this may be a satisfactory outcome for the McKies' however, there are still unanswered questions, like
A. was Shirley present at the murder scene of Marion Ross to see her lover, a married police officer??
B. why has it not been mentioned, Shirley has twice previously pulled the same stunt????
C. why did Shirley try to legally gag Peter Swann from telling the true story??
Hmmmmm??
and still a murderer is at large!
mckie
-
Pat A. Wertheim
- Posts: 872
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:48 am
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Dear "Flying Monkey," filth-monger that you are, here are the answers to your questions:
A. This was a vicious rumor released by several Strathclyde Police officers following Shirley McKie's acquittal in 1999 in apparent retribution against a strong female who dared to stand up to a male dominated organization. A number of reporters in Scotland received this lie from "anonymous" sources but refused to participate in such an obvious retaliation at being shown up.
B. Your number is wrong. There was one previous case. Shirley McKie's palm print was found on a garbage bag which contained the body of a baby in a case she was investigating. Shirley maintained she had been wearing latex gloves. The Strathclyde Police never admitted the possibility that ridge detail could be left through a latex glove and continued to maintain that Shirley was lying. Interestingly, though, they changed their policy to require double gloving in the future.
C. Peter Swann, who, along with the SCRO still believes the identification to Shirley McKie was correct, was hired by Shirley as her first defense expert. As such he was under an ethical obligation not to discuss the case without her permission. Swann was not only guilty of letting down his client by failing to find the erroneous identification, he was guilty of a severe breach of ethics by going public without her permission and is guilty of gross stupidity in continuing his insistence the print is Shirley's.
Now, "Flying Monkey," take your anonymous lies and crawl back under the rock from which you came.
A. This was a vicious rumor released by several Strathclyde Police officers following Shirley McKie's acquittal in 1999 in apparent retribution against a strong female who dared to stand up to a male dominated organization. A number of reporters in Scotland received this lie from "anonymous" sources but refused to participate in such an obvious retaliation at being shown up.
B. Your number is wrong. There was one previous case. Shirley McKie's palm print was found on a garbage bag which contained the body of a baby in a case she was investigating. Shirley maintained she had been wearing latex gloves. The Strathclyde Police never admitted the possibility that ridge detail could be left through a latex glove and continued to maintain that Shirley was lying. Interestingly, though, they changed their policy to require double gloving in the future.
C. Peter Swann, who, along with the SCRO still believes the identification to Shirley McKie was correct, was hired by Shirley as her first defense expert. As such he was under an ethical obligation not to discuss the case without her permission. Swann was not only guilty of letting down his client by failing to find the erroneous identification, he was guilty of a severe breach of ethics by going public without her permission and is guilty of gross stupidity in continuing his insistence the print is Shirley's.
Now, "Flying Monkey," take your anonymous lies and crawl back under the rock from which you came.
-
flying monkey
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:51 am
Pat
I think when one posts a reply either online or by the pen one should always try to remain dignified, so i shall not respond to your gutter level of insults on my character or my abode, but just to assure you, i live in an extremely desirable 8 bedroomed house on 4acres of land, in your terms that would equate to an extremely large rock and as my front door is 8feet in height i manage to walk out of it as a bi-ped, again this may may seem odd to you as you're more familiar with the crawling variety as you seem to know something of their movements! Now "a filthmomger" i think not, i do know however as a compassionate human being and as a mother, i would like to believe the police are in position to lead by example and respect the laws of the land, what gross misconduct appears to have been shown when a murderer can walk free all because certain individuals employed by the people to act in protecting the said people can't do their job competently without dropping their pants at every opportunity, and with a married man, i think when you use the term filth monger, it's not me to whom you are referring, i am a respectable married family person and i will protect my family always, unless of course they were to break the law!!
I think when one posts a reply either online or by the pen one should always try to remain dignified, so i shall not respond to your gutter level of insults on my character or my abode, but just to assure you, i live in an extremely desirable 8 bedroomed house on 4acres of land, in your terms that would equate to an extremely large rock and as my front door is 8feet in height i manage to walk out of it as a bi-ped, again this may may seem odd to you as you're more familiar with the crawling variety as you seem to know something of their movements! Now "a filthmomger" i think not, i do know however as a compassionate human being and as a mother, i would like to believe the police are in position to lead by example and respect the laws of the land, what gross misconduct appears to have been shown when a murderer can walk free all because certain individuals employed by the people to act in protecting the said people can't do their job competently without dropping their pants at every opportunity, and with a married man, i think when you use the term filth monger, it's not me to whom you are referring, i am a respectable married family person and i will protect my family always, unless of course they were to break the law!!
