CLPEX Chat Board

Today many Scottish newspapers are reporting what many people have known about for years. (Links will be posted later).

Shirley, don't spend it all on sweeties, you may still have to pay back the money you and your daddy conned out of the Scottish taxpayers.

The clock is ticking.


flying monkey

sharon cook



Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 5
Location: Austin, Texas
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:50 pm Post subject: Parliamentary Inquiry in McKie case

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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...I don't really understand UK politics, but this sounds like a good thing, right?
_________________
Take responsibility for your own actions


For once Miss Cook...you are right. How fabulous! Read on...

Daily Record NEWS
18 May 2006
MCKIE 'WAS IN MURDER HOUSE'
MSPs hear cop claim
By Lachlan Mackinnon
FINGERPRINT case policewoman Shirley McKie was allowed into a murder scene because a cop "fancied her", MSPs were told yesterday.

The claim was made in new evidence presented to a Holyrood committee investigating the case.

McKie was awarded £750,000 compensation in an out-of-court settlement after experts wrongly identified her prints at the home of murder victim Marion Ross in 1997.

She has always denied entering the scene.

But an investigator yesterday claimed to have evidence that McKie did enter Mrs Ross's Kilmarnock home.

Les Brown, are tired Strathclyde detective chief inspector, said he had been told an officer guarding the murder scene let her in.


Advertisement

In written evidence, he said: "This officer had stated that he might be in trouble because he had allowed Shirley McKie into the murder house, but, at her request, had not 'logged her in'.


"When asked why, he replied, 'Because I fancied her'."


Brown investigated the case on behalf of four Scottish fingerprint experts who originally identified McKie's prints on a door.


Other documents showed the experts still believe they were right - although ministers believe they made an "honest mistake".


One of the four, Anthony McKenna, said: "My first concern is the stance by the committee that a mistake or mistakes have been made.


"My colleagues and I do not believe this to be the case."


The claims were dismissed in written evidence from McKie's father, Ian McKie.


He said the only way to restore confidence in the fingerprint service was for experts from the Scottish Criminal Records Office to admit mistakes were made.


The Justice 1 committee will continue to investigate the case for several months.


McKie is no longer a policewoman.

TTFN

The Delightful Miss Fabulous x

p.s. All good things come to those who wait...

A selection of links to today's news.
Many other newspapers and publications carried the story as did news websites.

'MCKIE 'WAS IN MURDER HOUSE'
[url]http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_ob ... _page.html[/url]

'MSPs told of claim officer let McKie into crime scene.'
[url]http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=737322006[/url]

'McKie fingerprint four defend stance on identification.'
[url]http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/62188.html[/url]


flying monkey

Having read Mr Mckie's response to this latest news, it would appear that as well as libel, slander, etc there is new ground for actioning legal process and complaint: 'Disagreeing with my version of events.'

Catweasel McKie is backed into a corner on this one and has nothing to offer in reply.

I hear Shirl wanted to take part in Big Brother but the guy on the door didn't fancy her so she didn't bother.

flying monkey

This is the most egregious hearsay I have ever heard! They actually allowed someone to testify to that? I would laugh if it weren't so disgraceful.

Laugh Miss Cook and the world laughs...at you! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...ahhhh, you really are not delightful!

It has been known Miss Cook...this may come as a surprise to you...but some people do actually do testify to the truth!

As always,

The Delightful Miss Fabulous

What evidence?
According to the media accounts, it appears that written statements, including allegations involving hearsay at least twice removed from un-named (& possibly unknown) sources, have been submitted to the Holyrood Justice 1 committee. At this point, it would seem that the allegations barely qualify as rumor.

Since these statements have been put in writing, presumably the authors will be held accountable, and required to produce actual evidence in support of their claims. If they are able to, so be it. Failure to do so however, would likely not only show these allegations to be devoid of credibility, but expose the authors and their ilk as rumor mongers intent only on dragging the McKies through the mud.

Those predisposed to a skeptical mind might even consider it a vain attempt to muddy the waters, distracting from the central issue of what most experts consider to be at least two wrongly identified latent fingerprints.

To paraphrase an unknown (or at least unrembered) source of my own, "When the facts are against you, argue the law; when the law is against you, argue the facts; when both the facts and the law are against you, [choose one or more of the following, or make up your own:]

• pound on the table
  yell like hell
  call the other side names
  create a diversion
  plant a vicious rumor
  bring out the smoke and mirrors

."

[url]http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/busin ... -05-00.htm[/url]

Go read.


flying monkey

"Those predisposed to a skeptical mind might even consider it a vain attempt to muddy the waters, distracting from the central issue of what most experts consider to be at least two wrongly identified latent fingerprints."

A very sweeping statement Mr Tavernaro...just like the sweeping bushstrokes across the Mr Wertheim's charts! Ooh how lovely! What a coincidence!

Mr Tavernaro, on what grounds do you base your findings? Unless you or any of the experts you speak of have compared from the original evidence, then you are in no position to voice an opinion on this case. Mr Wertheim's charts do not carry much of a resemblance to the mark ups produced by SCRO...you Mr Tavernaro, Miss Cook and others like you should bear this in mind.

