Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Further delay to MSPs' report on McKie case

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 29 November 2006
THE long-awaited parliamentary report into the Scottish fingerprint service's handling of the Shirley McKie affair will not be published until next year.
The former Strathclyde Police detective received a £750,000 payout from ministers in February after she was wrongly accused of leaving a fingerprint at a murder scene nearly ten years ago.

The justice 1 committee was expected to publish its repor
t into its inquiry earlier this month, but that was delayed when the committee sought further evidence.

The committee met again yesterday to discuss the 160-page report but was forced to delay its publication further, with members understood to be unable to agree on key aspects, including the evidence of the four Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) experts who accused Ms McKie of leaving the hugely controversial print.

The report will be heavily critical of SCRO management "including up until the recent past", a source said last night. It is understood Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary will also be criticised for failing to highlight SCRO shortcomings.

Last night Ms McKie's father, Iain, voiced his anger at the delay. "It's ridiculous. This just prolongs the agony for Shirley and the families of the SCRO officers involved," he said.

He praised the committee for investigating the case - but said it had bitten off more than it could chew. "It took on a job it was not suited to. It will be almost a decade to the day since this started. I think Shirley is entitled to some relief from this."



The full article contains 281 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 29/11/2006 01:47:43

"let's delay it as long as possible and make sure it's carefully worded so as not to blame too many people" .. were the cries of the Executive & it's legal department ...

2

druidh,

29/11/2006 02:00:24

and of course, we can't have this coming out before the elections in May.. . .

3

Crystal Ball,

Glasgow 29/11/2006 02:29:37

or "lets delay it at least until we've had time to read, understand and consider the evidence".

"The report will be heavily critical of SCRO management ....a source said last night.....Last night Ms McKie's father, Iain, voiced his anger at the delay"

Makes Iain McKies recent apparant leaks to the papers look a little bit silly now. Not content with trying to dictate the course of the enquiry he's now trying to determine their conclusions.

When are the editors going to stop giving this individual a forum?

At the end of the day there's only really one person to blame for all of this, anybody who has followed this case in any detail can be in no doubt, but nobody dare say it out loud.

Sue, Grabbit & Run are watching.

Hopefully Justice One will find the courage from somewhere and put an end to all of this absolute nonsense by finally holding this person to account in front of a judge. It's a shame Mclusky is retired. Or Hodge? No pulling the wool over his eyes.

Make this person answer the questions put to them, by themselves, without the amateur dramatics.

"It's ridiculous. This just prolongs the agony for Shirley and the families of the SCRO officers involved,"

You'd think he cared. He had the power to save everybody affected 10 years of agony back in 1997, including his daughter, but then was it ever really about that?

If it takes another 10 years of agony then so be it, but the truth will out, too many people are out to clear their names in the wake of Iain McKies vicious 'campaign'.

4

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 29/11/2006 02:42:57

#3 Crystal Ball ... "Sue Grabbit & Run are watching"

That isn't the same firm which feigned a file leak to hackers when the files actually 'headed east', is it ? *chuckle*

5

Ubi,

Edinburgh 29/11/2006 06:48:08

Shall we open a book on when it will be published ? My money is on some time post May elections.

6

GP,

29/11/2006 08:20:45

Typical of scottish elite to delay and withhold information. It will never change not as long as politicians allow them to get away with it.
Time for a full documented report with no ability to remove replace or resind statements.
That would be a novelty now wouldn't it.
It's called accountability.

7

,

29/11/2006 09:15:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 198037, Article id was mapped to record!
8

C,

Glasgow 29/11/2006 09:31:54

Don't be ridiculous, with an SNP chair, this tosh will be published in late March for maximum anti-labour impact.

9

James 53,

Glasgow 29/11/2006 09:38:29

#C The chair of the committee holding this Inquiry is Pauline McNeil and the last time I looked she was still a Labour Lackey, still it wouldn't surprise me to see that rat desert the sinking ship too.

