Justice 1 Reports

[Daktari]

Today’s the day at
2.45 GMT Thursday February 15, 2007
we will get what we have been waiting fort.
You should be able to watch live on
http://www.holyrood.tv/committee.asp
Committee Room six. (I think)
And it should be archived on
http://www.holyrood.tv/library.asp?iPid ... =Justice+1
later today. I’ll post the proper link to Report as soon as I can get it.
It will save you wasting money on THAT book!

[Daktari]

As promised, here is the link to the Report
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/busin ... ol1-00.htm

[g.]

For me this is an important conclusion the committee has drawn since it cuts to the meat of the evidence:

136. Most of the experts discerned an element of twisting in the mark. John Berry and Peter Swann, however, put forward a distinct theory about the level of twisting, suggesting that the mark had undergone a 66 degree anticlockwise movement. The Committee notes that Pat Wertheim was sceptical about this theory, particularly in relation to the lack of smudging of the mark which he said he would have expected to find in a mark with this degree of movement. The Committee also noted that both Arie Zeelenberg and Mike Thompson did not accept the theory in light of the lack of smudging in the mark.

137. While the Committee recognises the clarity of the evidence given by Mr Berry and Mr Swann, the Committee considers that they did not fully substantiate their theory. In particular, they did not offer an explanation as to how this degree of movement could occur without any evidence of smudging or discontinuity. It would have assisted the Committee’s understanding of their theory if they had offered further explanation.

They were not convinced regarding the 66 anticlockwise theory that has been put forward as an underlying assumption if one is to accept it as a valid identification. I think their response is clear: the theory lacks any evidence to support.

Which has been my sticking point the whole time. If this was to have occurred, then a scientist should be able to recreate the same pattern of distortion under similar conditions.

Keep in mind, not that Berry and Swann COULD NOT recreate it....they did not TRY to. Here is the arrogance of our profession (not specifically these scientists, but the profession)..."I am an expert of many august years...I KNOW what I am talking about, and do not need to prove or demonstrate it".

This committee did not agree with that position.

g.

[Les Bush]

Thanks Glenn for sharing that quotation and your thoughts. Ive posted before that this case was history repeating itself by reflecting on the vain attempt of Faulds to promote his version of fingerprint identification science over that of the mainstream. When John Berry came here and tried to demonstrate his rotation concept I advised him that he was following the same path as Faulds and it would result in the same consequence. Funny enough John agreed but it appears pressure from voices within or outside have caused him to reconsider my advice. Maybe the dream opportunity to put it to the Yanks has now become a nightmare. Sadly his 'august' contributions to the fingerprint community will like Faulds have one case that makes all the difference between credibility and what we choose to remember as his legacy. The same goes for Swann who gave evidence about 'ridge counting' which done his way is different to that of mainstream. There are rules gents, follow the rules. Cheers from oz.

[Iain McKie]

Latest media reports are shown at:

www.shirleymckie.com Breaking News.

An analysis of the devastating criticism of SCRO contained in the report will go online tomorrow.

[Ducky]

[Keep in mind, not that Berry and Swann COULD NOT recreate it....they did not TRY to. Here is the arrogance of our profession (not specifically these scientists, but the profession)..."I am an expert of many august years...I KNOW what I am talking about, and do not need to prove or demonstrate it".]

There is a great quote as follows:
Junk Science “Galileo's Revenge” 1990 by Peter Huber

Junk science often needs to assert claims of great accuracy, to convert random noise into a apparently meaningful pattern.

The hallmark of junk science is that the last, most irrefutable answer is invariably that the solitary believer just sees, senses, and understands better, the crowds of skeptics are reactionary, dull or myopic.
[/quote]

[Charles Parker]

Hi Les From OZ.

I have a favor to ask?

".... this case was history repeating itself by reflecting on the vain attempt of Faulds to promote his version of fingerprint identification science over that of the mainstream."

Could you elaborate?

I think you are referring to the case where he testified against some Scotland yard examiners because you later say "...will like Faulds have one case that makes all the difference between credibility and what we choose to remember as his legacy."
I am interested if there are other versions of his concept of fingerprint identification that went against mainstream---besides the incident in court.

