McKie Page
Updated
6-29-08


www.shirleymckie.com

Shirley McKie's Story

McKie Print Images

Analysis of the Mark

Guiding Letter

Statement

Petition

Letter to Mr. Wallace

Notable Signatories

Main Signatories

Selection of Comments

Upset in Parliament

NEW DOCUMENTS

Tulliallan SCRO Presentation

Court Transcripts

Neil Letter From Examiners

 

The McKie case in short
By Arie Zeelenburg

Shirley McKie was a successful police woman until February 1997 when she was accused of leaving her fingerprint on a crime scene and lying about it. This all happened in the line of duty when she was part of a police team investigating the murder of Marion Ross in Kilmarnock, Scotland.

Shirley McKie  testified as a crown witness in this murder case against the accused David Asbury whom she arrested. Asked about the crime scene she stated that she had not been on the premises, this  in spite of the detection of “her” fingerprint.

A few months later at an early morning her house was raided by her colleagues and she was arrested. She had to shower and dress under supervision and after that she was brought to a police station (where her father had been a commanding officer), exposed to colleagues and friends, strip searched and thrown in a cell. She was accused of perjury because the print on the crime scene seemed to prove she was lying.

The identification was performed by the staff of the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) and to this day they uphold this as a valid identification. It is important to note that the identification was presented as a fact both during the investigation and in court during the perjury case started against Shirley .

All experts from abroad who testified in court and others later invited by the Scottish investigating authorities to study the print  have clearly stated, and demonstrated, that the latent  from the crime scene definitely DID  NOT come from Shirley McKie.

The testimony of David Grieve and Pat Wertheim in the perjury case saved Shirley from a possible 8 years sentence and saved her life because Shirley could not face such an ordeal being innocent. The acquittal by the court should have closed the case with an apology from SCRO and rehabilitation of Shirley. But that never happened, instead the smearing and insinuating continued trying to discredit both Shirley and the foreign experts.

One would expect that the facts were investigated by colleagues and discussed  in order to clear the case and learn from it, but not in the UK . Instead, the truth was suppressed by threatening experts with disciplinary action if they would expose the mistake and by forcing them out of their job if they did.

The very science used so often to assist in finding the truth was not only discredited by the mistakes but even more by the silence of the British fingerprint community apparently enforced by the management

After three years of campaigning, through letters and with media attention from newspapers and some BBC television programs, finally the Scottish authorities ordered an investigation by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary”. That investigation concluded in August 2000 that the mark was not made by Shirley McKie .

David Asbury who was jailed for the murder of Marion Ross was freed after independent experts, invited by the Scottish authorities, concluded that the identification of another crucial fingerprint in his case was also erroneous.

All experts in both cases were foreign, no UK expert was prepared to look at it or allowed to give his opinion !

I spite of a statement in parliament, following the findings of HMIC, from the Minister of Justice that a mistake was made, the SCRO and its management still did not admit to the erroneous identification.

The 20th of March 2002 the conclusions of another investigation; the "Internal Independent Enquiry" into the work of SCRO were issued. This report will not be published.

The most important conclusion was;

"that no matters of misconduct or lack of capability have taken place in the work surrounding the fingerprint comparisons of the McKie and Asbury marks and prints"

The report follows the consistent line taken by SCRO that fingerprint evidence is just an opinion and that simply put, SCRO has another opinion in these cases.

This line of thinking was introduced first by the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Mr. Ben Gunn who stated in a BBC TV program, ‘Panorama,’ in 2001;  that fingerprint evidence is evidence of opinion not fact because "human beings  see different  things  and experts see different things"

Strange enough were these qualifications of the evidence being “just an opinion”never brought forward during the investigations and the court cases against Shirley McKie and Dave Ashbury.

The suspended experts have been reinstated in their jobs.

The effect of all this is;

1. The mistake has not been admitted by SCRO and Shirley McKie has not received an apology.

2. Her fight for compensation and a new career will be severely hampered.

3. Mr Asbury who is free on bail pending his appeal may be returned to jail to serve his life sentence.

In response to a special request from Michael Russell, a member of the Scottish Parliament, all experts from the fingerprint community world wide have been invited to examine the fingerprints and to either support a statement that the fingerprints are not identical and that a disturbing mistake has been made, or to support the identifications.

So far over 170  experts (end of May 2002) from 17 countries all over the world have supported this statement  with none opposed. The list continues to grow.

This unprecedented statement was handed over to the Minister of Justice in Scotland on Friday the 3rd of May 2002. A scheduled debate for the 15th of May was cancelled because the subject was regarded  to be sub judice. This caused a political row and very critical media coverage.

Michael Russell continues his efforts to get the debate in Scottish parliament until this day.

The statement and the cover letter can be found on this site.

There are lists of all signatories, notable signatories and a list of quotes from supporting subscribers. The information will be updated regularly.

 Further information about this case can be found on the following Internet sites;

·       <www.onin.com>   look for;  <problem identifications> <second case Scotland>
        (http://onin.com/fp/problemidents.html#second_case)

·       <www.scafo.org >  look for; <online information> <for experts only>
        (http://www.scafo.org/SCRO/scotland_case.htm)

 You may also look at the chatboards for updates and discussion.

                    onin forum

                    CLPEX.com chat board