McKie/Y7 Public Judicial Inquiry under way

[Big Wullie]

Why Daktari would make an issue about Champod being involved with Pat here:

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.

And object to Champod, is beyond me given that by his own admission here :

11 Page 43 MR RUSSELL: Sir, Professor Champod was on Martin Leadbetter's third level detail working group.

Leaves us in no doubt he was also involved with Martin Leadbetter more than with Pat Wertheim.

I just find it strange they would object to him being retained by the enquiry team

[Les Bush]

Hi Taggart,

In response to your questions I wont go into who Ive complained about or what the complaint is. The matter has been accepted by the IAI and they have initiated a Professional Review Board. My latest contact with the IAI was in September informing me that a Y-7 committee had already been formed for the purpose of advising the PRB. To answer your questions about timings and precedents I am experiencing this for the first time so the time line is not encouraging since it is only one latent fingerprint. Members of the IAI who are better informed may if motivated enlighten you and the wider audience on those matters. My concern is more the continued damage being caused to our science by the uncertainty associated with Y7 and this concern is well above the professional standards involved or any egos. I notice the IAI has a new chairman in Robert Garrett so he will ultimately have carriage of any decision made by the PRB and its effect on the two members. Or, if they (Y-7 committee) find that Y7 is a genuine identification of Shirley's left thumb then the turn around is my complaint is invalid and I'm a goose for suggesting they got it wrong. My confidence is that I will sleep well. Cheers again Taggart I dont know who you are but as Ive said previously your knowledge of this case and your arguments continue to be inspiring. Regards from oz. Les

[Daktari]

Evidenced yet again by our friend daktari(sic) who obviously backs Russell given he is prepared to quote from him.

I’ve quoted Iain McKie. What does that tell you?

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!

Since when is this relative of Marion Ross media?
And what manipulation are you referring to?

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

Tell me what he was asked and what he answered and I’ll let you know if he committed Perjury at Shirley’s Trial. If he did he was not the only one, was he?

[Taggart]

I’ve quoted Iain McKie. What does that tell you?

Actually tells me nothing unlike your total failure to give us the name of one expert who you believe could aid the Inquiry which tells me everything!

And what manipulation are you referring to?

The manipulation which was being referred to at the Hearing by Russell on behalf of Malcolm Ross. I did quote it but perhaps you failed to notice it. For your sake let me repeat the relevant quote from Russell:

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.

In Malcolm Ross’s words “the adept manipulation of the press and other methods of information dissemination by the McKie faction”.

I suspect more like the words Russell placed into the mouth of Malcolm Ross!

Either way I only hope there is evidence to back those allegations up at the Inquiry.

And with regard to Mark Lees, you are forgetting one simple thing in all this case. Even if every single copper in Strathclyde Police came forward and said they saw Shirley in that house, no matter how desperate you are the fact remains it is not her fingerprint!

Your desperation really pleases me when you have to resort to unsubstantiated rumours and gossip to try and defend the indefensible. Just how low can you get?

Still scouring the Internet to try and find an expert name for us??

In your own time daktari, your total failure does you no credit, and only exposes your utter desperation.

So nothing new there then.

[Big Wullie]

Taggart

I suspect more like the words Russell placed into the mouth of Malcolm Ross!

This was my sentiments exactly as I sat and listened to Russell ranting about the McKies.

These words never came from a "Layperson"

Russell actually answers this by claiming he has transcribed them, Says it all eh ?

[PC]

Is not! Is too! Is not! Is too!....responding to Daktari, whoever he/she is, is like arguing with a kid. I ask again...Why bother?!

When I last expressed how draining this "Is too/Is not" topic was, it was suggested that I just not read it. Well, I tried. Trouble is, I am hooked on knowing the progress of the inquiry. And I am facinated by the insights of many who post comments. However, while imparting information many get caught up in commenting on Daktari's drivel. Seems to me if we all just ignor Daktari's childish rantings that have little basis in truth we would all be better for it. Daktari isn't posting to legitmately debate an issue, or impart useful information. Daktari LIVES for the conflict...why give him/her/them what he/she/they want? I'm sure many of you are parents and have had experience with children trying to argue absurd issues...just give Daktari the respect that he/she/they have earned..let the rantings fall on deaf ears.

