news article: "McKie inquiry evidence to start"

[Taggart]

I have extracted a few statements from the written evidence to the Justice 1 Enquiry by SCRO expert Charles Stewart from April 2006, who is due to give evidence at the Fingerprint Inquiry later this week. It should be read in conjunction with his Inquiry statement and also in line with his oral testimony later this week,

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/busin ... -02.htm#13

Written submission from Charles Stewart

I am concerned that the Justice 1 Committee appears to be viewing this matter on the basis that there has been a mistake within SCRO. As far as I am aware their has been no legal pronouncement as to the identification of the marks concerned. Therefore it is clear that two different sets of opinions exist. I am very willing to appear as a witness and to give more information if required as this submission is at best a brief summary of a much larger document. I am grateful for the opportunity to give my side of events as we have been unable to do so before now and the public of Scotland are entitled to the truth.

Public perception and confidence
Public confidence in the fingerprint service in Scotland has suffered because of a malicious media campaign waged against us, as the four SCRO experts who correctly identified the Shirley McKie, Marion Ross and David Asbury fingerprints, and against SCRO as an organisation. Indeed it could be said that this campaign was also against the criminal justice system in Scotland.
This campaign appears to have been orchestrated by Iain McKie (father of Shirley). He has used his contacts he made when he was employed as Strathclyde Police’s media relations officer to further his daughters cause. Considerable column inches and TV footage have been given to misleading and inaccurate reporting. We were hindered by the instructions to us not to say anything to anyone, as the matter, we were informed, was considered to be sub-judice. This instruction effectively guaranteed that the media coverage would become a one sided tirade, thereby increasing the public loss of confidence in SCRO.

We have no doubt that SCRO was an excellent supplier of a fingerprint service to all its customers in 1997, and indeed still is. SCRO has always been at the forefront of innovation in all matters related to fingerprinting. We were the first Bureau in Britain to adopt a computerised searching system, were the first to introduce competency tests on an annual basis for all its experts and were in the lead at obtaining ISO 9002 accreditation. It is doubtful if many of the experts the McKie’s rely on could claim more than one of the above.

If recent events that challenge the McKie’s (Lord Hodge’s ruling, Outer House, Court of Session- Shirley Jane McKie v. The Scottish Ministers) and their experts received the same level of publicity that the McKie’s manage, then Public perception would soon swing back to become one of confidence. This has been from day one, a one sided manipulated media campaign. It is likely that only positive media coverage and time will improve the false perception.

HMIC appear to have made the same judgemental decision that SCRO was wrong, and have worked on that basis, a decision that many others have also reached to further their own purposes. At worst the Zeelenberg and Rudruud report and that of Rokkjaer & Rasmussen only highlighted the difference in opinion between different experts. The opinion of the SCRO experts appear to have been totally dismissed, the two independent expert witnesses who reviewed the evidence of SCRO for the Asbury and the McKie defence teams also appear to have been totally disregarded.

The Scottish Public deserve one centre of excellence for its fingerprint services, it would be financially and operationally more cost effective in one centre as well as being more effective and efficient. How can Zeelenberg who is in the McKie camp be a suitable person to review the SCRO processes? Especially as he appears to be a flawed expert.

We carried out examination and comparison and subsequent identification of fingerprints on a daily basis. We were not involved in running fingerprint bureau as the head of the bureau, nor were we involved in travelling the world giving lectures or presentations or training courses. In simple terms we practiced the theory, unlike those the McKie’s rely on who only preach theory.

Regrettably for Wertheim it is not us that is incompetent or have presented false evidence in court, the comments I have made above in relation to this precognition clearly explain our actions and destroy his malicious and insidious comments, something that MacKay should also have been able to do if he was not blinkered by his desire to blame us.

In a further posting on the CLPEX web site (8), Wertheim states “you are absolutely correct that comprehensive training is the only dependable foundation for expertise” Its only a pity that he did not have any otherwise he would not be making mistakes in the McKie and Asbury cases.

We are further dismayed by the fact that the Crown has never made any of the case material available to us so that we could consult with experts of experience and operational credibility, so that we could discuss and review our findings. The lack of material also meant that we were never able to offer any challenge to the McKie campaign.
Questions also need to be asked as to why Wertheim was able to circulate copies of the Crown productions, very surprising as independent experts normally are only allowed to examine the fingerprint material and not to copy it. Did indeed the Crown sanction his actions? If so, why? Also how was Iain McKie able to obtain and circulate a copy of the Mackay report?

The Ministers appear to have never had a strategy in handling this matter, there appears to have been nothing other than ‘knee jerk’ reactions to various situations as they arose (usually orchestrated media pressure)Various Ministers have made inappropriate and unhelpful comment at various times.
The First Minister indeed stated to the Scottish Parliament on the 9th of February 2006 “In this case, it is quite clear-and this was accepted in the settlement that was announced on Tuesday (7 February)- that an honest mistake was made by individuals. I believe that all concerned have accepted that” Unfortunately for the First Minister we do not accept that any mistake, honest or otherwise has been made. The Scottish Ministers have squandered a considerable amount of tax payer’s money in a needless settlement.

I consider that even in this limited submission that I have shown that the ‘expert’ witnesses the McKie’s have periled their case on are unreliable and have problems with the truth. They are unreliable as they change their story every time they are challenged. Indeed of the four identifications they claim to be erroneous, evidence is available that two of them after review are accepted, that is the Ayrshire robbery that Alan Bayle claimed was ‘unsafe’, mark QD2 of David Asbury that the Danes so spectacularly failed to identify, further questions need to be asked now that independent expert have agreed mark QI2 as that of the deceased, a mark that Wertheim and Bayle both got wrong.
Evidence is available from Lord Wheatley and Hodges opinions that SCRO experts are clearly not guilty of any of the scurrilous and malicious accusations made against them. Indeed when we make a criminal complaint about the McKie ‘experts’ in the same manner they produced evidence against us, we consider that prosecution would inevitably follow.
Before the various people that have made judgements in this case and expressed their opinion, they should have reviewed the ‘experts’ the McKie’s rely on in the same manner that we were reviewed. These experts would have been unable to provide the same quantity of cases for a two year period that our management supplied on our behalf. If the same reviewers were used (New Scotland Yard fingerprint department) then we are confident that these ‘experts’ would not achieve the same level of accuracy and reliability that was found in our work.
The Scottish Ministers appear to have settled with the McKie for some unclear reason, probably their own self preservation or more likely the protection of the Lord Advocate and the Crown, and to a lesser extent the protection of the reputation of Strathclyde Police.
This document is a brief summary of my considerable in depth recording of all the matters causing concern in this affair, and in no way offers, because of the restriction in submission size, all the available information on the shortcomings of the ‘experts’ used and relied on by the McKie’s. Indeed no inclusion is made of the misleading and contradictory statements of Iain McKie.
Again I am willing to appear as a witness, just as I was prepared to appear at the scheduled hearing in February, for which we spent a considerable time preparing evidence and reports for, on behalf of the Executives solicitors. I am concerned that we have asked for this material to be returned to us so that we have some reference material available, but the request has been refused as we are told the material is the property of the Scottish Ministers. I am glad to have the chance to publicly refute the malicious and scurrilous allegations made against me and my colleagues.

[Taggart]

I have highlighted a view snippets of evidence which has been given to this Inquiry by various witnesses who all support the SCRO ‘identifications’.

Can anyone spot a trend emerging??

I will add to this as the the evidence unfolds. What are the chances of just one witness admitting they just could be wrong?

Martin Leadbetter

8. Entrenched views: The situation has now gone on for so long that views on both sides have become so entrenched that it would be professional suicide for either side to change its decision.

Q. Mr Leadbetter, finally, I am suggesting to you against the large number of experts throughout the world who have come to the conclusion that Y7 has not come from Shirley McKie, do you accept any possibility that you might be wrong in your analysis?
A. I do not, no.
Q. Absolutely none?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. So by implication David Ashbaugh, Mr Grigg, Mr Sheppard, Mr Grieve, Devon & Cornwall, Steve Haylock are wrong?
A. Well, I have to say yes.

