Arie was well aware of consequences should that meeting fail. How right he was. I, for one, thank him for trying.

I’ve just finished reading through Pat and Arie’s testimony. Please forgive my smug attitude when I say I’m not surprised! We’ve been honoured with their involvement two years ago as witnesses in the case against my son, Fred. They were both brilliant then, and if anything, even more so this time round.

It took them only a few minutes to show me, a complete layman, the differences in both cases and with common logic it was as clear as crystal. Now why can’t other experts see things which are so clear? We learned to count in first grade in school – counting marks, dots, figures lines .... ridges? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ........... Has something changed over the last ten years? A new counting system??? In second or third grade we were taught about the full stop after a sentence. If omitted, even that primary school teacher noticed it – a mere little dot! And as a grade 4 kid you got penalized if you overlooked that small dot. Isn’t a dot simply a line (ridge) without length? So if a kid was expected to see a dot – or the absence of one – how can an expert not see the existence or absence of a dot (or line or ridge)???? And how can they differ in the simple count of the number of lines between two dots???

How will the ten years, the millions, the time consumed, the destroyed lives and careers, the damage to science, the loss of trust, etc etc. ever be explained, let alone justified?

The significant difference between the two cases is that in the case of Y7, it is about an ident or not and in our case it was about the source from where the latent was lifted from. Other than that the two cases are equally intriguing – not intriguing in the sense that the material is difficult to understand or explain, but rather intriguing because something so simple and obvious and basic can be disputed so vehemently by people, we as the public rely on, not only for their superior expert knowledge, but more so for their obligation to protect and to uphold law and order.

Like in the Y7/SCRO case – I don’t believe it should be referred to as the Shirley McKie case any longer - we have the same denial situation in South Africa about our case. There is no known investigation into Inge’s murder – and I understand why! Because, if they find the real murderer now, it is undisputable proof that they were wrong in prosecuting Fred in the first instance. Our civil claim, scheduled to begin on 11 Nov 2010, is still to be heard and a solution to the murder is not in the interest of the State, so why worry if a most sadistic murderer is walking the streets!

Congratulations Arie and Pat for standing up for science and for the truth. You will be remembered for your honesty and your courage, by all your peers, your children and their children and......

I'm one of your many big admirers, I salute you both!

What a fine tribute to these two Experts, you have indeed put forth here Louis.

I have been watching and reading the various developments in your son's case. Hopefully, he will have a life restored to him at some point. No amount of compensation can ever replace what he has lost. It must be awful for him, he should have had a brilliant career by now.

I have to say my heart goes out to all involved. Naturally, it goes out to the parents of the murdered girl, how good it would be to catch her murderer and finally lift the heavy cloud from your son.

I enjoyed reading your latest post very much.

Louis

As you know I have followed and support your Son's case, and again if it wasn't for great experts like Pat & Arie being able to speak out your son too would be in prison.

The problem in Scotland seems to stem from the management and the management being the Police themselves in charge of Fingerprints.

At one stage in this inquiry we heard of notes saying: Ident required for Deceased being passed to the So-Called experts.

This says it all, that after this they find what is required, it speaks for itself.

What bothers us here in Scotland is Arie's words that we are the Laughing Stock of the world and he cannot understand why experts with 40 + years experience failed to see the 17 points of Dissimilarity that he pointed out the other day without question.

Arie also explained that experts in Scotland have been hindered from speaking out and he cited the Lothian & Borders crew as well as Gary Dempsters bureau in Aberdeen I think it was and also told us that experts within SCRO today are being hindered from speaking out for fear of losing their jobs.

This should never be the case when matters of justice are concerned and peoples lives are at stake.

Experts should be able to speak out and had this happened years ago Scotland would not be the laughing stock it now is.

I wish your family all the best Louis and hope Fred can return to some normality even with the outstanding case.

I was speaking of Fred only yesterday.

