McKie/Y7 Public Judicial Inquiry under way

[Daktari]

We have clear confirmation that McKie met with David Mulhern on many occasions. Several times he was accompanied by the foul-breathed Nationalist MSP Alex Neil.
Neil sees himself as something of a political Rottweiler so we can assume that the sole purpose of his presence was to intimidate Mulhern. "We hired you, we can fire you" sort of thing. He was certainly not there because of his good looks, knowledge of forensics or intellect.
Mulhern obviously believed this nonsense. As recently as last week he was claiming that the SPSA Board could not take disciplinary action against him since he was employed by the Scottish Ministers
and not by them. (Mulhern is facing thirty seven charges regarding 'performance and capability')
Mulhern stood his ground over McKie's and Neil's demands. As an ex-pupil of Holyrood RC School certain spheres of influence were closed. Therefore McKie resorted to smear campaign tactics across newspaper letter pages and Neil, under the cowardly protection Parliamentary Privilege, raised the issue in Parliament by asking breathtaking banal questions designed to cause trouble rather than elicit information. (At a cost to Scottish taxpayer of some £980/ $1500 a throw)

You also asked about the number of points of similarity.
Well obviously enough experts found sufficient to go into Court with, I believe sixteen was sufficient in 1997 for identification. Several others found enough for elimination purposes.

As for an expert the SCRO / Swan / Ross 'side' would welcome to see giving evidence on behalf of McKie / Asbury / McKie.
I just can't think of anyone better than Allan Bayle.
But I bet you, and McKie / Asbury / Mckie, can!

As for the truth about Irvine Road.
You know it and I know it.
I hope that once the Inquiry is over everybody knows it

[Taggart]

Two Scottish “Experts” who have knowingly misidentified fingerprints have given Expert Evidence in Scottish Courts in the last 8 years!

Care to name them?

I am not in a position to positively identify exactly which two experts have given evidence in Court, other than to tell you it is two of the following three:

Alister Geddes, Edward Bruce and Terry Foley.

All three have produced evidence for court purposes since the misidentifications, and two of those three have given “expert” evidence in Court.

Hope this helps you daktari. You will be aware the Crown Office fully accepts the fingerprints Y7 and QI2 are misidentifications, so why they would allow those guilty of those very misidentifications to give evidence is extremely serious.

Fear not however as this will be an issue for the forthcoming Inquiry to investigate, and one that the SPSA has finally opened their eyes to.

Let us look at your latest offering

so we can assume that the sole purpose of his presence was to intimidate Mulhern.

Based on what? Seems a little desperate on your part to start “assuming” what happened in private meetings.

It would of course have been easier for you to retract your comment and apologise instead of trying to make things “fit”. However given certain individuals have tried to make things fit for 11 years your comments hardly surprise me.

And yet again another posting full of attack and hatred.

You also asked about the number of points of similarity.
Well obviously enough experts found sufficient to go into Court with, I believe sixteen was sufficient in 1997 for identification. Several others found enough for elimination purposes.

Obviously? So what you are telling us there are 16 points in agreement in mark Y7. Good, I look forward to the SCRO Experts being able to stand under oath and independently demonstrate each and every single one of those 16 characteristics.

I do find I strange that Alister Geddes was only able to find 11 points , but for the Civil Case found 16. Robert Mackenzie originally found 45 in five separate areas, but for the Civil Case was only able to highlight 13 in agreement.

As for an expert the SCRO / Swan / Ross 'side' would welcome to see giving evidence on behalf of McKie / Asbury / McKie.
I just can't think of anyone better than Allan Bayle.
But I bet you, and McKie / Asbury / Mckie, can!

Are you suggesting you would accept Allan Bayle as the Official expert for the Inquiry? Interesting. Are you prepared to officially give his name to the Inquiry as an Expert you would accept to advise them? Of course not.

As for the truth about Irvine Road.
You know it and I know it.
I hope that once the Inquiry is over everybody knows it

You have completely lost me with this one.

Let me share with you what I do know as facts over Irvine Road.

Print Y7 was wrongly identified by SCRO as belonging to Shirley McKie.

Shirley McKie denied ever being in the locus.

Strathclyde Police carried out a thorough investigation on behalf of the Crown Office whether there was any evidence of Shirley being in the House.

Strathclyde Police investigation reported that there was not one single piece of evidence to suggest Shirley had been in the locus.

