CLPEX Chat Board

Lord Justice Campbell has been appointed to head the inquiry into the Shirley McKie case. (See story on BBC News page for Scotland). The inquiry is supposed to begin in Spetember and Lord Justice Campbell says, "I intend that this inquiry will be both rigorous and fair in dealing with the issues and individuals."
Gadzooks, By Jove, about bloody time, and (from my favorite Monty Python film): "Have at you!!!"

Judge to head fingerprint inquiry

Shirley McKie accepted a £750,000 payout


Brian Taylor on Shirley McKie
A senior Northern Ireland judge has been appointed to head an inquiry into the Shirley McKie fingerprint scandal.
The former police officer was wrongly accused of leaving her fingerprint at an Ayrshire murder scene in 1997. She later accepted £750,000 compensation.

A parliamentary inquiry into her case last year found "fundamental weaknesses" in the fingerprint service.

In this latest inquiry, Lord Justice Campbell will make recommendations on how to avoid future mistakes.

Ms Mckie, from Troon, Ayrshire, had been accused of leaving her print at the Kilmarnock home of murder victim Marion Ross.

Election manifesto

She challenged the findings of fingerprint experts working for the Scottish Criminal Record Office and was later cleared of perjury.

She received a £750,000 out-of-court settlement from the then Scottish Executive and a parliamentary inquiry was launched to see what lessons could be learned.

The Justice 1 Committee highlighted a series of failures in the management of the Scottish Fingerprint Service.

Ms McKie and her father had long campaigned for a public inquiry into the case, and the SNP committed to an inquiry in its election manifesto.

LORD JUSTICE CAMPBELL

1960 - Called to the Bar of Northern Ireland
1988-98 - Judge of the High Court
1999 - Called to the Privy Council
2000 - Head of Surjit Singh Chhokar inquiry
2002 - Gave evidence to Holyrood's Justice 2 Committee
2008 - Head of Shirley McKie inquiry

Announcing the appointment of Lord Justice Campbell, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said the inquiry marked a significant step forward.

He said: "For over a decade, the Shirley Mckie case has cast a cloud of suspicion and uncertainty not just over individuals involved but over the criminal justice system.

"Previous reviews have shed some light on matters, but they have not fully explained the events. They have not entirely dispersed that cloud."

The inquiry is expected to start in September, although no official date has been set.

The Scottish Government said Lord Campbell will remain focused on his duties in Northern Ireland until August.

The Scottish Government will hand over any material it held that might be useful to the inquiry, and in an "exceptional" move the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, would do likewise.

And if requested, ministers and prosecution and government officials would appear in person.

'Difficult issues'

The inquiry will not be Lord Justice Campbell's first encounter with the Scottish Justice system.

In 2000 he was appointed by the Lord Advocate to hold an inquiry into the decision-making process in the prosecution of three men who had been accused of the murder of Surjit Singh Chhoker, and he gave evidence to Holyrood's Justice 2 Committee in 2002.

On his appointment he said: "By their very nature, public inquiries tend to deal with issues that are difficult and sensitive.

"I intend that this inquiry will be both rigorous and fair in dealing with the issues and individuals."

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM ... 2d1SadHdUw

McKie 'against public inquiry'
1 hour ago

Former policewoman Shirley McKie does not want the public inquiry which will now take place into her case, her father has said.

But Iain McKie said his daughter will still take part in the probe, to be headed by a senior judge from Northern Ireland.

The inquiry to be conducted by Lord Justice Campbell will begin in September and will probe into the case and report on how any "shortcomings" can be avoided in future, said justice secretary Kenny MacAskill.


Why wouldn't Shirley want the inquiry? I'm speculating that if this is true then it's because she's tired of this going on and on and on and on and on.....and never being resolved. Is there a point to doing it again?

Scottish Government news release 14/03/2008

A senior Northern Irish judge is to chair the public judicial inquiry into the Shirley McKie case, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill announced today.

The inquiry is to be chaired by Lord Justice Campbell and will have as its terms of reference:

* to inquire into the steps that were taken to identify and verify the fingerprints associated with, and leading up to, the case of HM Advocate v. McKie in 1999

* to determine, in relation to the fingerprint designated Y7, the consequences of the steps taken, or not taken

* to report findings of fact and make recommendations as to what measures might now be introduced, beyond those that have already been introduced since 1999, to ensure that any shortcomings are avoided in the future

The setting up of the inquiry fulfils a clear commitment of the Scottish Government.

Mr MacAskill said:

"The purpose of the inquiry is not to try or retry any individual for the events of the past, nor to challenge the decisions of the prosecution, the defence or the courts in relation to any of those events. The purpose is to open up and understand those events and to learn from them to ensure that Scotland has a fully efficient, effective and robust approach to the identification, verification and presentation of fingerprint material.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Release ... 3/14100804

Hmmm looks like my statistical observation (link in the signature) is excluded

Dear Michele,

Got it in one.

After 11 lost years Shirley is trying to get her life back together and now she finds herself faced with perhaps another year of enquiry. After over a decade the emotional and psychological trauma is continually being re-kindled. She feels she has given her all, is exhausted and wants to move on.

