Our organisations have been given notice of ongoing mistreatment and abuse by the UK authorities of Mr Maurice Kellett aged 63 who has previously suffered a stroke and heart attack after a previous arrest by the police in his local area.He has also, we believe ,been refused insulin for his diabetes in Durham Jail and we give notice to the governor that Mr Kelletts condition and ongoing harrassment and persecution is being exposed and published in our International network of contacts that Mr Kellett is a long term member of. We are presently exposing the deaths in custody of other victims, unlawfully detained ,and we have been made aware of the high rate of deaths in Durham which is of grave concern to our membership.

Please be assured that WE are closely monitoring the ongoing brutal treatment of our close friend and colleague Mr Kellett and that NO actions should be taken, which might aggravate his condition ,while in your care .

The International Mens Organisation





On March 22, 2006, Essex Probate and Family Court Justice Mary McCauley Manzi, made it clear that First Amendment rights do not apply in her courtroom when she banned Kevin Thompson's tell-all book titled "Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts." What makes this particular ruling so outrageous is that Manzi is prominently criticized in the book for her judicial misconduct in Thompson's case. Therefore, a clear conflict of interest existed that should have excluded Manzi from having jurisdiction. This issue has caused a stir among civil rights and fathers' rights groups in the state who have tired of the illegal treatment that they receive in family court where constitutional law is routinely ignored. Dr. Ned Holstein, founder of the parental advocacy group Fathers and Families, argued, "Manzi should have recused herself from ruling on a book in which she's criticized. I think the Family Court has lost all sight of the Constitution in this matter and in many others."

Aware of the media interest in the story, Manzi refused to release her ruling by phone to Thompson, who received his notice by mail on Friday, March 24, 2006. The order permanently restrains Thompson from disseminating any information related to his custody case and impounds the custody case itself until the year 2021. Manzi's rationale for this action is that "impoundment is necessary to protect the best interests including the privacy interests of the parties' minor child." She wrote further, "no harm will be caused to the community interest by impounding this file."

When reached for comment, Thompson asked, "what privacy interests of my son have been compromised and whose interests are being protected other than the personal interests of Judge Manzi, Judge Digangi, and the three judges in appeals court who don't want their crimes to be exposed?" Thompson commented further, "No community interest is harmed other than the community's right to scrutinize the judiciary, hold it accountable, and prevent from happening the concealed crimes committed against fathers and children every day in family court for profit." When asked whether he would adhere to the order, Thompson commented, "I made it clear at the hearing that Judge Manzi did not have the jurisdiction to ban my book. Any order issued from such a hearing would be illegal and therefore, null and void. Since I respect the law, I have no intentions of adhering to an illegal order issued by a judge with her own agenda." Thompson is scheduled for court on April 19, 2006, to respond to the Mother's request for attorney fees incurred to ban Thompson's book. Manzi has requested financial statements from both parents before she rules on this motion. Thompson commented, "what could possibly be the relevance of financial statements in the determination of whether or not to extort the mother's attorney fees from me? This is how the family courts bully fathers into silence - jail them for ignoring illegal orders or financially ruin them by making them pay for attorneys who they did not hire. Everything that I am doing right now is for my son. I will not be shut up."

Serious offenders are going to be used as a trial for BIG BROTHER 25 March 2006

Serious offenders are going to be used as a trial for BIG BROTHER.The state are increasingly and alarmingly using worse case scenarios to bring in human 24 hour monitoring. It is the dogsbodies of the higher order of the illuminati and masons that are bringing this in.

Secret societies have operated on this principle of monitoring their OWN BROTHERHOOD to ensure they protect the oaths they swear into .Their ultimate goal is to enslave us all using hi-tech monitoring.Check out films "THE SKULLS" and "THE SKULLS II"

Also ignore the masonic reviewers who slated the films as they really do EXPOSE the secret societies and what they are all about and noticable that they have NEVER been shown on terrestrial TV.SURPRISE SURPRISE!!!!!!!

Minister for Transport Alistair Darling (a lawyer QC)wants to bring in satellite tracking of cars supposedly to allow pay per mile charging .Darling is one of the mobsters who is pushing the NEW WORLD ORDER agenda and a dangerous Orwellian state were they start with serious offender monitoring and gradually justify targeting youngsters, then the old and sick and finally the rest of us.

Freed sex offenders may be tracked by hi-tech 'spy in the sky' system

Satellite tracking system could be used to monitor sex offenders
Tagging does not allow 24-hour monitoring
The global positioning system (GPS) is currently being piloted in England
Key quote
"New technology should be considered to improve the monitoring of serious offenders but it mustn't be done as a quick fix or a means of saving money. We shouldn't rule it out but it must be properly tested." - Kenny MacAskill, SNP's justice spokesman

A SATELLITE tracking system to monitor Scotland's most dangerous sex offenders is being considered by government officials. The "spy in the sky" system is seen as a potentially valuable tool for improving the surveillance of sex offenders and other dangerous criminals once freed from prison. The technology, which is used for navigation in cars, is being piloted in England and is widely used in the United States.

The Scotsman has learned that justice department officials have held talks with senior police officers over the possibility of introducing satellite tracking, while an Executive source has confirmed they are "carefully following" the results of English pilot schemes. Launching the pilots in Greater Manchester, Hampshire and the West Midlands in September 2004, David Blunkett, the then home secretary, said satellite monitoring would create a "prison without bars". But the pilots, which have also been used for young offenders as an alternative to custody, have identified serious weaknesses in the global positioning system (GPS) technology with buildings, trees and even clouds blocking the signal.

A spokeswoman for the Executive's justice department yesterday said it was taking a "keen interest" in the pilots, but stressed there were no plans "at present" to introduce satellite monitoring. The main benefit of the technology is that it allows police and other authorities to track someone's movements 24 hours a day. Electronic tagging, which is used on nearly 500 offenders in Scotland, is used to alert officers when someone breaches their home curfew order or strays into an area where they have been banned, but does not allow for round-the-clock monitoring. Police in Scotland are reluctant to openly discuss the use of satellite technology while it is being considered by government policy officials, but their counterparts in England have warmly welcomed the prospect of an extra monitoring "weapon". News that the Executive is looking at the possibility of using satellites follows a number of recent tragedies, including the murder of Fife teenager Karen Dewar at the hands of Colyn Evans, a serial offender whom social workers and police failed to monitor adequately. Karen's death and other cases, including the abduction and attempted rape in Coatbridge of a two-year-old girl by James Campbell, who had been freed early from jail for another sexual offence, led police to demand tough powers to track sex offenders.