10

Crystal Ball,

29/11/2006 10:04:12

#9 I think thats a bit unfair on Pauline McNeill James. In this case she's done a sterling job of tyring to get to the bottom of things despite official obstructions, unco-operative participants, leaky msps and certain parties trying to dictate her job.

It is no understatement to say that if the likes of Alex Neil get any real power after next may (which it seems the Scotsman and Herald are pushing for) then we can forget the delivery of justice in Scotland.

As usual the SNP cry 'Sack them' 'Shut them down' 'Hold an Enquiry'. They never offer an alternative. In Mr. Neils case he also owes the SCRO an apology for the claims he made about the Sutherland and Sinclair cases.

A justice system accountable to the likes of Mr. Neil would see a lot of bad people not going to jail.

And no, I don't rate Cathy Jamieson much more highly.

11

Rob me blind,

29/11/2006 11:28:04

What’s wrong have the discovered more truth and incompetence that they must hide before putting this report in the public domain?

Or is the Clown Office trying to decide how it could screw up any possible prossicution resulting from the inquiry

12

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 29/11/2006 15:57:11

#4 Crystal Ball

Well, I was surprised nothing more was done about the 'files heading east' incident at SG&R ... but it only goes to show (as many know) .. even the pursuers can't trust their own legal teams these days ...

13

Jack fae London,

El Capital 29/11/2006 16:36:10

Pauline McNeill's real surname is Cahill - according to this website: www.sacl.info. An absolute must read by the way....

14

Crystal Ball,

29/11/2006 16:38:04

Quite Peter, I agree.

Seems to be a tactic, grab the headlines with some preposterous allegation or other, then when the truth of the matter comes out, quetly ignore it.

As I said the SCRO are still waiting for an apology from Alex Neil for his defamatory claims about other alleged misidentifications.

Al Bayle, Dempster and Macleod have already apologised.

I'm sure there is some reasonable explaination for S,G & R, because lawyers never ever lie. I also believe that the Police never tell lie's, especially not in court, and Jury's always get it right.

15

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 29/11/2006 17:02:08

I'm sure SG&R were letting the cat out of the bag from the very start .. especially with the likes of legal luminaries such as DG being involved.

What concerns me though, is the way all this was allowed to get out of hand, and the motivations of charging McKie in the first place.

I know of several Police investigations into their own. I wish I could say more on that, but fear it may get deleted, but lets try it anyway.

I once knew of a case (among others) involving a (now retired) police officer who was going around molesting women. He stopped women, claiming their cars were faulty, or another excuse was used. His Force did everything they could to sit on the case, and let him get away with it - which is in fact, what happened.

Now, call me simple, but I'd rate what he was doing as being a lot worse than leaving a fingerprint at a murder scene - where clearly, McKie was never suspected in any part of the crime anyway ... so the motivations of charging McKie in the first place, compared with all that I know on other cases .. seem to be part of something more than just following the letter of the law.. and factor in the FBI allegedly wanting the case delayed or buried .. it seems to everyone there's more to it than meets the eye - hence, we are here today, ten years on, still debating about what happened, when a settlement or an admission from either or all parties a long time ago, would have ended it all.

As for Pauline McNeill .. yes, that site is worth a read, Jack fae London ...

16

Crystal Ball,

30/11/2006 01:01:38

Peter, once again we agree, whatever Shirley did or didn't do it was an internal discaplinary matter for the police. Unfortunately her estranged Daddy got involved. And here we are 10 years later.

Before you read too much into the apparant lockerbie connection you should have a look at a certain scottish legal firms website to see what 'notable cases' have a common link, and whether or not that same firm has any interest in representing the impartial, honest people of the fourth estate.

17

Crystal Ball,

30/11/2006 01:33:23

#13 I take it back, Pauline McNeill is obviously the devil incarnate, how dare she have a professional surname and a legal surname? I've never ever heard of that amongst the professional classes. This alone proves she cannot be trusted.

