McKie/Y7 Public Judicial Inquiry under way

[Outsider]

I agree with Daktari that you can make your own mind up about David Russell’s objections to the appointment of Professor Champod as advisor to the Inquiry. Here is more from Mr Russell taken from the transcript of the Procedural Hearing:

He is an academic and that also and God forbid that this ends up as an academics' bean feast

Professor Champod's specialty is statistical analysis. But his specialisation is nothing to do with the graft of fingerprint identification.

...he is essentially a statistician (that is his territory), then I come back, sir, to a very well-worn adage: lies, damned lies and statistics and God help us if this Inquiry goes down the academic rails that so many people want it to adopt.

David Russell is representing Peter Swann, Martin Leadbetter and John Berry at the Inquiry.

Do I need to point out that we are at the end of 11 years of investigations and inquiries that have not had academic advice. How useful have they been at reaching a resolution?

[Daktari]

Taggart asks

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 answer
Yes Loudly, after all I played my part in making sure it went ahead.

I can't speak for the SCRO experts but since they, unlike the McKies, consistently supported an Inquiry I'm sure they do.

Mark Lees, who I'm sure you remember.

Oh Dave, just ignore McKie, he's just getting desperate. He knows the chickens are coming home to roost.
And in any case would you really like to be the same side as David Asbury?

[Taggart]

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 answer

Yes Loudly, after all I played my part in making sure it went ahead.

Although you then admit you can’t speak for the SCRO Experts, and even more amazingly you ignore the third question!! So one out of three isn’t too bad by your previous standards.

Was it too difficult? Are you not able to tell me one single expert who you believe could help the Inquiry?

Or perhaps as I suspect you are afraid to. Afraid to have an independent expert involved, afraid of what you know they will expose.

Go on; just let me know one name. And then impress us by approaching the Inquiry and invite them to appoint the expert.

Mark Lees, who I'm sure you remember refused to precognosed by Les Brown and Stephen Heath.

This will be the same Mark Lees who gave evidence at Shirley’s Trial? Who stated under oath he never saw Shirley in the House. The one who Les Brown has repeatedly tried to make unsubstantiated complaints to Strathclyde and on each and every occasion failed to uncover anything of any substance.

And that will be the same Mark Lees who was involved in giving evidence to an internal investigation within Strathclyde Police on behalf of the Procurator Fiscal which reported there was absolutely no evidence that Shirley McKie was in the house?

Okay daktari, let me ask you one straight forward question, given your need to regurgitate earlier rubbish.

Are you stating here that PC Mark Lees committed Perjury during the trial of Shirley McKie?

Simple question.

Two very straightforward questions daktari, your responses will be interesting.

Unless of course you would prefer to dodge them, as has been your consistent approach.

[Taggart]

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?

Dave,

Apologies for not getting back to you. Why would they? I thought the work of yourself and Dr Dror would have been of tremendous interest to the Inquiry. When we hear the following evidence from one of the SCRO Experts would you not be able to help the Inquiry with issues like these?

Fiona McBride: I could not possibly comment on that. Because I have already checked the mark, and know that it is an identification, it would not be possible for me to revisit the print with an open mind and say whether it is or is not an identification. From my point of view, it is absolutely Shirley McKie's mark. Whether someone else could look at it and find sufficient characteristics and valuable evidence, I could not possibly say. I have already seen the evidence from the original material and I know that it is her mark. I cannot judge what someone else could see.

An expert giving evidence that it would be impossible to look again at Y7 with an open mind and be able to say if it was or was not an identification? Quite staggering to the lay person. I thought an expert who made an identification, would do so in the knowledge any other expert would be able to verify their conclusion, however Miss McBride says this cannot be guaranteed with Y7. I understand you could not know what characteristics others would see, but would you not expect the result to be consistent?

Does this nor fall within your research? I would have thought it would, but clearly given your response that you could not help the Inquiry “much” indicates it does not.

What better platform than to give evidence to the Inquiry on your research?

Any thoughts??

