Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 17th May 2008 Change Date

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.

Sign In
Register

DNA database fears



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

Can I suggest that Alexander McKay (Letters, 26 February), in supporting the concept of a national DNA database, reflects on his comment: "Any supposed human rights violation is of little consequence in the detection of brutal killers and the protection of the innocent," and on his labelling of those who oppose it as "paranoid".
I would argue that "protection of the innocent" includes protecting the citizen against wrongful accusation and imprisonment by the state.

I was not "paranoid" in my ten-year fight against the Scottish Criminal Record Office experts who wrongly identified my daughter's fingerprint and another print that condemned an innocent man to life in prison. I am not "paranoid" in seeking to prevent experts who refuse to recant their past mistakes from continuing to threaten "the innocent" by giving evidence in Scottish courts.

Let's hope Mr McKay's prints or DNA are never misidentified or he might have cause to rue calling those who urge caution in implementing such biometric databases as "paranoid".

IAIN A J McKIE

South Beach Road

Ayr





The full article contains 176 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 28 February 2008 8:26 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 29/02/2008 08:48:35
I do not trust the state and its agencies to use DNA information properly and honestly. I do not trust the courts to use forensic information properly and honestly. I do not trust juries to understand the nature and significance of forensic evidence.

It would be unwise, in my view, to allow the state to have information about one's DNA. In saying this, I give no thought to 'human rights'.
2

Stewarty,

29/02/2008 09:18:31
#1 "I do not trust juries to understand the nature and significance of forensic evidence."

That's a pretty startling statement to make. On that basis, you do not trust jury members to understand virtually most things. I take it you are arguing that justice should be dispensed by other than juries?

I suspect that most of us to not want to follow that particular path.
3

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 29/02/2008 09:59:11
'I take it you are arguing that justice should be dispensed by other than juries?'

You are quite wrong to draw this inference. What I said was: 'I do not trust juries to understand the nature and significance of forensic evidence.' In particular, I think that judges and juries do not understand statistics. They are bewitched and bemused by them as I am myself.

4

Agent 99,

29/02/2008 10:03:15
[1] "I do not trust juries..."

That's a mighty dismissive attitude. The nature of the jury system means that it is impossible to predict the range of skills that would be available in any given jury. The fact that you don't trust it is simply tough. That's our justice system.

Do you have an alternative proposal that could reduce your distrust?

[3] As someone with statistical training, I am not in the least bewitched or bemused by statistics. I treat them with scorn.
5

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 29/02/2008 10:30:04
[3] As someone with statistical training, I am not in the least bewitched or bemused by statistics. I treat them with scorn - Agent99

With that in mind, I would NOT trust you to make an informed decision if you were on a jury. I would trust you to make a biased decision however.
6

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 29/02/2008 10:39:19
#4 Agent99

'Do you have an alternative proposal that could reduce your distrust?'

Yes I do. Do not base cases on forensic evidence. It is reliable as part of an overall case but not as an entire case or the main substance of a case. Furthermore, we should not allow the state to compile a data-bank of our DNA.
7

Stewarty,

29/02/2008 10:56:38
#3 Hugh
Your distrust of juries in the matter of understanding forensic evidence is in my view misplaced, and the natural consequence of your original remark would be to dispense with juries as fatally flawed.

Juries will be swayed by what they hear and to that extend bias will always be a factor. As Agent 99 has said there will be differing skills amongst the mix of jury members - some will be more comprehending of issues and evidence than others. But the fact of there being so many participants on a jury will lessen the opportunity for miscarriages of justice.

Ian McKie will always be paddling his particular canoe and all of us will readily understand why he should do so - there were malign influences at work.

Any system should seek to eradicate such influences and we fail to learn the lessons of what his daughter went through at our peril. That having been said, we cannot escape from the fact that a DNA database can be used to demonstrate, and possibly prove, innocence, just as it can be deployed as an aid to pinpoint possible involvement in a crime which can then be followed up to establish substantive evidence which may or may not bring a conviction.
8

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 29/02/2008 11:11:47
'a DNA database can be used to demonstrate, and possibly prove, innocence, just as it can be deployed as an aid to pinpoint possible involvement in a crime which can then be followed up to establish substantive evidence which may or may not bring a conviction.'