Sink this with the fact that she never mentions her legal qualification on her public parliament profile proves she is up to no good, oh er wait a minute, okay, alright then she does mention it, but using fancy letters man! Hows bams like me supposed to know? no?

An whits she doin marrying ootside her class man?, her blokes a fiscal know, no?

Anyway, whats somewan whas studied law doing on a committee that deals with such issues as legal process and justice? oh er, aye well she shouldie be, cos shes a lawyer and they're all bad n that no?

Shud have folk like ma na you up there man, take it back tae the ordinrae joe naw? We need folk like big brucie mcfee, let his 'punterspeak' add some dignity to whits goan on.

Anyhows these lawyer doods theyre all in league man, they look after their own man, okay except in court when their fightin n' that. Och Ah gie up man.

Ho, jackman fae london, the jackster man, loved yer site man, did you make it aw yersel or did yer ma' help ye man?

18

,

30/11/2006 07:39:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 200027, Article id was mapped to record!
19

Crystal Ball,

30/11/2006 12:56:31

Prosecuted with what L Stenner?

You allege corruption, where is it? It has been investigated time after time after time and nobody has found anything.

There is no criminality involved.
There is no negligence involved. (Wasn't it McKies friends who had to apologise for negligence, please correct me if I'm wrong)
There was no mistake.

By the way, L Stenner get your facts right, it is common practice for Police without fingerprint expertise to head fingerprint offices.

20

Peter Cherbi,

Edinburgh 30/11/2006 14:11:30

#16 Crystal Ball

Noted. Well, I never believe what legal firms tell us these days, after my own experiences with the legal profession .. but there are certainly ulterior motives in play here.

It's quite interesting that some people who have been persecuted to the extent of Shirley McKie, or even worse, have been trying to get cases resolved for well over ten years, but there are no outraged politicians, experts or whatever, rushing to their cause ... of course .. not the headline grabbers there I suppose .. and thoughts of some hoping that victims will just 'die off so nothing needs to be done' comes to mind.

A shameful state of affairs,.

21

mark stone,

glasgow 30/11/2006 14:13:06

can we have any confidence in the four SCRO experts? would you trust them ?

22

Crystal Ball,

30/11/2006 14:46:41

Of course you can, they have not bowed despite 10 years of intense pressure, their work was checked for a year prior to and post this case with no errors.

This is the first time the evidence of the SCRO has been challenged, and despite the Mckie's claim that Shirley has been cleared, here we all are still talking about it.

If these four were corrupt, criminal, negligent etc then they would have been punted years ago whether they protested their innocence or not.

The fact that they haven't, the fact that they continue to demand a judicial enquiry, the fact that they stand by their work in this case shows their resolve, courage and integrity.

It wasn't them who bottled out of the civil trial in February. The SCRO were dying for it.

When perjurers are hailed as heros and murderers freed to claim for compensation you have to ask, is it the SCRO experts we cannot trust, or is it biased journalists? Inept lord advocates?

23

TAXPAYER,

30/11/2006 20:40:26

18 & 21

L Stenner & Mark Stone

Please read the Justice 1 inquiry before making assumtions, you know what they sam about making assumtions. If you would care to take the time to investigate this matter the truth stares you in the face. SCRO Officers done nothing except there job, it isn't unusual to identify a police officer for purposes of elimination, they were not aware that McKie was banned from the scene of crime nor did they know about her previous history of leaving her prints where they should not have been. Are you both naive? Yes there is a cover-up in this case don't take the easy option of scapegoating the SCRO officers. These officers have not been allowed to defend thereselves due to sub-judice law yet Mckie has had a well planned media campaign led by her father using his connections and contacts within the media. Her father the spin doctor seems to have sucked you in, DON'T BELIEVE WHAT THE MEDIA SAY PLEASE. Ignorance is very harmful.

24

mark stone,

glasgow 30/11/2006 22:14:12

crystal ball

So why have the four experts been removed from there jobs then ? (if they did nothing wrong)or did they take the deal offered for there silence ! it seems to me that there was much damage to be done by a court hearing on the matter. crystal ball would you have us think that "journalists and lord advocates" would take the side of anyone guilty of a crime or accused even.if so what gain could there be in doing such a thing ?