[Les Bush]

Hi all,

Yes the inquiry team needs help to evaluate who is on the right track with regard to Y7. How they achieve an objective and qualified solution will depend on where they seek advice. Given they have started well by placing a common set of prints before each participant we can move onto the capture phase of how the ridge details are analysed. All participants would/should be familiar with the performance of AFIS computers. Each participant should be invited/requested to supply a prepared submission of both the latent Y7 and the inked thumb by marking the sites of core/delta, ridge deviations and producing a comprehensive analysis of both fingerprints. Using several AFIS systems available in either the UK, Europe, USA or elsewhere it is possible to then input the prepared submissions as coded (participants) entries without editing and without any contextual information to the AFIS operators who would be independent of the inquiry. AFIS would be asked to compare the inked to the latent as a closed search. The results of the AFIS survey then set a benchmark of an objective comparison of each participants competency. The AFIS input format could be jpeg images of scanned photographic preparations that are exported via the internet to the overseas/local AFIS sites. These same preparations of Y7 and the inked could also be independently uploaded into a Metric tool program producing geometric configurations of the two impressions as marked by the participants. Both would help. Cheers from oz. Les

[charlton97]

Taggert,

for sure there is a whole career's worth of potential research just on this case alone. But I am not about staging and grandstanding our work like some gun for hire. The research I am doing is serious academic work that is asking questions for is own sake. I only speak for myself now you understand, but I for one do not feel our research requires a platform upon which to use such a hearing as this to score some points for the cause. Scientific validity is achieved through peer reviewed endeavour, not whether it is used in an enquiry. I have no control over the use of the research by any party in this hearing. I am certain that both sides in this argument would find both solace and threat from some of the implications of the research, but that is not my concern. I do think that this enquiry will help to get to the truth once and for all, whatever that truth turns out to be. The work of myself and Dr Dror is out there in the public domain. I invite all interested parties to read it and draw your own conclusions as to whether it is useful within the terms of reference of the enquiry. That will surely depend also on where the enquiry take us I would imagine?

cheers


Dave

[Big Wullie]

Daktari

We do not have any fingerprint examination cases that he has undertaken over the last ten years.

What about Swann before Shirley Mckie's, Was he not retired for 21 years before Shirley's case ?

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.

When was the last time Swann and Leadbetter were in the thick of it so to speak ?

When did any of them sit any Competencey tests ?

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.

Has Peter Swann not been retired for 21 years ?

We do not know when Professor Champod last conducted fingerprint examination work, although it does sound like he never has.

Sounds a bit like Swann and Leadbetter, Has Leadbetter ever sat any IAI Competency Tests ?

What Thumb print do you support, Swanns Right Thumb or SCRO version of a Left Thumb.

Do you also support Swann taking the impression from the Beano, Dandy, Sorry Daily Mail.

No wonder Shirley's defence team ditched the loony.

I look forward to this enquiry with great anticipation and know for definite Iain McKie has always called for this enquiry despite the rantings of Daktari to the contrary.

Without Iain's persistence there would be no giving evidence under Oath, Like the last whitewash.

I also hope you make yourself known to the enquiry team as Daktari, but do not hold out much hope of you doing so like the snake that you are that cannot tell everyone who you are but want to criticise everyone under your anonymous of Daktari.

Please have the guts to put your proper name to your comments as you will be outed at the enquiry and asked about all your comments that have been copy and pasted into a neat little folder.

Oh I really cannot wait to see your face

[Taggart]

Dave,
You stated:

The research I am doing is serious academic work that is asking questions for is own sake. I only speak for myself now you understand, but I for one do not feel our research requires a platform upon which to use such a hearing as this to score some points for the cause. Scientific validity is achieved through peer reviewed endeavour, not whether it is used in an enquiry. I have no control over the use of the research by any party in this hearing…..The work of myself and Dr Dror is out there in the public domain. I invite all interested parties to read it and draw your own conclusions as to whether it is useful within the terms of reference of the enquiry.

Let me draw your attention to what the broad issues being currently investigated by the Inquiry.

http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... .html#five

21 November 2008
Chairman’s announcement about how the Inquiry will proceed
The broad issues, within the Inquiry's terms of reference, that will be considered are:
1. Fingerprints: the identification and verification of the marks labelled Y7, QI2, QD2 and XF.
2. The decision to prosecute Shirley McKie.
3. The response of the Scottish Criminal Record Office and its successor bodies to the acquittal of Shirley McKie.
4. Fingerprint procedures in the Scottish Criminal Record Office and its successor bodies.
5. Training and qualification of fingerprint examiners in Scotland, and presentation of fingerprint evidence in Scottish court proceedings.
6. Research regarding the current status of fingerprinting as a forensic science, and possible causes of error.
The issues will be kept under review as the Inquiry proceeds.
The Inquiry team will now begin the process of gathering statements from witnesses. These will be made available to core participants in advance of the hearings and will form part of the witnesses’ evidence. If a witness is required to give oral evidence, this will be given under oath and Counsel will have the opportunity to question them at the evidence hearings. With the Chairman's approval, core participants and others will also have the opportunity to question witnesses.

