Shirley McKie: Scottish Government Apologises

Welcome to the public Message Board for Latent Print Examiners. Feel free to share information at will.

Re: Shirley McKie: Scottish Government Apologises

Postby Big Wullie » Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:27 pm

How correct was Pat Wertheim ?

Read the words of fingerprint expert Pat Wertheim from 2006 here: ... -17195958/

But PatWertheim, the first expert to reject the findings of the SCRO officers, told the committee: "That crime scene mark was not made by Shirley McKie."

The American described the case as the most controversial in the history of fingerprints and said: "In the long run, history will record this case as an erroneous identification by the Glasgow bureau of the SCRO."

Representatives from the Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee fingerprint bureaux all told the committee that they did not believe the print was McKie's.

Sadly the experts from Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee were all sacked and have never had any sort of apologies.

Arie Zeelenberg found 20 differences:

Yesterday, Dutch expert Arie Zeelenberg insisted there was no way the print in the house - known as Y7 - belonged to McKie.

He told MSPs that he had found more than 20 differences between it and McKie's fingerprint.

How correct was he ?

But last night, Labour MSP Ken Macintosh, who represents a number of the SCRO officers, said: "For the first time, we have actually heard in this case McKie's own defence witness, her own fingerprint expert, testifying in public that he supports the work of the SCRO officers.

How tenable is the position of Labour MSP Ken McIntosh now ?

Lastly how wrong can we say Peter Swann has been ?

But Peter Swann - originally hired as a defence expert by the McKie team but never called at the perjury trial - insisted the former policewoman had made the print.

He and a colleague found no fewer than 32 matching characteristics between the disputed Y7 mark and McKie's left thumb print, adding: "It's as positive as one can be."

32 matching characteristics, As Positive as one can be.

This Peter Swann was originally consulted and portrayed himself as an expert in Fraudulent prints to the defence.

32 Matching he claims to have found yet the enquiry found nothing untowards with this and no cover ups.

Pat you were spot on, well said.

Let history record Pat Wertheim was also correct in the McKie Asbury cases and first to identify it as a sham.
User avatar
Big Wullie
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom.

Re: Shirley McKie: Scottish Government Apologises

Postby flying monkey » Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:04 am

And so...a killer walks free, to perhaps kill again and all because of one woman's lies. You must all be so proud of Shirley for that achievement.

Shame on you.

flying monkey
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Shirley McKie: Scottish Government Apologises

Postby Neville » Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:29 pm

In 1471, English chief justice John Fortescue suggested... "Indeed I would rather wish twenty evil doers to escape death through pity, than one man to be unjustly condemned."

n Guilty Men
Alexander Volokh
146 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 173 (1997)
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Shirley McKie: Scottish Government Apologises

Postby Pat » Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:46 pm

Well, well, well the "flying monkey" is back.

Kenny MacAskill, the Secretary for Justice, agree completely that Shirley told the truth all along.
Lord Advocate the Rt. Hon Frank Mulholland, met with Shirley and apologised.
Mr MasAskill stated in the Scottish Parliament that he was, ‘sorry on behalf of the Scottish Government’ for the wrongs done to Shirley.
A half-dozen or more inquiries costing many millions of Euros have been held and all have concluded that Shirley has been honest all along.

So tell me this, JD -- If you have information to the contrary, why did you obstruct justice by failing to come forward at any of those inquiries, especially the Judicial Inquiry chaired by Sir Anthony Campbell? If you are in possession of a "truth" of which no Scottish official or inquiry is aware, don't you think it is a wee be dishonest and unethical for you to sit behind the moniker "flying monkey" on a chat board and snipe at honest people who stand on their oath and tell the truth?

In how many of these trials and inquiries have you taken an oath and told the truth?
The views presented in this post are those of the author only. They do not necessarily represent the views of DoD or any of its components.
Posts: 229
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:39 pm


Return to Public CLPEX Message Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Karen Hare, lpexaminer and 1 guest