Robert Mackenzie

………. That's my opinion. So to say that -- it's whatever your words were, basically -- as far as I'm concerned my findings and I say my opinion is based on me identifying these individual clusters. So it's not a matter of it's impossible or whatever. That's in tune with my findings. So I can't change my findings….

Hugh Macpherson

Q. Can I ask you this: do you consider there is any possibility whatsoever that your opinion on -- let's deal with Y7, first of all, could be wrong, any possibility?
13 A. No.

THE CHAIRMAN: That really leads me on to what Mr Smith was asking you. When you heard there was going to be a challenge and these two other experts were probably going to come to a different conclusion --and I'm not being critical, I'm just trying to discover -- would your view be, "Well, look, I'm 100 per cent sure and I don't really need to look at why they say I'm wrong because I know I'm right". Is that unfair or would you be curious to see why they were questioning your opinion?
A. No, I think that would be a fair assessment.
THE CHAIRMAN: What the first?
A. Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Because you know 100 per cent right?
A. 100 per cent certain, yes.

Leslie Brown – SCRO campaigner

Q. All I'm saying to you, Mr Brown, is that if it was to be held by this Inquiry -- if -- that that is not Shirley McKie's fingerprint, would you accept that?
A. No.

Q. All I am saying is that if the Chairman hears evidence from a number of experts, hears evidence from Mr Swan if he wishes and comes to a conclusion that, if he was to do so, that Y7 was not Shirley McKie's, I take it you would accept that, would you?
A. No.

[Big Wullie]

Transient Creases that do not always show now

4 Q. The magenta bifurcation need not be present but still
5 Mr Wertheim is seeing a continuous ridge in this area.
6 Can you comment on that?
7 A. Well, I think where he's put the magenta line just to
8 the right of my point 14 you can see where the crease
9 that I was mentioning comes in. It looks like a ridge
10 ending but I believe it's a crease.
11 Q. This happens, I think, by coincidence fortunately, to be
12 an image that you can mark. Would you care, please, to
13 mark what you regard as the crease. We already have a
14 fair number of colours used so you may have to just use
15 whatever seems sensible to you. (Indicated)
16 You have marked in mustard, either side of the red
17 circle, in the vicinity of point number 14, what you
18 regard as the crease.
19 A. Yes. Sorry, the top one is not very accurate.
20 Q. What do you mean by a crease?
21 A. Just a fold in the skin.
22 Q. What is the significance of that?
23 A. Well, they are not always permanent, creases, and
24 basically as I say there's just a fold in the skin with
25 the bending movement of the skin. Sometimes creases, as
page 15
1 on the palm, are flexing creases and they are permanent.
2 These large creases across and down the palm
3 (indicated), they are permanent but other creases on the
4 fingers are sort of transient.
5 Q. Do you have any particular comment then on Mr Wertheim
6 drawing a continuous ridge running through point 14?
7 A. No, I see it as a ridge ending.
8 Q. Is it as short as that?
9 A. Yes.

Mr McPherson has claimed he can find 17 points in sequence and agreement in QI2 yet the Danes say it was insufficient for comparison.

After Mr McPherson pointed out his characters Mr Moynihan produced a letter from the head of Northern Ireland's Fingerprint Bureau backing the Danes:

Is this the third Mistake by SCRO

8 Q. Are these characteristics that on an initial
9 identification of QI2, before any comparison, that you
10 would say stand out as unambiguous characteristics that
11 merit then being carried forward into a comparison or is
12 there an element of ambiguity about any of these points?
13 A. I would say no. I can see them, yes.
14 Q. You can see them?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. If I read to you, this is the extent of what I know from
17 the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Mr Logan, it is
18 a letter that I think is undated but we probably
19 received on the 29th -- sorry, the date is at bottom.
20 It is on the 29th. It is a letter of the 29th. What
21 Mr Logan says is -- and I will read the whole thing and
22 then come back and break it down. It is the second page
23 I am interested in, mark number 3, QI2. I will give you
24 a chance to read it, Mr MacPherson, and give everyone in
25 the hall a chance to read it. (Pause)
page 46
1 This is written by Mr Logan who is Head of the
2 Fingerprint Bureau in Northern Ireland. Apart from the
3 fact that he does discern a right loop, even he finds
4 that difficult to be certain about. You see what he
5 writes then. He regards QI2 as being very poor in
6 quality.
7 Do you agree with that?
8 A. It's not the best of marks but it's definitely
9 identifiable. The only thing that could make it not a
10 right loop was if it was very, very out to the far right
11 there was possibly a recurve and there was a twin loop
12 but I think if you look at it it's definitely a right
13 loop. He says it's difficult to ascertain because of
14 the quality of the mark. Well, I think I've said
15 there's no problem discerning that as an ulnar loop to
16 the right.
17 Q. He goes on, he says the core is not visible?
18 A. I would agree with that, yes. Sorry, the core you can
19 see the recurve but you can't discern what
20 characteristics are contained within the core. I agree
21 with that, yes.
22 Q. There has been significant movement?
23 A. No -- possibly to the top left of the core there is an
24 area, as I said before, that you can't go above the core
25 and count through because of movement or maybe a bit of
page 47
1 slippage but, yes, I would agree but I wouldn't say it
2 was significant movement, no.
3 Q. He says:
4 "The movement concerned has dislocated the right
5 side of the mark from the left, to the extent that it is
6 unlikely that it would be possible to count or follow
7 ridges between the two parts."
8 A. Well, he says it's unlikely but I think I've just
9 demonstrated that you can count from the right to the
10 left and from the left back to the right.
11 Q. "There are a very limited number of ridge
12 characteristics visible ..."
13 A. Well, again I would disagree with that.
14 Q. "... even those that are visible are not clearly
15 defined."
16 A. I would disagree with that also.
17 Q. Bear in mind, as far as I can recollect, Mr Logan had
18 not at the point of writing this letter seen Mr Asbury's
19 print or the photocopy that you have. He is simply
20 looking at QI2 itself in isolation. That was why I was
21 asking you whether, to use his term, perhaps, this the
22 better way, the characteristics are visible and
23 clearly -- you would say visible and clearly defined in
24 the Asbury print, in QI2?
25 A. Yes, I believe so.
page 48
1 Q. He says:
2 "In conclusion I would say that due to the poor
3 quality of the mark, the amount of movement and
4 contamination, this mark has insufficient ridge
5 characteristics for identification purposes."
6 You would disagree with that?
7 A. I would disagree with that, yes.
8 Q. With the benefit now of that brief summary, which is
9 all that I, myself, know of Mr Logan's position, we will
10 hear further detail from him later in the week, is there
11 anything you would wish to add to what you have already
12 said about QI2 by reference to your charting or
13 otherwise?
14 A. No, I don't think so, no.

From what we saw today Mr McPherson claimed to be able to count ridges through what we can only describe as damaged and blurred very badly at the core of this image which wasn't possible.

All we see is a big black blob in the middle.

these images will probably be available later.

NI Bureau are non numeric and they say the Image is insufficient for comparison, will be interesting to hear from Mr Logan who is to give evidence this Friday.

There was no disclosure to the Defence or Crown regarding any other prints other than what was being Identified for court purposes despite there being a duty of disclosure.

21 Q. Can I ask what do you mean by early disclosure?
22 A. Well, normally when you prepared a case for court all
23 that you spoke to were the marks that were identified.
24 You didn't speak to anything else.
25 Q. So at some stage in the past all you would refer to is
page 63
1 the positive identification relevant to the trial, as it
2 were?
3 A. You could be asked in court what happened to the other
4 marks but, basically, when you went to court all you
5 were speaking to was the identified marks. So what we
6 were speaking to here was, basically, as far as I can
7 remember it, all the marks and how they had been dealt
8 with.
9 Q. I am reminded that Mr Geddes' evidence about the
10 16-point standard was somewhat different to yours. I
11 think it was put to him whether he was correct that all
12 the marks were identified or eliminated to the 16-point
13 standard and he said:
14 "That would surprise me, yes, if that was the case."
15 Are you able to explain how there could be a
16 divergence of view as to what actually was going on with
17 the regard to the case?