There are currently more than 3,000 people in Scotland on the official sex offenders' register but the police's ability to track their movements depends largely on their co-operation and information from other agencies such as social services. Cathy Jamieson, the justice minister, has moved to address this "intelligence deficit" by announcing a number of new measures including powers for police to raid the homes of sex offenders who fail to attend appointments with social workers. Dr Derek Chiswick, a consultant forensic psychiatrist who was on a government-commissioned committee led by Lord MacLean, which in 2000 recommended the introduction of GPS tracking for sex offenders in Scotland, described using satellite tracking as a positive step. "I think it's got a place along with other measures in the supervision of some sex offenders," he said. While on the committee, Dr Chiswick saw first-hand how the system worked during a visit to Phoenix, Arizona.

"They had a fairly sophisticated system for monitoring where people were and alerting people when the offender entered designated areas. It seemed to work very well." When his report was published, Lord MacLean said the committee had been influenced by the case of John Cronin, a sex offender who has committed many offences involving women. He said: "The Cronin case was one case that informed our thoughts. You will see that he might have not slipped through the net if such a thing as satellites had been used." Kenny MacAskill, the SNP's justice spokesman, cautioned against GPS as a "quick fix".

"New technology should be considered to improve the monitoring of serious offenders but it mustn't be done as a quick fix or a means of saving money. We shouldn't rule it out but it must be properly tested." A spokeswoman for the Executive said: "We are watching with interest the pilots down south but there are no plans at present to undertake similar measures in Scotland."

'Perfect wife' confesses to preacher's slaying, police say 24 March 2006

Mary and Matthew Winkler appear in an undated family photo with baby Breanna, Mary Alice, left, and Patricia.

SELMER, Tennessee (CNN) -- To people in the congregation of the Fourth Street Church of Christ, Mary Winkler was "the perfect mother, the perfect wife." She and her husband, preacher Matthew Winkler, were an ideal couple, congregants said. But that image was shattered on Friday, when, according to police, Mary Winkler confessed to killing her husband. Selmer police investigator Roger Rickman said the Alabama Bureau of Investigation, which is taking part in questioning Mary Winkler, informed police of her confession. (Watch police explain the crime and the confession -- 5:49) Winkler said she killed her husband Wednesday, the same day he was found, Rickman said.

Winkler, 32, faces a charge of first-degree murder. "First-degree murder is premeditated," Rickman said. (Watch how police came to charge Mary Winkler with murder -- 2:43) But police were still looking for a motive. "Our concern at this point is why the crime took place," Rickman told The Associated Press. "There have been no specific accusations made by Mrs. Winkler." The body of Matthew Winkler, 31, was discovered Wednesday night at the family's home. Mary Winkler, found later with her children in Alabama, was questioned by authorities Thursday night and Friday morning. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation said it gathered enough information to charge her after speaking with her and getting search warrants for several locations.

Mary Winkler has not made a public statement. When Matthew Winkler failed to show up for a midweek service at the Fourth Street Church of Christ, congregants went looking for him. They went to the church parsonage and entered when no one answered, police said. Congregants found Winkler dead in the bedroom. He had been shot in the back, but there were no signs of a struggle, police said. "We didn't know for more than 28 hours his body was in that home," TBI spokeswoman Jennifer Johnson said.

After the body was found, authorities issued a nationwide Amber Alert for the couple's three children: Patricia, 8, Mary Alice, 6, and Breanna, 1.

Children unaware Police in Orange Beach, Alabama -- nearly 350 miles from Selmer -- spotted the family's minivan and stopped it Thursday evening, Assistant Police Chief Greg Duck said. Duck said the children were in "very good condition" and were on the way to get something to eat when an officer pulled over their Toyota Sienna. Rickman said Mary Winkler indicated the children did not know what had happened.

The slain preacher's parents have requested custody of the three children, who are in the custody of Alabama authorities, the TBI said. Winkler waived extradition rights Friday and will be sent back to Tennessee, authorities said. Investigators have found no evidence of a history of domestic violence, Johnson said.

'Perfect mother, perfect wife'

Selmer residents said they were shocked at the preacher's death. "Words cannot describe how we all feel about this," said church member Pam Killingsworth, assistant principal at the elementary school where the two older children went to school. (Watch a stunned parishioner struggle to comprehend the killing -- 7:38) She described Mary Winkler as always seeming like "the perfect mother, the perfect wife," with very loving children.

"Everybody is just totally shocked by what has happened."

"The kids are just precious, and she was precious," Killingsworth told The AP. "He was the one of the best ministers we've ever had -- just super charisma." Wilburn Ash, an elder at the Fourth Street Church, said Winkler was hired there in February 2005, according to the AP. He preached straight-by-the-Bible sermons, the AP reported, delighting congregants. Church members described Mary Winkler as a quiet, unassuming woman, the AP reported. She was a substitute teacher at the elementary school.

"They were a nice family," former Selmer Mayor Jimmy Whittington, who worked with the preacher collecting donations for hurricane victims last year, told the AP. "They just blended in." Church member Sharon Pinckley told The Jackson Sun newspaper that Matthew Winkler "had a really true concern about saving people's souls and inspiring people to rethink their habits." "He was such a great preacher, very uplifting and encouraging," she told the paper. "You felt good when you walked away from his sermons." Pinckley also told The Sun the Winklers seemed an ideal couple. "They were such a good couple - happy," she said.


Another female murderer womens aid NEVER comment on

Life for wife who killed husband

A former prostitute who murdered her elderly husband after finding he was not wealthy has been jailed for life. Tatjana Edwards was found guilty of killing Gwyn Edwards, 72, at their home in Ottershaw, Surrey, following a trial at London's Southwark Crown Court. She had admitted stabbing him, but said it was an accident which had happened as she tried to commit suicide.

Passing sentence, Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC, said she would have to serve a minimum of 12 years in jail. He told the weeping defendant: "This was hardly a marriage made in heaven. "You first met your husband while you worked in a massage parlour and he was a client. "You lived with him rather less than two years, during which time you took every penny off him you could, and when you could get no more you took his life away."

