CLPEX Chat Board

Some very interesting documents fell into my hands just the other day which shed some light onto why Miss McKie would lie about her fingerprint (a question often raised by fingerprint experts and non fingerprint experts alike) which was said to be left on a door frame of the murdered Marion Ross. It is said that Miss McKie was told by her superiors that she was under no circumstances to enter the crime scene of the deceased Marion Ross...why? She was known to have a morbid fascination for gruesome crime scenes. Hmm...sounds like a motive to deny that was her fingerprint on the door frame to me. Note to self...send copies of Evil Dead, Halloween and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre to Shirley for Christmas presents.

NOW...Miss McKie hires an independent fingerprint expert, Peter Swann to examine the fingerprint evidence on the door frame. Mr Swann is a Fingerprint Expert with credentials as long as your arm... duties entailed the checking of Fingerprint Identifications and attendance at major Crime Scenes, to include Murders. In 1969,was promoted to the rank of Detective Inspector and appointed Deputy Head of the Fingerprint Department. In l970, he was seconded to work in Malta and thereupon undertook examination and the preparation of Expert Fingerprint Evidence in a major Case, at the request of the Maltese Government. In l971 Mr Swann was promoted to the rank of Detective Chief Inspector and appointed Head of the Fingerprint Department, West Riding Constabulary. In 1974, he attended at the Crime Scene of the first of the thirteen Murders committed by Peter William Sutcliffe (the "Yorkshire Ripper" Cases). Phew! A highly respected expert without a doubt. You get my vote Peter as Uber Expert Extraordinaire.

Peter Swann found the impression on the door frame to be identical to our Shirley's left thumb print which is in agreement with the experts at SCRO's findings. Not too happy with that result were you love? What did she do next you ask...Miss McKie went to the internet (that's where I would go if I was looking for a credible fingerprint expert...not) to find the expert (snort) she used at her perjury trial...Mr Pat Wertheim.

Mr Wertheim, an American, wowed the jury (a hand picked bunch of prime time telly and American court room drama fans) who were totally impressed with his credentials...wait for it...I have to tease you just a little bit here...40 years fingerprint service which entailed fingerprint examination of scene of crime marks, everyday checking of the work of others, annual competency testing and most importantly his work was peer reviewed you ask? No! When Mr Wertheim took to the witness stand he stated to the court that he had a...GOD GIVEN TALENT! Well done Pat. Good on you mate. Everyone else has to slog through years of intense training and sit exams til the cows come home...but you Pat, have a Gift from God! Fantastic. Good for you Pat that you got away with that one and those poor sods in the jury bought it!

I would bet my inheritance that those poor simple folk that made up that Jury would have found you GUILTY Miss McKie if Peter Swann was allowed to take to the stand in place of Mr Wertheim. A NOT GUILTY VERDICT DOES NOT MAKE YOU 'NOT GUILTY' DOES IT SHIRL?

Lucky for you...

Sorry...I digress...back to Miss McKie's left thumb print...our Shirley it seems was asked in the witness stand if she knew of any others that had looked at the fingerprint impression from the door frame and she said...that she didn't. Hells bells Shirley. What's up with you? Can't remember entering the crime scene? Forgotten that you hired an independant fingerprint expert (one with actual credentials) prior to finding internet 'expert' with Gift from God? Either, you perjured yourself at your perjury trial or you have a severe case of amnesia, doll.

Has anyone out there actually seen the genuine original mark ups belonging to McKie, Asbury and poor Marion Ross? Yes? No? Well we know you haven't Pat. Nor you Mr Bayle! The UK's leading fingerprint expert! How you don't get laughed out of court I'll never know! I watched your interview on Newsnight Scotland and I laughed and laughed...not only did I laugh but I believe the rest of the UK laughed too (there's bootleg copies of the interview passing hands as we speak). How did you fail to identify the Marion Ross print, that's what I want to know! And as for you, Pat, I suggest you try training as a fingerprint officer like the rest of us as you too failed to identify Marion Ross's print.

There is a murderer namely David Asbury who has been released back into society. You got it wrong there too folks. His prints, his crime. Shame on you people for allowing him to be released.

Finally Shirley McKie...let's not make it appear that I'm not concerned about you poor Shirley...my thoughts were with you when I was eating a packet of Jaffa Cakes just the other day...there is a number on the Jaffa Cake box you should contact...it's for Jaffa Cakes Anonymous...I don't have the number on me any more but you should check it out...might not help with that memory problem you seem to have but you may find that you are not alone in the dark and seedy world of Jaffa Cake addicts. Don't worry Shirley, there's no shame in having an addiction or a bad memory. It happens to the best of us.

Here's hoping readers that you are now more informed. Here's also hoping that SCRO find more people like me who are willing to listen to their side and no...I'm not Fiona McBride and I too like the Flying Monkey would take it as a compliment if you thought that I was.

TTFN.

The Delightful Miss Fabulous

I didn't realize that this was the place to malign people we dislike. How old are you that you need to post this here? If you don't have anything interesting or important to discuss about FINGERPRINTS, then please GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Monkey like Jaffa cakes....yum!



The Delightful Flying Monkey

Sorry sir but you killed it in the first lines of your message. It isn`t Shirley McKie`s print!! Get that bit wrong and you lose any credibility! Aren`t there any fingerprint experts you know who can give you some advice?

Mr Asbury, allegedly loves his Jaffa Cakes too. I'm sure I read somewhere that he declared 'I love 'em so much I just can't keep my fingers off the tin', old habits die hard eh?

Let it be known that from this day forth he shall be known as 'The Tin Man'.


Flying Monkey

Miss Flying Monkey...Tin Man! How fabulous! Just like me! Much better name than the one I came up with...Mr Guilty Sticky Fingers. Jaffaholics Anon...the number's on the tin...

Wow,

I dont think that I've ever read a post more childish from a person that probably calls themselves a professional when not hiding behind the veil of anonymity.

Mr Schriever...it would not be worth it to not be anonymous...anybody that has tried to tell the truth about this matter has been sued by the McKies or rubbished by people that call THEMSELVES professional. You haven't seen the orginal evidence have you? How can you or any other 'professionals' make judgement on a mark that Mr Wertheim lifted MONTHS after the crime? Yet that is what you have all done. I find this completely astonishing. Can you imagine the contamination on the mark and the door frame over that period of time? And this evidence was produced in court...I can't think of anything more unprofessional and more wrong.

SCRO have had to endure years of verbal abuse not only in newspaper articles but on posts from 'experts'/professionals' like yourself. Some of these posts I felt belonged in a school playground...and just like school bullies you all attacked them when they weren't in a position to defend themselves. Up until now, they have been silenced under sub judice. Now, they are fighting back and the truth is getting out there.

There are people in the world and I'm one of them that did not jump on the Wertheim bandwagon. I did not make an opinion on his tainted 'evidence' and I'm very glad I didn't. I have seen enough to know that Pat Wertheim and all of you 'professionals' have made a huge mistake. Don't worry...it was an 'honest one'. There is room for forgiveness here as you like many others have only been exposed to one side of the story.

Please take time to find out about the other side...

Is this post grown up enough for you Mr Schriever?

The Very Professional and Very Delightful Miss Fabulous. Wow!

...p.s Mr Wertheim...yours was a dis 'honest mistake'.

The Delightful Miss Fabulous

You haven't seen the orginal evidence have you? How can you or any other 'professionals' make judgement on a mark that Mr Wertheim lifted MONTHS after the crime? Yet that is what you have all done.

Show me where I actually made any statement as to the validity or non-validity of the ID. Jumping to conclusions aren't you?

My point was that your post amounted to childish name calling.

SCRO have had to endure years of verbal abuse not only in newspaper articles but on posts from 'experts'/professionals' like yourself.

Again, show me a post where I verbally abused the SCRO! And, lest we forget the old addage about people who live in glass houses, Shirley has suffered more than her share of "verbal abuse" as well.

If this "untainted" evidence, that will show the world that SCRO was right, exists why has it not been brought forward into the public light so that the SCRO examiners can be vindicated?

I do not wish to get into any playground message board chat...I shall however, answer your very valid question -

"If this "untainted" evidence, that will show the world that SCRO was right, exists why has it not been brought forward into the public light so that the SCRO examiners can be vindicated?"

The four experts from SCRO have waited many years to have their day in court. Peter Swann who was instructed by the McKies to examine the mark from the door frame as an independent expert has also waited many years to have his day in court as it really should have been he who gave evidence at the perjury trial the first time round. Peter Swann's identification of Shirley McKie has been independently verified by two fingerprint experts who have in excess of eighty years fingerprint
experience between them.

These people were accused of conspiracy and suspended from duty for 20 months while a criminal enquiry was carried out. These people, were accused of criminality yet it was Miss McKie that perjured herself (a criminal act) at her perjury trial. It is in the court transcripts that Miss McKie lied under oath. FACT.

The four experts from the original trial plus others were denied their chance to be vindicated and have their evidence brought forward into the public light as Miss McKie in February of this year was given a settlement out of court on day one of the trial.

Do you not find it interesting that the experts from SCRO are the ones that wanted this case to go to court? Miss McKie and her people are the only ones that didn't. Why is that?

I sincerely hope I have enlightened you on this fine day Mr Schriever.

The Delightful Miss Fabulous

"If this "untainted" evidence, that will show the world that SCRO was right, exists why has it not been brought forward into the public light so that the SCRO examiners can be vindicated?"

The four experts from the original trial plus others were denied their chance to be vindicated and have their evidence brought forward into the public light as Miss McKie in February of this year was given a settlement out of court on day one of the trial.

Finally! Now we are getting to the meat.

Ms DMF, OK so here is my question, and I am asking this because I am ignorant of Scottish Law and SCRO policy. If they are not going to have their day in court, which if what you say is true that they do WANT it, then yes, that MUST be frustrating, here are my questions...

1) Can the SCRO (not the 4 examiners per se, but management, admin, etc. those I assume who are supporting the four) make public the images?

2) Can't "they" make public the images of the ORIGINAL "untainted" evidence and show the watching world, how different the "tainted" and "untainted" evidence is? If they are drastically different, do you not think that some experts might retract their opinions b/c most of us, have seen Pat Wertheims high quality evidence, (which you claim is "tainted" Just to clarify, some of us have viewed original photos that Pat made of the evidence that he personally examined while in Scotland. The counter claim is that the evidence was drastically deterioriated by that point...though no one has stated why the "tin", which was CAE fumed, would have deterioriated....).

I am not saying you are incorrect in this, I am saying why won't SCRO NOW show the world why we have been using "bad/tainted" evidence. This seems to be a very POSSIBLE thing to do, unless there is law or policy I am not aware of?

3) Wouldn't the 4 examiners (and then some) still have a few a high quality original photographs somewhere in the archives of the SCRO. Even if policy dictates they can't, couldn't they or somebody "leak" images of the "untainted" original evidence? This doesn't seem unreasonable, as that ship has more leaks than a New York East Side Apt.

AGAIN, isn't it in the BEST INTEREST of the SCRO to show us why we should support 2 valid identifications (and put a killer back in jail) in this matter by showing us the "tainted faulty" evidence.

To reiterate, I am entertaining the possibility what you speak is true. I would like to see some physical evidence to contradict the actual phyical evidence Pat Wertheim has presented before I would change my opinion. I think that is a fair and reasonable request.

If you say that their hands are tied, they have no photos, the courts have the evidence and the public will NEVER see the untainted original evidence, all I have to wonder is "Why?" If it's there, why not show us the truth?

It's a bit like 2 poker players. One shows his cards to be 4 kings. The other says "no. you lost. I have 4 aces, but I am not going (or can't) show them, but that "pot" is mine. You're robbing me of my rightful winnings because I have the better hand. I just can't show it to you." See, how there is a disconnect there for me?

Again, I am asking as a professional, why this is so? And if it is so, then who do we have to convince to show the 4 aces. I will GLADLY pen a letter, signed I am sure by many, asking for the better untainted evidence that will vindicate the four examiners.

Thank-you for your consideration.

g.

'G' you ask the question why do SCRO not show the original evidence!
The answer is simple, they do not have it, it was submitted as evidence and is now held by the Scottish Executive.

They wanted to show the world their version of events, finally, but surprisingly both the Scottish Executive AND the McKie's ensured that this was not to be. WHY? that is for you to answer.

One question for you G, does it not surprise you that the Experts who are supposed to be so guilty have joined in the call to the Scottish Executive to have an Inquiry?

SCRO's expert's hands have been tied for nine years due to the ongoing trials. Even now they cannot defend themselves as the Scottish Executive hold the evidence they need to prove their case.

The answer is simple, they do not have it, it was submitted as evidence and is now held by the Scottish Executive.

Thank-you, IP. Then who do I, and perhaps others, need to write in the Scottish Executive to have the original evidence shown (preferrably side by side with Pat Wertheim's evidence) so all can see that the original evidence would show a correct identification? Can you provide a name and address? (I'm quite serious about this).