The case was a whodunit: Never

A. No. As I said, the case was a whodunit.

Jury would never see points

5 Q. Is it a mark that you have, sitting here now, some
6 concerns about having used the charting enlargement
7 machine to demonstrate the points of differences --
8 A. I don't know whether it would have made any difference
9 because I have produced for the comparative exercise
10 photographic enlargements and still some people still
11 don't agree with me, so it's maybe not a question one or
12 the other.
13 I think, as I said earlier in evidence, if you've
14 got a bloody mark on a knife it won't matter whether you
15 get photographic enlargements or a charting PC, the jury
16 would never be able to see, basically, what you
17 basically were talking about.

There was evidence from Mr Graham saying the chartings produced by SCRO were shocking

Acetates no use according to McPherson, and Bifurcations going the wrong way

18 Q. I don't wish to misrepresent the position but what I
19 would like you to do is to look with us, please, at a
20 document I will ask to be called up which is the
21 statement of Sheriff Murphy. The reference is CO2036 on
22 page 2 which is a narration of his understanding in a
23 statement. Indeed, before this Inquiry he gave similar
24 evidence about what happened.
25 Do you see the paragraph which is the fourth
page 77
1 paragraph on that page beginning "on discussing"?
2 He explains, just to be clear about it, this is
3 relating to a meeting that Mr Charles Stewart and
4 yourself had with Sheriff Murphy. Take it from me that
5 is what he referring to. This is his recollection of
6 events in this statement and I think his evidence to the
7 Inquiry was the same. He says this:
8 "On discussing Mr Wertheim's productions the two
9 experts brought out a number of criticisms regarding
10 Mr Wertheim's approach to the fingerprint. They were
11 very critical about the overlays that had been produced
12 in that they felt this was an unprofessional approach."
13 Pausing for a moment, do you remember being with
14 Sheriff Murphy and seeing the defence production number
15 2, the acetate overlay? Do you remember seeing it?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you remember whether you were critical to him about
18 the methodology, the method of presentation? Do you
19 remember voicing any concern?
20 A. It's certainly not something that I've ever used. I
21 think when I submitted the handbook to you, one of the
22 things it said in it was that fingerprints, due to the
23 flexibility of the skin, et cetera, it's not -- it
24 doesn't lend itself to mathematical precision. Just
25 because you can draw some lines on a piece of acetate, I
page 78
1 didn't find it was a very helpful measure.
2 Q. But without necessarily going to it, what was
3 demonstrated, amongst other things, in the top part of
4 that acetate was at least two bifurcations opening, as
5 it were. If you run from right to left, they open. As
6 you follow from right to left, they open?
7 A. Yes.

8 Q. (Inaudible: overspeaking) I take it that since you have
9 seen it you agree that -- let us leave aside twisting
10 and distortion for the moment. It actually appears to
11 show quite clearly bifurcations opening in a particular
12 direction?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I take it you would agree with the suggestion that, at
15 least as far as bifurcations opening in that direction,
16 ignoring a twist right round that way, no amount of
17 pressure or squeezing or slippage could convert a
18 right-opening bifurcation into a left-opening
19 bifurcation. You would agree with that, wouldn't you?
20 A. I wouldn't think so, no.
21 Q. Sorry, you are agreeing --
22 A. I agree with you, yes.
23 Q. I take it you understood that what was being presented
24 in that defence production was that Mr Wertheim was
25 saying there are clear differences in the top, there's a
page 79
1 bifurcation, two bifurcations opening in the wrong
2 direction for this to be Shirley McKie's. That was one
3 of the things that he clearly was going to be trying to
4 represent to the jury?
5 A. I presume so. I mean, I don't believe we knew or I
6 don't recall what the challenge was, whether it was --
7 originally it was meant to have been planting and then
8 it was meant to have been insufficient, then obviously
9 they disagreed with our viewpoint that it was an ident,
10 so ...

16 Q. Equally, it is pretty clear, even to someone uneducated
17 in fingerprints, that what was going to be suggested was
18 that there were differences between Mr Wertheim's
19 interpretation of Y7 as compared to his interpretation
20 of Shirley McKie's inked print. You knew that, didn't
21 you?
22 A. Well, I think as I've already said in evidence, there
23 was one point in isolation which has now become known as
24 the Rosetta characteristic and there was possibly
25 another two characteristics up at the very tip, again in
page 80
1 isolation, and I don't believe you could count from the
2 Rosetta up to the two bifurcations at the top and they
3 were insufficient. For me, the top has always been
4 fragmentary and insufficient.
5 Q. All I am asking about, Mr MacPherson, is that when you
6 saw the acetate, if I can call it that, defence
7 production number 2, it was clear from what Mr Wertheim
8 was trying to represent that he was trying to show that
9 there were bifurcations all in the wrong way towards the
10 top of the print Y7. You knew that when you saw Sheriff
11 Murphy, didn't you?
12 A. I believe so, yes.

[Big Wullie]

McPherson does not agree with Leadbetter:

25 Q. Were you here when Mr Leadbetter gave evidence to the
page 25
1 Inquiry?
2 A. I was here for some of it, yes.
3 Q. Were you here when he was asked to do the ridge count in
4 the bottom section?
5 A. Indeed, yes.
6 Q. Just to put it in short measure, as I understand it, his
7 explanation for a difference in ridge count of maybe 9
8 or 10 ridges between the inked print and Y7 was that
9 there was evidence of it must have been caused by some
10 kind of movement or distortion or something of that kind
11 to obliterate these ridges.
12 Do you consider that's a reasonable explanation?
13 A. It's not one with which I accord, no.
14 Q. It is really the question of reasonable. We're talking
15 about the loss of nine or ten ridges and I think you
16 acknowledged that this must be quite severe distortion
17 of some kind to justify a large chunk of ridges
18 disappearing.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. You don't agree with it --
21 A. No.
22 Q. -- but would you agree with me to lose all these ridges
23 it would have to be quite severe.
24 A. Absolutely, yes.
25 Q. On the basis that you and your colleagues used the
page 26
1 bottom section of the print, you must actually say that
2 is just wrong to suggest that there was any severe
3 movement otherwise you would have seen it --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- and you wouldn't do your ridge counts in that area.
6 A. That's correct. No, I don't agree with that; that's
7 right.

Bearing in mind Leadbetter and Swann were instrumental in SCRO not being charged with perjury, the Crown should now look into this matter again since SCRO are now saying Leadbetter and Swann are wrong, Crown should be looking at perjury charges.