[rbostrum]

Is not! Is too! Is not! Is too!....responding to Daktari, whoever he/she is, is like arguing with a kid. I ask again...Why bother?!

When I last expressed how draining this "Is too/Is not" topic was, it was suggested that I just not read it. Well, I tried. Trouble is, I am hooked on knowing the progress of the inquiry. And I am facinated by the insights of many who post comments. However, while imparting information many get caught up in commenting on Daktari's drivel. Seems to me if we all just ignor Daktari's childish rantings that have little basis in truth we would all be better for it. Daktari isn't posting to legitmately debate an issue, or impart useful information. Daktari LIVES for the conflict...why give him/her/them what he/she/they want? I'm sure many of you are parents and have had experience with children trying to argue absurd issues...just give Daktari the respect that he/she/they have earned..let the rantings fall on deaf ears.

I have to agree 100% with PC. This is a very interesting topic but the signal-to-noise ratio is terrible and the best solution would be to simply not respond. However, that can be difficult.

I don't normally advocate censorship of any form but phpBB does provide a partial solution that some may want to try out. If you click on any poster's name, you will go to their profile page. There you can opt to designate them as a 'friend' or 'foe'. Posts by a 'foe' are hidden when the thread is shown. It will be replaced with the following: "This post was made by [...] who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post."

It is not a perfect solution particularly if someone else responds to a post by [...] because that response ends up being out of context. Of course, you still have the option to view the post if you really can't resist.

Ultimately, this option can work perfectly to eliminate specific sources of noise. But only if everyone opts for it and everyone ignores the designated poster. It is, however, a personal decision that each person must make.

I personally find it easier to do this than read through the junk and end up being tempted to respond or ask another question that won't be answered. Basically, I find that this limits the noise a little and, IMO, makes it easier to read the thread. Others may want to try it out.

[Taggart]

Les,

Thanks for the information. The current actions of the IAI are incredibly interesting, and given there are members from both sides within their membership, I believe the delay may well be down to politics rather than any other reason. After all action will need to be taken against one set of supporters down the line.

I suggest we let the IAI get on with their task, without any undue pressure being placed on them, and look forward to the result of their investigations.

PC and rbostrum,

Thanks also for contributing to the topic and your views are appreciated.

However I would like to add one thing which perhaps has gone unnoticed.

Daktari is going to be at the Public Inquiry, and will become a critical witness.

Over the last few months and years daktari, along with adroitcaledonian and flyingmonkey before them, albeit all the same individual, have been absolutely invaluable. Rather than adding nothing, as you may believe, they have in fact given us immeasurable information.

Only in this posting alone we know they are terrified of Professor Champod’s involvement in the Public Inquiry. Equally we know there is absolutely no one suitable for their side to be involved as an expert advisor. We also know they want to move away from the fingerprint “identification” and try and focus on other irrelevant issues, hoping the error in some strange way will be justified.

We know over the last few months that they have absolutely no scientific argument over their “identification” of Y7. Only attack on individuals who have disagreed with them.

Where better than on this website to try and gain some support? But over time daktari and those before them, have done nothing but totally alienate those in the Science who could have possibly supported them.

I would wager a large amount of money that not one single expert who viewed these postings and was unaware of the history have been persuaded by daktari and company.

They know other way, but I guess desperate times call for desperate measures.

Only time will tell, but the truth will come out, and over time daktari has only added to their woes.

Please fell free to add my name along with daktari to your “foes” list, I promise I won’t be offended guys. I know from the viewing figures that many others take time to read these postings, and dare I suggest enjoy them.

I suggest however we sit back and allow daktari to alienate themselves even further before the Public Inquiry.

[Daktari]

Still scouring the Internet to try and find an expert name for us??

Certainly not, I'll leave that to you since the last one you found was Allan Bayle!!!

