McKie/Y7 Public Judicial Inquiry under way

[Outsider]

Initial hearing held
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/di ... _truth.php

[sharon cook]

[sharon cook]

[Outsider]

There's a pretty good video on BBCnews.com-Scotland about this case, too. I would have given a link, but I don't know how.

Is this the one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7682275.stm

[sharon cook]

[Iain McKie]

The first day of the Inquiry was extremely encouraging and there appears to be a will on many sides for the truth to finally be revealed.

The oral testimony will not start until Feb/March next year and for now evidence gathering is paramount.

Latest media links:

http://news.google.co.uk/news?sourceid= ... &scoring=n

Regular updates:

http://shirleymckie.com/

[Iain McKie]

Another Judicial Inquiry procedural hearing took place yesterday.

The most important decision was to place all witnesses on oath when giving evidence.

For update go to.

http://shirleymckie.com/ Breaking News - 22 November

[Outsider]

Professor Christophe Champod appointed by the Y7/McKie Fingerprint Inquiry to carry out statistical and other analysis.

[Outsider]

*** CORRECTION ***

Professor Champod has been proposed as an advisor to the inquiry. His appointment is not certain.

Sorry for error.

[Iain McKie]

Hi Steve,

You are correct. Professor Champod is only proposed and of course opposed by Peter Swann's lawyer David Russell.

As I have stated I believe the Professor to be well qualified for the tasks before him despite Russell's reservations. You will know that I have long wanted a full statistical analysis to be carried out of the case and it looks as if the appointment, if confirmed, will lead to a sophisticated computer programme being enlisted to assist with the analysis.

http://shirleymckie.com/FromtheInquiry.mht

Today saw the publication of the transcript from the second Inquiry hearing on 21 November and it makes interesting reading.

http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... 54.45.html

I will continue my policy of not commenting critically about any witnesses outbursts prior to the evidence hearings next year but it appears as if some are still embarked on a ‘pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes’ exercise. I am confident that the high quality of the Inquiry team and the hearing of all evidence under oath will nullify such attempts.

Best wishes,

Iain

[Daktari]

Here, in part, is David Russell’s objection. You can make your own mind up.

If he was to be held out as a fingerprint expert, then it would have to be said that he would be next to useless because he is not qualified as a fingerprint examiner;
he has no qualifications as a fingerprint examiner;
he has no experience as a fingerprint examiner;
we do not know of any police forces that he has worked for as a fingerprint examiner;
we are not aware of circumstances in which he has personally given evidence of identification either in civil or criminal courts where it can obviously be tested.
We do not know when Professor Champod last conducted fingerprint examination work, although it does sound like he never has.
We do not have any fingerprint examination cases that he has undertaken over the last ten years.
I say this because there is this problem with experts, even on the fingerprint examiner/fingerprint expert side; they are held out as being top of the tree, head of department sometimes, but the reality is they no longer do fingerprint work. They have not seen a fingerprint in anger for nine years/eight years. They might do double-checking but they are no longer in the thick of fingerprint examination.
Looks like he’ll need that
‘sophisticated computer programme being enlisted to assist with the analysis.’

[Taggart]

Daktari,

The one thing that appears to be missing from Russell's observations is the lack of a name who he believes would be suitable to provide Expert advice to the Inquiry.

Perhaps you would be so good as to give us the name or names of any Experts who you believe would be suitable to be brought in??

I am wondering of there are any Experts who can be brought in that Russell and the SCRO Experts would agree to?

I know that Fiona McBride at Justice 1 appeared to have some faith in Bruce Grant, but given he has already seen the marks, and he knows it is a misidentification he must be ruled out. I only hope when under oath at the Inquiry he is able to tell the truth, and not like Justice 1 where he did a massive body swerve to avoid admitting anything!

Many readers ,might be unaware, but the Inquiry are currently looking at getting the "best" image of Y7, and are going to ask every expert who has given an opinion on the print, to physically mark the points in "agreement" and resubmit to the Inquiry. The best image of Y7 appears to be one taken by Terry Kent, formerly of the Police Scientific Development Branch.

So finally the SCRO Experts will have their day in court. And the evidence they are to produce will allow them to demonstrate their identifications in front of the Inquiry Team.

Truly wonderful. No excuses and certainly no hiding places. And individually without the comfort of safety in numbers.

Finally everyone will get to see what they are seeing. And without the lame excuse of everyone looking at “different” material.