-
flying monkey
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:51 am
Pat
I think when one posts a reply either online or by the pen one should always try to remain dignified, so i shall not respond to your gutter level of insults on my character or my abode, but just to assure you, i live in an extremely desirable 8 bedroomed house on 4acres of land, in your terms that would equate to an extremely large rock and as my front door is 8feet in height i manage to walk out of it as a bi-ped, again this may may seem odd to you as you're more familiar with the crawling variety as you seem to know something of their movements! Now "a filthmomger" i think not, i do know however as a compassionate human being and as a mother, i would like to believe the police are in position to lead by example and respect the laws of the land, what gross misconduct appears to have been shown when a murderer can walk free all because certain individuals employed by the people to act in protecting the said people can't do their job competently without dropping their pants at every opportunity, and with a married man, i think when you use the term filth monger, it's not me to whom you are referring, i am a respectable married family person and i will protect my family always, unless of course they were to break the law!!
I think when one posts a reply either online or by the pen one should always try to remain dignified, so i shall not respond to your gutter level of insults on my character or my abode, but just to assure you, i live in an extremely desirable 8 bedroomed house on 4acres of land, in your terms that would equate to an extremely large rock and as my front door is 8feet in height i manage to walk out of it as a bi-ped, again this may may seem odd to you as you're more familiar with the crawling variety as you seem to know something of their movements! Now "a filthmomger" i think not, i do know however as a compassionate human being and as a mother, i would like to believe the police are in position to lead by example and respect the laws of the land, what gross misconduct appears to have been shown when a murderer can walk free all because certain individuals employed by the people to act in protecting the said people can't do their job competently without dropping their pants at every opportunity, and with a married man, i think when you use the term filth monger, it's not me to whom you are referring, i am a respectable married family person and i will protect my family always, unless of course they were to break the law!!
-
Iain McKie
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:23 am
- Location: Ayr, Scotland
- Contact:
Dear Flying Monkey,
Normally I would not dignify such lies and abuse with a reply but as I suspect I know who you are I can well understand your desperation.
In the interests of openness and honesty why don’t you identify yourself.
Today sees continued coverage in the Scottish media and the hoped for public enquiry looks like becoming a reality.
I look forward to your evidence to that enquiry.
http://www.shirleymckie.com/ (Breaking News)
Normally I would not dignify such lies and abuse with a reply but as I suspect I know who you are I can well understand your desperation.
In the interests of openness and honesty why don’t you identify yourself.
Today sees continued coverage in the Scottish media and the hoped for public enquiry looks like becoming a reality.
I look forward to your evidence to that enquiry.
http://www.shirleymckie.com/ (Breaking News)
As always my thanks to all experts who have supported Shirley over the years.
-
flying monkey
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:51 am
Pat
I think when one posts a reply either online or by the pen one should always try to remain dignified, so i shall not respond to your gutter level of insults on my character or my abode, but just to assure you, i live in an extremely desirable 8 bedroomed house on 4acres of land, in your terms that would equate to an extremely large rock and as my front door is 8feet in height i manage to walk out of it as a bi-ped, again this may may seem odd to you as you're more familiar with the crawling variety as you seem to know something of their movements! Now "a filthmomger" i think not, i do know however as a compassionate human being and as a mother, i would like to believe the police are in position to lead by example and respect the laws of the land, what gross misconduct appears to have been shown when a murderer can walk free all because certain individuals employed by the people to act in protecting the said people can't do their job competently without dropping their pants at every opportunity, and with a married man, i think when you use the term filth monger, it's not me to whom you are referring, i am a respectable married family person and i will protect my family always, unless of course they were to break the law!!
I think when one posts a reply either online or by the pen one should always try to remain dignified, so i shall not respond to your gutter level of insults on my character or my abode, but just to assure you, i live in an extremely desirable 8 bedroomed house on 4acres of land, in your terms that would equate to an extremely large rock and as my front door is 8feet in height i manage to walk out of it as a bi-ped, again this may may seem odd to you as you're more familiar with the crawling variety as you seem to know something of their movements! Now "a filthmomger" i think not, i do know however as a compassionate human being and as a mother, i would like to believe the police are in position to lead by example and respect the laws of the land, what gross misconduct appears to have been shown when a murderer can walk free all because certain individuals employed by the people to act in protecting the said people can't do their job competently without dropping their pants at every opportunity, and with a married man, i think when you use the term filth monger, it's not me to whom you are referring, i am a respectable married family person and i will protect my family always, unless of course they were to break the law!!
-
g.
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:27 pm
- Location: St. Paul, MN
Wow...as the "Whorld" turns indeed...
Ms "Flying Monkey"
I normally like to limit myself to just the scientific issues that arise on this amazingly helpful resource, but you have raised a couple of very important questions and I would like to thank-you for calling our attention to them in this matter...