With regards,

[Charles Parker]

Ducky, Huber's book "Galileo's Revenge" is an interesting piece. However I think that all of the cases he cites not one was ever compensated as the courts ruled they lacked the necessary relationship. Also some of the cases he cited were from the 1920's.

He lashes out at FRE 703 as being too permissive and calls for the "Frye Test for Admissibility" to be brought back. (Oh, if only that was possible).

If you want to read an interesting description of his book, do a Google Search on "Galileo's Revenge" and pick the site "Book Note Jolt.Law" from Harvard University. They have some interesting tidbits about the book.

However with all of its faults he does make a good presentation on junk science in the court room. Just keep in mind they do not all win.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=262952007

[Les Bush]

Hi Charles,

Yes my comments are linked to that particular case. Stratton brothers murder of a couple in Deptford London in 1905. It was the first case of fingerprints being used for a murder trial in England. One clear latent print of Alfred Stratton thumb on a cash box was identified by Scotland Yard. Faulds used his august profile to try and cast doubt on the evidence by infering the mark was a smudged print that differed in appearance to the inked. Smudged it may have been to Mr Faulds interpretation but the identification was solid. We can choose to remember Faulds for his many contributions and work done in Japan. This case is a reminder that he did not understand the rules by which fingerprint identification science operates. Or he may have understood the rules and he may have chosen like Berry to not accept them. The best history records Ive found are Jurgen Thorwald books The Century of the Detective" and "Marks of Cain". Well written. complete and good references.

On a related note Charles Ive just read the Justice One report and noted that the consistent problem the Committee had was the variations in how experts in one science displayed their understanding of how the rules are applied. It appears that if a problem exists in one country then whoever goes there to resolve the issue they need to become consistent with the rules of that country. Science doesnt work that way and because of the outcomes of Justice One fingerprint identification science is yet again being challenged as to its scientific status. The latent fingerprint Y7 in the McKie case should only represent a forensic question and not a platform for personal or organisational or national or international agendas. Les

[Taggart]

Daktari/adroitcaledonian

I wonder if you guys can clear up a couple of things since you have your fingers on the SCRO pulse.
Comments of Fiona McBride SCRO re Justice 1 Report
Daily Record 15 February 2007

"I am delighted. All the marks they claimed we had misidentified have proven to be correct."

BBC News 15 February 2007

"We have been vindicated and it's still the case that all the marks that were disputed, so called, where we were supposed to be in error, were all found to be correct by SCRO. The only one that they haven't looked at is Y7."

Sorry guys I have hunted high and low in the Justice 1 Report and am struggling to see where Justice 1 said the fingerprint QI2 was correct. Not that I doubt Miss McBride but can you highlight the relevant section for me?
Even stranger given Justice 1 stated

818. As previously stated in this report, the status of mark QI2 is relevant to an ongoing civil action and, as such, remains sub judice. Accordingly, the Committee is unable to comment further on this mark.

So please do show us where in the report SCRO are vindicated and were proven to be correct over mark QI2? Please don’t expose Miss McBride for being a liar, as you know that would seriously damage her credibility and with it the credibility of her colleagues!
Was glad to see however Justice 1 didn’t fall into the SCRO trap over mark QD2, and unlike some clearly saw where the Danes went wrong because they were looking at different material! How can Justice 1 see this but certain individuals can’t?

820. In 2006, the averments prepared by Shirley McKie’s solicitors in the civil action against Scottish Ministers, alleged that mark QD2 had been misidentified. This prompted Scottish Ministers to obtain another expert report on mark QD2. The report prepared by Michael Pass concurred with the SCRO fingerprint officers finding that mark QD2 had been made by David Asbury. Separately, the Danish experts, prompted by Arie Zeelenberg, revisited their examination and, having been provided with photographs of the mark which they had previously not seen, reversed their opinion. All parties now agree that mark QD2 was made by David Asbury and the identification is, therefore, no longer disputed.

Am also curious about Miss McBride’s various appearances on both the BBC and in certain newspapers, and again seek your clarification on this matter. SCRO staff were issued with clear guidelines about media contact in March 2006, in which the now Director of SCRO, Ian Todd stated

“……all staff are reminded of the SCRO Communications Policy which prohibits any comment to the media without the prior authorisation of the Director.”