I applaud the Inquiry for their initiative, and look forward to each and every single SCRO Expert and supporter to stand up under oath and deliver their findings….

Do you also applaud this initiative daktari?

Can you confirm the SCRO Experts welcome this approach?

Can you also let us know who you think should be brought in to assist the Inquiry?

I particulary look forward to the presentations of Robert Mackenzie and Alan Dunbar. Unbelievable to think that when producing his evidence for the Civil Case, Mackenzie was only able to find 13 charecteristics in agreement! A long way short of the 45 he found on 2000! And no sign of any chart by Dunbar.

And Dunbar's (who has chosen to represent himself, without the aid of a lawyer) findings will be very interesting. Given his comments in 1999 regarding his actions, and the total farce of a blind test, I would have thought he would definitely have needed some kind of legal representation. But perhaps he knows best. Or perhaps he is a weak link??? Perhaps he will finally tell the truth and betray his colleagues? Given his oral evidence alone at Justice 1 destroys Peter Swann.

And let us not forget Fiona McBride who for some strange reason does not appear to have prepared a new chart for the Civil Case.

I hope the charts will be made public through the Inquiry to allow Experts worldwide to examine in close detail. If not you can be guaranteed they will have been closely analysed and scrutinsed prior to individuals giving evidence!

And the world can sit back and watch battle commence, judgement day is coming.......

[charlton97]

I will not express any opinion on this forum that may prejudice the hearing once it begins, and I hope all who regularly contribute to this forum will likewise refrain from the type of hyperbole that has substituted scientific discussion in the past once the hearing begins in earnest. I am sure that Prof Champod has been nominated for good reason and let that be an end of it. As far as assessing Y7? Well I challenge anyone to assess it objectively who knows much about the case. There is too much context and prior knowledge for anyone to be truly objective. I have a suggestion. Why not feed the mark Y7 into the training schools and run a series of scientific studies using Y7 against novices, eperienced trainees and experts who attend the schools over a period of say 2 months (during the hearing). The mark can be fed in as a blind comparison without any context or prior knowledge. It could be administered by Prof Champod for example. The participants should be asked to write formal assessment reports as anyone attending the training schols would be expected to do. This cold and blind assessment free of context could provide a definitive conclusion that could be fed into the inquiry after all the core witnesses have made their assessments. It will not only be an interesting exercise, but may shed some interesting light on the issues around Y7 and wy it has caused so much trouble. Just a thought.

[Taggart]

Another possible solution for you Dave.

Have each of the SCRO Experts mark 16 characteristics in "agreement" on the best possible photograph, along with the 16 matching characteristics on the left thumb of Shirley McKie, and have them stand up under oath and explain their identifications point by point.

Hardly rocket science but by God it would be incredibly effective!

We have already seen the attempts by Peter Swann to perform a similar trick at the Justice 1 Enquiry with totally flawed charts, which were totally discredited.

And to add to this further solution, both Malcolm Graham and Peter Swann have stated on the evidence of various other experts, and have said that evidence was “demonstrably” flawed.

Let them go ahead, under oath and demonstrate it. Go ahead and discredit the work of those experts who have dared challenged their opinions.

Let Peter Swann stand up and demonstrate why Pat Wertheim is wrong. Scientifically of course, let him stand under oath and pick Pat’s evidence apart. He said he can do it, so let him.

I think you will find Dave this Inquiry will truly take care of these issues once and for all.

Your ideas on using the prints is a wonderful idea, but I feel the real training benefit will be after the Inquiry and there has been a deliberation on perhaps at least two prints in this case.

And let us not forget David Mulhern has point blank refused any of the staff to view these images.

What is he scared of I wonder??

Can I ask if you believe you may be called as a witness to the Inquiry given your concern your opinions might prejudice the Hearing?

I can only assume that you will be, but I wonder if you are asked under oath if you have seen the prints and have come to an opinion, you will give that opinion?

Believe me this Inquiry is going to bring the Fingerprint Service under the microscope like never before. I only hope they are ready for it. The time for sticking heads in the sand is over. People will finally be brought to task over what has been nothing short of a complete scandal inside the Fingerprint service within the UK. As I said previously Judgement day is getting closer.

[charlton97]

Taggert, no, nobody has approached me about being a witness. But then, why would they? All my knowledge of this matter is accrued through 3rd party and anecdote. You might say I am aware of the Politics and the very personal attacks, but what would I contribute to the body of the inquiry? Not much probably...you tell me?