25

Crystal Ball,

30/11/2006 23:05:51

Hi Mark,

Please check your facts, the four experts have never been suspended from their jobs, in 2000 they were suspended from the expert witness list on the basis of misidentification claims by danish practitioners (related to the evidence agaisnt the murder suspect)

Six officers were offered packages (on the last day of the Justice One enquiry, the same day that Boyd & Jamieson stalled and stuttered their way through their evidence and refused to back the SCRO experts DESPITE ADMITTING THERE WAS NO CASE AGAISNT THEM. Read beyond the headlines & between the lines son.

Despite the danish practitioners since having retracted their claims (i.e. saying, sorry we were wrong, the SCRO were correct) the SCRO experts have been prevented from returning to full duties? Why? I wish I knew.

The transcript of Justice 1 where Colin Boyd and Cathy Jamieson dodge the very same question is very interesting reading (just down from the bit where Cathy admits that the executives advisor was the disgraced rogue expert John Macleod, a man who admitted his negligence and erroneous claims against the SCRO at justice 1) the difference is that they should be able to answer the question.

Yes I agree there was much damage to be done by a court hearing, thats why the executive upped the cash & why Shirley took the cash. The difference is that people like Jim Wallace, Cathy, Jack McConnell and Colin Boyd were the ones who would be damaged.

If Shirley was so sure of her case then why didn't she hold out for the extra £500'000 she wanted?

If she so wanted her day in court (after failing to turn up at the tribunial she instigated against her original expert who also says "she dunnit") why did she settle?

The people who want and need the judicial enquiry the most are the four experts. I doubt they'll rest until they get justice for Marion Ross.

Let me ask you Mark, what would the experts gain by collusion and co

26

mark stone,

glasgow 01/12/2006 10:18:55

hi crystal

Do you agree that fingerprint experts from one side or the other have commited perjury then ? because at the end of the day that is what it boils down to, someone has told lies in a court of law surely someone should have to answer in court for that ? how can this matter be resolved until we have this or at least a judicil examination of the facts. who decides who has told the truth and who has lied ! it is the courts (and jurys)that decide these matters. not you or me. there is only one way forward.

27

Crystal Ball,

01/12/2006 13:03:56

There are at least two sets of fingerprint opinion in this case, I beleive that the SCRO hold the correct one.

In the other camp there is a consensus that the SCRO are wrong, but there is no unity in their reasoning.

They can't agree amongst themselves on many things about the mark, basic things like what thumb the print came from, whether it is a single touch (i.e. a single mark) or double touches (multiple marks, made either twice by one person, or on two occassions by two people)

The arrogant rougue expert John Macleod (the man who recommended that the exec write the cheque, the man who came out after the cheque was written and said 'The SCRO have done it again!, Close them down' to much media furore and then had to admit at Parliament that in fact it was he who got it wrong with his subsequent claims) said the print was very complex, perhaps too complex for the SCRO but not too complex for him (this was AFTER he got other claims against the SCRO so very publicly and so humiliatingly wrong)

Mckies second defence expert (because the first agreed with the SCRO) says the print is so easy that it can be ruled out in 60 seconds.

Does it strike you as at all odd that the exec use one sole 'independent' expert, without actually consulting those alleged to have made the mistake, and that expert then goes on to join in the McKies dangerous campaign to discredit the SCRO?
A campaign he helped generate a large dollop of cash for?

A fortune of taxpayers money has been spent on trying to resolve this case, lawyers have became rich, Shirley McKie has became rich, David Asbury might end up finally solving the money troubles that so haunted him in January 2007 (despite having a fair bit of cash in the biscuit tin in his bedroom, the bisuit tin that somehow has Marion Ross' print on it)

Would I call the McKie experts perjurors?
'Perjury' doesn't really apply to experts because they cannot be tried for it.