Obviously Miss McBride, given her comments, was speaking as an SCRO expert; therefore she must have received permission from Ian Todd, Director of SCRO. This is my problem, because for him to authorise such an interview he must agree with her comments, which in turn sees him in total disagreement with his employer therefore making his position now untenable! If of course she did NOT gain permission then she shown total disregard for SCRO guidelines and for her own management and her position has now become untenable!
Can you clarify which of the two scenarios we are dealing with regard to her media comments?
I have been pouring through the Justice 1 report and hope to post some interesting observations very soon! And at same time expose more frightening inconsistencies!

[Daktari]

I'm sorry Taggart but, as your questions are directed to Fiona, why don't you ask her?

[Taggart]

Sorry I thought you both had an allegiance with the experts concerned, but not a problem. Would still be interested however to see if you can validate her claim about being the Experts being cleared over mark QI2 by Justice 1.
If not she will be exposed as a liar, and I know how you both have managed to come up with things in the past to show your support for them. You don't need to ask her about that particular issue because if she is correct then you should be able for you to substantiate it without asking her.
If you can't, or indeed not prepared to, I would appreciate your view? Do you think they were cleared by the Report over all their identifications as she claimed? After all you were kind enough to show the link to the Report on these postings so presuming you have looked at it?.

[Taggart]

I have digested the Justice 1 Report and want to bring to you some of my observations. I think it is important to read this having read my previous postings showing major discrepancies with evidence given to Justice 1 by certain individuals. I think it easier to go through the report chronologically.

20. The purpose of this inquiry has been to contribute to the process of restoring public confidence in the Scottish Fingerprint Service.

Strong starting point, they want to RESTORE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE. Of course to restore confidence they need to deal with issues to do this. Ask yourself at the end have they succeeded?

36. Fourthly, the rules of the Parliament in relation to cases that are sub judice mean that Members of the Parliament (or committees) may not refer to any matter in relation to which legal proceedings are active except to the extent permitted by the Presiding Officer. In relation to this inquiry, this has meant that the Committee was not able to enquire into the status of another mark from the Marion Ross murder case, known by the reference QI2. Its status is relevant to an ongoing civil action and, as such, remains sub judice. Accordingly, the Committee has been unable to comment on this mark as part of the inquiry.

Interesting because they do not take any account of mark QI2, therefore Fiona McBride’s comments that

“All the marks they claimed we had misidentified have proven to be correct”

now appear more and more like an untruth? I also don’t understand given at every session where it was stated by the convenor that David Asbury was sub judice why Justice 1 allowed several submissions to include evidence on David Asbury and mark QI2 without any redactions placed in the public domain on their very own web site!.

60. The Committee considers that some of these matters should properly be left to subject-experts. In these situations, the Committee considers it appropriate simply to draw out, in language that is as accessible as possible, what the issues are and to allow readers to come to their own conclusions.

Some of these matters should properly be left to subject-experts? Are they saying this whole mess can only be sorted out from within the profession? Interesting. But then the Committee come up with a cracker. Let the public see the report and “come to their OWN conclusions”! And then what????

73. Alister Geddes also explained that the tenprint of Shirley McKie’s left thumb from which he was working did not have sufficient detail at the top to allow him to carry out a full comparison with the top part of mark Y7.

This is where the previous evidence I listed kicks in again. Because you will recall Swann said there was NOTHING in disagreement in mark Y7 and the points at the top were as clear as the rest of the print. Geddes and Swann in disagreement!

83. In his written submission to the Committee Terry Foley stated that he was asked by Alan Dunbar to eliminate the print as having been made by the left thumbprint.

Justice 1 did pick up on this. Foley was ASKED TO ELIMINATE THE MARK by Dunbar. So they know it was NOT an independent check as was suggested.

85. However, according to the averments provided by Shirley McKie’s solicitors, neither Jean McClure nor Greg Padden were able to reach a conclusion and could not confirm whether or not the mark was a match for the left thumbprint. This was confirmed by both Jean McClure and Greg Padden in correspondence to the Committee.