And in particular issue 6. You asked the readers to draw their own conclusions whether your research is useful to the inquiry. Let me be the first to state I think it is.

This is not about point scoring Dave, the Inquiry is genuinely interested in these issues, otherwise they would not be looking at them.

Why not take some initiative Dave and approach the Inquiry and let them know about your research?

Or are you hoping they will come across your research themselves and approach you?

This is about understanding Dave. Why not use your research and help them understand?

This is not about Dave Charlton using this as a platform for Dave Charlton, this is about getting to the truth.

If you genuinely believe there is no place here for your research in this Inquiry, then I accept your decision to sit back.

But at least think about it??

[Iain McKie]

Hi Les,

I find your idea of using AFIS to evaluate 'Y7' interesting but would be fascinated to hear what your expert colleagues think.

If the idea is a runner then can I suggest that it be submitted to the Inquiry as a suggestion? My feeling is that the Inquiry team is open to suggestions and ideas for moving things forward.

It seems important to me that all the experts are asked to play on a level playing field and after all that is what the SCRO experts and their supporters have wanted for years. The dissemination of a common set of prints is a start and hopefully means that no-one can hide behind the excuse that ‘original’ quality material is not available.

Shirley and I remember the early support given by experts like you and it is something we will never forget. Without that encouragement we would never have reached the position where we have an independent judicial Inquiry about to explore the reality behind this 11 year mystery.

Best wishes to your Oz colleagues as the festive session approaches from your friends in Scotland.

Iain

[rbostrum]

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

Most people on CLPEX are likely familiar with Professor Champod's credentials and background. If anyone is not they can learn a little more at https://applicationspub.unil.ch/interpu ... menu=coord. His list of publications is extensive: https://applicationspub.unil.ch/interpu ... 8&menu=pub

Michele's online Fingerprint Dictionary also has an entry for Professor Champod that reads:

Christophe Champod is Professor of forensic science at the school of criminal sciences / Institut
de Police Scientifique, University of Lausanne, Switzerland. He has strong interest in statistical and
inferential issues in identification evidence and has written articles on the frequency distribution of
friction skin characteristics. In 2004, Christophe Champod co-wrote "Fingerprints and Other Ridge Skin
Impressions" with Chris Lennard, Pierre Margot and Milutin Stoilovic. He is also an invited member of
the Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology.

All in all, if the information on his webpage is any indication, Dr. Champod appears to be rather well-qualified to speak to matters of interest to the inquiry, at least from an academic point-of-view. I'm not sure there would be too many people with better credentials.

[Les Bush]

Hi Iain,

Thank you for the idea to suggest the AFIS proposal to the Inquiry team, always happy to help where I can. Ive made an inquiry today for the purpose of seeking feedback on the scientific status of such a survey and will hopefully follow that up with a letter to the Inquiry team. I've been waiting since March 2008 for the IAI to complete their review of my complaint about two members and their technical ability, still waiting. All things will come to those who wait, and that is an appropriate point for xmas. I too wish you and your family, particularly Shirley all the very best for this season and ofcourse lets see 2009 bring closure to a hardship you've all endured primarily on account of one latent fingerprint Y7. Cheers from oz.

[Daktari]

Here’s what Sir Anthony Campbell has to say on this.
November 21, 2008 Transcript

THE CHAIRMAN:

We are already aware that Professor Champod has had some involvement in a professional capacity with one of the core participants -- that is Pat Wertheim -- but it is understood Professor Champod has not expressed any opinion as to the identification of any of the marks with which this Inquiry is concerned and it is not the intention to ask him to do so.
...... I am conscious, as counsel has said, of the fact that he at some stage I think had written a joint paper with Mr Wertheim but that is the only difficulty that I foresaw.

http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotland.org.uk/inquiry/files/Revised%20Prelim%20Hearing%202%20FINAL%20(2).pdf
Edit /Find = Wertheim
But the whole thing is really worth reading!

[Iain McKie]

I totally agree rbostrum that Professor Champod fits the bill and hopefully his appointment will be confirmed.