I agree entirely. It could be used in such a way. My worry is that it would not be. In particular, forensic evidence is such strong evidence that it is often not feasible to suppose that a non-specialist could know what appropriate weight should be given to it in particular cases.

You make a good point about the use of such evidence in support of the defence of accused people.

The recent cases involving Professor Meadows (?) and cot deaths are clear examples of lawyers, judges and juries failing to understand the nature and significance of statistical evidence.
9

Stewarty,

29/02/2008 11:29:01
#8 Hugh
What weight is given to any particular piece of evidence should be a matter for guidance from the presiding judge in the summing up. I accept that, given some recent judgements, some judges will need to be "educated", but with proper guidance as to what weight should be given by a jury we should leave it to its members. We should not underestimate the good sense of people.

In my view, lawyers know only too well the strength of manipulating stats for their own ends. As we well know G Brown regularly trots out stats, akin to a demented bingo-caller, to try and deflect attention away from realities. Stats can be prayed in aid to show different sides of the same coin and justice could suffer if these are improperly used.

My other concern is that slick lawyers regularly would have juries believe that black is white etc - they are given too much leeway by judges, possibly with miscarriages of justice occurring.
10

Iain A J McKie,

Ayr 29/02/2008 12:27:48
An interesting debate. I believe there is a case for having expert evidence treated in a different way by our courts.

There is little doubt that forensic evidence is important in preventing and detecting crime and proving guilt or innocence. The time is long past however when such evidence alone should ever lead to a conviction.

Judges and juries are often asked to adjudicate over complex and differing expert evidence. The tragic Sally Clark case in England and the totally discredited evidence given by Sir Roy Meadows stand as testimony to the dangers of ever relying on forensic/expert evidence alone.

I would like to follow the European inquisitorial system and that used in certain civil cases in England where expert evidence is evaluated before being presented in court. Such evidence is obtained by the court for the benefit of both the prosecution and the defence. There is a clear case for ensuring that genuine differences in expert evidence should be faced pre trial so that juries are protected from the present pantomime where the best performance by a QC or expert witness wins through and truth can become irrelevant. In addition sometimes forensic evidence is ignored or not challenged by defence lawyers coming on the case late and ill prepared.

There should also be a much stricter definition of the status of expert witness especially where they claim to be independent. The court should be satisfied that they have kept up to date with their expertise through regular training and accreditation and are prevented from relying on their past ‘glories’ and out of date experience or qualifications.
11

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 29/02/2008 13:26:43
How is your daughter doing these days Iain? Well, I hope.
12

A Scott,

Glasgow 29/02/2008 13:53:14
#11..How is the family of the four innocent fingerprint experts and the murdered lady doing these days.
No doubt bloody miserable.
And they dont have a handsome polis pension and £750000 of Joe Publics money to comfort them.
As for old man Mckies letter( and comment, always the last word) we all know that because someone is found guilty it does not mean that they are actually guilty anymore than if someone who is found not guilty is actually innocent. Its generally which set of witnesses (expert or otherwise) a jury believe.
Lets have the European system a Judge and Panel this does away with a jury sympathetic towards an accused.
13

Iain A J McKie,

Ayr 29/02/2008 14:08:14
She is keeping well thanks Dave.

We are looking forward to the Judicial Enquiry and hope that afterwards all involved can draw a line under this whole affair.

There will be great satisfaction in reaching the moment where myself and all the other witnesses will have to raise our right hands and "swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth". Hopefully experts, senior police officers, lord advocates and politicians will be on the witness list and, almost uniquely in the annuls of Scottish Justice, be called to account for their decisions and actions.