Justice 1 is now aware two SCRO Experts did NOT confirm the identification.

93. In his precognition statement, Robert Mackenzie stated that, in his opinion, the upper part of the mark was made up of several touches of the left thumb of Shirley Cardwell (McKie).

Several touches! But Swann said everything was in agreement and the points at the top as clear as the rest of the print! Mackenzie and Swann in clear disagreement!

122. According to Robert Mackenzie’s precognition statement the top part of the mark represented several touches. Robert Mackenzie along with Alan Dunbar presented his views on the mark at Tulliallan.

Justice 1 highlight again the fact that Mackenzie believes mark Y7 is made up of several touches. But Swann said everything was in agreement and the points at the top as clear as the rest of the print! Mackenzie and Swann in clear disagreement!

134. The Committee’s view is that Arie Zeelenberg’s explanation (that the mark was a single touch, placed tip first with pressure downwards) was comprehensive and detailed. The Committee notes that Alister Geddes and Hugh Macpherson also indicated that it was a single touch. However, the Committee notes that both Mr Geddes and Mr Macpherson reached a different conclusion to Mr Zeelenberg on mark Y7.

Geddes and MacPherson now indicate to the Committee that it was a single touch! Not as Mackenzie stated in his precognition it was several touches! Mackenzie now in clear disagreement with Swann, Geddes and MacPherson!

140. However, in the course of the minute of the Tulliallan meeting it was noted that Robert Mackenzie and Alan Dunbar, who were of the view that mark Y7 was made by a left thumb, accepted that if the mark was made by a single finger impression then it was “more likely to be that of a right thumb and not that of Shirley McKie.”

In minutes supplied to Justice 1 by Alan Dunbar himself , both he and Mackenzie accept if it is one touch it is more likely to be a RIGHT thumb, and NOT THAT OF SHIRLEY MCKIE! But wait, Geddes and MacPherson have indicated it IS ONE SINGLE TOUCH! Both CANNOT be correct! If Geddes and MacPherson are to be believed then Mackenzie and Dunbar are by default stating that it is not Shirley McKie’s print! Of course if Mackenzie and Dunbar are correct it is several touches, then by default it destroys Swann, Geddes and MacPherson!

146. The Committee considers that the issue as to whether the impression was made by a left or right thumb is fundamental to the analysis of mark Y7.

This worries me. To make an identification Justice 1 believes you must know what finger made the mark before you carry out a comparison?

159. Peter Swann was similarly minded. In his written submission to the Committee he noted that before John Berry informed him of the 66 degree anticlockwise movement in the mark he found differences in the top of the mark that he was unable to explain. Regardless of this he was sure that it was Shirley McKie’s left thumbprint—
“I had 21 in agreement on the chart that I prepared. I accept that five or six at the top were in disagreement. I knew that it was an identification irrespective of what I saw at the top because of what I saw lower down. I knew that there would be a reason for what I saw at the top, but I did not know what it was at the time.”

This is a major discrepancy. Remember Swann was asked several times by Justice 1 about points in disagreement and on EVERY Occasion he said there were NO characteristics in disagreement! Not one. Everything in agreement! But now we find in his written submission he stated “I accept that five or six at the top were in disagreement.” Is anyone getting as concerned as I am about these discrepancies, or lies? He finds discrepancies, reports on them, but by the time he gets to Justice 1 he finds nothing in disagreement! Truly unbelievable!
(I will come back to Swann in a later posting as from other evidence it is becoming clearer that Swann either misled or lied to Justice 1 on a number of occasions)

164. The Committee notes that both Peter Swann and Charles Stewart stated that although there were ‘unexplained’ differences in the top part of the mark, these differences could be disregarded due to the fact that there were sufficient characteristics in sequence and agreement in the lower part of the mark.

Again Justice 1 acknowledge the fact Swann finds “unexplained” differences despite Swann telling them there is NOTHING in disagreement. He told them everything was in agreement, therefore again by default he was stating there were no discrepancies. Why has Swann given two different versions in evidence? And why if those points at the top, as Swann stated were as clear as the rest of the print, why does he disregard those very same clear points?