It was very unfortunate that Peter Swann was dismissed by the McKies before the original Perjury Trial and even more unfortunate that Miss McKie was awarded such a large sum of tax payers money on the first day of the hearing, Feb 2006 preventing Peter Swann (again) and Experts from SCRO from giving their evidence. Now, at long last the Justice 1 Committee are investigating this case properly as it should have been done all these years...

For your information, Shelley Jofre denied Peter Swann's request of 2 half minutes of airtime on BBC's Panorama to show his presentation of Miss McKie's mark...Miss Jofre, a good friend of the McKie's, has used the BBC to produce a series of documentaries to attack SCRO. The viewing public again have been denied knowledge Mr Swann's involvement in the case...

This is what SCRO have been up against for nine years. Again, Miss Cook, Mr Tavanero, allow the Justice 1 Committee do their job and listen to all the evidence as it unfolds...up until now you and again, others like you have only heard one side of the story.

I have to go now! My mother has brought me some tea! Ooh! And Jaffa Cakes! How lovely!

TTFN

The Delightful Miss Fabulous!

I have been watching the northern hemisphere argue about this interesting case for some time. I have been on the edge of my seat waiting for the promised truth to come out.

What I have read is, I assume, not the "truth" that was promised. It comes to a guy saying that someone told him that someone told him about something. Is this the so called evidence we have all been promised? Did any of this come up in McKie's trial? Is the author of it going to give evidence? Why did he not go to the press about it before now?


I also see on the parliament web page that another SCRO employee is slated by a contributor. He says:;

[i[quote]]At some point after I joined .... another officer a Henry Bell,( called Harry Bell) joined the squad. This officer held the rank of Detective Inspector. I soon came to dislike Harry Bell and his policing methods. He was an officer prepared to bend the rules to get results and I found working with him intolerable[/i][/quote]

This is also complete trash. Do Flying Monkey and DMF accept this as being truth as well?

What does all this have to do with the ident/misident of the mark anyway?


There is a very important issue here. It is a pity that the debate has reached a personal attack on individuals - whether Harry Bell or either of the Mckies. It is like watching a playground fight. Lets get back to the real issues and have a grown up debate and quit the name calling.

[/quote] "Those predisposed to a skeptical mind might even consider it a vain attempt to muddy the waters, distracting from the central issue of what most experts consider to be at least two wrongly identified latent fingerprints.

To paraphrase an unknown (or at least unrembered) source of my own, "When the facts are against you, argue the law; when the law is against you, argue the facts; when both the facts and the law are against you, [choose one or more of the following, or make up your own:]

• pound on the table
  yell like hell
  call the other side names
  create a diversion
  plant a vicious rumor
  bring out the smoke and mirrors

."[/quote]

Yes, it reminds me of the O.J. Simpson trial. Oh dear me, let's not look at the FACTS. The facts are too clear. Let's sling as much mud as it takes to muddy up the case and maybe those less intelligent will be distracted by it.

Incidentally, I only take being called a liar on the witness stand by the defense attorney. I don't appreciate the insinuation by someone who doesn't even have the courage to sign her name.

And what ABOUT that second mis-identification, anyway? No one ever mentions the mis-identification of Marian Ross' fingerprint, do they? (The classic case of "two wrongs don't make a right.")

Mr Bondi, I agree that this forum, the newspapers and news documentaries have been used to personally attack SCRO and yes, it's been very much like playground behaviour. SCRO were not in a position to defend themselves due to Sub Judice. McKie and his friends were nothing short of bullies. That's not name calling...that's what bullies do isn't it? Attack the defenseless? I and others, Miss Flying Monkey included I'm sure, could not stand back and allow this to carry on.

The Justic 1 Committee are still investigating...please allow other evidence to unfold...

" Is the author of it going to give evidence? Why did he not go to the press about it before now? "

That is a good question that I'm sure alot of people out there are asking...hopefully, with the Justice 1 Committee's involvement, we shall know soon enough. Shelley Jofre and others like her have made it their life's work to prevent evidence such as this being aired to the public.

Perhaps you should aim your grievances at people like Miss Jofre if you really want to know the "truth".

My personal campaign was to put over to the public that there is another side to this case...many opinions have been made, particularly on this forum based on charts that are very, very flawed.

I know Mr Wertheim's charts are flawed because I have seen the original mark ups. I am a fingerprint examiner of 20 plus years. These marks are NOT mis-identifications. They are identifications beyond all reasonable doubt...so can you imagine how horrified and disgusted beyond all belief I am that Miss McKie is now nearly a millionaire? It also makes me feel sick to my stomach that David Asbury has been released from imprisonment.

Thank you all for your time,

The Delightful (and very lovely) Miss Fabulous

DMF

Thanks for the illuminating response. Unfortunately I have not seen the TV prog you mention. Is it accessible by internet?

I agree fully that balanced journalism is the only good kind of journalism especially on a matter as important as this.

On a point of detail about McKie's trial (I think there were two trials, or at least two occasions she gave evidence?) was the State's evidence about fingerprints agreed by affidavit or something or did the authors of the report give evidence? I have never seen anyone explain that detail? Does anyone know?

I know that Mr.Wertheim gave evidence of course. Was that before or after the state's evidence about fingerprints?

I thought the same thing when I read the articles: They are testifying to third hand knowledge and a taxi cab confession from an unknown source? That doesn't seem like something that would stand up very well in court.