| You can help FAAS to fight for justice in Scotland by making a donation or by using the amazon adds on this site to get all your reading and viewing requirements. |
|
|
 |
|
Scale of McKie cover-up revealed The 58-page document, written by one of the country's leading police officers, accuses the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) of "unbelievable... arrogance... and complacency", and of taking a "criminal course of action" aimed at protecting reputations, regardless of the impact on others.
The report was written in 2000 by James Mackay, the then Deputy Chief Constable of Tayside, and lays bare deep disagreement within the SCRO about whether the print belonged to the detective constable. It reveals that at least three further experts failed to confirm the identification. Despite this, the SCRO continued to insist McKie had left her thumbprint on a door frame at a murder scene, which led to her being charged with perjury. The emergence of the report - kept secret for nearly six years - led last night to fresh demands for a public inquiry, and to further questions as to why Scotland's prosecutors had failed to act on Mackay's findings. Shirley McKie's father, Iain, said: "After a nine-year battle to clear my daughter's name, I feel totally vindicated. But what is so distressing is that this report was not acted upon by the Lord Advocate Colin Boyd. Why did the Lord Advocate not take account of the facts in this report? That is an indictment of the Lord Advocate and the whole system." Shirley McKie, now 43, was a detective with Strathclyde Police when, in February 1997, she was seconded to the murder squad investigating the death of Marion Ross. A thumbprint on a door frame was examined by the SCRO and wrongly identified as McKie's. When the officer denied in court having visited the murder scene, she was charged with perjury. McKie was only acquitted when two US fingerprint experts gave evidence that the print was not hers. McKie was recently awarded £750,000 compensation by the Scottish Executive, which continues to claim the incident was an "honest mistake". Scotland on Sunday has previously reported the conclusion of Mackay's report into the scandal, which was delivered in October 2000, that there was "criminality" and a "cover-up" at the SCRO. But the full executive summary has now been obtained by this newspaper and provides the most detailed and shocking account yet of what went wrong in the SCRO. It reveals that: • The SCRO was divided from the start over whether the print at the murder scene was McKie's. On Monday, February 10, 1997, one junior member of staff who could not identify the print beyond doubt was told by a senior colleague that it would be "beneficial" if it could be identified, and "suggested getting someone else" to do so. • By the following day, no fewer than four SCRO experts had been found who could positively identify the print. • A week later, on February 18, "blind" tests were carried out by four SCRO staff, three of whom could not positively identify the print as McKie's. Two asked for more time but "were not shown the mark again". • The Mackay inquiry contacted the leading authority in England on fingerprinting, the Durham-based National Fingerprint Training Centre, which accused the SCRO's experts of "collective manipulation and collective collusion". • SCRO officers who gave evidence at McKie's trial were seen arguing during a break, even though one of them had still to give evidence. This is a clear breach of court rules. Mackay's report concludes: "One cannot help but firmly believe that mistakes having been made, there prevailed a culture and mindset to preserve the reputation of individuals. There was then a criminal course of action. Sadly, this entrenched arrogance by some overshadows the dedication and excellent work evident in others." Scotland on Sunday has also been passed a minute from a meeting of SCRO fingerprint experts in 1995 in which they appear to express "concern" about pressure from superiors to come up with results. It warns of "concern as shown by the group over the question of persons' names being taken over not signing an identification". A letter from a former SCRO fingerprint expert has also been passed to this newspaper alleging "bullying and intimidation" of officers. A spokeswoman for the SCRO said last night that since the McKie case the service had been transformed. "Since 2000, as a result of this case, SCRO has been subject to several detailed and rigorous reviews," she said. "All processes and procedures were scrutinised by HMIC [Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary]. "The Scottish Fingerprint Service embraced the need for significant change and implemented a change management programme, resulting in the introduction of ... new and improved quality management systems which are subject to external audit and accreditation." But campaigners insist the problems that blighted the McKie case still linger on. At least one murder conviction is to be challenged on the basis of "flawed" fingerprint evidence.
|
 |