Forced into prostitution

He said she "falsely accused" her late husband of abusing her and being violent, and showed "precious little evidence of either remorse or contrition" for an "unprovoked" attack. The 13-day trial heard Estonian-born Tatjana Plotnikova arrived in Britain in 2002 as a student but was raped and forced into prostitution. At a London brothel, Edwards set out to snare Mr Edwards, who hinted he was a multi-millionaire, the trial was told. After the couple were married, the court heard she made endless demands for cash, clothes, luxuries and numerous trips abroad. But she complained endlessly about the marketing consultant's "boring" life, personal habits and broken promises.

Gwyn Edwards was killed during a row last June when she stabbed him with a kitchen knife, the trial heard. After Friday's sentencing, Det Ch Insp Helen Collins said: "We are pleased with the jury's verdict and the sentencing reflects the seriousness of the crime. "The thoughts of the Surrey Police investigation team are with Mr Edwards' family and we hope that this verdict will be of some comfort to them."


High Court Trims Police Power to Search Homes

The Supreme Court narrowed police search powers yesterday, ruling that officers must have a warrant to look for evidence in a couple's home unless both partners present agree to let them in.

The 5 to 3 decision sparked a sharp exchange among the justices. The majority portrayed the decision as striking a blow for privacy rights and gender equality; dissenters said it could undermine police efforts against domestic violence, the victims of which are often women. The ruling upholds a 2004 decision of the Georgia Supreme Court but still makes a significant change in the law nationwide, because most other lower federal and state courts had previously said that police could search with the consent of one of two adults living together.

Now, officers must first ask a judicial officer for a warrant in such cases. Quarrels between husbands and wives, or boyfriends and girlfriends, keep police busy around the country; in the District, almost half of the 39,000 violent crime calls officers answered in 2000 involved alleged domestic violence. Justice David H. Souter's majority opinion said that the consent of one partner is not enough, because of "widely shared social expectations" that adults living together each have veto power over who can come into their shared living space. That makes a warrantless search based on only one partner's consent "unreasonable" and, therefore, unconstitutional.

"[T]here is no common understanding that one co-tenant generally has a right or authority to prevail over the express wishes of another, whether the issue is the color of the curtains or invitations to outsiders," Souter wrote. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing his first dissent since joining the court in October, said the ruling's "cost" would be "great," especially in domestic dispute situations.

Roberts wrote that the ruling made no sense, given that the court had previously said it is constitutional for police to enter a house with the permission of one partner when the other is asleep or absent. Those rulings were unchanged by yesterday's decision. Just by agreeing to live with someone else, a co-tenant has surrendered a good deal of the privacy that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment was designed to protect, Roberts noted.

"The majority's rule apparently forbids police from entering to assist with a domestic dispute if the abuser whose behavior prompted the request for police assistance objects," he wrote. But Souter called that argument a "red herring," saying that the police would still have legal authority to enter homes where one partner was truly in danger. "[T]his case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to protect domestic victims," Souter wrote. "No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists."

Souter said Roberts was guilty of declaring that "the centuries of special protection for the privacy of the home are over." Souter's opinion was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Breyer backed Souter with a separate opinion noting that his decisive fifth vote was cast on the understanding that Souter's analysis applies to cases such as this one, Georgia v. Randolph , No. 04-1607, in which the police were searching for evidence of a crime, rather than intervening in a violent dispute.

"[T]oday's decision will not adversely affect ordinary law enforcement practices," Breyer wrote. The case arose out of a 2001 quarrel over child custody at the home of Janet and Scott Randolph in Americus, Ga. When officers arrived, she told them where they could find his cocaine. An officer asked Scott Randolph for permission to search the house. He refused, but Janet Randolph said yes -- and led them to a straw covered in cocaine crystals. Scott Randolph was arrested and indicted on charges of cocaine possession. Georgia's Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the evidence should be suppressed because it was gathered without a warrant.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. did not vote because he was not yet on the court in November, when the case was argued. The main battle between Souter and Roberts was accompanied by a skirmish between Stevens and Scalia, who used the case as an opportunity to make points in the court's long-running dispute over Scalia's view that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of the Framers' original intent. In a brief concurring opinion, Stevens noted that the court's ruling was based on the concept that neither a husband nor a wife is "master" of the house in the eyes of the law. But at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, he wrote, only a husband's consent or objection would have been taken into account.

Thus, he wrote, "this case illustrates why even the most dedicated adherent to an approach . . . that places primary reliance on a search for original understanding would recognize the relevance of changes in our society." Scalia fired back at "Justice Stevens' 'attempted critique' of originalism,' " arguing that the court's ruling would probably not benefit women.

"Given the usual patterns of domestic violence," he noted, "how often can police be expected to encounter the situation in which a man urges them to enter the home while a woman simultaneously demands they stay out?"

2006 The Washington Post Company




Is the commissioner fully aware of these cases?

GEORGE FARQUHAR(our group member)

We have evidence of widespread enforced chemical lobotomies on the above people.We give notice to your commission of the serious consequences of the failures of all regulatory bodies who are supposedly there to protect those who are being illegally detained. We have EXPOSED in our world wide contact network the draconian use of UK mental hospitals to SHUT UP anyone who whistleblows against a state machine that is both criminal and corrupt. Please advise us what steps the commission are taking to ensure these cases are properly investigated and that the commission are not part of a cover up network to protect people like Malcolm Chisholm who we know,while health minister, had given authority for the unlawful treatment of Dixie Deans and many others locked up against their wishes due to your commissions failures.

The International Mens Organisation


New mental health detention plans

Plans to extend powers of compulsory detention to English mental health patients deemed a risk to themselves or others have been unveiled by ministers. The proposals also include measures to force patients to comply with community treatment orders or face detention. Anyone detained under the laws, or who has a problem with their treatment order, will have a right of appeal. The plans come in an amendment to mental health laws after ministers had to abandon plans for a new bill. The controversial draft Mental Health Bill was dropped after eight years of planning because of criticism from mental health charities and civil rights groups.

