news article: "McKie inquiry evidence to start"

[Taggart]

An interesting day at the Inquiry thanks in chief to the testimony of Scottish Expert Alister Geddes.

http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... script.pdf

Q. Do you understand that defence counsel may be keen to point out that whatever your view is at present aboutY7 that there is a real question mark in the public arena over the identification of Y7 being correct. Against that background, have your employers ever given you any indication as to how to handle such a question?
A. No. I'm quite happy handling that question. At the very most you can say at this juncture that Y7 is a disputed mark and there certainly is aspects arisen from the case requires the fingerprint community to get talking and get sorted. However, I would be there on an entirely different matter and if there were specific issues that defence felt arose from Y7 and were applicable to that particular case I was there for I would be happy to try and alleviate any concerns they had.

Q. You will understand, of course, a question to that effect would be no doubt designed to show that your opinion in a case you were giving evidence in might not be as absolute as it otherwise would be thought to be. You understand that there maybe some benefit in being asked that question. What I am interested in is whether your employers have given you any guidance as to how you should handle that particular matter.
A. I can't say that they have, no.

Firstly he now claims the SPSA position over Y7 appears to be that of ‘disputed’. This goes against the organisations Action Plan for Excellence presented to the Scottish Governemt

THE SCOTTISH FINGERPRINT SERVICE
ACTION PLAN FOR EXCELLENCE
Deputy Chief Constable David Mulhern
Interim Chief Executive, Scottish Police Services Authority

1. 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. ….

Mulhern gave evidence to the Justice 1 Enquiry that print Y7 was a misidentification.

The Director of Forensic Services in the SPSA, Tom Nelson OBE (for Services to Head burying) went public on the SPSA website to welcome the very Action Plan which he could only do if he accepted the content.

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

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."

Actually what Alister Geddes has done to today is further embarrass and expose the utter sham that is the SPSA. Firstly he testified that Y7 is seen by the organisation as being ‘disputed’. And also of concern is the fact the SPSA has given no training to its staff in how to deal with the McKie misidentification. Geddes states that he has also personally given evidence twice since 2006 in a Scottish Court.

But at least we can be assured that this discredited expert would be able to alleviate any concerns the Court may have!!

Well done the SPSA your total failure to deal with these issues is truly staggering and in nothing bordering on the criminal given you have allowed discredited experts who you know have misidentified prints to continue to provide evidence in Scottish Courts with the potential to jeopardise court cases.

The SPSA should tonight be hanging their heads in utter shame. Prior to pulling Mr Geddes in and challenging him over his false assertions that Y7 is seen by the SPSA as being ‘disputed’.

[Big Wullie]

And Geddes has went unchallenged by SPSA over his departure of evidence to Les Brown.

His evidence stinks and he could not have made it through it without the help of "Noddy" who the enquiry team were made aware of last Friday and who I think they were onto today.

Certainly others witnessed today what we witnessed last Friday, so watch this space.

I now know who is behind all the cover ups and who is in control of the SCRO crew.

I have never witnessed so many Nods and hand Signals in all my life to people in a witness box.

Do they (Noddy & Co) really think people are Blind.

Alister Geddes actually admitted today that the two production photos appeared to be going in different directions.

He was directed to what looked like Y shapes going in two different directions.

The Prosecutor today said she would have certainly been interested to know that four SCRO workers could not find the 16 points and one could only find 7, I am also sure Shirley's defence team would also have liked to have known this evidence existed.

The prosecutor said: today was actually the first she had heard of this evidence and it would have put a different prospective on how matters would have proceeded.

I think she meant she would not have prosecuted had this evidence been disclosed to her.

She tried defending her position by claiming disclosure was not as it is today (Holland & Sinclair I think she meant) but surely she is aware of McLeod and that crown have always had a duty to fully investigate and report the case to Crown who would then instruct how to proceed.