She will however be giving evidence, hopefully early in the enquiry, and then seeking to push it all from her mind.

As a campaigner I welcome the enquiry and am anticipating the opportunity of hearing the ex-SCRO experts and others testifying under oath. As a father I feel for my daughter, the relatives of Marion Ross and all the others caught up in a trauma not of their own making.

The latest BBC coverage gives a more comprehensive summary of our press conference.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/gla ... 296110.stm

Video Link

http://www.stv.tv/content/news/headline ... _M_2008031

I will be providing a full update on www.shirleymckie.com later today and during the enquiry will put a daily summary of evidence on-line.

Best wishes,

Iain

The remit of Lord Justice Campbell’s inquiry seems to exclude investigation into:

• Anything a law official might have got wrong
  
  Anything a politician might have got wrong
  
  Anything a police officer might have got wrong
  
  Anything wrong in connection with Marion Ross’s identification from QI2
  
  Anything wrong in connection with the David Asbury case
  
  Anything wrong with the idea of prosecuting someone based on a single forensic result isolated from any facts
  
  Whether the whole sorry mess might have been prevented with a couple of hours of training in the rational evaluation of forensic evidence taking context into account

Steve,

Although I can understand it I do not share your skepticism about the inquiry remit.

Let’s analyse it paragraph by paragraph.

· ‘to inquire into the steps that were taken to identify and verify the fingerprints associated with, and leading up to, the case of HM Advocate v. McKie in I999.

Importantly this does not refer to ‘steps’ taken by the experts but to all ‘steps’ taken by everybody. This in itself should allow examination of the police, expert and Crown Office ‘steps’ related to the finding, examination and reporting of the prints. Everyone should be open to scrutiny. It is also important that ‘steps’ taken prior to Shirley’s 1999 trial can be examined. You should also note the use of the word ‘fingerprints’. This will allow enquiry into all prints including both mistakes.

· to determine, in relation to the fingerprint designated Y7, the consequences of the steps taken, or not taken.

While the insertion of ‘in relation to…..Y7’ could be seen as limiting, this mistake is so intimately tied into the QI2 mistake that effectively you cannot examine one without relating to the other. The word ‘consequences’ opens everything up to analysis. It is not limited in any way. All the ‘consequences’ will be open to examination. The ‘consequences’ that flowed from the SCRO errors were many and varied and enveloped the whole of the Scottish Justice System for 11 years. The actions of the experts themselves, the Police, Crown Office, Politicians and myself had ‘consequences’ and these will be examined.

· to report findings of fact and make recommendations as to what measures might now be introduced, beyond those that have already been introduced since 1999, to ensure that any shortcomings are avoided in the future.’

As is made clear this inquiry is not meant to try or retry anyone or establish civil or criminal liability. Witnesses will however be expected to speak the truth and the consequences of not doing so while under oath are clear to everyone involved.

The bottom line is of course that it all comes down to Lord Justice Campbell’s interpretation of the remit and how far he is willing to allow himself to be limited. My hope is that his lordship will not work under a restrictive remit. Should he feel restricted then it is within his powers to go back to the Government to lift any limitations.

We should never forget that the political fall out for the new Scottish Government would be enormous should the remit be seen to place unfair restrictions on his lordship or be seen to be protecting any individual or organisation from examination. Opposition political parties and many others would love this inquiry to fail. If it does then it is the government who have most to lose and in Scotland, unlike with the Hutton enquiry in England, there is no place for them to hide.

Although I continue to have faith in the SNP administration to deliver what they promised it might be that my analysis is unduly ‘rose tinted’ – only time will tell.

Best wishes,

Iain

Former policewoman Shirley McKie does not want the public inquiry which will now take place into her case, her father has said.

But Iain McKie said his daughter will still take part in the probe, to be headed by a senior judge from Northern Ireland.

As if she will have any choice.
The self importance is the McKies is only overshadowed by their hypocrisy

Why wouldn't Shirley want the inquiry?

For the same reason she chose to accept a settlement 900,000 dollars less than she had asked for. She cannot risk what may come out.

The only ones with anything to hide are the McKies

The only ones with anything to hide are the McKies

Really? So you can confirm the evidence of Peter Swann will be up to the same standard as that at Justice 1?

He will tell the Enquiry under oath that there is NOT ONE single characteristic in disagreement?

He will be able to expose the lies of SCRO about the whole top part of the print being out of sequence?

John Berry will be able to state under oath the internet image can be used, and expose the lies of the McBride and company about Original material?

At the same time be able to say if he has ever thought Y7 was a misidentification?

Same question to Martin Leadbetter, and why he was openly distributing images many years ago?

Swann will be able to finally tell us the exclusive establishment with the 30+ experts who agree with his comparison?

Will Swann be able to recall vital evidence without others having to write in, and expose him as a liar as happened at Justice 1?

You may be in a position to answer a question daktari. One thing puzzles me greatly. The Doyen is a member of the International Association of Identification. Swann believes he is correct. He therefore must believe that Pat Wertheim is WRONG! Pat has openly welcomed any official complaint to the IAI to be investigated.

