| Author | Message | ||
     David McKinlay |
As a Scot and retired Detective Constable from the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department, I am totally disgusted with the matter. I now work as a crime scene investigator with the City of Delray Beach Police Department, Florida and obviously deal with crime scenes, evidence and of course fingerprints. I have been following the reports about your daughters case over here and I'm deeply troubled by the whole state of affairs concerning this matter. I have a brother who is just retired from the Strathclyde Police Force and he is just as appalled as I am. I think it's about time someone over there got off there lazy arses and fessed up to the mistakes that have been made and covered up. I think it's a •••• shame what "they" have done to your daughter, her reputation, her health and her employment. I wish there was something I could do! I'm so sorry. The truth will eventually come out, it has to and when it does look out heads will roll in all directions... Best of luck | ||
| Iain McKie |
SHIRLEY MCKIE UPDATE I believe it is extremely important that all fingerprinting experts take notice that after 6 years of trauma for Shirley and our family the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) still refuse to admit their mistakes in the Shirley McKie and Marion Ross cases. Far from letting up their lawyers are opposing us with renewed vigour. In Shirley’s ongoing civil action against the experts, SCRO and the Scottish Executive they are redoubling their efforts to keep the case out of court. As you can imagine it is particularly frustrating that as SCRO attempt to rewrite history there is evidence that in some areas they are being accepted as a credible fingerprinting organisation. Shirley cannot work, is still on incapacity benefit and the Scottish justice system seems intent on steamrolling her into the dirt and moving on as if nothing had happened. As her father I cannot let this happen and I hope that the hundreds of experts worldwide who have stood by us and supported Shirley will continue to lend their voice to our plea for SCRO to come clean and let Shirley get on with her life. As the battle to have the truth heard enters its sixth year it is revealing to look at some of the evidence SCRO and their supporters are denying. • When stress forced Shirley to stop working a few months after the Marion Ross murder Strathclyde Police asked Professor Colin Espie one of Scotland’s leading clinical psychologists to examine her psychological state: He reported: ‘After seeing Ms. McKie on 30th July 1997, I was convinced of two things. First, that she was psychologically normal; and second, that she was telling the truth.’ The Professor was so concerned that he followed up his written report with a telephone call outlining his concerns and that his examination pointed to the possibility that the fingerprint identification was wrong. ‘I was told that this was regarded as an “unthinkable” explanation, because of its implications.’ No enquiry, no second opinion. Had this information been acted on the trauma of the past 6 years could have been avoided. • On 14, May, 1999, Shirley was unanimously cleared of charges of Perjury by her peers. The only evidence against her was a mark identified by SCRO as Shirley’s. • Prosecution forensic evidence presented by a scenes of crime officer at Shirley’s trial proved that the mark could not have been left by Shirley over the period stated. • Not one of the 54 Police officers on 24 hours security watch at the murder house or the dozens of experts and detectives examining inside saw Shirley in the house. • In January 2000 14 Lothian and Borders Experts wrote to the Minister for Justice: ‘At best the apparent ‘misidentification’ is a display of gross incompetence by not one but several experts within the bureau. At worst it bears all the hallmarks of a conspiracy of a nature unparalleled in the history of fingerprints.’ • The Report on Independent Enquiry conducted by the HMCI concluded in August 2000: ‘That the mark was not made by Shirley McKie. It is (the independent experts) view that decision could have been reached at an early point in the comparison process.' • Hundreds of experts from across the world challenged SCRO’s conclusions and in May 2002 171 experts from 18 countries and 26 USA states signed a statement to the Scottish Minister for Justice calling for further enquiry. • Independent experts found that SCRO had made another mistake in identifying murder victim Marion Ross’s print on a tin found in murder accused David Asbury’s bedroom. On 15 August 2002 his murder conviction was quashed by appeal court judges after they accepted that the fingerprint evidence against him was unreliable. • In September 2002 a Petition was delivered to the Scottish Parliament signed by four world renowned experts calling for an independent examination into openers and accountability at the SCRO. • In February last year the Lord Advocate Colin Boyd stated in a speech to the Howard League for Penal Reform: ‘The BBC Frontline Scotland programme on the case of Shirley McKie…….changed public perceptions of her case. More importantly it helped uncover what were at best serious defects in the analysis of fingerprinting at the Scottish Criminal Records Office and forced the authorities, including myself, to act to ensure that such a case would not happen again.’ How much more evidence is required before admissions are made, the guilty are punished, healing is started and this whole sordid mess can be laid to rest? |