Keep Well

Wullie

At the conclusion of Arie Zeelenberg's evidence it was nice to see the Chairman pay tribute to his evidence and presentation:

6 THE CHAIRMAN: That concludes all I have to ask you but what
7 I would like to do is to thank you for assisting me with
8 this Inquiry and, whatever the outcome, I would like to
9 thank you for the trouble you must have taken over your
10 description of your views in the early part which was,
11 as I said earlier, we thought our IT was very good but I
12 must say yours was extremely good. Thank you very much
13 indeed. So that neatly I think brings us to 4.00 and we
14 will sit again at 10.00.

Perhaps the Inquiry will learn more from Arie,s 17 points of dissimilarity than the newly alleged 45 points Mr McKenzie now claims exist.

45 points yet at the time of going to trial he could not find the required 16 points.

One could not help but be impressed by Mr Zeelenberg's evidence.

Its been a long time ....

Since my last post in this thread above we have won and lost our civil claim! ?? We won in the Cape High Court on the basis that Bartholomew was held accountable for his lies which led to the continuation of Fred's prosecution, according to judge Veldhuizen.

The minister of police then appealed to the Appeal Court and won his appeal on the basis - according to the 5 judges - that whatever the police may have done wrong, was know to the prosecuting authorities, and it was their decision to proceed and he therefore exonerated the minister of police and and issued a cost order against Fred. So apart from the millions spent on the criminal trial, he is now also faced with another heap of millions to pay to the very police who lied and fabricated evidence against him.

But there is good news. Despite the ordeal Fred held up very well and is doing very well with Old Mutual where he is still employed as an actuary. I would like to share the following two short clips with you, being part one and part two of a recent interview on a finacial channel:

Kind regards

Louis.

Part 1

Part 2

Louis van der Vyver, maybe it's a good time now to stop lying to people that the police fabricated evidence to frame your son. Your little drinking glass theory was a fabricated fable. Nothing more. And if you want to talk about lies and fabrication, ask Fred about the short letter. For one. And then there's your friend from Arizona with his creative efforts to produce a lift similar to Folien 1, that while you sat next to him.

Inge would have been – no, rather, should have been – 33 today. But she’s dead ... for just over 10 years now already. While Fred is “holding up” so very well after the “ordeal”, I suppose he is alive enough to give us his lip print. For one.

Hallo Girls und Boys.
It is time for your vocabulary lesson.
The word for today is "TROLL."

Free Online Dictionary of Computing wrote:troll

An electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other (electronic) communication which is intentionally incorrect, but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or the act of sending such a message. Trolling aims to elicit an emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply key. A really subtle troll makes some people lose their minds.

http://foldoc.org//TROLL

Walt Howe wrote:troll

An outrageous message posted to a newsgroup or mailing list or message board to bait people to answer. Trolling is a form of harassment that can take over a discussion. Well meaning defenders can create chaos by responding to trolls. The best response is to ignore it.

Also, the person who posts such messages.

http://www.walthowe.com/glossary/t.html#troll

Urban Dictionary wrote:troll

1.(n) -A pathetic and moronic person who maintains a blog with an unhealthy obsessive-compulsive drive, especially angsty goths.

2.(n) -A depraved individual who sits in front of a computer all day and posts flames of an idiotic or pseudo-intellectual nature on public forums and private websites. Many of these people actually become emotional about what is said on the afore-said mediums and feel it is their duty to punish those who disagree with them. They too may pursue this object in an obsessive-compulsive manner.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... og%20Troll

Your homework assignment is to look the word up yourself on your favorite websites.

Now it is time for the test. Think of an example of a TROLL.

Notice that the word "TROLL" can be used either as a verb or a noun. As a noun, it can be used two ways.
One way is to use TROLL as the message. The second way is to use TROLL as a noun to refer to the author.

Can you use this new word in some sentences? Use it one time as a noun for the message, one time as a noun for the writer, and one time as a verb.