Posted by Pat A. Wertheim on January 31, 2000 at 20:14:25:
In Reply to: Re: Where's the original print? posted by Jim McNulty on January 31, 2000 at 12:32:06:
Mr. McNulty admits, "As you may guess, I know nothing about fingerprints.." and this clears up the string of debate resulting from his first posting. The original print was not lifted but remains on the doorframe where it was developed. This is, in fact, the best evidence of all. Properly photographed, the image used for comparison is superior to a lift. The two Strathclyde Police photographs of the print that were originally made available to me might thus be considered the "best evidence," but to make the case more open to me, I was given access to the doorframe itself and took my own photographs. My photographs show more detail because I had a better close up lens and was able to capture finer detail that that available in the Strathclyde Police photographs. The whole point is this: the crime scene mark (latent print) was NOT made by Shirley McKie. No matter how many photographs are taken, no matter how many true experts look at it, it is still not her print. There is plenty of detail visible in the Strathclyde Police photographs, in my photographs, and even in the SCRO Court Charts, for a qualified fingerprint expert to determine that the crime scene mark was NOT made by Shirley McKie. For the SCRO to continue to insist that it is her print, in contradiction to every other fingerprint expert who has examined the case and replied to it, shows one of two things. Either they are incompetent, or they are covering up what they themselves know to be an erroneous identification. Which is it? That is what the whole debate is about at this point. That is why there is a hue and cry for the Lord Advocate to investigate.