Wonder what her opinion would have been had she known SCRO were producing Inaccurate Productions from the Charting PC that geddes claimed the other day and how she would have proceeded had she been aware of this

[Taggart]

I was reading Mr Geddes’s testimony again last night and wonder if what he said is accurate. He was specifically asked about finding points or characteristics in a fingerprint that were in disagreement.

Q. Is it fair to say if you discover a difference between one and the other, otherwise they look similar, there is a difference, what you have to do is come to a conclusion whether that can be explained by some movement or distortion or something that would legitimise you coming to the conclusion, notwithstanding the difference, but it's still the same fingerprint. Is that fair?

A. You would have to attempt to explain it. Not all potential differences can be adequately explained. You would then have to balance that out with other information that you have. If, for instance, you have sufficient volume in sequence and agreement and you have an area that you're uncomfortable with or you have a potential problematic area -- sorry -- you would have to balance that with the amount of information you did have in sequence and agreement.

25 A. I'll give you an explanation and I appreciate you are talking about something that I can clearly see, if that's a potential difference, but what I said was we balance that with the information you already had. If, yes, it could potentially -- is there something there that I'm going to have a problem with, if I have sufficient volume in another area chances are that will be an explainable difference due to contaminants or pressure. But it all comes back down to do I have sufficient volume.

I was of the understanding that any such points needed to be explained by the expert. But Geddes yesterday stated that:

‘You would have to attempt to explain it. Not all potential differences can be adequately explained. You would then have to balance that out with other information that you have.’

Does his evidence not go against the very principals upon which the science of fingerprints is based? Is it okay simply as an expert to 'attempt to explain' anything?

Did the guidelines not state 16 points in agreement with none in disagreement that cannot be explained?

Clearly not in the eyes of Mr Geddes who admits there are times they he simply cannot explain discrepancies. The obvious thing to do is to ignore them.

From analysing the SCRO evidence in relation to Y7 one thing is crystal clear. They all believe the top of the print is out of sequence but not one of them can come up with a provable explanation. Mackenzie claims the top is multiple touches, Geddes himself states he believes it is two touches.

Given Swann claims that every single characteristic is in agreement even after a 66 degree twist clearly believes it is one touch.

Some of the experts openly admit the discrepancies they found they simply could not explain and ignored them.

Miss McBride stated under oath at Shirley McKie's trial that only someone who was not an expert would attempt to examine the top of the print. Enter Peter Swann.

I cannot help but think from the outside that when a discrepancy occurs it is all too easy for an expert to throw a label at it without any evidence to support it in order to satisfy the basic criteria that any discrepancy needs to be explained.

It seems all too easy to just allude to a twist, or double impression, or whatever but the reality is the experts who have offered an opinion regarding the discrepancies in relation to Y7 have absolutely no scientific basis for their conclusions.

I am interested to hear from experts around the world who find a discrepancy in a print they cannot explain how you deal with it?

Do you simply label it as movement or a twist, or do you have to be able to explain your expert opinion?

[Taggart]

Further to the testimony of Alister Geddes at the Inquiry about the print Y7 being seen by the SPSA as ‘disputed’.

In September 2007 the Chief Executive David Mulhern gave an interview to the ‘Holyrood’ magazine in September 2007 in which it was reported.

“Nothing would be gained from re-opening the Shirley McKie case, and doing so could result in a long-running and costly echo of the Bloody Sunday inquiry, according to Scottish Police Services Authority chief David Mulhern…. “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,”

This was one year after the Scottish Fingerprint Service had commissioned, with taxpayers money, commissioned an employee consultation report, which was undertaken by ICAS (Independent Counselling and Advisory Services Limited). In the ICAS Report of June 2006, the McKie case figured prominently.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/busin ... forweb.pdf

“Senior management at the Scottish Criminal records Office were anxious about the impact on the staff of a recent decision in the McKie case, and with the additional pressure of imminent restructuring decided to consult with staff on how best to support them in the current situation and in moving forward...while the key areas raised in this report are similar to those we see in the majority of organisations with which we work, the McKie case is central to SFS staff concerns…(McKie case) Staff believe that closure at some level is required to enable them to move forward...Staff expressed strong feelings that not all the information on the McKie case has been made available to them, and experts believe that their reputations have severely suffered as a result of what is seen as a mistake by Glasgow combined with subsequent mishandling…Many individuals reported finding the current pressures intolerable. A considerable number are clearly feeling very stressed…. Relationships at work are strained, individuals are behaving out of character, and there is some unacceptable behaviour, especially examples of aggressive behaviour from some managers/supervisors… There is considerable criticism from all about the way the McKie problems have been handled in the past and continue to be handled. Senior management is criticised for only considering the views of the Glasgow bureau, being disproportionately influenced by them…indeed, staff from other bureaux see no evidence or commitment to sort out the problems. Management claims that the original McKie copies are unavailable for inspection by experts in other bureaux have increased the belief in a cover up.”

The Report concludes:

“The McKie case is central to the difficulties experienced at SFS, and has been instrumental in the decision to undertake this employee consultation intervention…The biggest issue and the one that appears most problematic in the short term is “closure” for the McKie case…Without access to the original materials it would be virtually impossible to come to any agreement or consensus, and I strongly recommend that the original materials are released and provided as soon as practicable, to enable informed debate.”

However there is further damning evidence which totally condemns the actions of the SPSA for what they are. I was sent in confidence, from an unnamed expert in Glasgow (there are decent people in that office who want resolution and the truth to be known) a report prepared by an Independent Fingerprint Consultant, Roger Shearn.

In 2006, the SFS commissioned an Independent Fingerprint Consultant, Roger Shearn, to assist in the delivery of the Action Plan. His expertise was used to provide a scoping document following visits to the four Scottish Bureaux. Again the McKie case figured prominently in this exercise. Roger Shearn produced two Reports, the first in September 2006, the second in December 2006.

“The Shirley McKie identification is still, some ten years on, eating away at the profession as a whole, with two geographically based camps now fully entrenched. Many of those in Glasgow seek to defend the past at any cost. Whilst others, both within Glasgow and the other bureaux seek closure on the matter so the service as a whole can move on…. I had hoped to avoid this issue. I quickly realised that could not happen…..All agree that the issue has gone on too long. All agree that it should be put behind us (the SFS) NOW…Their (the Glasgow Bureau) preference is that it remains a ‘disputed identification’”

Roger Shearn then offers his professional opinion:

“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 sufficient minutiae for a useful comparison to be completed.
 It is identical
 It is not identical.

What cannot happen is a comparison remaining “disputed”.”

In December 2006 Roger Shearn told the Scottish Fingerprint Service

‘What cannot happen is a comparison remaining “disputed”.’

And yet two and a half years later the Scottish Fingerprint Service has learnt NOTHING! Geddes was allowed to shame the SPSA be claiming that on 1 July 2009 the print Y7 was STILL disputed.

It appears they have pandered yet again to the Glasgow Bureau who told Shearn their preference was that the misdentification should be clasified as 'disputed'.

And not only shames the SPSA but shame the entire Scottish Justice system.

13 years on and nobody has the desire to resolve this disgraceful mess.

I hope for their sake the SPSA is today contacting the Inquiry to clarify matters over Geddes’s comments and they have the integrity and sense to tell the Inquiry that they fully accept that Y7 is a misidentification and to set the record straight.

[Amy Hart]

I am interested to hear from experts around the world who find a discrepancy in a print they cannot explain how you deal with it?

Do you simply label it as movement or a twist, or do you have to be able to explain your expert opinion?

I think that's the whole point of this "dispute." I have to explain any discrepancies to myself before I am willing to call something an identification. If you feel free to ignore discrepancies and label them as movement, or double hits or whatever you like, you make mistakes. In my office, there is frequently much discussion about double hits, distortion, movement. We feel it necessary to clearly define the borders of double hits, to note differences in ridge widths that signify pressure distortion, to take into account background appearance or the surface to explain movement. We do not just say "well, that looks a little weird, but everything else lines up." And, if I can't explain it to myself, I ask another examiner to look at it, to see if they might think of something I haven't thought of, before I will call it an identification.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

I have never witnessed so many Nods and hand Signals in all my life to people in a witness box.

Do they (Noddy & Co) really think people are Blind.

Wullie,

Am I to understand that "Noddy & Co" are a group of SCRO people, maybe management, who are in the gallery signaling the SCRO witnesses in how to answer the questions? I would have thought that would be forbidden in a courtroom and would get the nodders thrown out or held in contempt. To whom were you referring? Could you please explain?

[Big Wullie]

Pat

Am I to understand that "Noddy & Co" are a group of SCRO people, maybe management

I have never witnessed so much collusion between witness's in all my life.

When Alister Geddes was being asked questions, Fiona McBride was signalling the answers with hand movements, shakes and nods of her head.

She was signalling No when geddes was asked if he departed evidence to Les Broon that was not within the public domain already.

On the Friday my wife and I brought this to the attention of Andrew Smith who I know relayed this information to Gerry Moynihan who said he would keep an eye on matters, but come Wednesday Ms McBride was up to her old tricks again,
Though on Wednesday it was witnessed by more than my wife and I, and this I know for sure.

They are a sinking ship and sinking fast if you ask me.

There was also another member of the public witnessing this once we mentioned it to him too.

Lets hope the videos will be looked at, which will clearly show Fiona in all her colours.

This has certainly convinced me that Fiona is pulling the strings with all these so called experts within SCRO

[Big Wullie]

My View Of Todays Evidence as posted here http://shirleymckie.myfastforum.org/ftopic390-40.php


Hi Scotkaz

I cannot imagine the pain and humilation Shirley was put through with these people.

Ms Clymie who has worked in the Procurator Fiscals office for 24 years said today she was appalled and horrified at the way Shirley was treated.

had she known of the conflicting opinions withing SCRO she might not have prosecuted.

She claimed the decision to prosecute Shirley was wrong and at the time she (Ms Clymie) was the indicting Officer at Crown Office.

She works at Dumbarton now and clearly knows more about fingerprint evidence and had she known then what she knows now Shirley might not have been prosecuted.

Ms Clymie to me has been the most honest witness so far to take the stand.

Friday and Wednesday saw Alister Geddes sit opposite F M who done nothing but Nod and Shake her head when Geddes was asked questions.

I have never in my life saw anything quite like this, and it would certainly have been picked up on had this been a Court of Law.

We reported her to the Inquiry team on Friday and hope they witnessed her antics on Wednesday in particular when Andrew Smith asked Geddes if he departed evidence to les Brown which was not already in the public domain.

Having witnessed this I am of the clear view that F M is clearly the one pulling the strings at SCRO.

It seems that had Crown Office known more about the inner workings of SCRO in Ms Clymie's opinion they would have asked for more independent reports.

She did not think SCRO were independent and part of Police structure.

What went on in this case was not normal practice she said and she apologised for her manner in her internal memos.

Everything wrong in the Crown Office and PF Office is Communication.

Ms Clymie went on to say she wished she had done more checks to avoid Shirley all this agony.

The last word to Ms Clymie must be that the Procurator Fiscals will have "Great Difficulty" leading evidence from SPSA now under their new Non Numeric system.

I must agree that if they cannot get it right under a 16 point standard then why should they be allowed to present fewer points under this new system where they might actually be trying to convict people on as low as 7 points.

There was plenty of references today from Sheriff Crowe also that the American experts were certainly more articulate in their evidence than SCRO.

SCRO seem to think they were ambushed by the American Experts but it turned out today they had been sent copies of Pat's evidence to view, yet they could not answer to it at the trial of Shirley.

The fact of the matter as it stands is SCRO produced poor evidence at court where Pat was able to produce charts and say why it was not Shirley's Print.

I do not think fingerprints will ever recover its status in Scotland again thanks to SCRO and their continual denial that they done nothing wrong even though 4 of their own staff did not agree with them on their 16 points.

Ms Clymie went on to claim there was never any MOT checks of the work of SCRO.

Court productions were also of a poor quality we also heard today.

[Big Wullie]

Sheriff Crowe tried to suggest that SCRO were caught on the hop because they did not know what the American experts were saying.

He done no checks on the reliability or credibility of the American experts he said, he left that up to SCRO who cast aspersions that the Americans had gained their experiences by reading books rather than getting their hands dirty with hands on experience, (Not my words Pat) please believe me I would trust you more with my life than any expert who works for the police services in scotland.

One decent thing that came from Sheriff Crowe's mouth though was this:

He said of Iain McKie:

that he was a thorughly competent Police Officer

[Pat A. Wertheim]

I must agree that if they cannot get it right under a 16 point standard then why should they be allowed to present fewer points under this new system where they might actually be trying to convict people on as low as 7 points.

Hi Wullie

The whole thing is that fingerprint identification is not just about "points." If fingerprint identification were only a matter of counting to sixteen, then with a bushel of apples you could teach a horse to do it. Or with a pint of bitters and a bowl of bar nuts you could teach a moron to be a fingerprint expert.

The idea of counting points dates back to 1892 with Sir Francis Galton, who used a very crude statistical model to determine that if you passed the magic number of 12 using the matching points, and did not have any dissimilar points, you would have passed the population of planet Earth in the likelihood that someone else could have left a print with the same 12 points. In Galton's calculations, a "point" was a ridge ending (sometimes called an ending ridge), a splitting ridge (sometimes called a bifurcation), or a dot (a single ridge unit or sweat gland appearing between two ridges, which separate as they approach the dot and come back together again as they pass beyond it). In the US, we call these three things "Galton details."

An article was published by Alfonse Bertillon, as I recall, a few years later showing what he alleged were two prints with 22 matching points. Bertillon was not an unbiased critic. He had instituted the Bertillon System of Anthropometric Measurements, which was by then in use in many of the world's police agencies. Using Bertillon's method, a number of measurements were taken of an individual (elbow to tip of middle finger, for example, although I am not even certain that was one of the measurements). Bertillon was fighting for his method and his reputation and wanted to prove Galton wrong. A number of fingerprint experts reviewed the prints in Bertillon's article and said that not all 22 matched, but maybe 15 of them did. Therefore, the 16 point standard was adopted as being reliable for court purposes.

The problem with a standard based on a number of points is that there are far more details in fingerprints than merely "points." Edmund Locard (true, he was French, but maybe that is why the English ignored him) proposed the additional use of sweat pores (relative size and location on the ridges) in 1912 and said that given enough other details, an identification could be made on as few as 8 points. Even in the 1930's, American experts were publishing articles to the effect that fingerprint identification was not only about "points," as there was far more information in many fingerprints than just the points. In 1962, Salil Chaterjee in India proposed the use of the shapes of the edges of the ridges in conducting a comparison, as well. By the 1970's it was almost universally recognized that point standards left out a whole lot of valid identifications and criminals were going free. In 1978 the International Association for Identification passed its famous resolution saying that, "No valid basis exists at this time for requiring that a pre-determined minimum number of friction ridge characteristics must be present in two impressions in order to establish positive identification." This resolution was restated at an International Symposium on fingerprints in Israel in 1995 with the adoption of the Ne'urim Resolution, stating "No scientific basis exists for requiring that a pre-determined minimum number of friction ridge features must be present in two impressions in order to establish a positive identification."

You see, Wullie, fingerprint identification requires much more than merely being able to count to 16. In fact, a study by Evett & Williams for the FSS in the UK, which they did in the late 1980's but which was kept secret for several years due to the explosive nature of their conclusions, was presented at the Israel Fingerprint Symposium in 1995. The Evett & Williams study disclosed that fingerprint experts in the UK, once convinced of a correct identification, would find and chart 16 points to prove they were right, whether or not the points actually existed.

In the late 1970's David Ashbaugh of the RCMP coined the term "ridgeology" to describe a broad body of knowledge required to make correct fingerprint identifications. He put to rest (at least for most of the world) the idea that there was some magic number of "points" alone that determined identification. In Ashbaugh's presentation of the science of ridgeology, the expert had to understand embryology, biology, skin morphology, the deposition and distortion of fingerprints when deposited, the mental process of comparison and identification, and a whole lot more about the science behind identifying someone on the basis of fingerprints. The "points" were not irrelevant, but it was wrong to rely on them alone, or on some magic number of points. What was required was a thorough understanding of all of the related sciences that contributed to the correct making of fingerprint identification.

Ashbaugh's ideas were considered by many (myself included) to be a correct articulation of that which we knew by our decades of fingerprint work. Others, however, considered him to be wholly radical and his ideas to be blasphemy. After all, when his ideas were published internationally in 1991, they appeared to fly in the face of a century of Galton's work. Never mind that Ashbaugh's writings represented a century of research and accumulated knowledge, to some they represented blasphemy as they repudiated a century of dogma on which Ashbaugh's critics relied. Those critics denied that there was any science in fingerprint identification. All they required was a magic number. No other education or knowledge was necessary.

To go back to the conclusion of the study conducted by Evett & Williams, when an "expert" was convinced of an identification, he/she would find and chart 16 points whether they existed or not. I believe that is what happened in the McKie case in the first instance. I believe it went well beyond that before long, but in the first instance, I believe it was the very problem Evett & Williams had described.

To be a true expert, there is much more required than the ability to count to 16. There are a plethora of features to compare. There are complex factors of distortion that the expert must be able to resolve. In the final analysis, if the expert is wrong, a guilty person goes free and an innocent person goes to jail.

It's not about being able to count to 16, Wullie. It's about understanding everything we know today, not just what they knew in 1892. And more importantly, it's about honesty and integrity.

[Big Wullie]

Pat

I fully accept your account above and realise that there are more to fingerprints than being able to count to 16.

Perhaps I shall re-phrase my comment above:

I must agree that if they cannot get it right under a 16 point standard then why should they be allowed to present fewer points under this new system where they might actually be trying to convict people on as low as 7 points.

OK, so how can we be expected to accept experts who cannot admit their mistakes to give evidence in our courts.

If you are right regarding Evett & Williams and SCRO then they have acted criminally in pointing to 16 points that are non existent.

This would explain why Shirley was not convicted (The Jury could not see the points referred to in the enlargements)
The enlagements we heard were produced by a charting PC which produced Inaccurate Images according to Geddes but he used the excuse the machine was difficult to use and the slightest movement would distort the image and the points he was referring to might not appear on the image.

Why our Prosecution teams in Scotland accepted this Inaccurate evidence is anybody's guess.

Thanks Pat for clearing up this issue for me, Evett & Williams is something I had not heard of before but will look into in more detail, so once again many thanks and keep up the good work.

[Pat A. Wertheim]

This would explain why Shirley was not convicted (The Jury could not see the points referred to in the enlargements)
The enlagements we heard were produced by a charting PC which produced Inaccurate Images according to Geddes but he used the excuse the machine was difficult to use and the slightest movement would distort the image and the points he was referring to might not appear on the image.

As I testified to the jury at Shirley's trial, if you cannot see a point, you cannot use it. Training and experience may prepare an expert to interpret what he or she sees, but it cannot prepare anybody to see things that are not there. Quite simply, the "16 points" could not be seen in Y-7 because they were not there.

As for the charting PC used to chart Y-7 and QI-2, there was nothing wrong with the machine. The problem was in the people using it. I have seen perfectly crisp, uncropped images produced by that machine. The cropping and degrading of the images was not the fault of the machine. Might the images have been blurred and degraded intentionally by those preparing the charts? Maybe the inquiry will figure out why the charts were blurred, degraded, and cropped.

[Big Wullie]

Pat

I know they have a comparator so there should be no reason for them to exclude producing a charting PC and asking them to explain or show what they mean.

I fully agree that they might have cropped the top part because of the disagreement over the use of the top part by certain experts that Fiona claimed would never have used the top part if they were experts, I think the words were only a non expert would use the top part was it ?

[Outsider]

Ms Climie’s testimony showed her distress over what happened to Shirley McKie. This from MR SMITH yesterday:

… if I may say I have instructions from Mr McKie and on behalf of Shirley McKie to make it clear to this witness that they see no criticism whatsoever about this witness's conduct in this matter. I know she's very concerned about it.

This says a lot to me about Shirley McKie’s character. Much more than a fingerprint on its own ever could.

[Taggart]

As I have read through the transcripts one thing seriously worries me in this case.

Alister Geddes openly testified he was eliminating prints in the Marion Ross case to anywhere from 10 points upwards. Not a problem.

In this case SCRO received over 400 partial prints. And they eliminated over 130 of them for the deceased Marion Ross. And as anyone will agree it is perfectly feasible that the vast majority of prints eliminated for the deceased recovered from her own home would contain less that 16 points.

Alister Geddes was not one of the four SCRO experts selected to present evidence at the trial of David Asbury. The four being Hugh Macpherson, Charles Stewart, Fiona McBride and Anthony McKenna. In effect Geddes was taken out of the loop with his colleagues preparing all the evidence.

So they have signed an official report that they all independently checked every one of the 136 eliminations for Marion Ross.
Many of these 136 eliminations had already been carried out by Alister Geddes who was able to eliminate on perhaps only 10 characteristics, or even possibly less.

In effect the four experts then all ‘independently’ check all the eliminations that Alister Geddes has already confirmed.
Now the serious concern

And it comes from the written evidence of Hugh Macpherson to the Justice 1 Enquiry. The link is

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/busin ... 5-01.htm#7

In case daktari wants to accuse me of being selective with the truth.

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.

Every SINGLE elimination in the Marion Ross case was done to the 16 point standard. In a case with over 420 prints not one single elimination was done to a standard lower than 16 points.

Let me suggest this is impossible. How many experts out there have worked on large cases with a significant number prints and have ended up with well over 150 ELIMINATED marks and not ONE SINGLE elimination was done to a standard lower that 16 points?

Four independent checks which have all reached the same conclusion.

I am looking forward to the day at the Inquiry where one of the four experts has to state that Hugh Macpherson has lied and deceived the Parliamentary Enquiry and listen to their reasons for his deception.

Remember this was his written statement so it’s not as if he was being put under any pressure during any possible cross-examination. His own words in his written statement.

Unless they wish to collude with his deception?

I am also looking forward soon to hearing SCRO supporter Malcolm Graham give evidence to the Inquiry. Sorry, did I use the word supporter? Oops. Malcolm Graham who could only find 7 points in agreement in Y7 and has given a statement outlining where SCRO went wrong! His words, not mine. I’m looking forward to hearing him under oath tell the Inquiry where SCRO went wrong.

As daktari was so correct to point out there is so much more to come out.

Out of curiosity I am wondering if there are any experts out there who ever used the Sagem Fingerprint Charting machine we have heard the SCRO experts criticise so much.

I would be interested to hear from anyone who has knowledge of using it and to ascertain exactly what its capabilities were. I suspect the truth is the machine was an adequate machine but the SCRO experts were ill prepared to use it effectively.
Mind you perhaps they knew EXACTLY how to use it and were able to tweak that focus button to their advantage???

The existence of a fourth chart prepared by Hugh Macpherson in 1997 utilising two photographic enlargements showing the whole uncropped print brings their arguments about having to use the machine into serious doubt. Basically their excuse is nothing more than a lie and evidence of yet further deception.