CLPEX Chat Board

The Scottish Ministers settled with Shirley McKie today at literally the very last minute in her civil case, scheduled to begin the hearing at 10:30 this morning in Edinburgh, Scotland. While admitting no liability and maintaining that the erroneous identification was an honest mistake, they settled for the full £750,000 for which she had originally sued. On hand to begin testimony were Pat Wertheim, Arie Zeelenberg, Allan Bayle, and a host of other experts. While the settlement may have prevented their testimony in court to a house packed with reporters, press conferences are being held in the next few days to apprise the public of the facts of the case. Check www.shirleymckie.com frequently, or go to www.google.com, click on the "news" tab, and enter "Shirley McKie" into the search box for the latest updates.

Hi Pat,

Long road travelled by dedicated companions and the result is fantastic for both the McKies and fingerprints. Well done to your team and the Scottish team. It is interesting to read the news report that the Scottish executive are using the expression 'an honest mistake'. This implies it was a single error but the truth is that it was multiple errors for a single print. The other erroneous identifications were similarly multiple errors for the other two latents. The integrity of the Scottish administration in allowing such a false impression to be publicly reported is highly questionable. Its not time for a wee dram to celebrate but we are very close. Regards from oz. Les

The Scottish Ministers did, indeed, admit that there had been an honest mistake. However, no such Admission was ever made on behalf of the SCRO Fingerprint Experts. Those Experts wanted to have all of the Fingerprint Evidence in the McKie and Asbury Cases Judicially Determined by the Trial Judge. However, the Scottish Ministers and Ms McKie settled, without any prior notification to the SCRO Experts. All of the SCRO Experts were ready for Trial. Why was there no Trial? The answer is that Ms McKie took the money. Nevertheless, Ms McKie and her father, Iain are again screaming for the SCRO Experts to face Criminal Prosecution. As for Peter Swann, Ms McKie's original Defence Fingerprint Expert, he had been served with Witness Citation and would have given Evidence in support of the SCRO Experts. The McKies had the right to a full High Court Trial, but instead walked away with a cheque, without even holding out for an Admission of Liability.

Shirley's stunning victory at the Court of Session in Edinburgh this week would not have occurred without the support of hundreds of experts world wide.

At times this support was the only thing that kept us going. Shirley and our family will never forget that it was the vast majority of honest and efficient experts who reached out to her and led to her complete vindication.

In the past days I have called for three things to happen:

1) A public enquiry into every aspect of the Scottish Executive and SCRO's handling of this issue.

2) A criminal investigation into the actions of certain SCRO experts taking account of the new evidence that Shirley's legal team have obtained.

3) The closure of the SCRO fingerprint bureau until the internal problems are resolved.

I would hope that critics like Mr Swann's solicitor David Russell will support these demands and be prepared to give evidence when called upon to do so.

A stunning victory? If you are referring to your Campaign, then maybe. If, however, you are referring to the High Court Case, then you have nothing to show for it, apart from a large cheque. The SCRO Experts wanted a Trial. Peter Swann wanted a Trial. The Scottish Public and the Fingerprint Community were entitled to nothing less than a definitive High Court Judgment. Either this was about Justice or money. To walk away with your pockets full of money is one thing, but to do so whilst demanding that the SCRO Fingerprint Experts be Criminally Prosecuted is rank hypocrisy.

Iain, to answer your challenge: the SCRO Experts, Peter Swann and all of the Fingerprint Experts who have conducted Peer Review of the Expert Evidence, will see you and your Daughter in any Court, any place, any time. As for Criminal Charges, bring them on. You will, however, recall why your allegations of a Criminal Conspiracy were thrown out 5 years ago. Shout as loud as you want, but the Evidence is not going to change.

1 to 1 Point of View

2 to 1 Opinion

400 to 4 Consensus

What is left to argue?

Whatever hope Russell has in the Evidence it wont hold anything for him if it relates to the identification of the latent mark. Bottom line is there is no identification to date but there could be as the latent does meet the requirement of sufficiency for both identification and elimination.