14 Q. But what you had at the time you met Sheriff Murphy was
15 you had a bifurcation going the wrong way, apparently,
16 as compared between Y7 and the inked print, the two
17 bifurcations at the top --
18 A. I don't recall they were going the wrong way, no.
19 Q. It was really about questions earlier to you about the
20 acetates, that what we could see is that Mr Wertheim had
21 drawn in bifurcations pointing in the opposite direction
22 to bifurcations that were in Shirley McKie's inked
23 print. Do you remember --
24 A. I remember the right to left, you said, which was fair
25 enough.
page 28
1 Q. But of course they flow the other way on the inked print
2 of Shirley McKie. We know that, don't we?
3 A. I don't think you're comparing like with like, possibly.
4 Q. What I am interested in is as far as the bifurcations
5 Mr Wertheim identified at the top section of the print?
6 A. As far as I remember, they don't show because we used
7 the plain impression.
8 Q. I see, so you're saying there are bifurcations in that
9 direction which are, as it were, off the inked?
10 A. They would be off the inked but, as I said one
11 characteristic in isolation you can't count through to
12 another two in isolation. For me, it was fragmentary
13 and insufficient.
14 Q. Did you suggest to Sheriff Murphy that the rolled inked
15 impression should be obtained to identify the area being
16 off message, if I can put it that way, that Mr Wertheim
17 was relying on?
18 A. No, because obviously we had identified the bottom of
19 the mark Y7 and there was a minimum of 16. I think now
20 you have seen, hopefully, that you've looked at the
21 Terry Kent image and Mr Swann's image, there's actually
22 more than 16 but it's not a numbers game. I could see
23 more than 16 originally and I think there's more in it
24 now.
25 Q. I just wondering though about methodology, suppose you
page 29
1 were analysing a fingerprint and you start comparing the
2 latent with the inked and the first thing you spot is a
3 difference. You say, "Oops, there's a bifurcation going
4 the wrong way", can't see any explanation for it. Do
5 you stop?
6 A. Well, in this instance, obviously, I could see that
7 there was movement in the mark. I mean, there's many,
8 many times you'll identify a mark that's -- I think
9 Mr Leadbetter showed one in particular where it was half
10 down the middle and you had basically enough to
11 identify a mark on the left-hand side but it wasn't in
12 sequence and agreement with what was on the right-hand
13 side. It was actually two different people.
14 You would have to take cognisance of everything
15 until -- within the area that we identified the 16 ridge
16 characteristics there were no differences.
17 Q. I'm really just interested in this methodology. You
18 see, the first thing you see or the second thing you see
19 is a difference, an obvious difference?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you stop?
22 A. If there had been an obvious disagreement within the
23 bottom half of the mark, if there was something really
24 wrong with it, then, yes, it would stop but there was no
25 differences in the bottom half of the mark.
page 30
1 The problem now with LiveScan, you get these rogue
2 characteristics. How they appear I don't know but the
3 problem with that is if you put a crime scene mark in to
4 search against what is on the AFR database and there may
5 be rogue characteristics in it, what do you do? Do you
6 say the identification stops, you may have 16 ridge
7 characteristics in sequence and agreement but -- well,
8 you don't need 16 now -- but say to the left there's an
9 obvious discrepancy which you can't explain.
10 Q. Mr MacPherson, I understand that in Y7 you were seeing
11 what you tell us you saw were similarities. I
12 understand that.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. But as far as the differences are concerned, let us
15 think in a hypothetical for the moment. From what you
16 have said, there was a clear difference, one you come
17 across straight away, you can't explain, no evidence of
18 movement, nothing like that, you then stop. I take it
19 you say, "Well, this can't be common authorship"?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you. So, if it is clear, then one difference is
22 enough to, unexplained difference, is enough to say it
23 can't be the same?
24 A. Well, I've tried to explain that there may be -- the
25 ten-print itself may have rogue characteristics in it
page 31
1 but I would say, yes, if it's a definite, definite
2 difference -- but if you have 16 ridge characteristics
3 in sequence and agreement it has to be an ident.

Twist and Movement of Rosetta

4 Q. I would like to ask you if I can a couple of questions
5 regarding the theory I think Mr Berry came up with, the
6 66-degree movement theory.
7 Do you understand what he and Mr Swann and
8 Mr Leadbetter mean by that, what the mechanics are of
9 the movement they are describing? Do you understand
10 what they mean?
11 A. Well, I tried to explain my interpretation of the
12 movement earlier on.
13 Q. Forgive me, it's a slightly different question. I
14 understand you have your own view about it. I follow
15 that. But as far as the 66-degree movement and the
16 Rosetta point and so on and so forth, is that something,
17 do you agree with all they say, with some of they say or
18 just the generality? How would you put it?
19 A. I would agree that, yes, the movement is consistent with
20 what I tried to illustrate earlier on in my evidence.
21 Q. Can I ask when it was that you actually came to the
22 conclusion that any difference in the top part of the
23 print could be explained by movement and distortion or
24 twisting of the kind you've described? Was that
25 immediately or was it after the trial, before the trial?
page 32
1 A. Again, I think I said earlier in evidence that I wasn't
2 sure when I saw what is the Rosetta characteristic. I
3 may have seen it at the time. I just can't remember.
4 Q. The Rosetta characteristic has been referred to on many
5 occasions.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. As far as your understanding is concerned, are you
8 saying that the Rosetta remains constant in the same
9 place or it actually moves in this twist?
10 A. No, it's moved.
11 Q. It has moved?
12 A. It's moved and it's moved either one or two ridges up
13 and to the left and I think, again in evidence that I
14 gave, I believe that it had been put on, lifted very,
15 very slightly and that's why the ridges are thin round
16 about the area of the Rosetta characteristic and it's
17 been placed back down again with very, very heavy
18 pressure towards the middle, which is called the blob
19 and to the tip where the two characteristics that you
20 have referred to are. That's why I did my own sort of
21 illustration of the movement to try and explain it.

Swann and Leadbetter said it was a single touch and basically SCRO are agreeing with Berry claiming a 66 degree twist.

I still say the Rosetta cannot move on it's own, with no other characteristics moving with it.

I recollect there was some criticsim of the training of Pat Wertheim
I think there was some criticism about his training at the start of his fingerprint career, but now we hear that the police trained SCRO experts then it was just managers:

19 A. Well, the civilianisation programme started about
20 1966/67. I think you had -- most of the chief
21 inspectors -- or the people that trained me, basically,
22 were all police officers but they were all steeped in
23 fingerprints, basically. They were all fingerprint men
24 but that eventually changed and we would have chief
25 inspectors who came in who were just basically
page 36
1 management, the same with the superintendents, chief
2 superintendents. When I started they were all
3 fingerprint men but eventually it became a fact that
4 they were just managers.

basically,
22 were all police officers but they were all steeped in
23 fingerprints

Just wondering if perhaps they weren't steeped long enough.

Were they for instance just steeped overnight ?

Surprise surprise then that when the police wanted a match they got one eh ?

[Taggart]

Yesterday proved a truly disastrous day for the SCRO experts.

Until now they were desperately trying to defend their two misidentifications but yesterday it was made public there is now a third print which is in serious doubt. And yesterday’s evidence shows the Inquiry are taking cognisance of that print also.

It emerged that on the same photograph QI2 on which they ‘identified’ Marion Ross’s print the SCRO experts also ‘identified’ a print as belonging to David Asbury.

For clarity I shall refer to this third print as QI2 – Asbury.

It was originally ‘identified’ by SCRO on the very same day they ‘identified’ the other part of QI2 for Marion Ross.

This ‘identification’ of Marion Ross on this tin was the single most important piece of evidence against David Asbury.

From evidence already led at this Inquiry we also know that the print QI2 – Asbury was originally ‘identified’ by Hugh Macpherson, Charles Stewart, Alister Geddes and Edward Bruce.

Fiona McBride and Anthony McKenna only checked it when they were selected as one of the four experts who would prepare the case for the Crown.

In effect six SCRO experts checked QI2 – Asbury and all clearly concluded it reached a 16 point standard.

When I say it only came out yesterday about this challenge this is slightly inaccurate. Several weeks ago the Inquiry added the following letter to their website.

http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... dacted.pdf

Fingerprint Bureau
Police Headquarters Brooklyn
Knock Road BELFAST
BT5 6LE
The Fingerprint Inquiry
PO Box 23902
44 Drumsheugh Gardens
Edinburgh EH31AB

Dear Ms Gilpin

On Monday 14 September 2009 five fingerprint experts in the PSNI Fingerprint Bureau examined the marks sent to the Bureau by your office. The experts concerned were Senior Fingerprint Officers Carol McEwan and Steven Emerson, Fingerprint Officer Cristie Dawson, Quality Manager Siobhan Green and Head of Bureau Jeffrey Logan. All five experts examined the marks and assessed them for suitability for comparison. Officers McEwan., Emerson and Dawson were unaware of the background to the case or where the marks had originated. Each expert looked at the marks independently, and recorded their findings. The consensus of the examinations is as follows:

Mark No.3. QI2 -Insufficient Ridge Detail (lRD) for a comparison to be made

Mark No.6, QE2 -Borderline IRD. However, the mark should be retained for comparison against suspects and eliminations.

Mark No.8, QU -Value mark. Sufficient ridge detail for a comparison to be made.

The Mark 3 QI2 is the one raised yesterday. This letter also casts doubt on the reliability of a fourth mark in this case, Mark 6 QE2 which is reported as being Borderline Insufficient Ridge Detail.

So let us look at the significance of these prints in detail. Why are they now becoming so important.

