Posted by Iain McKie on February 23, 2000 at 20:30:32:
In Reply to: SCRO Identification posted by MALCOLM GRAHAM on February 23, 2000 at 15:34:10:
I am at a loss to understand why Mr Graham has made these vindictive, offensive and totally inaccurate comments.
I have thought long and hard about dignifying them with a reply. In doing so my sole aim is to challenge Mr Graham to provide proof to back up his statements.
His comments go well beyond those I would expect from an objective fingerprint 'expert'.
While I fully support his right to hold contrary opinions the manner and form of his presentation staggers and saddens me.
Aside from the legal implications of his comments what particularly appals me is his arrogance in acting as judge and jury.
I know him as an ex Police Officer and a Scottish 'expert.' He has worked with SCRO on many occasions and checked their productions for the Asbury trial and found their identifications to be correct.
Until this point I had considered him to be a man of integrity. While I have my suspicions re his motivation in acting as he has I will leave that matter to be decided in any subsequent legal action we might take.
I believe that SCRO has well and truly pulled the wool over his eyes as they have tried to do in so many other areas.
Mr Graham is obviously totally unaware of the evidence led at Shirley's trial and has not attempted to check it out before he posted his comments.
To remind him. Shirley was unanimously found 'not guilty on three main counts:
Firstly the SCRO fingerprint evidence was totally rejected by the court. Pat Wertheim and David Grieve calmly and logically tore the SCRO evidence to shreds.
Secondly scenes of crime evidence was led which proved that the disputed 'mark' had possibly been in the murder house before the murder or certainly within a day of the murder and at a time before Shirley could have had access to the murder house.
This evidence alone was sufficient to clear her.
Thirdly about forty police, scenes of crime and forensic officers gave evidence to the effect that Shirley had never been in the murder house.
All the evidence, while proving Shirley's innocence, pointed to SCRO's guilt.
This evidence is a matter of public record and can be read in the transcript of trial.
We have fully supported this 'comments board' in the certainty that our cause is right and just. We welcome fair and honest comment.
We welcome the proposed Inquiry providing it is open, independent and the findings are published.
Mr Graham in his arrogance suggests that the judge, jury, scenes of crime and forensic experts were all wrong and had the wool pulled over their eyes by Pat Wertheim and David Grieve.
In accepting Mr Graham's right to have an opinion I would remind him that, as an 'expert', he has a duty to support those opinions as Pat and David have theirs.
I challenge him to post his evidence on this site and guarantee him that I will take no legal action against him should he choose to do so.
I also invite him to take Shirley's prints and to openly compare them with the mark on the door surround as was done by Pat Wertheim. I further challenge him to post his analysis on this site.
This offer has already been made to SCRO.
I am sure that Ed German would facilitate this exercise.
I suspect that Mr Graham has been caught up in the web of deceit apparently spun by SCRO in an effort to hide their mistakes.
The ball is in your court Mr Graham. All the information we have is at your disposal you only have to ask.