As you aptly noted:
1)
2)
Thanks for raising those two excellent issues...they sometimes are lost in the drama of this case.
g.
I normally like to limit myself to just the scientific issues that arise on this amazingly helpful resource, but you have raised a couple of very important questions and I would like to thank-you for calling our attention to them in this matter...
As you aptly noted:
1)
Yes indeed I could not agree more. There are many unanswered questions, and as a result the murderer of Marion Ross has yet to be apprehended and David Asbury went to jail on bad evidence. Even if one were to accept the things you have posted about Shirley, it does not explain why Asbury had to endure years in prison because of an erroneous identification. What sordid rumours can you share regarding Asbury to justify what occurred to him?this may be a satisfactory outcome for the McKies' however, there are still unanswered questions...and still a murderer is at large!
2)
Again an excellent point. I assume you are referring to the stark contrast between the FBI's handling of the Mayfield error vs. the SCRO's handling and openness regarding the McKie/Asbury marks?i would like to believe the police are in position to lead by example and respect the laws of the land
Thanks for raising those two excellent issues...they sometimes are lost in the drama of this case.
g.
-
Keith D
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:31 am
Sorry, had to comment.
Ms FM, this is a most remarkable display. I have rarely seen such a compact presentation of so many fallacies. Ad Hominem, Non Sequitur, gratuitous assertion... Your postings appear to be inspired by the cynical legal maxim: "If the facts are against you, argue law. If the law is against you, argue facts. If the facts and the law are against you, slander the witnesses and assassinate their character..."
None of your assertions negate the SCRO personnel's erroneous identifications, nor their obdurate insistence upon defending those erroneous identifications at all cost to those whom their erroneous identifications put in the dock. Watching from the distance, I had hoped against hope that at least one of them would come to his senses. Clearly, that hope was in vain.
Bottom line: The one trait a practitioner of forensic science must have above all others is integrity. The individuals you support here today have demonstrated that they simply don't have any. They have thereby demonstrated themselves unworthy of the trust and responsibility placed upon them, and thus unfit for the offices they hold.
Ms FM, this is a most remarkable display. I have rarely seen such a compact presentation of so many fallacies. Ad Hominem, Non Sequitur, gratuitous assertion... Your postings appear to be inspired by the cynical legal maxim: "If the facts are against you, argue law. If the law is against you, argue facts. If the facts and the law are against you, slander the witnesses and assassinate their character..."
None of your assertions negate the SCRO personnel's erroneous identifications, nor their obdurate insistence upon defending those erroneous identifications at all cost to those whom their erroneous identifications put in the dock. Watching from the distance, I had hoped against hope that at least one of them would come to his senses. Clearly, that hope was in vain.
Bottom line: The one trait a practitioner of forensic science must have above all others is integrity. The individuals you support here today have demonstrated that they simply don't have any. They have thereby demonstrated themselves unworthy of the trust and responsibility placed upon them, and thus unfit for the offices they hold.
-
David L. Grieve
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:30 am
- Location: Carbondale, IL
-
Charles Parker
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:15 am
- Location: Cedar Creek, TX
Dear Pat
About a year and half ago I kind of chided you on the conspiracy thing. I had always belived that the McKie error was just a human error that no one wanted to own up to. I could even take the conspiracy theory after the fact and everyone pulling together to protect their own. However I did not belive the conspiracy before the act.
However, I must apologize. After reading FM's diatribe up above (I had never read or seen any of that trash before), I must admit that the junk represented by FM certainly changes my view that you might be right (again).
Respectfully,
Charles Parker
About a year and half ago I kind of chided you on the conspiracy thing. I had always belived that the McKie error was just a human error that no one wanted to own up to. I could even take the conspiracy theory after the fact and everyone pulling together to protect their own. However I did not belive the conspiracy before the act.
However, I must apologize. After reading FM's diatribe up above (I had never read or seen any of that trash before), I must admit that the junk represented by FM certainly changes my view that you might be right (again).
Respectfully,
Charles Parker
Knuckle Draggin Country Cousin
Cedar Creek, TX
Cedar Creek, TX
-
flying monkey
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:51 am
Pat,
I notice you've resorted to the name calling again, you should show a bit more respect. I've never met Mr Swann but certainly don't think he's stupid.
To Dogma,
I am not Fiona McBride. I'll take that as a compliment though.
To Ian McKie,
I too hope there is a public enquiry. One at which everyone, including the SCRO experts get to say their piece as that is long overdue. After that you may learn the true identity of The Flying Monkey. Until then keep guessing.