The decision to abolish the treatability test risks increasing compulsory powers unnecessarily for people who will have no therapeutic benefit Paul Farmer
Mental Health Alliance

It was also thought unlikely ministers would be able to get the plans, which included allowing the detention of patients for 28 days without appeal, through Parliament. Launching the revised plans on Thursday, health Minister Rosie Winterton said: "The introduction of supervised treatment in the community will make a very real difference to patients and carers and will make sure that what has been the revolving door syndrome is dealt with." If the new proposals do become law, someone who had been detained or sectioned under the Mental Health Act, who medics believed was at risk of causing harm to themselves or others, could be forced to comply with supervised community treatment orders. If they refused they would be taken to a clinical setting and given the treatment against their will. The other change involves widening the definition of who is treatable.


Currently, anyone deemed a risk to themselves or others cannot be detained in hospital for treatment unless they pass a "treatability test" - ie their condition has to be one that can be treated. This was the problem the authorities faced in the case of dangerous psychopath Michael Stone, who was convicted for the brutal murders of Lin and Megan Russell. Under the new plans, anyone for whom an "appropriate treatment" is available could be held for treatment purposes if their doctors feel they pose a risk to themselves or others. Mental health tsar Professor Louis Appleby said that treatments which could lessen the symptoms of the personality disorders, such as behavioural or cognitive therapies, were available even though they may take a long time to work. This would hold true for someone who was at risk of suicide as much as someone who was deemed a risk to others.

An important principle must be that we only deprive people of their liberty when we can offer treatment that will be of benefit to them Dr Tony Zigmond
Royal College of Psychiatrists

But many other mental health experts disagree and believe personality disorders are simply untreatable. Chairman of the Mental Health Alliance Paul Farmer warned: "The decision to abolish the treatability test risks increasing compulsory powers unnecessarily for people who will have no therapeutic benefit from being deprived of their liberty." Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of mental health charity Sane, said she was disappointed the changes do not include more positive rights for patients.


Dr Tony Zigmond, honorary vice-president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said: "An important principle must be that we only deprive people of their liberty when we can offer treatment that will be of benefit to them." The proposed amendments will retain the rules on detention which exist now. Patients detained for the first time would be able to appeal after 14 days. Those who are detained on subsequent occasions automatically have a hearing in front of a mental health tribunal after six months of being held. Ministers have pledged to bring this length of time down but not to the 28-day limit originally proposed in the Mental Health Bill. Those on supervised community treatment orders would still be appeal against their treatment once every six months, even from the community. The new Bill, which ministers hope will be introduced into Parliament this session, would amend the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It applies to England but is likely to be rolled out to Wales if it becomes law.

Lawyer said: 'I don't want help' - and then jumped to her death 22 March 2006

A CITY lawyer rejected a policeman's offer of help seconds before leaping to her death from a hotel window, an inquest heard yesterday. Constable Ian Rayner went to the fourth floor of the Jurys Hotel in Kensington, west London, in an attempt to prevent Katherine Ward, 52, from committing suicide on 3 January, Westminster Coroner's Court was told. Pleading with Ms Ward from a window two or three doors away, PC Rayner said: "Please let me help you."

But Ms Ward replied: "I don't want any help," before jumping to her death. Photographs of her falling were published in the media. Dr Paul Knapman, the coroner, said a notepad was later found in her hotel room, which indicated her actions had been "premeditated". Other notes had been left at her home, addressed to her family and friends, one of which said she had not been as content in her life as she had been some years earlier. Ms Ward, a divorcee, had a highly paid job as a legal executive with Rolls-Royce at the time of her death. The court was told she had several close friends and enjoyed a varied social life. She was born in Michigan in the United States, but had come to the UK about 20 years ago, becoming a naturalised British citizen about five years ago.

She was in the process of buying a new flat and had planned to visit her elderly father in the US for his 90th birthday. The inquest was told that she lived in Onslow Gardens, not far from the hotel, and she had booked the room the evening before her death. A report read to the court said she had suffered an episode of depression in December 2004 for which she had received medication, but she had made a good recovery. The episode of depression had been caused by a "life event", the court was told.

Dr Knapman told the court: "There is no evidence here of her being pushed. This is not an accidental fall; it is quite clear that Katherine Ward, seemingly a perfectly intelligent woman, had decided on a course of action which ended in her death." He recorded a verdict of suicide and extended his sympathies to Ms Ward's family and friends.

This article:

Pressure mounts for McKie inquiry as US announces FBI investigation 22 March 2006

THE United States' top law agency is investigating claims that its agents bullied law enforcement officers who expressed doubts about the Shirley McKie case. FBI agents have been accused of trying to silence forensic experts in the case of the Scottish policewoman accused of leaving a fingerprint at a murder scene to secure a clean reputation for the Scottish criminal justice system in the run-up to the Lockerbie trial. McKie family campaigners welcomed the move yesterday and said Scotland must follow with an inquiry of its own.

Earlier this month, The Scotsman reported allegations by Juval Aviv, Pan Am's Lockerbie investigator, that two members of the Scottish Criminal Records Office, who had misgivings over the McKie evidence, were visited by FBI agents in 1999 or 2000 and pressured to "fall in line with the evidence" against Ms McKie. In another allegation, a fingerprint expert for the Illinois state police, Dave Grieve, said an FBI official pulled him aside at a forensics conference in 1999 and told him not to speak out about the McKie case. At the time, Mr Grieve was the editor of an international forensics journal and was planning an editorial criticising the SCRO, which had incorrectly identified the fingerprint of Ms McKie at a murder scene. Another US forensic expert who spoke out about faults in the SCRO's investigation, Pat Wertheim, has said he was pulled aside by an FBI agent at the same conference in 1999 and warned to keep quiet about the case, although Lockerbie was not mentioned.

The FBI confirmed last night it was investigating the allegations. A bureau spokesman, Paul Bresson, said: "We have been fact-finding and interviewing relevant people to find out what happened. "To date, the FBI has not been made aware of any information that would substantiate the allegations that an FBI employee tried to interfere with the publication of an article about the SCRO as it relates to the Shirley McKie case or any other case." Mr Bresson added that the investigation was headed by the FBI's public affairs team and was not being treated as a criminal investigation.

In 1999, Ms McKie was put on trial for perjury after denying she had left a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. However, scores of international fingerprint experts said the disputed print was not hers and she was acquitted. Last month, she received a £750,000 settlement from the Scottish Executive after a nine-year legal battle over the false accusation. But ministers have remained under opposition pressure to mount a full inquiry into the mishandling of her case. Last night, Mr Grieve said he had been contacted by an FBI official about his claims. He said: "The FBI officer was surprised and found what I had to say hard to believe. I said, 'Sorry, but it's true. It happened'."