[sharon cook]

[PC]

Les,

Not much has gone unnoticed by me with regard to what Daktari was implied in the rantings. But I don't think it is a given that Daktari will be at the public inquiry or will be a critical witness. Daktari could just be a big blowhard..seen quite a few just like that in my time. All talk and no substance. And from what I've read of the (dis)information Daktari spews I see little, actually no, advantage in responding to his/her/their rants. For whatever information you have gleened from Daktari, you can bet Daktari has gleened more from the responses. That said, who cares? The truth is the truth. And I don't see any new information coming out about the facts in the McKie case, so I firmly believe that this time the truth will win out. Even if Daktari shows up at the inquiry and is a witness, he/she/they certainly aren't any real threat to justice being served. It will only be an opportunity for Daktari to embarrass him/her/their selves in another forum.

But, don't get me wrong..I have NO problem with Daktari posting to this thread. Post away Daktari, post away! Everyone trying to reason with this(these) person(people) is really draining. As I said, this is what makes Daktari feel powerful. Just as a child will argue with a parent. The parent's frustration gives the child power.

I have tremendous respect for all the professionals and learned lay persons that contribute to this chat board. Daktari doesn't. Daktari only sees a reflection of his/her/their failures. The only way Daktari can feel any measure of power is to bring us into a senseless argument. I am only suggesting (as tempting as it might be) not to respond as it truely is beneath us all.

But let me give you an example of what I am trying to convey here. Daktari slamed Professor Champod’s involvement in the inquiry. I personally hadn't heard of Professor Champod before, so was very appreciative that someone else posted the BIO for the professor. Great information that might not have come about without Daktari's posting. But by responding TO Daktari you give him/her/them undeserved respect. I don't expect ignoring Daktari will cause him/her/them not to post. It will be much harder for Daktari not to post than for any of us not to respond directly to him/her/them. Hopefully, I made my position more clear.

And thanks also to YOU for contributing to this topic and to others topics. The information that is shared in this and other threads is immeasurable. And I do appreciate your (and others) views whether or not we agree.

[Daktari]

Just for the record I have no particular problem with Prof. Champod giving evidence on the statistical probabilities of errors occurring in fingerprint work. In fact I may even welcome it, if only to kill off the honest mistake nonsense.
The only thing is that his work may become distorted and misused by the likes of Iain McKie as happened with Dror / Charlton's work.
The trouble is that while much of this type of work is focused on the probability of an individual making an error it doesn't pan out when applied to a group of experts.
We, or rather most of us, know that in probability theory AND means 'times' and OR means 'plus'.
e.g. Coin 'A' and coin 'B' both have a probability of 50% that they will land 'heads'.
What is the probability of one of them landing heads? 50% + 50% = 100%
What is the probability of both of them landing heads? 50% X 50% = 25%

[David Fairhurst]

Sorry I just cannot let the last post stand!

Probability of at least one coin landing heads = 75%
Probabliity of exactly one coin landing heads = 50%
Probability of both coins landing heads = 25%

You scored 1 out of the three marks available in this simple probability calculation.

I wonder if you might be out of your depth with Dr Champod's work.

[Daktari]

You must have got your coins from the McKies!
Or your probability theory from Steve the self made statistician.
One out of three?
I only offered two examples so either your reading skills or your arithmetic needs a brush up!

http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/probability.html#probability

Independent Events
Two events are independent if the occurrence of one of the events gives us no information about whether or not the other event will occur; that is, the events have no influence on each other.
In probability theory we say that two events, A and B, are independent if the probability that they both occur is equal to the product of the probabilities of the two individual events, i.e.

Addition Rule
The addition rule is a result used to determine the probability that event A or event B occurs or both occur.
The result is often written as follows, using set notation:

where:
P(A) = probability that event A occurs
P(B) = probability that event B occurs
= probability that event A or event B occurs
= probability that event A and event B both occur
For mutually exclusive events, that is events which cannot occur together:
= 0
The addition rule therefore reduces to
= P(A) + P(B)

QED

[David Fairhurst]

You scored one point for correctly guessing that the probability of two heads from two tosses was 1 in 4 or 25%
The other two points were for recognising that at least one head and exactly one head are different outcomes and for working out their independent probabilities.

How can the probability of "one head" be 100% when there is a 1 in 4 chance of getting two tails????????