You might have observed that the only defence the SCRO supporters have is to criticise and rubbish experts and anyone who their convoluted thought processes assess as opposing them. This policy is however about to hit the rocks as the Inquiry creates a level playing field and pursues totally objective lines of enquiry that do not take account of such bias, prejudice, innuendo and misinformation.

There is of course another way forward and that is to eschew this approach and it is still my hope that a spirit of ‘truth and reconciliation’ will be present at the Inquiry whereby those who wish to set the record straight might do so without fear of retribution.

It seems a better to move forward by seeking to identify the failures at individual, organisational, and systems level and create solutions than to seek revenge.

I await the results of your various enquiries with interest Les. As you say, ‘All things will come to those who wait’, and it will indeed be wonderful next year to finally draw a line under this whole affair

If ‘Truth and Reconciliation’ is the way forward then perhaps some good might yet come of the past 11 years.

I am informed that there are unlikely to be any further Inquiry hearings this year and hopefully in January we will find out about the Inquiry progress and have a clearer idea of broad range of issues to be examined.

[Taggart]

You are quite right Iain that the only way one side knows is to attempt to rubbish and discredit. Evidenced yet again by our friend daktari who obviously backs Russell given he is prepared to quote from him.

How strange that daktari is unable to give us the name of even one expert who they believe would benefit the Inquiry. Not one! I think that tells us everything we need to know.

And I find it extraordinary that Russell has managed to get his claws into a relative of Marion Ross’s, who amazingly is openly criticising you for manipulating the media!

MR RUSSELL: Thank you, sir. If I emphasise, these are Malcolm Ross's words, not mine. I have transcribed it and I read it:

"As I understand it, the primary reason for the Scottish Government to launch the Inquiry is to re-establish the Scottish people's confidence in their system of justice. The primary wrong being addressed is the brutal murder of Marion Ross. This wrong and its pursuit has been manipulated, subverted and hijacked by the cleverly managed McKie sideshow. This seems to have been allowed by: (1) the adept manipulation of the press and other methods of information dissemination by the McKie faction; and (2) the serial incompetence, and 16 perhaps malfeasance, of the police and the Justice 17 officers in Scotland.

It is abundantly clear that Malcolm Ross has allowed himself to be used by Russell. I genuinely feel sorry for Malcolm Ross who is now getting himself sucked right into this sorry affair. And having to stand up now under oath and explain why he believes you have manipulated the media, and what evidence he has for this.

If Russell is so genuinely concerned in getting justice for Marion Ross, why is he concerned with Professor Champod? What has he got to fear, if SCRO and Swann and company are correct?

What is there to fear from the truth?

Why hasn’t he asked for the prints to be independently checked and name a person who believes would be suitable?

Because he can’t. He knows there is nobody who is going to support the identification.

After all the marks have been on the Internet for years now, and the Justice 1 Enquiry validated them as being usable images, yet as far as I know not one single expert has verified the SCRO “identification” from those images. Not one, but hundreds have used them to exclude the print as having been made by Shirley.

The bottom line he has is more concerned in himself than in any possible justice for the victim. His actions are quite frankly disgusting and deplorable.

In fairness to Russell I believe the man is genuinely ill. That can be the only excuse for his behaviour. I thought the reaction of the SCRO Experts to Russell’s “rant” at the last Hearing was very telling indeed, and explains why they have distanced themselves from him.

He is now a seriously genuine threat to them all. Bad enough being concerned what you are going to be hit with under oath, but to also now have to worry about a very loose cannon on your own side must make things all that much harder!

I’ll give daktari a few more days to come up with a suitable expert for the Inquiry given he supports Russell against Champod.

If they don’t we will take it as read that there is nobody on this earth they can turn to…..

[Taggart]

G'day Les, good to hear from you. Hope all good with you down under.

With regards to your comments:

I've been waiting since March 2008 for the IAI to complete their review of my complaint about two members and their technical ability, still waiting.

Can you update us on what the delay is? Or what you are being told the delay is?

Any member of the IAI care to comment on why this is taking an eternity?

When a complaint is made what steps do the IAI take to deal with a complaint?

I presume the two members must have been asked for evidence by the IAI in order to investigate the complaint?

Do you have a right to see the response of the two members?

Is there any precedent from complaints in the past?

Wouldn't is be something else if they come back with a result prior to the Inquiry starting!

All the best Les!