CLPEX Chat Board

http://shirleymckie.myfastforum.org/SPS ... t1108.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-17953266

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 14923.html

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... -23847700/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-17953266

The DNA of a lab technician, who had never touched the gun and worked three floors above where it was stored, was also found in the sample analysed by forensic scientists, along with that of three unidentified men.

Wonder if the Lab Technician has an Alibi.

What a pure mess SPSA are in again, and on the back of the Shirley McKie case too.

Tut tut.

The Judge Said I Smell A Rat

What he never said was it was of the two legged variety

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol ... a-rat.html

Incredibly, gun cops on the raid had just returned from weapons training and were still wearing the same uniforms — covered in firearms residue.

Lord Brailsford added: “The single particle is of no evidential value. It was absolutely clear the search of the house and the jacket seizure gave rise to contamination.

“I was told the search was, in scientific terms, horrendous and that is also my conclusion.”

Advocate depute Iain McSporran told the court: “The police left no stone unturned to find the killers of Kevin Carroll.

“I’ve rarely seen such an exhaustive investigation.

What utter nonsense.

Lord Brailsford said: “Miss Colley displayed great candour and said she had been told to file her report in the way she did by a detective superintendent.

“I find this evidence to be disturbing. If the integrity of SPSA is to be maintained it should not be influenced by any outside body.”

Ballistics whizz Ms Colley said a single particle of gun residue found on a jacket belonging to Monaghan was too flimsy to prove he shot Carroll, 29.

But she told the High Court in Glasgow that she was still asked to form a conclusion by a detective superintendent.

One senior detective last night slammed colleagues, saying: “There were more holes in the police case than there were in Gerbil.”

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol ... rteen.html

With all due respect, if Mr. Monaghan is going to hang his proof of innocence on cell phone records that place him 20 miles away at the time of the crime, how simple would it have been for him to conveniently leave his cell phone at his house and have an accomplice periodically make calls or send text messages while he was out committing a crime?

Can you enlighten me Wullie as to whether or not Mr. Monaghan is the equivalent of some inner city US thugs who hold a community hostage with fear of reprisal or retaliation if the locals finger them for crimes? It certainly sounds like that could be the case because come on now, we all know that innocent people are routinely accused of two heinous/violent crimes in their lives . Remember that witnesses can often forget seeing things or don't see things at all if they're persuaded to or believe that harm will come to them or other loved ones should they testify.

This is not meant to excuse the work of the SPSA in any way but the article does seem a bit slanted to suggest that Mr. Monaghan is the proverbial wrongly accused innocent and pure as the driven snow.

With all due respect SConner if you read the articles properly you will see that the phone was not the only piece of evidence which proved he was somewhere else as far as I can see there was severe problems with the DNA evidence and of contamination of a crime scene by police officers.

The courts in Scotland are very keen to convict people on their phone records when as you rightly point out someone else could have been using the phone so they cannot have it both ways.

Two convictions stick in my mind here of William Gage and Billy Ferris strongly reliant upon phone records even though Gage denied having the phone at the crucial times it was reportedly being used from Easterhouse.

Surely people are Innocent until proven guilty.

Are Glasgow experts going to destroy DNA in the same fashion they have destroyed fingerprints throughout the world ?

Are Police to be allowed to put pressure on experts just to secure a conviction ?

This is not meant to excuse the work of the SPSA in any way but the article does seem a bit slanted to suggest that Mr. Monaghan is the proverbial wrongly accused innocent and pure as the driven snow.

Yes it is, You are trying to suggest because he is not as pure as the driven snow he is fair game.

Justice must be seen to be done at all times and the closeness of experts and the police in Scotland is appallingly scandalous.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home ... s.17505572

Trust Good Old Glasgow Cops to bring the world of DNA into disrepute eh.

William Gage: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006hcjac7.html

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2011HCJAC40.html

The same good old Glasgow Coppers feature heavily in the Nat Fraser trial where they visited two Grampian Police Officers trying to intimidate them into changing their position over the rings.

PC's Clark & Lynch had mentioned seeing rings in the toilet at the initial search, yet he was convicted on the premise he planted them weeks later having taken them from his wife's dead body.

No Rings no case said the prosecutors, and had he seen this evidence he would have fainted.

Surprisingly he has now admitted he did not read the Crown Precognition.