But a retired FBI officer, Richard Marquise, who headed the Lockerbie investigation from 1988-92, said he had no knowledge of any meddling and while he could not rule out the accusation, he found it "highly unlikely". He said: "I can't imagine that anyone in the FBI would have directed [the accused agent] to speak to a fellow law enforcement officer, nor can I imagine why [the agent] would have done so herself. [The agent] had nothing to do with the Lockerbie investigation." The SCRO has said publicly it had nothing to do with preparing evidence for the Lockerbie trial, so there would have been no reason why Mr Grieve's scathing editorial or a scandal within the organisation would have damaged the prosecution of Libyan suspects Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah.

Campaigners for the McKie family have pointed out that the director of the SCRO at the time of the McKie affair, Harry Bell, was one of the key police officers whose evidence led to the conviction of Megrahi. Buck Revell, who, as executive assistant director, was the third in charge of the FBI during the Lockerbie investigation, said: "I can't imagine this would happen. Any agent who even inferred that another law enforcement officer should stay quiet because of Lockerbie would be subject to severe discipline and possible prosecution. It could have been an obstruction." Ms McKie's father, Iain McKie, said: "We welcome the FBI carrying out this fact-finding. It's extremely important to understand why officers were warned off. It may help us understand if there are in fact any links to the Lockerbie investigation."


MSPs will hold McKie case inquiry

A parliamentary inquiry will be held into the Shirley McKie fingerprint case, a Holyrood committee has decided. A majority of MSPs on the Justice 1 Committee backed the move after looking at a detailed defence from ministers of their refusal to hold a public inquiry. The committee has left open the possibility of hearing from the fingerprint experts who have continued to deny they made a mistake. Former detective Ms McKie was cleared of leaving her print at a murder scene.

'Important work'

The committee had put a vote on the inquiry issue off last Wednesday to allow members more time to consider a 29-page Scottish Executive letter. It detailed more than 100 reforms carried out since the case on the recommendation of two official investigations. Ms McKie received £750,000 in compensation after she was cleared of leaving her fingerprint at the scene of the murder of a Kilmarnock woman. Mike Pringle MSP, deputy justice spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, voted with opposition MSPs. He said the terms of reference would allow the committee to look at the reasons for the misidentification of fingerprints in the case.

The remit of this inquiry will be wide enough to consider how our justice system is working following the issues that were raised by the McKie case

However, the committee's three Labour members, including convener Pauline McNeill, warned such a move would be seen as an attempt to run a full public inquiry under the "guise" of a parliamentary inquiry. But after more than an hour and a half of tense exchanges, the wide-ranging remit was agreed by four votes to three. Mr Pringle welcomed the decision to hold an inquiry. He said: "The remit of this inquiry will be wide enough to consider how our justice system is working following the issues that were raised by the McKie case. "I look forward to the committee commencing on this important work, as we urgently need to restore public confidence in our fingerprint system." The committee has yet to decide who to call before it, but some members want to call the fingerprint officers at the centre of the row as well as either Shirley McKie or her father Iain.

MSPs will invite written evidence next week and begin considering potential witnesses at their next meeting. The first oral evidence session is expected on 26 April. The inquiry remit will consider both the past and present running of the Scottish Criminal Records Office - which produced the original report wrongly stating that the fingerprint found at the murder scene was that of Ms McKie's - and the Scottish Fingerprint Service. The committee will also scrutinise the implementation of recommendations of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary's report of 2000, as well as the action plan announced by the justice minister for improvements in fingerprint and forensic services.

Cops moonlight for the mob 22 March 2006

Federal trial of former NYPD detectives opens

NEW YORK (AP) -- Two retired detectives accused of moonlighting as hit men for the mob went on trial Monday, with prosecutors saying the men used their gold shields to kidnap and kill victims picked out by a Mafia underboss. But a defense attorney said Louis Eppolito and Steven Caracappa were honest public servants targeted by mobsters intent on staying out of jail. The mobsters "called each other tough guys, goodfellas, until the jail door shut," said attorney Bruce Cutler, best known for his defense if the late mob boss John Gotti. "Then they wet their pants and called mommy -- the government," Cutler added during a theatrical opening statement in federal court.

Eppolito, 57, and Caracappa, 64, are charged with racketeering, conspiracy and other charges for allegedly going on the payroll of Luchese family underboss Anthony "Gaspipe" Casso. "The two men were not traditional mobsters," prosecutor Mitra Hormozi told the jury. "They were better. They could get away with murder because these two men were New York City police detectives." The men allegedly were involved in eight murders while working for Casso. In return, they helped him avoid arrest, warned him of impending investigations and committed killings for up to $65,000 a hit, Hormozi said. The defendants listened intently during opening statements. The heavyset Eppolito leaned back in his chair, while the thinner Caracappa -- known while on the job as "The Stick" -- sat with a pen in hand for taking notes.

Hormozi told the jury how the detectives arrested a mobster named Jimmy Hydell in 1986, then turned him over to Casso for execution and a $30,000 payoff. That same year, the pair allegedly also provided the underboss with information to locate Nicholas Guido, a mobster involved in a murder plot against Casso. The inaccurate tip led to an innocent man with the same name; he was killed in a hail of gunfire on Christmas Day 1986, authorities say. Prosecutors say Casso referred to the former detectives as his "crystal ball." Lawyer Edward Hayes, representing Caracappa, rubbed his client's shoulders like a cornerman at a fight while addressing the jury. The courtroom was filled with reporters, the public and the defendants' family, and Hayes said his client welcomed the scrutiny.

"The government is trying to humiliate him. ... Good! Bring it on," he said. Caracappa spent 23 years with the New York Police Department, helping establish its nerve center for Mafia murder investigations before retiring in 1992. Eppolito actually grew up in a mob family: His father, grandfather and an uncle were members of the Gambino family. The contrast between his police work and his "family" life was detailed in his autobiography, "Mafia Cop: The Story of An Honest Cop Whose Family Was the Mob." The partners retired to Las Vegas but were arrested a year ago. Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Calls for fresh Dunblane inquiry 22 March 2006

MSPs are to consider calls for a public inquiry into the Dunblane shootings. Three separate petitions relating to the massacre are to be discussed at the Scottish Parliament. It comes just over a week after the 10th anniversary of the incident on 13 March, 1996, which saw 16 children and a teacher shot dead. Two of the petitions are calling for a new public inquiry into the shootings. One asks whether an original inquiry failed to consider crucial evidence.