Thanks for your support and you can keep up to date at www.shirleymckie.com
14

A Scott,

Glasgow 29/02/2008 14:15:02
#13...........See what did I tell you always has to have the last word.
I am really lookin forward to the Judicial Enquiry where ALL the witnesses are on oath. Lets hope the four innocent F/P Officers and the family of the deceased finally get JUSTICE..............
15

2Right,

On Location 29/02/2008 15:16:59
A Scot

You are obviously a very disgruntled SCRO worker or at the very least related to one.
The amount of cover ups perpetrated by SCRO workers is tantamount to Perjury and they should be held to book for it.
The very sad case of Sally Clark Solicitor shows the extent and lengths our corrupt crown agents will go to to gain a conviction.
Even after being struck off, Roy Meadow was reinstated as having "Absolute Immunity" from prosecution.
Our whole system is Flawed.
I am certainly looking forward to the enquiry to see certain SCRO workers explain their actions indeed why one worker was allowed to sign other experts signatures.
Deep Cow Patties Ms McBride
16

2Right,

On Location 29/02/2008 15:28:06
A Scot

If SCRO have nothing to hide then why do they refuse to hand over documents to the McKie Family.
I hope Shirley and her family can take some comfort in knowing that the biggest majority of Scots will never trust a fingerprint expert in this country again.

Any case coming before a jury dependent on fingerprint evidence only needs to call some of the experts from this case as witness's, No jury in their right mind will ever find someone guilty in Scotland on fingerprints alone.
I agree with Iain McKie that people should not be convicted on one piece of evidence alone.
DNA and Fingerprint evidence cannot be trusted as a single item for any conviction.
Corroboration is a must.
Fingerprints and DNA can too easily be planted and misconstrued as we saw in the Van Der Vyver case in south Africa.
In that, the police contended they lifted a print from a flat surface which was later proven to be untrue and proven beyond doubt it came from a glass
17

A Scott,

Glasgow 29/02/2008 16:00:05
#15 and 16..Its obvious that your a Mckie Groupie ..
Why do you people always think that anybody who can see the truth (Emperors new Clothes Etc etc) Must either Know one of the F/P experts, be related to one of them or be a disgruntled SCRO Official.Once again and for the sake of people like you I solemnly declare that I not now or ever have know or contacted any of the INNOCENT F/P Officers.
The mince you Groupies spout out is straight from Old man Mckie. Nobody repeat nobody has been allowed to have an alternative opinion. Jist look at the Herald or Scotsman over the last ten years anybody who dared have an opinion contrary to old man Mckie was attacked the following day in the letters page.And as for Blair Jenkins and BBC"Scotland" shameful absolutely bloody shameful.Lets pray the Judge at any hearing is Lord Turnbull
Your last two comments and your daft Blog name sums you up perfectly...A TOTAL NAIVE NUMPTY.............DNA BRING IT ON....Bye Bye.
18

Stewarty,

29/02/2008 21:44:13
The intemperate remarks of A Scott should not detract from what started as a serious debate on this thread. Is it to much to hope that he will find his own way back to Carstairs?

Iain A J McKie #10/13 - some exceptionally good ideas in your first post which I hope that K MacAskill will take aboard. This would certainly free us from the usual scenario of "expert" witnesses arguing the issue from different perspectives.

I have issues about the way that Counsel on both sides behave. Some years ago, I was called to give evidence in Glasgow for the defence in a fraud case. I expected to be questioned on issues of fact, but I have to say that both prosecuting and defence lawyers spent about 80% of a full day probing my opinions, rather than fact. The Sheriff, much to my disgust, sat on his hands and did not insist that the lawyers confine themselves to matters off fact.

Also, having served as an advocate in Employment Tribunals I had had drummed into me the "rules" for examination-in-chief and cross-examination and religiously abided by them without question at many, many hearings. You can imagine my concern and astonishment when these "rules" for examination of a witness were cast aside in my own situation, and I was almost caught off-guard when the stand. Again the Sheriff was negligent, in my view, in not insisting that basic procedures be followed.

My point is that lawyers in court are getting away with blue murder, often to the detriment of justice.