After all are they not both eliminations on a tin, which belongs to the accused?

To understand the enormity of this information we must return to 27 May 1997 and hear from Hugh Macpherson at the Trial of David Asbury. Under oath:

‘Advocate Depute ‘What is the significance of 16 ridge characteristics?’

Hugh Macpherson ‘In fairness to accused persons a minimum standard has been set, and that standard is 16.’

And later in testimony,

‘Advocate Depute ‘Now, so far as identifying 16 ridge characteristics are concerned then, do I take it that was done with each of these prints which you have been able to say were David Asbury’s?’

Hugh Macpherson ‘Yes.’’

In his written evidence to the Justice 1 Enquiry Hugh Macpherson reiterates this:

‘…….An elimination fingerprint form identification being fully signed off by four experts (nowadays three) to the 16 point standard, particularly in a ‘special case’ such as the Ms. Marion Ross murder enquiry is not uncommon either re this case nor in other cases I have worked on………….‘The Ms. Marion Ross case was all about elimination fingerprint form comparison against crime scene marks. The deceased (Marion Ross), relatives, the eventual accused (David Asbury), workers, an identification bureau employee, were all compared, identified and signed off by four experts to the 16 point standard. For the Mr. David Asbury court case 13 or 14 books of productions, relating to all persons identified, were prepared and signed by four experts, with the enlargements of the marks and fingerprints enclosed all having 16 ridge characteristics in sequence and agreement illustrated on them. When comparing elimination fingerprint forms it can transpire that if the named person is identified against a specific mark they can ultimately become a suspect. This was exactly the scenario that transpired in the Ms. Marion Ross murder enquiry.’

So, David Asbury is the accused, and under oath Hugh Macpherson testified at his trial that in ‘fairness to the accused’ every print was identified to a 16-point standard.

This includes QI2 – Asbury and QE2 – Asbury.

One of which the Police Service of Northern Ireland has concluded contains ‘insufficient ridge detail’ for comparison, and the second one contains ‘borderline insufficient ridge detail’ for comparison.

SCRO experts Macpherson, Stewart, Geddes, Bruce, McBride and McKenna all independently managed to ‘identify’ these prints adhering to the 16-point standard.

The Head of the PSNI is now coming to give evidence at the Inquiry later this week.

Hugh Macpherson was specifically examined yesterday about the use of the 16-point standard in this case.

5 Q. I will come back to some questions regarding Y7 in a few
6 minutes but I would like to deal with the question of
7 the 16-point standard if I can.
8 I want to ask you just a number of questions just to
9 find out if my understanding is correct or incorrect.
10 With regard to this particular murder investigation
11 relating to the death of Marion Ross, as we know there
12 were a large number of fingerprints that were looked at
13 either for elimination purposes or, on occasion, for
14 identification purposes.
15 In respect of each and every one of the prints that
16 were capable of analysis, so forgetting about the ones
17 that you can't actually do anything with, the ones that
18 were capable of analysis, were they analysed to a
19 16-point standard?
20 A. My recollection is, yes, that they were, yes.
21 Q. Every single one?
22 A. Yes.

Every single print identified in the Marion Ross case ‘identified’ or ‘eliminated’ to a 16-point standard. Not one single print ‘identified’ or ‘eliminated’ to a lower standard.

Stunning. But also stunningly inaccaurate.

Let is look closer at Hugh Macpherons’ Inquiry statement

128. The annotations on the front of Photograph of QI2 with handwritten annotations (08_0001) show identification of finger 2 of the deceased and finger 3 of David Asbury. The annotation at the bottom of the photograph shows that I think that the image also contains the number 6 of David Asbury, but not to the then standard; it would be less than 10, in fact. The reverse shows, as I have said, that DI MacDonald was informed by a phone call from me. I would probably only have informed him that part of QI2 had been identified as the deceased and part had been identified as finger number 3 of David Asbury. I would probably not have informed him about the identification of Asbury's finger number 6.

Despite Macpherson claiming yesterday every single print identified in the Marion Ross case reached a 16-point standard he actually produces evidence in very own statement which shows there is a third ‘identification’ under QI2 as David Asbury’s left thumb remarkably achieved with less than 10 points.

And let us look at further evidence which seriously undermines Mr Macpherosn’s evidence about every single elimination being achieved to the 16-point stnadrad.

During the external investigation carried out By James Black the exeprts all spoke with him and provided him with statements. He reported:

In case of "Eliminations" (identifications of marks against a person who had a legitimate reason for being at a crime scene, a police officer or relative), while a formal number of 10 or 11 characteristics might be sought, the normally non controversial nature of eliminations allows for identifications with fewer characteristics when the expert is sure of their work.

At the Justice 1 Enquiry SCRO expert Alister Geddes testified in his oral evidence:

I was asked by Mr Macpherson to second-check his identification of Y7… I gave Mr Macpherson my conclusion that I had verified his identification. He then asked me whether I was able to adhere to the 16 points; I said that I had not achieved the 16 points, but that I had achieved sufficient points in the sequencing agreement to satisfy myself fully that there was an elimination.
Mr Macpherson's opinion was that we should stick to the 16 points; he clarified his reasons fully when he gave evidence. I asked him for an explanation, because the 16 points was not relevant to elimination prints. However, that does not mean that I adhered to a lesser standard. The 1953 national standard was more of an administrative recommendation. From 1901 until 1953, officers presented identifications in a court of law and were happy to demonstrate those identifications without adhering to any numerical standard. The science of fingerprints allows identifications to be made without the requirement for any numerical standard’.

Geddes provided the Justice 1 Enquiry with this written statement:

Returning to my involvement in the identification process of Y7. Mr McPherson asked if I had managed to achieve the national standard of 16 points in sequence and agreement when eliminating Y7. I told him that I had not but that I had found sufficient volume in sequence and agreement to confidently identify and therefore eliminate Y7. As any competent fingerprint examiner is aware you achieve identification, not by ‘point counting’, but by analysing all detail present. The 16 points are required to present and illustrate evidence in a court of law it is not how identification is achieved. However Mr McPherson informed me that he felt that it would be better if I could eliminate on 16 points in sequence and agreement. I requested an explanation, as the national standard was not applied to eliminations.

More damning is the following statement given by Alister Geddes to the James Mackay Criminal Investigation, in which it is clear that Mr. Geddes was not working to a 16-point standard in the Marion Ross case.

My own personal opinion as far as the identification of an elimination print is that I look for 12 (twelve) points as a rule, although depending on the quality of the marks the points I may accept less, as I did in this case.

In Edward Bruce’s statement to the same investigation he too evidences how he did not work to a 16-point stnadrd for eliminations in1997.

My criteria for identifying an elimination print is different from a court identification. For court identification it must be a minimum of 16 (sixteen) points, but for elimination purposes it is up to the individual officer. In normal circumstances I wouldn’t eliminate a mark with less than 8 (eight) points unless the mark was really clear. If that was the case fewer points may be obtained. This is how I operate today, and it was exactly the same in 1997.

In the Report of Deputy Chief Constable James Mackay, he stated:

This enquiry has found that fingerprints eliminated did not necessarily have a high standard of identification points. Indeed, in this particular case it would appear that at the outset, when a decision was given as to the identity in an elimination case, this elimination was based on a single figure standard and probably not high on the scale of one to ten.

It must be extremely difficult for this Inquiry when the SCRO exeprts are in effect tearing themselves apart from within. Or does it make it easier I wonder?

The beauty now is the PSNI will in all probability give evidence before Anthony McKenna and Fiona McBride do. Hugh Macpherson presented a chart on the so-called ‘identification’ of QI2 – Asbury yesterday. There is no doubt they will now have to give evidence and try and support Mr. Macpherson’s evidence.

And what of Edward Bruce and Alister Geddes? Where does this leave them? Two current serving members of the SPSA who are still working away being protected by their employer.

I suggest the Inquiry return to these witnesses and take further statements in relation to QI2 – Asbury.

Better still provide them both with unmarked copies of the print and ask them to return to the Inquiry and present their evidence over their ‘identification’ of this print.