S

28

St Nicholas,

01/12/2006 15:41:32

That there's going to be a delay in the production of the Justice 1 Committee report is old news (see BBC article "McKie inquiry report faces delay" of Thursday 23rd November 2006 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6175494.stm).

The Scotsman has previously made some interesting connections between the McKie case and the Lockerbie bombing case. How strange then that the long-awaited decision by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (on whether the Libyan, al-Megrahi, should get a 2nd appeal) has also been delayed until early 2007!

What should we read into these delays, I wonder?

29

Searchlight,

Kilmarnock 02/12/2006 10:57:22

In April this year Nicola Sturgeon ended the SNP Conference by promising a Public Inquiry into the McKie Affair. Last month in Perth she, Alex Neil, Mike Russell and the rest were remarkably quiet on this subject. Could it be that Iain McKie and the SNP were willing to demand an inquiry when Colin Boyd was around in the certain knowledge they would never get one? In every single case when this affair has come under close scrutiny, judicial or otherwise, the McKie case has been exposed and the SCRO experts and Peter Swann, Malcolm Graham, etc. have been vindicated. Let’s hear it for a Judicial Inquiry, after all was it not Malcolm Luther King who “No lie lasts forever”.

30

Crystal Ball,

02/12/2006 14:13:15

I actually believe that Iain McKie wants a judicial inquiry.

After 10 years of destroying his daughters life and trying to destroy the lives of the SCRO staff I think he has became so jaundiced and bitter that he has allowed himself to believe his own spin and lost sight of the damaging truth that always hangs over his campaign.

My money is on the rug being pulled from under the whole thing around 20 seconds after Asbury's compensation package is announced.

A lot of people know the truth, can testify to the truth, maybe fears over their careers or maybe the politics of it have made folk keep schtum, however Asbury getting £200k might just be a bridge too far for some.

If only Iain McKie had done the right thing and said 10 years ago "Shirley, love, put your hands up, take the punishment and it'll all blow over"

But I don't think Iain McKies involvement was ever just about defending his daughter.

The trouble is that through his manipulation of the facts, downright lies and clever use of sub-judacy (the second Mackay started his 'investigation' the SCRO were gagged, clever Iain) he has sullied a lot of good names. This saga will not come to an end until these names have been cleared, no matter how long this takes.

Shirley is far from out of the woods.

So although Iain McKie may think he wants a judicial inquiry, the question is "Does Shirley?" this time it's her that'll face the questions, not pops.

31

Searchlight,

04/12/2006 13:12:24

You're absolutely right, Crystal Ball (30), Asbury getting anything will be too much for people to stomach. Mouths will open then. It's one thing not to speak out against McKie, after all she only committed a minor breach of discipline (originally) Had it not been for her track record she would have probably got away Scot-free. It's also a pity that Marion Ross had no family willing to campaign on her behalf.

32

Crystal Ball,

04/12/2006 15:19:30

I think that a big part of why this has dragged on so much is because of mistakes made at the start, not by SCRO, but in the pursuit of Shirley McKie, it's plain as day that somebody at Kilmarnock Police was out to get her, but things went a bit wrong, by the time Daddy was in the Divisional Commanders office shouting the odds it was too late.

By the time Asbury's defence knew about what was claimed then it had totally mushroomed out of control. By this point did Colin Boyd have any option but to instigate a Perjury investigation?

The SCRO were correct in their arbitrary, impartial, professional role. It seems the information they provided was being used, by somebody with a grudge, to suit an agenda.

That is not the fault of the SCRO, but it is the only conclusion that would suit the McKies campaign.
"Poor wee lassie stitched up by bad men" evokes more public sympathy than "nosey cop a wee bit harshly punished".

It seems that around 40 officers were willing to say "I never saw McKie at the crime scene", because obvioulsy if somebody had been warned not to go there they would done it when there was folk about.

Consider this scenario:

Maybe the officer guarding the crime scene had to nip accross the road to the petrol station to use the toilet. If you were another officer who happened to be passing, well whats the harm, you can hold the fort for two minutes, eh?