Iain, I hope you secure justice and closure eventually for your daughter. Countless people are rooting for you and know that, contrary to the protestations of A Scott there are guilty people yet to be called to account.
19

2Right,

On Location 01/03/2008 02:40:22
A Scot? should read "A SCRO"

You have no idea of the case of SCRO at-all yet you carp on about old man McKie.
INNOCENT F/P Officers you say ? Please give us all a laugh and tell us exactly how you can assume their Innocence.
Your incoherent rants are laughable as i'm sure others would agree.

#15 and 16..Its obvious that your a Mckie Groupie
Can you also explain your stupid comment above?

This one takes the biscuit,
Your last two comments and your daft Blog name sums you up perfectly...A TOTAL NAIVE NUMPTY.............DNA BRING IT ON....Bye Bye.
This shows the mentality of you whoever you are (Disgruntled Worker) Sorry sorry person, there is no hope for you if all you can add is to attack anothers comments.
I am sure McBride and Co will be proud of your rants but then again their credibility has already been destroyed so what.
I am really really looking forward to them all being charged.
What credibility will be left at Fingerprint World when their editor is charged with perjury?
20

2Right,

On Location 01/03/2008 02:51:09
A Scot, A Loony more like, Please up your medication.

Your rant above certainly shows you as an Disgruntled SCRO Worker, Supporter, Family or whatever.
Your Rant here:
Lets have the European system a Judge and Panel this does away with a jury sympathetic towards an accused.
Only a worker from SCRO would want to do away with Juries.

Do you honnestly think Judges Are Independent ?
Give us all a break.
Why then does our Crown Office get away with the tactic of withholding evidence and they are never found in contempt despite being threatened with it By Lord Hardie etc?

Away you go and "bile yer heed Ya Eejit"
21

2Right,

On Location 01/03/2008 03:07:31
Evidence Supporting Shirley McKie is as follows.

£750.000 Paid in compo

"Joke" McConnell admits Mistake.

15 Jury Members find her innocent.

SCRO Workers sacked.

Lord Advocate Boyd resigns.

While McConnell admits mistake SCRO workers are being told by Executive Lawyers to stick to their original "Lie" and like lambs to the slaughter they did.

McBride admits to signing other workers signatures on the original envelope. (Fraud in my book) "Possible Perjury" It is not common practice to sign anothers signature on the envelopes

McBride refused to answer questions on Y7 Print at trial and does not take her evidence to court ?.

Can anyone support A Scot above and post any evidence relating to the Innocence of SCRO workers in their cover-ups ?
22

Iain A J McKie,

Ayr 01/03/2008 10:03:09
'Stewarty' makes a number of valid points including, "My point is that lawyers in court are getting away with blue murder, often to the detriment of justice."

This is an extremely important statement pointing to the fact that in a number of important cases lawyers/QC's have failed to represent their clients effectively. Any complaint about this is likely to fall on deaf ears as the Law Society, the courts and the SCCRC appear extremely reluctant to criticise their legal colleagues. At times this initial failure in representation frustrates all future attempts by the accused /litigant to obtain justice through a reversal of the original court decision.

I intent to raise this issue on my forum at http://shirleymckie.com/ and hope that 'Stewarty' and others will contribute to the debate.
23

2Right,

On Location 01/03/2008 13:18:43
Iain McKie #22

How right you are.
As a regular reader of your forum i see all too often in cases like Beck, Gage etc there is an extreme reluctance from SCCRC to even interview witnesses capable of casting doubt on their convictions.
This reluctance in the Beck case bounces back to SCCRCs reluctance to investigate their Own, I note Mr Taylor still sat on the committee of SCCRC while they investigated Becks case but he resigned in the Lockerbie case, Certainly no consistency.
In Gage's case his lawyer "Accepted" there was a sufficiency of evidence, I am sure gage does not see it that way. Neither for that matter did the judge at that trial and he directed the jury they needed to find Gage guilty on charge 2 to have enough evidence to be able to convict on charge 1.
The Jury did not listen and found him guilty on charge 1 and not proven on charge 2, The biggest sham i have ever witnessed.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


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.