To date NO complaints. Given Pat appeared as a witness in a High Court Trial in the UK, would Swann not be duty bound to raise that complaint for the sake of the Science and indeed for Justice? If he knew that Pat was WRONG?

And for that matter Leadbetter is also on the IAI. But again strangely NO complaints?

If you believe Swann is so right, why not make that complaint now? Honestly, why not? Pat would welcome it. And think how great that would be for Swann to have that complaint investigated prior to the Public Enquiry? To have the full backing of the IAI. That would be truly something!

Mind you I guess you also need to question why no legal action has ever been instigated by the Experts against the BBC for their documentaries. NO legal action against Iain McKie for his book? No legal action against the Scottish Executive for exposing their mistakes in public?

If I was in their position my lawyer would be working overtime.

Pat, would you welcome this complaint from Peter Swann?

Daktari, can you confirm you will have Swann make this complaint?

If not, why not?

Of course we all know why it won’t be made…

But the McKie’s are the ones with things to hide at the Inquiry?

Keep believing daktari, keep believing……

I think it worth highlighting a comment left on The Herald newspaper site today from an SCRO supporter. I say supporter given the comments about a previous case. You will recall the same "plastic bag" case that daktari fails to acknowledge but continued to misinform over. I am sure experts will be interested in the following posting:

Posted by: sociowoman, Dundee on 8:11am today
John J Sheridan, it is claimed the finger print people got it all wrong. BUT surely the finger print WAS very similar. So, if it was not hers, whose was it? It is fact that a father and daughters fingerprints will be very similar. That is FACT. This whole episode does NOT add up. Also, did Miss McKie ever get reprimanded in the past for tampering with evidence? Its a simple question.

FATHER AND DAUGHTERS FINGERPRINTS ARE VERY SIMILAR. THIS IS A FACT!!!

????????????????????????????????????????????

The following posting answers my question regarding Pat's thoughts:

A number of people, including a vice president of the IAI, have approached me with the idea that the situation could be brought to a head in the IAI if someone were to file a complaint against me with the Latent Print Certification Board on the grounds that I erroneously excluded Shirley McKie as the donor of Y7. The Certification Board would then have to hold a hearing of sorts in which I could defend myself against the charge. I would welcome such a complaint being filed against me! Of course, the Certification Board would find in my favor, which would become a de facto position of the IAI. The problem with that scenario is that it requires someone willing to go on record as saying I was wrong and the SCRO was right. No takers?

We know that Swann's lawyer has only been too delighted in firing off complaints at a drop of a hat, so one more wouldn't make any difference would it daktari?

Please confirm that Swann has nothing to hide and will make that formal complaint. If he isn't prepared to then I think we can make our own conclusions as to why he would be afraid to.

Since you are so keen to state that people have something to hide, prove that Swann is not one of them......

Iain McKie wrote:

· to determine, in relation to the fingerprint designated Y7, the consequences of the steps taken, or not taken.

The word ‘consequences’ opens everything up to analysis. It is not limited in any way. All the ‘consequences’ will be open to examination. The ‘consequences’ that flowed from the SCRO errors were many and varied and enveloped the whole of the Scottish Justice System for 11 years. The actions of the experts themselves, the Police, Crown Office, Politicians and myself had ‘consequences’ and these will be examined.

Yes, this could provide a way in for lots of things. I will send something with the remit in mind when the inquiry is open for submissions.

I agree a lot hangs on how Lord Campbell interprets the terms of reference. It is difficult to see what the inquiry will achieve if he keeps it too limited.

Thanks Steve.

A weekly post under the heading, 'That was the week that was', will be created on my website at www.shirleymckie.com from now until the inquiry finishes.

It will contain updates on the inquiry and related news.

For the first offering link to:

http://shirleymckie.com/documents/InquiryChat.doc

Please feel free to contribute.

Good news about naming the Judge and the probable start date for a public inquiry. My empathy goes to Shirley for all the heartache this must bring with it, the ideal for achieving justice is countered by the reality of daily life, one is often out of balance with the other but communities need the courts and the Rule of Law to sort out how to achieve peace and security.

Im interested in the proactive step that can be taken through the IAI to put some early pressure on the supporters of the misidentification. Can someone please post the section of the IAI rules which state that a complaint by one member about the professional examination result by another member should cause the IAI to investigate and respond. I've been a member of the IAI since 1992 and would like to make my first complaint. There are two members of the 2008 IAI membership who have aligned themselves with the false positive identification of the most controversial fingerprint examination (Y7) in the history of the IAI. One is Peter Swann member 10770 who has given evidence to a tribunal about his examination result. The other is Martin Leadbetter member 8569 who is an apparent supporter of the result achieved by Swann. If anyone has information that Leadbetter has actually submitted a result or published his finding about the examination of Y7 I would appreciate that information. Regards from oz.

Les, if you go to your copy of the IAI Directory it will have listed the constitution and by-laws which contains information about complaints and such and filing them.

Also I do not think you have to be a member to file a complaint against a member.

The person being complained on has to be a member but the complainer, no.


Cheers,