173. Peter Swann indicated that, in his opinion, the material used in the consideration of mark Y7 was critical—
“I know that the other people have got it wrong. That might sound like rather a bold statement, but my reason for making it is simply that, in my opinion, people have not been using the correct material.”

Remember Swann again, when questioned, stated to Justice 1 you could use ANYTHING YOU COULD GET! His words not mine. And he used an image from a National Newspaper and used a chart from John Berry in which he used an image taken from the Internet! If he is telling Justice 1 the internet image is not “the correct material” by default he has destroyed Berry!

177. John Berry also advocated the use of rolled impressions but described to the Committee the process by which he had been able to make an identification using a plain impression of Shirley McKie’s thumbprint obtained from the internet—
“I attempted to find the characteristic on the plain impression of Shirley McKie's thumbprint. I spent a considerable amount of time working through the minefield of ridge detail. After a long period, I found the Rosetta characteristic. Unfortunately, instead of being like the side view of a 125 train, it was a sort of blob with a dot in it. I knew that it was the Rosetta characteristic and that, without any doubt, the mark had been made by Shirley McKie.”

Another glaring discrepancy. Berry stated to Justice 1 in evidence he had NEVER known anyone use a plain impression to make an identification. In fact he went further to state anyone using a plain impression was a FOOL! And now Justice 1 are aware Berry “had been able to make an identification using a plain impression of Shirley McKie’s thumbprint obtained from the internet”. Why does Berry makes claims about anyone using a plain impression but tells us that is exactly what he has done! Again, truly unbelievable! Has Berry misled Justice 1 or has he lied?

182. The Committee notes that John Berry reached his initial identification of mark Y7 on the basis of comparison with a plain impression. Pat Wertheim also relied upon plain impressions in reaching his conclusion that mark Y7 had not been made by Shirley McKie.

Berry uses a PLAIN impression, despite Berry claiming to Justice 1, anyone using a PLAIN impression is a FOOL, and he has NEVER known anyone in a hundred years to use a PLAIN imprecision to make an identification! His words, not mine!

187. Peter Swann was similarly critical of the use of the image of mark Y7 from the internet. He also drew attention to what he perceived to be damage to the mark—
“The internet photograph has striations on it that run diagonally from the bottom left to halfway up the right-hand side.”

Of course if Swann was so critical of the Internet image he would not have offered it to Justice 1 as part of his very own presentation! But he did, therefore obviously validating it!

188. All four of the SCRO fingerprint officers who gave evidence to the Committee on 30 May 2006 were critical of the use of internet images. Anthony McKenna indicated that the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau always advocated looking at the original material. Charles Stewart explained to the Committee his concerns about the use of internet images in this instance—
“I have seen images on the internet that are purportedly mark Y7 but they do not bear much relation to what I looked at because there is a brush mark that damages the lower half of the mark. I was always taught to base my comparison and identification on original material.”

This time the SCRO experts are now critical of the Internet images. “They do not bear much relation to what” they looked at. And remember McBride could NOT recognise the Internet image when shown it in Court.

191. The Committee notes the preference of the SCRO fingerprint officers for the use of original material. However, the Committee also notes that Robert Mackenzie and Alan Dunbar made use of material from the internet for the purposes of their presentation at Tulliallan.

Justice 1 is aware of SCRO’s use of Internet images in their own presentation. I hope you have followed my earlier link showing the various images including the Internet images and have studied them. Justice 1 has. And they have not been fooled:

192. The Committee also notes the concerns about the so-called brush mark on the internet image of mark Y7. On the basis of the evidence given to the Committee, the Committee is not, however, convinced that this brush mark altered the image in such a way that it would necessarily change an expert’s conclusion on the identification of the mark.

No one was able to convince the Committee that the Internet image was so bad, you could not recognise it! Based on the evidence they heard the Committee do NOT believe the internet image would alter an expert’s conclusion on the mark. Very important point and well picked on by Justice 1.