This would also show the Inquiry how far the SPSA has come in way of training their experts in presenting evidence.

Now wouldn’t that be something!

I will keep you posted as the images are uploaded onto the Inquiry website.

And look out for the appearance of the PSNI later this week!

[Big Wullie]

Exclusive

Y7 Was A Misidentification

Today we heard from ALEXANDER CHARLES MCGINNIES of SPSA and he told the Inquiry that the head of SPSA had accepted that Y7 was a misidentification:

9 Q. As I understand it, Mr Mulhern, some time in the past,
10 acknowledged that Y7 was mistaken in some way. You are
11 aware of that, are you not?
12 A. That's correct, yes.
13 Q. At some stage, as I understand it, the official status
14 of Y7 within the SPSA is it is an unsafe identification,
15 I think is the way it has been put.
16 Is that the official position of it?
17 A. At that time I think I believe I was at the Bureau when
18 Mr Mulhern said that if asked in -- sorry, that the
19 position of SPSA at that time was that Y7 was an unsafe
20 identification. That was Mr Mulhern's statement at that
21 time, I believe.
22 Q. I stand to be corrected if I get this wrong but, as I
23 understand it, Mr Mulhern acknowledged that the
24 fingerprint Y7 was mistaken in the identification. Have
25 I got that wrong?
page 28
1 A. I would need to be -- I'm not quite sure on that. I'm
2 not sure whether he said it was a mis-identification or
3 whether he said it was an unsafe identification.
4 Q. The position now about Y7 is that it is unsafe. You are
5 aware of that, at least?
6 A. Yes.

I also understand Mr Mcginnies started as a Turnkey taking prints at Stewart Street Police Station after coming from the Army:

3 A. No, actually, sir, I was a divisional
4 assistant/turn-key. They'd civilianised certain posts.
5 When I came out the army I went into one of those
6 posts and it was a station assistant/turn-key at Stewart
7 Street --

He has never given evidence before

11 Q. Sure. Can I also ask you this: have you ever given
12 evidence in court about fingerprints?
13 A. I've given evidence as a turn-key on the taking of
14 fingerprints. As regards to making identification
15 evidence, no, I have not.
16 Q. I think just for the notes you said evidence as a
17 turn-key --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- did you say that, taking fingerprints, so it would be
20 part of your job, in your previous work with the
21 Strathclyde Police, to take inked prints and then have
22 to give evidence that you took inked prints from
23 someone?
24 A. Inked and LiveScan, that's correct.
25 Q. At that stage, of course, you weren't a Fingerprint
page 20
1 Examiner?
2 A. No.
3 Q. But I take it from that then you haven't actually had to
4 or haven't in fact given evidence in court, as it were,
5 defending an opinion?
6 A. No, I have not.

After three and a half years training moved straight into a Temporary Training Officers Job:

22 Q. You qualified in October 2004 but I am just wondering if
23 the date is actually right. November 2004, so the very
24 next month, your statement says you became a temporary
25 training officer for the Glasgow Bureau.
page 18
1 Was it as quick as that, you qualified one month and
2 the next month you were temporary training officer?
3 A. That would be correct, yes.
4 Q. Forgive me, I don't wish this to sound critical but you
5 will appreciate that you have three and a half years
6 where you are effectively being trained yourself until
7 you qualify and as soon as you qualify you then become a
8 temporary training officer.
9 Is that something that was unusual, for someone to
10 move so swiftly from being qualified to actually then
11 training people?
12 A. I think it may be termed as unusual but what there was
13 there was a vacancy had arisen. I was qualified to
14 apply for the vacancy. I applied for the vacancy and
15 was the successful candidate.
16 Q. In 2005 you explain the post became permanent, that you
17 moved from a temporary training officer into a training
18 officer permanent, as it were?
19 A. Again, sir, that was -- I had to effectively apply again
20 for my own job. That was again an open ...
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Competition?
22 A. Competition, yes, and again I was the successful
23 candidate.

Mr McGinnies also claimed he had seen Y7 but never compared it.

I find this very strange more so because he said he wasn't handed the original material to compare.

25 Q. Against that background, can I ask you this: have you
page 22
1 yourself looked at Y7 and the inked mark of Shirley
2 McKie? Have you ever seen it?
3 A. I've seen them. I have not compared them.
4 Q. In what context did you see them?
5 A. I was given them -- I think, it was at a training forum.
6 In fact, it was a National Fingerprint Bureau meeting by
7 a colleague.

23 A. My main reason for not comparing the mark is the
24 material that I received wasn't the original material.
25 I was told this when I received the material.
page 23
1 My main reason for not comparing the mark is that at
2 the time I received the mark and still currently and in
3 the future I'm looking to have a non-biased way of
4 taking fingerprints forward in Scotland, in a way that
5 no matter who I converse with in the rest of the
6 fingerprint community I am not -- I wouldn't like to say
7 pigeon-holed but I am not immediately taken to task or
8 held an opinion about on myself because of my opinions
9 on the McKie mark.
10 The other reason I would have is the fact it is an
11 ongoing mark and I still work within that organisation
12 currently.

My Question for today is this:

If the head of an organisation is admitting a misidentification and workers within that organisation responsible for that Misidentification are still employed there and denying any wrongdoing, Why are they still in employment ?

Anyone know what happened to Fiona McBride the other day at Edinburgh for her hearing to be reinstated ?

I am still trying to get saved images from Yesterday anyone else experiencing these difficulties in Particular I am trying to get FI_0311.02 onwards

[Taggart]

Today saw the SPSA Scottish Training Officer gave evidence at the Inquiry.

It may be beneficial to highlight Mr McGinnies’s experience before taking on the vital role of Fingerprint Trainer.

As you will see from his Inquiry statement he qualified as Fingerprint Expert in October 2004 and become the Temporary Training Officer for the Glasgow Bureau in November 2004. With one whole months experience as an expert under his belt!

2. After working with Strathclyde Police as a station assistant/custody officer since November 1992 I joined the Scottish Criminal Records Office in March 2001 as a trainee fingerprint officer. I completed my training in October 2004 and qualified as a fingerprint officer. I am entered on the National Register of Fingerprint Experts and am authorised by the Secretary of State to give fingerprint evidence in court.

3. In November 2004 I became a Temporary Training Officer for the Glasgow Bureau. The post became vacant for a period of maternity leave. In 2005 the post became permanent. It was advertised. I applied and was appointed to the post on a permanent basis.

4. As Training Officer my responsibility included the training of trainee fingerprint officers and fingerprint officers in Glasgow. At that time I reported to Joanne Tierney who was Training Manager at the Scottish Fingerprint Service (the SFS).

5. In 2007 the SFS became part of the SPSA. Also in 2007 Joanne Tierney took up a different post in the SPSA. At this time I became responsible for the training of all fingerprint officers and trainee officers within SPSA. Effectively I am in the nearest equivalent of Joanne Tierney’s old post. Accordingly I am in charge of training fingerprint officers in Scotland. I am assisted by two people. Ross Cummings is a police officer and fingerprint expert in Aberdeen and acts as a fingerprint trainer. He is the equivalent of a senior/principal fingerprint officer. I am also assisted by a colleague who delivers soft skills training and looks after many of the practical aspects of the organisation of training, as an example the actual booking of courses and so forth. However the delivery of training is also the responsibility of mentoring senior fingerprint officers within the workplace as set out in the training programme for SPSA FS fingerprints. They assist with training, support and coaching coordination.

6. I would add that I am tasked with looking at the wider SPSA FS training requirements for other disciplines within the Service. This is highlighted in our recent Training needs analysis undertaken in conjunction with the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan.

7. My role involves two principal areas of work. The first area for which I am responsible is the management of the training of trainee fingerprint officers. The second area is the coordination of the management of training of qualified fingerprint officers.

Today’s testimony can be found here:

http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... 3.221.html

20 I can only say, as I say, the
21 third verification process, I know of no instances where
22 it's got to the third verification and anyone has gone,
23 "Actually, do you know the first two have got it wrong",
24 and gone back and looked at it and saying, "They got it
25 wrong and did you just follow them", I know of no
1 instances of that happening and certainly dip sampling
2 and the three checking and the procedures that are in
3 place would prevent that from happening or certainly
4 would highlight it if it happened.