Every Police Officer was interviewed as part of the Strathclyde Investigation and not one single Officer reported seeing Shirley in the locus.

Every Police Officer working at the locus gave evidence under oath at Shirley’s trial.

Not one single officer spoke of Shirley being in the house.

Facts. As I know them.

If you know differently please do enlighten us with your facts.

Or are you once again spouting unsubstantiated drivel?

Please do share your facts with us, or else expose yourself for what you really are. Your choice….

[Daktari]

So police officer after police officer appeared in the witness box at Shirley's Trial and said they had not seen Shirley in 43 Irvine Road, therefore she was never inside so could not have left the mark that was later identified as having been made by her.
Well that's all right then, Shirley will be delighted to appear before the Inquiry and set the record straight. I look forward to that.
So much so I may even be there to watch.

[Taggart]

so could not have left the mark that was later identified as having been made by her

I am failing to see your logic given it has been readily accepted that by all who matter that the fingerprint to which you refer was “wrongly” identified as having been made by Shirley.

What yet again does strike me is your utter desperation that if for one moment you can cast any doubt on whether or not Shirley was in the house, it will excuse the error by the SCRO Experts.

What the majority are looking forward to is those very experts standing in the witness box, under oath explaining each and every single characteristic in detail.

You seem to forget this is a Fingerprint Inquiry, not a Justify the Mistakes Inquiry.

[Daktari]

If

it has been readily accepted that by all who matter

why are we having this Inquiry?
The same Inquiry that the McKies tried to stop.

[Taggart]

why are we having this Inquiry?

In short to expose those who have brought such shame on the Science they claim to represent, and to restore Public Confidence back within the Fingerprint Service in General.

Also to expose those who have, in the exact manner you have done, perpetuated lies and misinformation over the last 12 years.

And to be in a position at the end of this Inquiry to Report whether those errors were down to gross incompetence, or as a result of criminal actions.

I hope this clarifies matters for you dear boy.

[briano]

to restore Public Confidence back within the Fingerprint Service in General.

I believe that train left the station a long time ago.

[Big Wullie]

Daktari

Nice to see you are still spewing forth your repulsive loathing rants at all that dare to disagree with you, True colours are always welcome and totally destroy any credibility you might have had.

Do you honestly think you gain any credibility with your foul rants ?

Also nice to see that at least Iain Mckie has some integrity in asking for a bit of T & R at this enquiry, something obviously not within your scope.

Happy New Year, to you.

Cannot wait for next enquiry hearing, perhaps see you there where you will have the best chance to put your views to the people you are spouting about in person

[Daktari]

Thanks for your kind wishes.
In the same spirit, may I say that hope your health has improved.

Recently I visited Switzerland where I chanced upon a copy of the Richmond Times ~ Despatch and noticed a headline declaring McKie ignites Justices
Whatever next, I thought. They spectacularly failed to 'ignite' Justice1 (even with seven lawyers and Shirley's histrionics), failed to ignite Peter Swann's Tribunal (by not turning up), failed to ignite the Court of Session (by settling the case for $1m less that they asked for)
Could they be turning over a new leaf and actually ' ignite' the Fingerprint Inquiry?
Leaving aside the possibility that Shirley may not turn up and that Iain's new found Truth and Reconciliation approach fools no one, I was to be disappointed once again.
It turned out, on further reading, that the McKie being talked about was a high school basketball player, one Travis McKie, and not the Travesty McKie we have all come to know, but not quite love!
I bet that after the truth comes out the McKies would like to ignite a few Justices!

[ER]

a mark being found, that bears so many similarities

I'm still waiting for you to show me those similiaries.

How about one? ONE?

Can you show me one similarity?

All of your rambling about who said what and when is just so inconsequential.

It's crunch time.
Step up to the plate.
Put up or shut up.
Swing for the fences.
Time to walk the walk.
Aim high.
Put your cards on the table.
Push the envelope.
Go big or go home.
Point Percy at the porcelain.
Do or die.

[opop]

Hi Pat,

Sorry to jump in again but when I read obvious bulls__t I can't stop myself. You said in a post on this thread, "Regarding several controversial cases in which I have been involved, I have come to the position that I generally make it a point to try not to speculate on the identity of the people critical of me." You and I both know that this is a lie. You have done it time and again and, in our last exchange over a year ago regarding spurious allegations about one of my colleagues, you, and others I won't mention unlessed pushed, desperately tried to find out who I was." I will spell it out for all very specifically if you decide to dispute this. I'm happy to say that despite your efforts, I was not outed until I identified myself at the IAI Conference in San Diego to someone we both know.