207. Hugh Macpherson provided further explanation as to why he decided to apply the 16 point standard. He appeared to suggest that doing so was not normal practice and that elimination prints do not normally receive this level of scrutiny—
“There is nothing to stop me doing that. Normally in a case, only the marks of the deceased and the accused go to court and those are marked up to the 16-point standard. All I did was to apply to the mark the same criteria that I applied to the marks that were identified previously in the case. I could find 16 points—that was my main reason.”

Only the deceased and accused would be marked up to a 16 point standard according to MacPherson, but Justice 1 obviously have concerns when he then gives them contradictory evidence:

208. However, Hugh MacPherson, later in the same evidence session, appeared to contradict this position. He recounted to the Committee HMIC’s statement on elimination prints—
“The aim of fingerprint comparison in Scotland, at present, is to find 16 points or characteristics of friction ridge skin detail on a crime scene mark that are identical in sequence and agreement with a fingerprint given by a donor. This applies to donors who are suspects and those who have given their fingerprints for elimination purposes.”

MacPherson tells Justice 1 that 16 points in agreement were required for eliminations in Scotland.

210. In subsequent examinations of the mark – namely by Robert Mackenzie and Alan Dunbar; by the four fingerprint officers who participated in the ‘blind test’ and also the consideration undertaken by six fingerprint officers after the mark had been re-photographed and new tenprints taken – the SCRO fingerprint officers were asked to eliminate the mark, but not to the 16 point standard.

Again Justice 1 recognises the blind test for what it was. Officers were ASKED to eliminate the mark! Not asked to go away and independently check the print without any influence. We know this from the evidence of Foley that he was asked to eliminate the mark by Dunbar. But Foley said there was NO pressure put on any of the experts.

233. In response to questioning from the Committee on this procedure, Hugh Macpherson stated—
“There is nothing sinister about it. The initials were already on the screen, as it was. You talked about putting initials on a piece of evidence. We have many photographs of Y7 and we use a clean copy for our production book.”

This is very interesting. Nowhere in any evidence is there any mention of the prints being left on a comparator and the screen being initialled during the comparison of Y7. Geddes said he was given the mark and form by MacPherson, however it is clear from MacPherson’s own evidence the two images were left on a comparator and the screen being initialled. Geddes makes no reference of being asked to look at a comparator in his comparison.

250. It should be noted, however, that in evidence to the Committee Alan Dunbar did not indicate that any of the fingerprint officers participating in the blind test failed to reach a conclusion on the mark. Alan Dunbar told the Committee that—
“No officer came back with a different finding.”

Justice 1 is aware that Dunbar has been economical with the truth over the blind testing. Dunbar is stating that every one who looked at the mark in his “blind” test had the same finding, however we now know two others could not form an opinion, therefore exposing Dunbar to be lying in his evidence.

253. Greg Padden also confirmed his involvement and that he too had not reached a conclusion on the mark. In his response, Greg Padden indicated that he had not been afforded an opportunity for a ‘proper examination’ of the mark. However, his impression was that there was insufficient detail in the mark for comparison. Like Jean McClure, he asked for further time the following day to consider the mark. He made this request to Alan Dunbar who informed him that he could not have any more time and that a conclusion was required there and then. As such, he informed Alan Dunbar that he could not reach a conclusion on the mark.

This is the test that was carried out without any pressure being put on the experts in the words of Foley. But Padden tells us Dunbar needed a conclusion there and then! And remember Foley told us that Dunbar sat in the room while they carried out their comparisons! Padden is of the opinion that the Dunbar’s use of the comparator was not a “proper comparison”. And when he asked for further time the next day to carry out a “proper comparison” this was turned down by Dunbar!

279. The Committee notes that the Black investigation, based upon an assessment of whether the fingerprint officers had followed the procedures in place in 1997, concluded that no matters of misconduct or lack of capability had taken place in the work surrounding mark Y7.

No one has picked up on the fact that this “Independent” enquiry which cleared the Experts of any wrong doing NEVER HAD THE PRINTS PEER REVIEWED. It was of course interesting to see that all the Experts openly talked during this enquiry unlike their “no comment” interviews to the Criminal Investigation!

301. While it has been useful and legitimate to explore issues pertaining to the professional competence of the SCRO fingerprint officers in relation to mark Y7 it has not been the Committee’s intention to undertake a disciplinary inquiry and accordingly the Committee offers no view on the professional competence of the officers.

