Posted by David L. Grieve on February 01, 2000 at 08:37:11:
In Reply to: Where's the original print? posted by Jim McNulty on January 30, 2000 at 17:45:08:
I, too, had the opportunity to inspect the latent mark developed with black powder in situ on the section of door frame removed from the Ross home. I examined the mark carefully and compared all available information to the photograph taken by the police and the photograph taken by Pat Wertheim. While Pat's photograph was superior in overall clarity and contrast, the police photograph revealed all detail present in the mark. The entire issue raised by SCRO about "actual evidence" photos versus what was used by the defense is an unrealistic ploy to rationalize their error. Their photograph cannot magically alter the ridge structure to make the mark appear to be Shirley's in one depiction and not Shirley's in another. Such nonsense further demonstrates a growing suspicion of incompetence on the part of SCRO.
When the trial of Shirley McKie was in progress, I once stated to Pat Wertheim that I did not believe the cause of the error necessarily involved the competence of SCRO as a whole. I preferred to believe this was the result of haste or carelessness concerning what was, at the time, an elimination of a crime scene mark. However, if, as the SCRO maintains, this alleged identification has been reviewed and is still considered to be a valid identification, then I believe my assessment of the cause was incorrect. The cover-up may be political in origin, but how competent examiners can go along with this speaks poorly of their integrity. Without personal integrity, no examiner can function according to the standards the public expects. This is not science; this is politics.