You went on to say, "In some threads involving ongoing criminal investigations, I have requested of the webmaster that he keep a record of the IP addresses of all people posting on those topics, but that he NOT tell me anything. Rather, I have asked him to keep those records confidential and only turn them over to law enforcement investigators or prosecutors, or when a court order requires him to disclose them." This is precisely the reason some people wish to remain anonymous. I as much said so in a previous post about anonymous posters.

"I neither need nor want to know who they are." A reiteration of the prevous lie.

"I support your views completely, Gerald. And I would urge civility from all, even the critical, anonymous users. There is no need for any of us to call each other scumbags." Yet you referred to anonymous posters in an e-mail string as "pigs in the mud."

You once sarcastically called me in a post your ethics adviser. I post this, as the last time, because I know the truth and you know I know the truth. I don't know what kind of ego trip you're on but please refrain from this kind of altruistic nonsense. The holier than thou act is nauseating. I also post this because it is important to me that everyone know that not everything espoused by the great Pat Wertheim is truthful.

Bring it.

[Daktari]

The holier than thou act is nauseating

If you think that’s nauseating you should read some of the drivel that has been written about a certain ex police officer.
If you ever looking for some truly exquisite hypocrisy you read Truth and Reconciliation posted by a man who has promised to hunt down and expose all those who agree with the SCRO Identification. The same man has spent thousands of hours in a vindictive campaign to get decent, honest people sacked for the ‘crime’ of being prepared to speak out in support of their colleagues. You might even say he has approached this task with evangelical enthusiasm.
The implied threats included in the we know who you are postings are of course nonsense. The truth is that these people know what the truth is and hope that they can keep the lid on it by their threats.
I post anonymously to protect my family from the smears and innuendo that such people are perfectly happy to put about. Not to protect myself from some fanciful notion of criminal or civil prosecution.
Like you they know I know the truth too.
No lie lasts forever as Martin Luther King famously said.
Happy New Year.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

"opop," I am sad to see your bitterness still eating away at you. The fact of the matter is that what I said in that reply to Gerald is the truth. If you still trust Kasey, you could ask him if I have made those requests of him. And yes, there was some email specultation among several of us as to your identity back a couple of years ago, emails that I understand you found on your boss' desk and read. While you did out yourself to Kasey and at least one other in San Diego, to the best of my knowledge they have not broadcast it although Kasey did tell me. When you and I passed in the hall in Boston last August, we smiled and acknowledged each other. We were both on our ways between talks, I believe, and for that reason didn't stop to talk. Too bad. You're not a bad guy, "opop," just a guy who got hurt in a tragic situation. I had hoped you would have gotten over it by now.

[Iain McKie]

The Fingerprint Inquiry Chairman Sir Anthony Campbell has decided to appoint Professor Christophe Champod as an expert to the Inquiry.

http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... ry/39.html

In addition he has also decided that,

'in order to ensure balance, the Inquiry will proceed with a modified approach, which is to obtain expert assistance from more than one source.'

Dr Stephen Bleay of the Home Office will carry out 'various technical tasks'.

http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.go ... iew=Binary

http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.go ... iew=Binary

In a further effort to ensure balance Sir Anthony has also ruled.

'Using the existing reports and also witness statements, Professor Champod will be asked to assist the Inquiry team to identify the specific areas in dispute and to facilitate focused questioning on disputed details at the hearings of the Inquiry. ........... Again in the interests of balance, and recognising that Professor Champod does not claim to be a fingerprint practitioner, I have decided that this review ought to be done by more than one person. ......... others, who are fingerprint examiners or practitioners, will also be instructed. That will allow Counsel to have the benefit of a range of views. I am not yet in a position to indicate who the other individual or individuals will be. The Inquiry team are pursuing some leads, but I would welcome suggestions from core participants. If there is not consensus, I will decide upon how many and who should be instructed.

This broadening of the expertise available to the Inquiry is I believe to be welcomed and brings hope that the Inquiry will finally settle matters and ascertain the truth in an atmosphere of 'truth and reconciliation.'

Oral hearings are due to start in May for 8 weeks with extra hearing dates available in August and September.