The DNA of the lab worker was explained away as being the result of handling the outside of the test tube. This is quite plausible and likely in my opinion given my experience. As for three profiles being found on the recovered guns, well consider the lack of easy availability of firearms in Scotland. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that firearms are routinely passed around because it's not so easy to just pop out and get a new one when you need to commit a hit is it? In areas of the US with strict firearms laws, a similar phenomenon occurs once guns are recovered and entered into NIBIN. Not surprisingly they link to several other shootings or homicides because they've been passed around, traded, or sold.

I must have missed it in the articles, other than a lack of witnesses and the cell phone records, what evidence was there that provided an alibi for Mr. Monaghan? Could you point me to it?

I agree with you that relying on the presence of GSR on Mr. Monaghan's coat was flimsy because GSR is readily transferable and could have come from the officers searching his residence.

Wullie, as in the McKie case there is this apparent presumption of innocence on the part of Mr. Monaghan a la David Asbury because the work of the SPSA was deemed questionable. The fact that the work was apparently less than perfect is certainly a problem, but sometimes, sometimes, it is possible for law enforcement to achieve the right answer with bad work, that's all I'm saying. OJ Simpson being a prime example. Conversely, sometimes we get the wrong answer but with good or seemingly good work.

It appears that SPSA hasn't received the memo that showing your work and making sure it's correct is more important than the answer.

We have no way of knowing what his Alibi was as the defence had no reason to call any witnesses before the trial collapsed.

The judge deemed the case unreasonable obviously to be placed before a jury after the Crown case closed.

but sometimes, sometimes, it is possible for law enforcement to achieve the right answer with bad work

This is a shocking attitude because you are inferring it is alright to set people up because of their background and it is OK for experts to tell lies or add extra emphasis that should not be added to acheive a conviction.

This is so morally and ethically wrong.

If there is no evidence then there should never be any charges.

Allowing police to apply pressure to experts is just appalling.

What about the policeman who was passing on information to people about Gerbill's whereabouts etc ? Should he not be charged with conspiracy to murder ?

The DNA of the lab worker was explained away as being the result of handling the outside of the test tube. This is quite plausible and likely in my opinion given my experience

.

My concerns here are simple:

How ofetn does this happen ?

How often are Juries warned of this happening ?

Does this mean we should not now rely on any DNA because there will always be a chance of cross contamination.

We heard in the Fingerprint Inquiry that SCRO did not keep notes of what work they did, so how do we know this is not causing miscarriages because the evidence is not properly tagged or labelled ?

If cross contamination is as simple as you are suggesting then I fear we have a lot to learn about evidence gathering and storing, Should experts not be gloved up and suited with white suites and covers over their shoes etc when touching this type of evidence.

The DNA of an expert should never be allowed to contaminate evidence, would you not agree ?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/h ... s.17518297

The comment from Dr John Cameron hits the nail on the head.

Big Wullie wrote:This is a shocking attitude because you are inferring it is alright to set people up because of their background and it is OK for experts to tell lies or add extra emphasis that should not be added to acheive a conviction.

This is so morally and ethically wrong.

Hold on, nowhere did I ever suggest that it's acceptable, alright, or okay to set people up based upon their background or that it's okay for experts to lie or add emphasis to secure a conviction. What I said quite simply was that sometimes, bad work (hopefully unintentional) leads to the right answer, that's it.

Big Wullie wrote: If there is no evidence then there should never be any charges.

And absent any witnesses who may be afraid to testify or absent any witnesses simply because nobody was around to see anything, sometimes you have to roll with what you have. Did they have the best evidence in this case, sure doesn't sound like it, but DNA plus ballistics tying the gun to the homicide sure sounds decent enough to charge somebody. Imagine the opposite, DNA on a gun plus ballisitics tying the gun to the homicide and a DA or crown solicitor who won't file charges because well we just don't have any witnesses. Now imagine the victim is somebody other than a hoodlum underworld figure and there would be calls for the prosecutor's head if they didn't file charges.

Big Wullie wrote: Allowing police to apply pressure to experts is just appalling.

Agreed, 100%.

Big Wullie wrote: What about the policeman who was passing on information to people about Gerbill's whereabouts etc ? Should he not be charged with conspiracy to murder ?

Probably not unless (s)he specifically set "Gerbill" up for the hit. The police tail criminals or suspected criminals all the time to see what they're up to, who they meet with etc, usually in the hopes of either catching them in the act of doing something or putting together the puzzle pieces of a much larger investigation.

Big Wullie wrote: My concerns here are simple:

How ofetn does this happen ?

How often are Juries warned of this happening ?

Does this mean we should not now rely on any DNA because there will always be a chance of cross contamination.

