In a statement on Friday the Lord Advocate, the senior legal figure responsible for all criminal prosecutions in Scotland, seriously undermined the science of fingerprinting by stating that identification was 'a matter of opinion'. This is widely seen as an attempt to cover-up the two fingerprint errors by 6 SCRO experts.
Today massive media coverage condemns the Scottish Executive, calls for resignations and a judicial enquiry.
In addition serious questions are raised in respect of the Lockerbie enquiry and if it was the motive for the oppressive actions against Shirley McKie over 9 years.
For full media coverage and comment see:
http://www.shirleymckie.com/ (Breaking News 19 February)
A Matter of Serious Concern
-
Iain McKie
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:23 am
- Location: Ayr, Scotland
- Contact:
A Matter of Serious Concern
As always my thanks to all experts who have supported Shirley over the years.
-
Les Bush
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:29 am
- Location: Australia
Matter of opinion versus professional conclusion
Hello Iain,
We've covered this issue last year or maybe the year before. This diversion into matters of opinion is a legal trick used by the desperate to avoid the real issue of an error in a professional conclusion. The rules of evidence require the presentation of fingerprint findings as opinions based on the exclusionary rule relating to hearsay. Our professional conclusions are made with the belief that we provide a connection between the crime mark and the source. We attend court on the basis of defending that belief. To allow Scottish politicians to define what it is we do represents another problem for the fingerprint experts in Scotland.
Regards. Les
We've covered this issue last year or maybe the year before. This diversion into matters of opinion is a legal trick used by the desperate to avoid the real issue of an error in a professional conclusion. The rules of evidence require the presentation of fingerprint findings as opinions based on the exclusionary rule relating to hearsay. Our professional conclusions are made with the belief that we provide a connection between the crime mark and the source. We attend court on the basis of defending that belief. To allow Scottish politicians to define what it is we do represents another problem for the fingerprint experts in Scotland.
Regards. Les
-
Iain McKie
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:23 am
- Location: Ayr, Scotland
- Contact:
Matter of opinion
Thanks for that Les. I totally agree that the politicians in seeking to prevent any responsibility for this mess landing at their feet have fallen back on the discredited 'opinion' line. The problem is that this allows the SCRO experts to escape the consequences of their actions over the past 9 years.
The Lord Advocate and Minister for Justice are expected to make emergency statements tomorrow, Wednesday, in Parliament and I will keep www.shirleymckie.com updated on this.
Be assured that the experts will have to face the consequences of their actions. I believe this is important because the vast majority of Scottish experts are honest people doing a great job under very difficult circumstances and the failings of the few at SCRO should not be allowed to obscure this truth.
The Lord Advocate and Minister for Justice are expected to make emergency statements tomorrow, Wednesday, in Parliament and I will keep www.shirleymckie.com updated on this.
Be assured that the experts will have to face the consequences of their actions. I believe this is important because the vast majority of Scottish experts are honest people doing a great job under very difficult circumstances and the failings of the few at SCRO should not be allowed to obscure this truth.
As always my thanks to all experts who have supported Shirley over the years.
-
redlion62
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:01 pm
matter of opinion
The matter of opinion line coming from SCRO is, as any fingerprint expert knows, an excuse for incompetence, or something far worse. It`s as straightforward as this...one answer is right and one is totally wrong. What could be more simple. For any expert to be able to accept that two opinions can be different but that this is acceptable should be banished from the profession.
-
Andrew Schriever
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:16 pm
- Location: Las Vegas
redlion,
You may want to include the modifier that two different opinions regarding identification or exclusion of a particular print are not acceptable.
It is acceptable for two examiners to have differing opinions regarding some aspects of latent print work. For example, if a particular print is of sufficient quality for identification.
You may want to include the modifier that two different opinions regarding identification or exclusion of a particular print are not acceptable.
It is acceptable for two examiners to have differing opinions regarding some aspects of latent print work. For example, if a particular print is of sufficient quality for identification.