Witness statements

Holyrood's public petitions committee will consider a submission by Sandra Uttley, the former partner of Mick North, whose daughter Sophie was one of Hamilton's young victims. Miss Uttley, who has now separated from Dr North and lives in Cowbar, near Whitby, is calling on MSPs to urge the Scottish Executive to hold a new inquiry into the shootings at Dunblane Primary School. A separate petition put forward by William Burns, from South Queensferry on the outskirts of Edinburgh, is also demanding a fresh public inquiry. He wants this to look at whether Hamilton led a "charmed life" and whether or not the original probe by Lord Cullen failed to consider crucial evidence. Another petition on the agenda for Wednesday's meeting has been submitted by Doreen Hagger, from Aberdeen. She wants the parliament to urge ministers to instruct Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to investigate Central Scotland Police's dealings with Hamilton from 1975 up to 1996 and to examine the 1,655 witness statements taken as part of the investigation into the shooting.

Scottish justice system in total disarray 22 March 2006

Over recent months a picture has been revealed of a Scottish justice system in total disarray with the first minister, minister for justice and lord advocate apparently unwilling or unable to intervene. The Scottish Executive has continued to refuse a judicial inquiry into the facts behind the Shirley McKie case against a backdrop of mounting allegations of cover-up and inefficiency involving the police, Crown Office, lord advocate, first minister and minister for justice. For nine years the Scottish Executive has used a mixture of spin, procrastination and deceit to avoid an examination of its role in this debacle.

Now in Strathclyde we have the chief constable accused of cover-up by refusing to reopen the Marion Ross murder inquiry. Meanwhile, his deputy is investigating police officers from Grampian accused of covering up evidence in the Arlene Fraser inquiry. To complicate things, Grampian's own deputy chief constable is instituting a discipline inquiry against one of his own fingerprint experts for not covering up the SCRO errors and speaking out. Last week Lothian and Borders police were asked to investigate Fife Police officers accused of deliberately misleading the Crown by withholding evidence in a murder trial 10 years ago. Amid this incestuous shambles, support for a judicial inquiry into the Shirley McKie affair is growing. For the first time in many years the public in Scotland sees such an inquiry as the best way of gaining insight into a system of justice that has grown arrogant and unanswerable to the people. From that should spring the knowledge and the impetus to change a system dominated by self-interest and political survival that has allowed the independence of the lord advocate and the Crown Office to be compromised by political expediency.

Iain A J McKie, 27 Donnini Court, South Beach Road, Ayr.


Accountant fears knife attacker will return to target family

A leading accountant who was repeatedly stabbed outside his home said yesterday he fears his family could be the target of second attack. Leslie Cumming, 62, believes he was the subject of a planned attack when surprised by a man wearing a balaclava as he was about to enter his Edinburgh home. Mr Cumming, chief accountant with the Law Society of Scotland, fought off his masked assailant, but ended up in hospital with multiple stab and slash wounds to his face and body. Officers hunting the attacker revealed yesterday that they had new DNA evidence from him. They have also questioned more than 420 members of the public and taken 133 statements about the assault on the evening of January 23. But nearly two months on from the stabbing, the attacker remains at large and a £10,000 reward has been offered for information leading to an arrest. Speaking publicly about his ordeal for the first time, Mr Cumming urged people to come forward with information about the attack. He admitted he fears someone will try to attack him again. "I'm not concerned about it on a constant and daily basis, but you'd understand that when I get back to the house every evening, going back to my home patch, that the fact that this happened there is a positive recollection for me.

"I am concerned for my family, as well as myself, that if somebody returned a member of the family could be in the wrong place at the wrong time, even though it was me that they were looking for. "It's a very, very difficult time and I'm very happy that the police inquiry is going as well as it is and that they are looking carefully in all directions." Mr Cumming's duties included investigating solicitors for financial irregularities and, while he had provided police with a list of possible suspects, he can think of no-one who would have an obvious grudge against him. He added: "Whilst there are a number of speculative thoughts, there are no individuals that immediately come to mind as the prime suspect." However, he said he was convinced he was targeted. "It was my house, it was my garage, it was the end of our long and quiet lane. It was clearly someone waiting for the opportunity."

Mr Cumming relived the attack in detail. "It was very short in duration, very vicious, very violent, and quite simply I have no idea what you should do in such circumstances. I merely reacted. "It was a complete shock to find that as I came out of the garage back into the lane that out of the darkness came a figure – two to three strides away – and was immediately on top of me. "Nothing was said and I was just immediately set upon by this individual. "At that point of first contact, he was standing at the door of the garage. There were no lights around and I didn't really realise what was happening immediately. "I was struck lightly on the face and thought it wasn't much of a punch and then suddenly realised there was blood and that there was a blade involved. "At that point, I didn't know what to do, but tried to grapple with the individual and get inside the swinging blade. "During the next few seconds, I stepped backwards and forwards while I tried first of all to tear off the balaclava that was covering his face and then secondly just to grip his arms." He then fell and was struck several times on the back before the attacker fled. Detective Inspector Keith Hardie, who is leading the inquiry, said: "We still need the public's help in finding Mr Cumming's attacker. "We hope that by issuing the photographs of his injuries someone, somewhere will make that call with a name. The DNA profile we have allows us to eliminate people easily." Douglas Mill, chief executive of the Law Society of Scotland, praised Crimestoppers for matching the body's £5000 reward.


MSPs set to vote on McKie inquiry
A Holyrood committee of MSPs is expected to vote on whether to stage a parliamentary inquiry into the Shirley McKie case. The Justice 1 Committee will examine a detailed defence from ministers of their refusal to hold a public inquiry into the fingerprints case. Former detective Ms McKie was cleared of leaving her print at a murder scene.

A key vote was put off last Wednesday but it seems likely MSPs will vote for a parliamentary inquiry. Committee members called for more time to consider a 29-page Scottish Executive letter. It details more than 100 reforms carried out since the case on the recommendation of two official investigations. Ms McKie received £750,000 in compensation after she was cleared of leaving her fingerprint at the scene of the murder of a Kilmarnock woman.