Strange, as training officer in the Glasgow (SCRO) bureau if this had ever happened in that bureau it would be well documented and he should have been aware if it ever happened. Even if it had ever happened in the past surely it must be documented? Did it ever happen?

Over to Hugh Macpherson’s Inquiry statement:

75. I have had that situation where three experts before me had made an identification of a mark and it came to me when I was final checking (the four year period I talked about earlier). I saw that the mark was not the person that it was said to be. That went to the chief inspector and he had to decide how to proceed.

According to Hugh Macpherson he actually examined a case in Glasgow in which three SCRO experts had all agreed on a mark that was according to Mr Macpherson ‘not the person that it was said to be’. In other words three SCRO experts had independently wrongly identified a print. The final check before it was phoned out and an innocent person potentially arrested and another Shirley McKie situation.

Yet this case is obviously unknown to the Scottish Training Officer.

Let me guess, case, carpet, lift, sweep under, gone?

Mr Mcginnies then openly evidences the total failure by the SPSa to react to the misidentification by admitting neither print is used in training and the SPSA are waiting for the Chairman to give them a deliberation before action! Just for clarity the SPSA was set up on 1 April 2007.

11 Q. Moving on to a rather different theme, as regards the
12 marks that the Chairman is considering mainly in this
13 Inquiry, Y7 and we've been looking at QI2 (Marion Ross)
14 as well, what is the position of SPSA as an organisation
15 as to whether there might be useful lessons to be
16 learned from the training point of view arising from
17 either of those marks?
18 A. Currently we don't use either marks in a training
19 environment. The only way I've referred to either mark
20 in a training environment is that when talking to
21 trainees I'll say that the differences between Y7 being
22 an identification or not an identification can't be
23 explained by opinion. It was put forward at one point,
24 probably in the SFS past, that it was just a difference
25 in opinion. I was only reiterating to the trainees that
1 that couldn't be the case, that if A says that Y7 is an
2 identification and B says that Y7 is not an
3 identification, then the very fundamentals of the way we
4 carry out fingerprint examinations means someone is
5 wrong. I would never go on to draw any conclusions from
6 that. We don't have any learning outcomes from the
7 position of Y7. We're still ongoing with the Inquiry at
8 the moment. So we have nothing that we take from that
9 at the present, no.
10 Q. Do we take it from that that, effectively, your
11 organisation is waiting to learn what the Chairman has
12 to say at the end of the day about either or both of
13 these marks?
14 A. Yes, wholly so, yes
15 Q. And will decide what, if anything, turns out to be
16 appropriate in the light of that?
17 A. Yes.

It appears that the SPSA is nothing less that the old SCRO but with a new name.

After reading the Scottish training Officer’s testimony above compare it with the following statements.

The first taken directly from the SPSA’a very own website:

In the Action Plan for Excellence it is clear the SPSA accepted that print Y7 was misidentified. This document is currently available on the SPSA website.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The misidentification of a fingerprint as Shirley McKie’s in 1997 has understandably caused considerable public concern ever since about the quality of the work done by fingerprint experts in Scotland – an issue which is central to maintaining public confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system……

5.13 …… It has, however, been almost nine years since the misidentification occurred, seven years since Shirley McKie’s acquittal and almost six years since this issue was addressed by HMIC…….

http://www.spsa-forensics.police.uk/abo ... excellence

Official letter from SCRO to Editor Sunday Herald - 23 November 2005

‘…..However, given that it is accepted that fingerprints can only belong to one person, then in a situation where experts agree that the print is of suitable quality to be identified but do not agree on the identity then both opinions cannot be equally acceptable and correct…..

Ian Todd
Deputy Director’

In his September 2006 report ‘Scoping Study Fingerprint Bureaux Services Scotland’ Roger Shearn informed the Scottish Fingerprint Service what could not happen is for the print Y7 to remain ‘disputed’.

‘4.3 My answer to this, based on forty years of identification practice, is that a disputed identification cannot remain as such. Identification of a crime scene mark against the fingerprints of a nominated person can ONLY have three outcomes.

· There are insufficient minutiae for a useful comparison to be completed.
· It is identical.
· It is not identical.

What cannot happen is a comparison remaining "disputed’.’

On the 20 March 2006, Cathy Jamieson, the then Justice Minister stated in response to a Parliamentary question:

‘The Executive reached a settlement with Ms McKie on the basis that the misidentification had been made in good faith and was not malicious.’
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2 ... =S2W-23662

And today we find the Scottish training Officer telling the World the Scottish Fingerprint Service has learnt nothing.

How does Mr Mcginnies’s evidence fit in with the following statement taken again from the SPSA website?

Arie Zeelenberg, Senior Fingerprint Adviser, Dutch National Police:
"I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the efforts made by the SPSA and the management and staff of the fingerprint department both. I am impressed by it and I acknowledge the progress that has been made.
"At the same time I am of the opinion that through the choice not to investigate the mistaken identification and its causes in the McKie case, important opportunities are missed to learn from it.
"Insight would be the best driver for cultural change. In my view the choice to block access to the case for the staff is in conflict with the ambition of transparency and accountability. Full closure, which is also important for the international fingerprint community, is therefore not achieved and I regret this."
http://www.spsa.police.uk/news/internat ... an_forward

The Scottish training Officer was then asked to comment about how Scottish experts are taught how to respond to the Mckie case. Again his response is truly staggering

23 Q. If we could move on to the fourth learning point:
24 "Guidance would be given to fingerprint experts on
25 how to respond to this case [that was the McKie case] at
1 future trials and to ask for time to examined fresh
2 material."
3 I will take that apart at a time. Is there
4 currently any guidance as to what examiners' response
5 might be if they were asked about the identifications in
6 the Asbury and the McKie cases?
7 A. Currently at this time I would be inclined to think that
8 because we're in the middle of this process that they
9 would just refer to the fact that we're in the middle of
10 an Inquiry regarding both cases and it may be a case of
11 waiting for the recommendations and outcomes of the
12 Inquiry before they made any comment.
13 Q. Do you know, as a matter of fact, whether there is any
14 guidance of that sort?
15 A. No, not currently.

Currently Scottish experts are given no training how to respond to the McKie case. Again yet again a stunning admission that shows the organisation has totally failed to or worse, simply chosen to ignore independent advice. In 2006 an Emplyee Consultaion Report ststed:

Scottish Fingerprint Service
EMPLOYEE CONSULTATION REPORT
June 2006

‘Staff felt that duties such as court appearances are affected by external loss of confidence in the whole Service. They also feel some evidence may not be being taken to court because of fears that it will not be seen to be valid, whilst other cases are undermined in court because the expert’s credibility is under question. It does not help their credibility to assert under questioning that they do not have any knowledge of the McKie case.’

June 2006 the staff have concerns over the McKie case and their Court appearances. November 2009 we find they have been given no guidance.

And let us not forget in 2007 the Chief Executive was telling the Scottish Public there had been ‘resolution’ in the case and there was no need for this Public Inquiry.

The SPSA by all counts has been totally and utterly exposed by this Inquiry and are being shown for what they really are.

“We now have resolution, so I’m not sure that any inquiry that sought to re-open that would give us anything further but I know there is the intention to have something and personally, I am interested to see what that is intended to do,” he said.
http://www.holyrood.com/component/conte ... e/1319-%20

What an utter sham that the SPSA is waiting for the outcome of this Inquiry until they act. The truth is they did not want this Inquiry and publicly claimed things had been resolved. The way they are acting is truly disgraceful.

Mr McGinnies then goes on to dig a far deeper hole by claiming in one day’s testimony that the SPSA has gone from the print being a misidentification, to that of ‘unsafe’ and in case we were left in any doubt about the shambolic mess of the organisation he then states the print is now ‘disputed’.

10 A. Yes, I would agree with the fact that it cannot remain a
11 disputed ident. That cannot be -- in my opinion, I
12 would feel that SPSA has to move on from it being a
13 disputed ident, yes.