Because Justice 1 offer no views any the expert’s competence, it is clear that they have NOT been able to clear them of any wrongdoing, as McBride publicly stated

312. The case was to go to proof on that basis. Ms McKie contended that the original identification had been an error and thereafter the SCRO fingerprint officers had acted in a malicious manner leading to her prosecution. Scottish Ministers’ position was that if mark Y7 was not Ms McKie’s print (and she would have to prove that) any mistake was one made in good faith.

I think this is one of the major points in the report. Let me add this next paragraph before explaining:

327. The Committee did not specifically seek to determine whether the SCRO fingerprint officers acted with malice, however, on the basis of the evidence that it has taken, there is no basis to say that the SCRO fingerprint officers had acted maliciously in their identification and verification of mark Y7. It would appear to the Committee that proving malice may have been challenging for Ms McKie’s lawyers had the action proceeded to proof.

The press have quoted; wrongly, that Justice 1 has cleared the officers of acting with malice. Read the two paragraphs again carefully and you will find Justice 1 is in total agreement with the averments of Shirley McKie! Justice 1 states it would have been difficult to prove malice in the identification and verification of mark Y7. But read paragraph 312 and it is crystal clear the case for malice was AFTER the identification! So Justice 1 is only saying what Shirley McKie’s lawyers already knew! THE MALICE ALLEGED WAS AFTER THE IDENTIFICATION which Justice 1 have not mentioned anywhere! So Justice 1 does NOT clear the experts of acting maliciously!

344. In this section of the report, the Committee has been able to detail the numerous areas on which there is disagreement and, in so doing, has hopefully clarified for the general public why mark Y7 has proved so contentious. The Committee recognises, however, that the general public will still not know why the different experts hold such opposing views on so many matters relating to mark Y7.

Actually if you look at my previous postings on the evidence which Justice 1 had heard and was available to them it is clear they have not realised the discrepancies that were given to them, as none of them are included in their report! And instead of clarifying anything for the general public in Scotland they have further muddied the water by failing to address the important issues which might have restored public confidence!

647. The Marion Ross murder case in 1997 and the disputed identification of Shirley McKie’s thumbprint sparked a deeper crisis in SCRO, the effects of which have spread across Scotland and around the world.

I think this is an important recognition by Justice 1 that this issue is indeed worldwide, and not just a Scottish crisis.

652. The future of the Scottish Fingerprint Service and public confidence in its work will only be restored if people believe that meaningful change has been effected and the Service can be considered to be operating to the highest of international standards. It is against this background that recent developments must be measured.

The truth is the public confidence will ONLY be restored when this issue is finally resolved! How can the public confidence be restored when there is still this dispute! No one can be kidded into looking forward only without dealing with the past, and to think this is showing tremendous naivety.

818. As previously stated in this report, the status of mark QI2 is relevant to an ongoing civil action and, as such, remains sub judice. Accordingly, the Committee is unable to comment further on this mark.

Am still waiting a response re the statements of Fiona McBride where she publicly stated mark QI2 was not a mistake.

Case 2 – not a confirmed misidentification
In 2003, SCRO experts identified a crime scene print as belonging to Mark Sinclair. They did not claim to find 16 characteristics, but their report concluded that they had no doubt that Mr Sinclair had made the crime scene mark. Strathclyde Police reported Mr Sinclair as the person responsible for the crime to the Procurator Fiscal and a prosecution was raised. The reliability of the identification was later questioned by an expert instructed by the defence; Allan Bayle (although he did not appear to claim that there had been a misidentification). The difference between the experts could not be reconciled and the Crown decided not to lead the questioned fingerprint evidence in court, but proceeded to trial on the basis of other evidence. In October 2003, on the basis of that other evidence, Mr Sinclair was convicted of armed robbery; he was sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment.
While the criminal proceedings were underway, following intimation of Mr Bayle’s conclusions, the print was referred to the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) for review. In a report of September 2003, on the basis of the limited material made available at that time, PSNI concluded that there appeared to be insufficient detail to make an identification but did not conclude that the mark was not that of the accused. With the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, the issue ceased to be a live one and PSNI’s involvement drew to a close. However, in 2006 in light of on-going interest in the case, PSNI was invited to revisit the issue on the basis of fuller material than before. The outcome of this latest assessment, which involved experts independently examining the print and then the convening of an arbitration panel involving the Quality Manager and Head of Bureau, was that (having excluded material to the left of a line of movement 4mm from the right side of the print) four experts were satisfied that there were seven characteristics in agreement with Mr Sinclair’s left thumb and two others were satisfied that there were ten. The panel’s consensus was that the mark did not contain enough information to conclusively identify the mark as having been made by Sinclair. However, the PSNI experts were unanimous that the SCRO’s identification should not be classed as a misidentification.