No need to fill out the log just for two minutes, just causes more paperwork and questions, besides I'm not really meant to be here on my own.

There had already been a lift from the crime scene,
so theres not much harm in you having a look, your not going to contaminate the crime scene now, nobody will know. Just be careful, watch where your putting your feet, just steady yourself a wee bit, maybe you'd be so caught up with the scene you didn't even register your hand just slightly touching that door frame.

33

mark stone,

04/12/2006 19:42:05

32. crystal ball
if the scro 4 are correct why did the court find mckie not guilty ?. THEY HAD THE FACTS IN FRONT OF THEM .did they have the wool pulled over there eyes ? i think not. And the judge had some kind words for miss mckie as i recall. your senario makes good reading if you ignore the KEY FACTS.
the scro 4 were prepared to have an inocent woman put in jail for a long time rather than tell the truth and lose there status as expert witnesses !

34

Crystal Ball,

05/12/2006 01:04:18

Don't forget that a jury also found David Asbury guilty, and guess what, they also had the facts in front of them.

That his appeal was unchallenged means that it was the former Lord Advocate who decided he should be freed, not a court. Strike you as at all odd?

Don't forget that on the back of Mackays investigation into the SCRO lord Hodge still (with the all the facts and the precognitions Mackay took in front of him) said there was no case for the SCRO officers to answer.

From the first Frontline Scotland programme you may think that the first independent practitioner Shirley spoke to was the American Pat Werthiem, conveniently sidestepping the issue of her original defence expert who said "Sorry Shirley, it is your print" & "Sorry Shirley it's not a forgery"

Her memory must be failing her as she also forgot about this fact, under oath, at her trial for perjury.
So the court didn't have ALL the facts.

If you ever have the pleasure of reading the summing up by Lord Johnson, please also read the summing up in the Archer libel case, also read the summing up in the Jeremy Thorpe case.

Mr. Wetheim turned up shortly before the trial with his evidence and it left with him afterwards, common practise? Nope. Fair to both accused and defence? Nope?

Mr. Wertheim was working from his own evidence, not the same evidence that the SCRO were working from, the quality of his evidence has been questioned, his methods questioned, and there are big question marks about the damage sustained to the crime scene mark that only appearred after his access to it.

If you believe in the conspiracy, if you believe that this was all to protect four negligent officers, then why did it get to trial? If the system wanted to protect corrupt or negligent fingerprint experts why force the issue with a trial?

If the same system were so keen to protect such people then why now are they being forced from their job

35

mark stone,

glasgow 05/12/2006 11:12:51

yes i agree the jury found asbury guilty but you are wrong to say it was the lord advocate who decided he should be freed, it would be up to the appeal court judges to make that decision not the lord advocate, he does not have the power to overturn convictions if you had done your homework you would know that ! your script is just not right on many points and i dont have the time today to go into all of it! why should we listen to you if you get it wrong from the outset! (34. paragraph 2) what else is incorrect in your script ?

And the mckies running away from the civil case? i think it was more a case of the executive having to settle at any cost. she would have been a fool not to take the offer .

36

Searchlight,

05/12/2006 16:33:02

Mark (33) suggest you read Lord Johnson's summing up. No jury would have found her quilty. You seem to have a great faith in Juries. Maybe you you never been on one. Maybe reading too much Jeffrey Archer,remenber the Fargrant One?
The history of Jury Trials is littered with no-brainer decisions. The McKie decison wasn't the worst.
You simply have to live with the fact that juries sometimes get it wrong.

37

Crystal Ball,

05/12/2006 18:10:06

Mark, there is nothing incorrect in my post.

Asbury's appeal was unchallenged.
Colin boyd could and should have pushed to have the appeal and the full facts heard by an appeal judge. He didn't excercise his muscle, no matter how you word it. The question is why?

If the executive had to settle at any cost, then surely it was shirley who was foolish for not holding out for an extra half a million?


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.