The Flying Monkey
Actually, many individuals were aware of this 'rumour' long before SM's acquittal in 1999.A. This was a vicious rumor released by several Strathclyde Police officers following Shirley McKie's acquittal in 1999
Then there's one other previous case you are unaware of. I wont go into detail here.B. Your number is wrong. There was one previous case. Shirley McKie's palm print was found on a garbage bag........
Mr Swann stood up for what he believed to be true. There are two sides to every story and too many individuals who tried to tell it as they saw it were threatened with legal action or gagged by the courts. That is not in the public's or anyone elses interest.C. Peter Swann, who, along with the SCRO still believes the identification to Shirley McKie was correct, was hired by Shirley as her first defense expert. As such he was under an ethical obligation not to discuss the case without her permission. Swann was not only guilty of letting down his client by failing to find the erroneous identification, he was guilty of a severe breach of ethics by going public without her permission and is guilty of gross stupidity in continuing his insistence the print is Shirley's.
I notice you've resorted to the name calling again, you should show a bit more respect. I've never met Mr Swann but certainly don't think he's stupid.
To Dogma,
I am not Fiona McBride. I'll take that as a compliment though.
To Ian McKie,
I too hope there is a public enquiry. One at which everyone, including the SCRO experts get to say their piece as that is long overdue. After that you may learn the true identity of The Flying Monkey. Until then keep guessing.
The Flying Monkey
-
Les Bush
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:29 am
- Location: Australia
to the phantom
The abuse of psychology by a learned and supposedly resourceful person is a mark of cain. You are wrong in this instance if you truly believe that there are two valid sides to the story about an erroneous fingerprint identification. Your reliance on the ability of Peter Swann shows that you know very little about the central issue of this debate. This site is about the science of fingerprints and not about your personal agenda and apparent vendetta. As you should be aware with all things electronic there is very little protection from the identity of your server and ISP and this webmaster could be looking directly at you. Although what you are doing is legal it is however mischievous and damaging and portrays your character in a bad light. If that is your persona then I'm sorry life has brought you this burden but please try and be happy for Shirley as she has truly earned her release from the pain of a conspiracy that is finally being exposed.
-
flying monkey
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:51 am
They've already managed to con the Scottish taxpayer out of £750,000 so, why do the Mckie's still yap on about a public enquiry. If that's what they want then why accept the money?
The reality is they know that there will never be an enquiry and the more they shout about it the more credible it makes their story look.
Thieves.
Flying Monkey
The reality is they know that there will never be an enquiry and the more they shout about it the more credible it makes their story look.
Thieves.
Flying Monkey
-
Dogma
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:02 am
To FM:
Accepting a monetary settlement as compensation for a loss, in no way diminishes the fight for the principle(s) which spawned the case. Considering the 9 years of emotional duress and the “mugging” endured by the McKie’s, received at the hands of SCRO and the Scottish legal apparatus, I would say that the taxpayers of Scotland got off cheap. Just what price would you assign for your own financial, emotional and professional losses had you been in Ms. McKie’s shoes?
Your constant allusions to the rumor that Ms. McKie may have been at the crime scene, for reasons other than her official duties, still does not address the fact that her fingerprint was misidentified. Wait! AN EPITHANY! Ms. McKie went to the crime scene. Some official at the scene or who later reviewed the case felt that Ms. McKie should not have been there, for whatever reason. That official decided to teach her a lesson and either on his own or in concert with others, fabricated the false fingerprint identification to teach Ms. McKie a lesson, get her fired and out of their hair for good. Worked for awhile, didn’t it?
By the way, in popular culture, flying monkeys were the slaves and henchmen of a wicked witch. Does that bring us any closer to your “true” identity?
Accepting a monetary settlement as compensation for a loss, in no way diminishes the fight for the principle(s) which spawned the case. Considering the 9 years of emotional duress and the “mugging” endured by the McKie’s, received at the hands of SCRO and the Scottish legal apparatus, I would say that the taxpayers of Scotland got off cheap. Just what price would you assign for your own financial, emotional and professional losses had you been in Ms. McKie’s shoes?
Your constant allusions to the rumor that Ms. McKie may have been at the crime scene, for reasons other than her official duties, still does not address the fact that her fingerprint was misidentified. Wait! AN EPITHANY! Ms. McKie went to the crime scene. Some official at the scene or who later reviewed the case felt that Ms. McKie should not have been there, for whatever reason. That official decided to teach her a lesson and either on his own or in concert with others, fabricated the false fingerprint identification to teach Ms. McKie a lesson, get her fired and out of their hair for good. Worked for awhile, didn’t it?
By the way, in popular culture, flying monkeys were the slaves and henchmen of a wicked witch. Does that bring us any closer to your “true” identity?