I can't tell you how often it happens but it's a result of the DNA technology getting so sensitive that the smallest bits of material are now able to be used to render a profile. Provided that there are safeguards in place to minimize the risk of cross contamination I don't see a problem with DNA as an evidence. Would I as a juror want to see something else in addition to just DNA or just fingerprints or just a witness, well sure but you don't always have all of the evidentiary pieces all of the time.

Big Wullie wrote:
If cross contamination is as simple as you are suggesting then I fear we have a lot to learn about evidence gathering and storing, Should experts not be gloved up and suited with white suites and covers over their shoes etc when touching this type of evidence.

Wullie, do you believe with 100% certainty that Mr. Monaghan could not have commited the murder?

I do not believe people should be convicted on assumptions.

We cannot convict people because of their past or who the hang out with.

I think the police identified 100 peple who would want to kill Mr Carroll, Mr Monaghan was not one of them.

Surely even you would agree because someone's DNA has been found on murder weapon this does not mean they murdered the person ?

It is actually frightening to think we have police officers colluding with Gangsters and passing on information which might lead to someone being murdered.

Equally it is frightening that the Police think they can apply pressure to experts to form conclusions they should not be forming.

The more DNA is brought into disrepute the more people will not rely upon it.

More condemnation on the police

She said: "It seemed like a mass of people. They explained why Ross had been arrested. Then they said they didn't have the correct warrants, so we would have to go out and wait in cars."

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... -23829387/

They didn't have the correct warrants

Very professional eh ?

Wullie, as concerning the reports of alleged pressure are in this case, for me there is a far larger issue. The Independent investigation must be thorough and get all the answers, and the Report must be made public.

My main concerns are over the timings and actions PRIOR to the Trial. From what I have read, to me it seems the Forensic Scientist did an independent analysis of the particle of gunshot residue and concluded it was of no evidential value. It then seems to me she is alleging, after pressure from a senior Police Officer she changes her conclusion to that of the particle of gunshot residue recovered being ‘consistent’ with that from the actual firearm. A significant change of opinion.

Clearly the Forensic Scientist, if the SPSA is to be believed from their debacle over the Marion Ross case, must be taking notes of her examinations. These notes would need to show she found nothing of any evidential value. This would be dated. Her notes would also show the date she then ‘changed’ her opinion, along with the reason for this change.

In Scotland, it is my understanding that any Forensic Science Report produced, must be signed by two Scientists. Two Scientists who reached their conclusions independently of each other. To date I have seen clear reference to the Report, but not of a second individual being involved. But there must be.

Are we therefore to believe that the Senior Detective in Strathclyde Police was able to ‘influence’ two SPSA Forensic Scientists?

Did they both originally find there was no evidential value to the evidence, and did they both ‘change’ their findings?

Did the First Forensic Scientist, after being allegedly pressurised into changing her opinion, then pressurise her colleague in a similar manner?

When the initially alleged ‘pressure’ was placed on the Forensic Scientist to the degree she ‘changed’ her conclusion, what did she do at that time? Who did she inform? What did they do? Where are her concerns recorded? Was the Crown Office informed?

No matter she changed her conclusion, her new conclusion she now states is false. Her previous work now needs to be scrutinised, and I suggest all rechecked.

Given the significance of the Forensic Evidence to the Murder Trail, again from what we know about the workings of the Crown Office and the SPSA, it is clear the Forensic Scientist would have needed to have been precognised by the Crown Office. Did she relay her concerns during this precognition? If not why not? Did any precognition actually take place?

At what stage was this information disclosed to the Defence? Again if this information was known by the SPSA and the Crown Office why on earth was this evidence even allowed to enter the proceedings?

To me, and I hope I am wrong, it seems that the first time the Scientist concerns appear to have been raised are during the actual trial. If this is the case it really does bring the SPSA back under the forensic microscope.

Is the culture we heard about during the McKie Inquiry spread throughout the SPSA?

I also am intrigued by the SPSA immediately calling in the Forensic regulator to carry out independent investigations into allegations of potential wrong-doing. Was he similarly invited into the SPSA when the Fingerprint Inquiry found wrong doing over the fingerprints in the Marion Ross case?

I suggest the SPSA invite him in to independently assess the way they have dealt with the experts who committed such serious wrong doings over the last 15 years.

As you see Wullie there is a much deeper investigation to be carried out. When I first read this story I was initially shocked at the allegation against a Senior Strathclyde Detective, but the more I ponder I wonder how much of that was a smoke screen to cover up serious issues within the SPSA.

The findings need to be published if there is to be any openness and credibility within the SPSA.