Sectioning by USSR identical to UK today 19 March 2006

The Soviet Union's practice of sectioning people whose views it considered harmful (the UK is NOW doing the same as one of our own members George Farquhar(left) faced similar psychiatric abuses in Edinburgh Royal Infirmary ).Andy McCardles murder in carstairs after a chemical labotomy didnt work remains one of the most sinister cases in the UK.

Protester against Soviet injustice

Leonard Borisovich Ternovsky, physi-cian and human rights campaigner: born Moscow 6 September 1933; married (one daughter); died Moscow 14 February 2006. 'A word already spoken, lives on," said Andrei Sakharov from exile in the dark days of 1980. "The human rights movement in the Soviet Union cannot disappear without trace: new people, with their unique souls and destinies, continually make new contributions." Leonard Ternovsky stepped up to fill the breach more than once in his life, for the first time in 1978, when he joined a small group investigating the punitive uses of psychiatry, just 10 days after its founder had been arrested on a serious political charge. The Soviet Union's practice of sectioning people whose views it considered harmful was beginning to register with parts of the world psychiatric community and cause disgust. Covering the traces was an important part of the Soviet agenda at the time. Before his own arrest came in 1980, Ternovsky helped smuggle out at least 13 bulletins of psychiatric case materials and compile four more. In 1982 the Soviet body withdrew from the World Psychiatric Association, and an end to psychiatric abuse was made a condition of its return.

Ternovsky was charged with "circulating anti-Soviet slander", given a three-year sentence that he served in the Urals and central Siberia, then returned to his job as a radiologist in Moscow's Hospital No 15, where he was evidently appreciated by patients, who included ex-prisoners, unable to get treatment elsewhere - and staff, who thronged the church at his funeral, and two of whom had dared to testify in his favour at his trial. Leonard Ternovsky was a prolific writer and his articles capture three distinct atmospheres in Moscow during the periods of de-Stalinisation, perestroika and post-Soviet Russia beyond. Nikita Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin in 1956 coincided with Ternovsky's graduation from medical school and what he described as the time of his "civic awakening". He wrote: I realised that, no matter how insignificant I am on a national scale, I am still responsible for all, for everything that goes on at national level . . . as a doctor I felt special responsibility for what was being done in the name of medicine. Usually protests are not enough to combat specific evil, but I still think protest is not wasted. Protest against injustice heals society. In a wry piece on the Moscow Helsinki Group's website in May 2005, he recalled the limitations of perestroika:

Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika dawned in glorious Technicolor. "New thinking" was proclaimed and prisoners from the Brezhnev era were freed. The main point of my court sentence was that I had fabricated slander about political psychiatry, but now even major newspapers were writing about it in editions of millions; the government had owned up to it, and Soviet psychiatrists had been re-admitted to the World Psychiatric Association. Furthermore, the law used to convict me had been expunged from the penal code. So I wrote asking for a judicial review of my sentence in 1990, and back came the reply: "Your sentence was just. There are no grounds to review it." One of Leonard Ternovsky's last pieces was about the Moscow trial of the Yukos oilmen Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, both sentenced to nine years' imprisonment in 2005. A poll for a television channel had revealed that 100 per cent of the viewers thought the trial was a sham, arranged by the government, but over half thought it was still justified. "Call me a crazy optimist," Ternovsky wrote, but this is no cause for despair. Forty per cent of viewers can already see that the courts should be in thrall to no one - only the law. Measured optimism seems to have been a part of Leonard Ternovsky's make-up. It is quite astonishing to read the final statement he made before the court at his trial in 1981. He said:

Your sentence is your involuntary acknowledgement of what I have been doing and saying. And my rehabilitation in future is as inevitable as your judgement today. Leonard Ternovsky was rehabilitated in October 1991, but not before the Soviet Union had collapsed. Leonard Borisovich Ternovsky, physi-cian and human rights campaigner: born Moscow 6 September 1933; married (one daughter); died Moscow 14 February 2006. 'A word already spoken, lives on," said Andrei Sakharov from exile in the dark days of 1980. "The human rights movement in the Soviet Union cannot disappear without trace: new people, with their unique souls and destinies, continually make new contributions."

Leonard Ternovsky stepped up to fill the breach more than once in his life, for the first time in 1978, when he joined a small group investigating the punitive uses of psychiatry, just 10 days after its founder had been arrested on a serious political charge. The Soviet Union's practice of sectioning people whose views it considered harmful was beginning to register with parts of the world psychiatric community and cause disgust. Covering the traces was an important part of the Soviet agenda at the time. Before his own arrest came in 1980, Ternovsky helped smuggle out at least 13 bulletins of psychiatric case materials and compile four more. In 1982 the Soviet body withdrew from the World Psychiatric Association, and an end to psychiatric abuse was made a condition of its return. Ternovsky was charged with "circulating anti-Soviet slander", given a three-year sentence that he served in the Urals and central Siberia, then returned to his job as a radiologist in Moscow's Hospital No 15, where he was evidently appreciated by patients, who included ex-prisoners, unable to get treatment elsewhere - and staff, who thronged the church at his funeral, and two of whom had dared to testify in his favour at his trial. Leonard Ternovsky was a prolific writer and his articles capture three distinct atmospheres in Moscow during the periods of de-Stalinisation, perestroika and post-Soviet Russia beyond. Nikita Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin in 1956 coincided with Ternovsky's graduation from medical school and what he described as the time of his "civic awakening". He wrote:

I realised that, no matter how insignificant I am on a national scale, I am still responsible for all, for everything that goes on at national level . . . as a doctor I felt special responsibility for what was being done in the name of medicine. Usually protests are not enough to combat specific evil, but I still think protest is not wasted. Protest against injustice heals society. In a wry piece on the Moscow Helsinki Group's website in May 2005, he recalled the limitations of perestroika: Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika dawned in glorious Technicolor. "New thinking" was proclaimed and prisoners from the Brezhnev era were freed. The main point of my court sentence was that I had fabricated slander about political psychiatry, but now even major newspapers were writing about it in editions of millions; the government had owned up to it, and Soviet psychiatrists had been re-admitted to the World Psychiatric Association. Furthermore, the law used to convict me had been expunged from the penal code. So I wrote asking for a judicial review of my sentence in 1990, and back came the reply: "Your sentence was just. There are no grounds to review it." One of Leonard Ternovsky's last pieces was about the Moscow trial of the Yukos oilmen Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, both sentenced to nine years' imprisonment in 2005. A poll for a television channel had revealed that 100 per cent of the viewers thought the trial was a sham, arranged by the government, but over half thought it was still justified. "Call me a crazy optimist," Ternovsky wrote,

but this is no cause for despair. Forty per cent of viewers can already see that the courts should be in thrall to no one - only the law. Measured optimism seems to have been a part of Leonard Ternovsky's make-up. It is quite astonishing to read the final statement he made before the court at his trial in 1981. He said: Your sentence is your involuntary acknowledgement of what I have been doing and saying. And my rehabilitation in future is as inevitable as your judgement today. Leonard Ternovsky was rehabilitated in October 1991, but not before the Soviet Union had collapsed.