They wanted to show the world their version of events, finally, but surprisingly both the Scottish Executive AND the McKie's ensured that this was not to be. WHY? that is for you to answer.

Nope that is precisely the type of question I do not wish to, cannot, and will not answer as a neutral scientist in this matter.

One question for you G, does it not surprise you that the Experts who are supposed to be so guilty have joined in the call to the Scottish Executive to have an Inquiry?

No, actually not hard at all. "IF" we are to believe that these examiners believe in their heart of hearts this to be a valid ID, and the original "untainted" evidence of the door and the tin would clearly show this to be accurate to all the world...then just the opposite. I would personally be shouting from the mountain tops for the world to please examine the evidence and focus entirely only on that to make my case. I personally would do everything in my power, breaking rules and risking getting fired if need be to vindicate myself and prove to the world that Asbury should not go free. No, what is surprising is that they have remained silent for so long (if the identification is valid)

One last question for you, or others willing to answer. I find it surprising that no one in SCRO, nobody has original negatives or photographs of the evidence? In a vault? In a file? Someone, somewhere? I just find that very surprising. What about any of the private examiners brought in? Is the Scottish Executive truly the *only* ones with access to images of the "original untainted" evidence (referring to Ms DMF's characterization).

If this is what is maintained, so be it, all the more for contact and petition from the community to view the original evidence and both parties demonstrate their case...ident v. non-ident.

g.

My dearest G, I thank you for your question which was answered very well by Interested Party.

I shall investigate on your behalf and the fingerprint world's behalf if there is a possibility of the original evidence being produced for the world to see.

As for the marks on the tin...I was recently in a privileged position to examine these impressions myself and they do indeed belong to Marion Ross and David Asbury. I also studied the impression that was claimed to be a third misidentification in this case...that claim very wrongly resulted in the four experts being suspended. The donor of that impression was indeed again David Asbury. Worst thing of all...Mr Asbury has been released into society thanks to Mr Wertheim. The police made a statement to the effect that they were not looking for anyone else for the crime. There was more evidence to support his conviction than that of fingerprints, however such was the media circus and organised witch hunt of the McKie's and Wertheim that extreme pressure was put upon the Lord Advocate and the rest is history...does this make you sick to your stomach?

Let me also remind you that Miss McKie and Mr Asbury had both instructed their independent experts to examine the findings of the witnesses from SCRO and they did not find anything in disagreement with their own independent findings.

As I said before...if Peter Swann had taken to the stand, Miss McKie's outcome would have been a very different verdict of GUILTY. Mr Wertheim is a showman. That's where his talent (God Given) lies. He had
the jury eating out of his hands.

Mr Wertheim's gift is certainly not in fingerprint comparisons...Good God man! How could you not identify those marks?

Now people, you would think that the experts from SCRO would be shouting from the rooftops that their identifications are right? It's the oddest thing...I have seen copies of letters sent into the newpapers which have been edited omitting essential evidence...I have seen supporters of SCRO try to speak on television news programmes and are spoken over by the interviewer when any statement is made regarding the fact that Miss McKie perjured herself in court, for example or to mention Peter Swann at all. Miss Fiona McBride requested to be interviewed in a 'head to head' with Mr McKie for Newsnight Scotland but Mr McKie would only allow it to be a recorded interview. Miss McBride as you would expect said no to that one. Is he mad? Does he think Fiona McBride is mad? They know what you and your media circus witch hunters are capable of!

Fiona McBride finally agreed to an interview on her own, requesting it still to be shown live however they would not oblige and the interview was "cut to ribbons". The McKie Supporters, however (surprise surprise)had a live slot on Newnight Scotland everynight and these campaigners have at every opportunity accused SCRO of criminality, dishonesty, negligence...every type of malicious name calling and of course no one involved in the case was ever present during the 'interviews' to defend themselves.

What is going on here? Who is putting a stop to the SCRO experts presenting their evidence? Could it be that the media and certain Members of Parliament, have realised that a mistake HAS been made and NOT by SCRO? That they have all been involved in 9 years of support for McKie and are too embarrassed to admit their error in supporting the wrong people? Could it be that the Lord Advocate wants to hide HIS mistake in releasing a convicted killer? Was it an 'honest mistake' Colin Boyd? I think not.

Once again, I hope readers you are now more informed.

I am as always,

The Delightful Miss Fabulous