This is very interesting. I will if I may refer to a letter from Lesley Anne Brown to Justice 1 dated 24 May 2006.

"After the case was finished, the Crown Office appointed a Junior Fiscal, namely Scott Toal to investigate the Sinclair case and interview/precognose the Fingerprint Experts involved in the case.
During the investigation, PSNI (Northern Ireland), produced a photographed impression from the actual lift and carried out a proper comparison under correct conditions and they concluded that it was an identification. This information was relayed to me by Scott Toal himself.
Again, I would like to point out, at no time did Allan Bayle say in his report that it was a misidentification (the word being branded around at the moment!).”

Brown states to Justice 1 that the PSNI had “concluded that it was an identification” however we now know that is factually incorrect and the PSNI on TWO occasions now have concluded the print was in fact the print was “insufficient”, therefore are in disagreement with SCRO! And in fact are in agreement with Allan Bayle, who said the identification was “unsafe”. Why would this Junior Fiscal lie to SCRO about the report from PSNI and tell them the PSNI had agreed that it was a misidentification when they had not? So the Crown Office has lied to SCRO! Brown continues:

“We have tried to obtain a copy of the report carried out by Scott Toal, Junior Fiscal, but to no avail. We have been told it is confidential. PSNI have also tried to obtain the Report but they were told that it is now in the hands of Mr Brisbane (Deputy Crown Office). They have since spoken with Mr Brisbane who also informed them that the Report was confidential. This is something that you may want to pursue yourselves.”

So if the Crown Office have lied to SCRO would explain why they would not let anyone see the report, however am not sure why the PSNI would be trying to obtain a report they wrote? I believe this does need further investigation if the Crown Office is lying about reports they hold!
Also waiting to see if certain experts, and indeed the management within SCRO accept the findings of the PSNI?
And strangely when McBride publicly stated Justice 1 had shown all their identifications were correct, unbelievably Justice 1 give us the facts that the PSNI could not validate the Mark Sinclair mark, therefore showing a discrepancy disproving McBride’s own comments!!
However Justice 1 is giving their backing to the new management team of David Mulhern and Tom Nelson to resolve this mess on their behalf!

887. The Committee believes that SFS senior management has, in the past, consistently failed to recognise the size of the task it faces in securing meaningful reform of the organisation. The Committee considers that it must seize this opportunity to tackle the underlying problems within the service. It is imperative that urgent action is taken to bridge the gap between management and staff, heal the rift between Glasgow and the other bureaux and learn the lessons of the McKie case to ensure that it will not be repeated.

Of course the main underlying problem is the McKie case, so Justice 1 are asking the new management to take urgent action to ensure that there will be no repetition of the McKie case. Hmmm, I wonder how they will do this? Guess we don’t have long to wait now!
And after reading my previous postings along with some observations I’m going to ask the reader that very same thing Justice 1 asks of them, to look at the evidence which will allow you to come to your own conclusions!
I was suprised to see that all the main criticism within the report is directed clearly at one side of this arguement, with Justice 1 aware of discrepancies and information being withheld from them, and how critical they are of certain individuals. Surprisngly no such criticism directed towards the "other" side in the arguement, which makes me think Justice 1 know the truth but again for political reasons have failed to deliver.
I will return to analyze the written submissions, and how it ties in with evidence heard very soon.

[Daktari]

Get a life mate!
All you are doing is blowing McKie's conspiracy further out the water.