The SPSA Director of Forensic Sciences Tom Nelson and the former Scottish training Officer, and current Head of the Edinburgh Office Joanne Tierney are soon to be appearing as witnesses at this Inquiry and will now be fascinating witnesses. How is Mr. Nelson going to explain away the sudden change in position? He is not a fingerprint expert, so who is behind this change?

Ms Tierney is in charge of the Edinburgh Bureau who put their jobs on the line by stating the print Y7 was misidentified. I wonder if she will show support for her own staff or if she will abandon them in favour of a seat on the SPSA fence like so many others.

This sudden change in position opens up another problem. If the current status of Y7 according to the SPSA is unsafe they must believe therefore you cannot make a definitive conclusion over the print.

In February 2006, the then Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson was asked in Parliament about the status of fingerprint Y7.

‘S2W-23628 - Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP) (Date Lodged Tuesday, February 28, 2006): To ask the Scottish Executive what steps are being taken by the Scottish Criminal Record Office to identify mark Y7 from the Marion Ross murder scene of January 1997.

Answered by Cathy Jamieson (Thursday, April 13, 2006): Mark Y7 is on the Scottish Fingerprint Service Latents Database (which is the database of unsolved crime scene marks). This database is checked regularly against fingerprints taken from arrested persons. Because the mark was taken from the scene of a serious crime it will remain on the database until it is identified.’
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2 ... =S2W-23628

In 2006 the print Y7 was on the unsolved latent database in Scotland. The key question must be is it still on that database? Has it been removed? If the Shirley McKie ‘identification’ by the SCRO experts is ‘unsafe’ then any other comparison must equally be unsafe.

So is Y7 on the database? Do the SPSA wait until after the Inquiry and put it back on? Are they potentially depriving Marion Ross of natural justice by their actions?

Going to be some very interesting sessions before the Inquiry concludes!

Let us return to the SPSA website and give the final word tonight to one of the Inquiry’s forthcoming witnesses, Tom Nelson. And as you read his comments compare them to the testimony today of Alexander McGinnies and see how many points of comparison you find!

Tom Nelson, Director, SPSA Forensic Services said:
"For the first time ever in the UK we in Scotland can demonstrate a ‘one stop shop' forensic service that goes from crime scene to court, a truly end to end process which has never been done before.
"This has given us a unique opportunity to define the shape of our organisation - driving forward both science and service enhancements. We have been able to develop a truly national service - generating best practice and ensuring consistency in our processes and procedures.
"Our fingerprint service in Scotland today is part of that and has changed dramatically since the time of the McKie case.
"I am confident that we have a national fingerprint service operating to internationally-recognised standards, however I am by no means complacent. I am committed to a programme of continuous improvement for Forensic Services, where we will work to share and incorporate best practice from around the world and establish Scotland as a world class leader in forensic evidence."

http://www.spsa.police.uk/news/internat ... an_forward

[Outsider]

The SPSA’s training officer Mr Alexander McGinnies
Examined by Miss Carmichael

page46 (morning session)
22 Q. What do you teach trainees as to what their standard of
23 certainty should be if they are saying that a mark is
24 individualised to a particular human being?
25 A. We train them that if we take the empirical fact that
page 47
1 friction ridge skin is unique and permanent, we take it
2 that that empirical fact is based on scientific
3 research. Then we train them that anyone who has
4 undergone the training, qualifications and experience
5 that when they draw their conclusions that they can be
6 100 per cent certain that anyone with that same
7 training, qualifications and experience, a qualified
8 examiner, would come to the same conclusions. So it
9 would be 100 per cent certain that anyone would come to
10 the same findings that they have.

What happened to the concept of “individualisation”? 100 per cent certain that nobody else in the world living or dead could have deposited the print. Don’t they teach that any more?

[Daktari]

OK, so David Mulhern, Cathy Jamieson and Jack McConnell, all FP examiners of several years standing, have determined after close scrutiny of the best material available that it was a mis-identification. Quite clear, no doubt at all.
Maybe it is time to throw in the towel.

[David L. Grieve]

I read the testimony of Mr. McGinnies with dismay. My slight optimism for the future rested in the new training program was destroyed by his obvious lack of qualification. Any agency can be judged by how seriously they take training, and simply learning new jargon is not a step forward. When Mr. McPherson dismissed any unexplained discrepancy as unimportant by clinging to the methodogly that 16 points in sequence trumphs good vision and good sense, I was provided with insight into what was wrong with old SCRO. Now I know that nothing has changed other than terminology. Any individual that states he had seen Y7 but had not done a full comparison has no business being a training officer, temporary or otherwise.

[WRoughead]

Once again I congratulate Big Wullie and Taggart for their description of the days' events.

Like you, and like David L. Grieve, I am utterly amazed at this evidence.,

You have pipped my interest as to whether or not the McKie print is still in the database, or if it is not, will it be put back on after this Inquiry.

Quite amazing, there have been times when I simply can hardly believe some of the evidence which I have read, both here by the contributors, and on the website of days events.

Interesting times ahead indeed when Mr. Nelson gives his evidence.

[Daktari]

Quite amazing, there have been times when I simply can hardly believe some of the evidence which I have read, both here by the contributors, and on the website of days(sic) events.

So have I.

Did you like Mark Lees’s evidence about Shirley not entering the porch?
Quite amazing

And what about Iain McKie expecting us to believe “I wrote the letters, Shirley signed them but did not read them.”
Quite amazing.

I’m told the Sir Anthony’s face was a picture. Sorry I missed that.

And Andrew Smith twisting and turning everything that is said.
He’s just like Taggart. Isn’t he?

Don’t worry too much though.
I don’t think Sir Anthony is fooled for a minute.

[Taggart]

Don’t worry too much though.
I don’t think Sir Anthony is fooled for a minute.

Good in that case you will have no problem answering the following for the readers. Tell us all how unconcerned you really are.

Are you confident that Sir Anthony will conclude that both marks Y7 and QI2 were correctly identified?

And given your confidence will you accept the conclusions of this Fingerprint Inquiry?

If it helps I can tell you I am confident the Inquiry will reach the right conclusions and I will state here and now I will accept and abide by their decisions.

Over to you my friend…..

[WRoughead]

I seem to have trouble downloading the transcripts today - anyone else had the same problems.

Each time I click on one - I wait for ages nothing happens?

[Big Wullie]

From Charles Stewart today.

How to give evidence Scottish Style:

10 Q. You tell us also you were taught the style of evidence
11 presentation expected of you in the witness box and I
12 wonder if you can tell the Chairman more about that,
13 please?
14 A. Basically, we were always taught that the evidence in
15 Scotland, the expert did not interpret the evidence.
16 The expert merely gave evidence and it was up to his
17 Lordship or the jury to reach their own findings. You
18 were only offering advice or information on what you'd
19 done and your conclusions. You weren't trying to sell
20 it as a result, a completely different style from other
21 experts who have come forward and say, "This is what
22 I've found. This has got to be right. It means the
23 person's guilty". We don't do that because half the
24 time we didn't know the significance of the marks
25 identified so we were quite simply saying, "We've
page 5
1 received these marks. We've identified these marks",
2 and it was up to the decision-makers in the court to
3 reach their own conclusions.
4 Q. Just to understand this more fully perhaps, in relation
5 to the evidence you were giving about the fingerprints,
6 that might itself involve some interpretation of the
7 fingerprints?
8 A. Well, each expert interprets a fingerprint themselves
9 when they compare it. It's how you see the fingerprint
10 and everybody will see a fingerprint in a slightly
11 different way. You will see things in it. I could look
12 at a mark and see something and another expert could see
13 something different in it. So it's individual
14 interpretation.

You cannot make an expert out of Jurors he said within 15 minutes.

It later transpired Lord Johnston had looked with their Glass's at Y7 and the points they said were visible and he said a blob would be the appropriate description.

Lord Johnston certainly had the Gist of them eh ?

He could see right through them even back then but they are still producing blobs for this inquiry when clear images are available.