On April 17, 2006 at 1:00 pm victims of legal abuse, legal reformers, and freedom minded people will join together at the Rayburn Congressional Office Building, the location of the House Judiciary Committee, to demand that the Committee hold hearings on legal abuse in America. The rally is being promoted by the Citizens Justice Institute.

Legal abuse affects millions of Americans each year.

Its symptoms are usually pretty obvious.

It occurs when the legal system delivers injustice rather than justice.
It occurs when one side gets special treatment ... negative or positive.
It occurs when the facts don't matter, but the choice of a well-connected lawyer does.
It occurs when procedure is manipulated to foil a fair result.
It occurs when dirty pool is played by every side but yours, and the judge encourages it.
It occurs when laws and politics are enforced selectively, unreasonably or inappropriately.

The Citizens Justice Institute repeatedly contacted Congressman James Sensenbrenner seeking to have him hold hearings on legal abuse, and public dissatisfaction with the legal system. No response was ever received, thus we believe a rally is appropriate.

The Citizens Justice Institute produces materials for pro se litigants.

It has a website at 19 March 2006


Our groups have evidence of the most appalling human rights abuses going on throughout the UK.All of these abuses are perpetrated from government agencies and associated hangers on who protect them.The so called regulatory bodies are there supposedly to protect UK citizens rights but in fact are there first and foremost to PROTECT THE ESTABLISHMENT.The UK has in place the most sinister network operating ,using secret societies ,to keep the ESTABLISHMENT in permanent control of the UK that has only an illusion of democracy.

Why is the UK in its present appalling state?

Her Majesties Courts
Her Majesties Judges
Her Majesties Prisons
Her Majesties Police
Her Majesties Crown Offices
Her Majesties Government
Her Majesties Army
Her Majesties Navy
Her Majesties Air Force
Her Majesties Subjects of Scotland
Her Majesties Inspectorate
Her Majesties Customs and Excise
Her Majesties Stationers office
Her Majesties Dominions
Her Majesties Knights
Her Majesties Chambers
Her Majesties Warrants
Her Majesties Properties
Her Majesties Treasury
Her Majesties Justices of the Peace
Her Majesties Lords
Her Majesties Privy Council
Her Majesties High Commission
Her Majesties Foot Guards
Her Majesties Royal Authority
Her Majesties Colonies
Her Majesties Coastguards
Her Majesties National Civil emergency service
Her Majesties Secret Service
Her Majesties Fleet
Her Majesties Printer
Her Majesties Secretaries
Her Majesties Mint
Her Majesties Servants
Her Majesties Opposition
Her Majesties Special Services
Her Majesties Commissioners
Her Majesties Royal Guard
Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabularies
Her Majesties Private apartments
Her Majesties Inspectorate of Education
Her Majesties Inspectorate of Pollution

Who exactly do these people work for US OR THEM?


How many masons work for the fingerprint service and the police and use bogus evidence to get their brothers off while stitching up the innocent?

Fake fingerprint claim in McKie case

THE forensic expert who helped clear Shirley McKie of perjury in a murder inquiry has revealed the man police accused of the killing may have had faked fingerprint evidence used against him. Pat Wertheim has alleged that the Christmas gift tag found at the home of murder victim Marion Ross may have been "fabricated" with David Asbury's thumb print to link him to the crime.

Wertheim examined a photograph of the print in close detail while carrying out his investigation into the former policewoman's case. He said marks on the photograph are highly similar to those that show up when a print is faked and that unlike the vast majority of fingerprints left at crime scenes, which are smudged and incomplete, Asbury's was as clear as those taken in the more clinical setting of a police station. Wertheim has now asked for the print to be released so it can be re-examined. It is understood to be in the possession of the Procurator Fiscal in Kilmarnock, but it has so far proved difficult to obtain and McKie's family fear it may have been destroyed.

Shirley McKie 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 she denied having visited the murder scene, she was charged with perjury. Wertheim was one of two US fingerprint experts who gave evidence that the print was not hers. McKie was acquitted and was recently awarded £750,000 compensation by the Scottish Executive. Ministers claimed the incident was an "honest mistake". But demands are continuing to grow for a public inquiry into the case.

The Asbury print was found on a gift tag decorated with bows and holly leaves in Ross's home but in the event that identification was not considered controversial because Asbury admitted having been in the victim's home the week prior to her murder. He was convicted on the basis that a fingerprint on a tin of money in his bedroom was that of the murdered spinster. His conviction was quashed when Wertheim showed that the fingerprint was not hers, and Asbury has now raised a civil action against the SCRO. Last night Wertheim said his latest findings would heap further pressure on ministers to launch a proper investigation into the affair. He said: "There are some suspicious things here. Some of these things raise alarms that demand further investigation. There are some suspicious lines in the photograph of Asbury's fingerprint on the gift tag, the kind of thin lines I might expect to see in a piece of acetate with a photocopied fingerprint.

"I am not accusing anyone of making up evidence. All I am saying is that it bears a second look. "There may be a perfectly valid explanation for the issues surrounding the fingerprint on the gift tag and if that is the case, then I would accept that my suspicions are ill-founded. But this case just keeps getting weirder and weirder. The only way I can see to resolve it is with a judicial inquiry." The revelation last night sparked fury from McKie's family. Her father Iain said it suggested Asbury was "fitted up". He said: "Two out of the three prints identified in the Marion Ross murder case have been proved wrong. There are now suspicions about the third. If experts have doubts about this tag it must be examined. If the print is wrong we are looking at a much more serious investigation. