Posted by Iain McKie on January 31, 2000 at 17:44:16:
In Reply to: Re: Where's the original print? posted by Jim McNulty on January 31, 2000 at 12:23:45:
In reply to Jim McNulty’s last posting.
I believe that Pat Wertheim and Ed German have already made it clear where they are coming from and have been transparent in their presentations to date. If only SCRO had been so open.
It is important to remember that the SCRO evidence has already been thrown out in the High Court in Glasgow. Other independent and conclusive evidence was also led at Shirley's trial that she could not have been in the house and therefore could not have left the 'mark'as alleged by SCRO.
This Internet debate has been followed by SCRO and it has been open to them to contribute. Let them post their 'identification' on this page for open examination.
Although they have refused requests for their copies of the court productions in the past we are aware that other copies have been seen by independent fingerprint 'experts and found to be erroneous.
I am not aware of any legal reasons for SCRO not posting their 'alleged' identification and allowing other 'experts' to analyse it.
I have offered to meet Jim McNulty, make the original productions available to him and supply him with any information he requests. I have also suggested that he write SCRO and address his questions to them.
This offer is of course open to any contributor to this page.
The whole point of this exercise has been to encourage the Lord Advocate to order an enquiry.
Like Mr McNulty all we ask is an independent and open examination of all productions in this case.
Following on his comments however I thought it would be interesting to update you on some of the many efforts we have made to bring about a resolution to this impasse.
In my letter to the Lord Advocate on 9, June, 1999, I reminded him that Shirley had been unanimously found 'not guilty' by a jury of her peers and praised by the trial judge for her dignity, fortitude and courage. I offered to supply further evidence and asked that an enquiry into the whole affair be instituted.
"Could you please confirm if the SCRO 'experts' who wrongly identified my daughter's prints are still acting as Crown 'experts?. What action is the Crown taking to ensure no other potential mis-carriages of justice in respect of the fingerprint examination, identification and presentation of fingerprint evidence in the Scottish Courts?" I continued, "These matters have considerable significance in ensuring the future protection of the innocent citizen and for the prosecution of crime in Scotland.….I would value your early confirmation that the appropriate enquiries are in place to examine the issues raised in this letter…. Could you also please confirm that these findings will be published?"
In reply the Lord Advocate's office stated, " The Lord Advocate does not accept your suggestions that the prosecution was 'flawed from the beginning' or 'oppressive in the extreme".
It was stated that there had been an investigation. "The Lord Advocate does not propose to publish details of those investigations.... I can (also) confirm that the Lord Advocate does not propose to prevent the citation as prosecution witnesses in appropriate cases of the officers from the Scottish Criminal Records Office who gave evidence for the Crown in this case....(and)....does not propose to instruct review of the findings of these officers in relation to other cases."
So much for an open and independent enquiry.
My latest letter to the Lord Advocate and Minister for Justice in the Scottish Parliament of 14, January, 2000 again reviews the evidence. I state, "There is one clear way forward. The fingerprint evidence produced by the prosecution and defence in the Shirley McKie trial must be independently examined and the results made public.... My only insistence is that the investigation is totally independent and open."
Shirley and I have never sought to destroy SCRO as an organisation, or fingerprinting itself. It is the 'experts', by refusing to own up to their errors, who threaten fingerprinting'
As evidence grows of these errors and the clamour for an enquiry grows it becomes clear that there are others within SCRO who must have their doubts about their colleague’s work. If they have knowledge and do not wish to be part of any conspiracy then it appears as if they should step forward now and express their reservations.
If they do not and evidence is discovered that they were aware of wrongdoing or cover-up then I will certainly press for action to be taken against them.
There are officers within SCRO who have the knowledge and power to resolve these issue. Have they the honesty and integrity?
Meanwhile we await the Lord Advocate's decision on an open and independent enquiry confident that at last truth and common sense will prevail. The political and public response has been tremendous and we thank you all once again for your continuing interest.
Sincerely, Iain McKie