CLPEX Chat Board

I just read on the BBC news site that there will be a Parliamentary Iquiry into the McKie case, which may include testimony from Shirley as well as the SCRO analysts who botched the case. I don't really understand UK politics, but this sounds like a good thing, right?

Hi Sharon. Yes, it is good, but not as good as a judicial inquiry would be. In the judicial inquiry, witnesses can be subpoenaed and questioned under oath. I'm not sure the parliamentary inquiry can go that far. But it's a start.

I have been corrected by a friend in Scotland. The parliamentary inquiry does have power to compel a witness to appear and testify and testimony is given under oath. The difference, as best I can determine, is that a "judicial inquiry" would be similar to what a "special prosecutor" would do, as in a few recent presidencies here in the US. A "parliamentary inquiry" is more like a senate hearing. In other words, a judicial inquiry would really dig to get to the bottom of things, but a parliamentary inquiry may have undercurrents of political motives in the way questions are asked -- or not asked. So, as I said in the last post, a parliamentary inquiry is a start. But I'm still not sure that it would go as far as a judicial inquiry.

The remit and witness list for the Parliamentary Enquiry is being drawn up but because of time and resource limits it is unlikely to be able to make the necessary full enquiry into all aspects of the case over the past 9 years. The Scottish Executive by still refusing to publish important documents and reports is hampering the work of the enquiry. Another strong reason for a full public hearing.

While we are co-operating fully with Parliament I and my family remain committed to a full Judicial Enquiry as is clear from today's media coverage:

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/op ... =468912006

Today's other media coverage is shown at:

http://www.shirleymckie.com (Breaking News 26.3.06)

Well done Mckie family the best of forensic science and the legal system Angry that she has to give evidence when her part as a victim is in trial record As outsider say walk away from the spin The ruling group from 1999 is a strong coalition of Labour and LibDem Labour dominant partner who brushed off legal profession and public demanding independent legal scrutiny of SCRO and started political investigation on THEIR terms Transcripts of the first 2 committee meetings Scottish Parliament Homepage left menu Committees bottom Justice 1 left menu Official Report 12th or 14th meeting Want Report up comes page with link under word 12th or 14th Entirely different podcast of Simon Mayo show from BBC Radio5 from Scotland Yard named The Daily Mayo BBC or iTunes from 2 weeks ago on Tues with 300 315pm segment by Head of Forensics saying within 10 yrs minutes to match prints and DNA at crime scene when everyone prints on National Identity Register NIR would use everyone DNA law as well if passes parliament in future to add to NIR

Well said...

Can I remind everyone in the UK(and anyone else outwith these shores who can view UK BBC1) to tune into BBC1 at 22.15(UK) on 14.5.06.
`Panorama` is featuring the Marion Ross murder investigation and the subsequent misidentifications by SCRO of the `Marion Ross` and `Shirley McKie` fingerprints.

BBC Panorama 'Fingerprints in the dock' has been re-scheduled for 22.15 hours on Sunday 21 May:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/programmes/panorama/default.stm

Iain and Shirley give evidence before the Parliamentary Enquiry at 14.00 hours on Tuesday 23 May:

http://www.holyrood.tv/committee.asp

The witness list was first discussed at the 14th Justice 1 committee meeting on 4 May Two visitors attended Ken Macintosh Lab and Des McNulty Lab asking the Convenor Lab and committee for certain witnesses For anyone outside Scotland both men and UNISON a staff union are prominent supporters of the 4 experts from the local office of SCRO in question The sheer number of their suggested witnesses should stack up enough evidence to conflict with the McKie family and muddy the waters for the public It seems the original 1999 jury decision is to be on trial in the court of public opinion
On the other hand hope the McKie family listened to news today from London when Tony Wright explained postponing evidence in public to his powerful committee because legal advice was that witnesses would escape future prosecution which if true in Scotland would make it a positive advantage to give evidence in public to a parliamentary inquiry rather than judicial review if under potential threat of prosecution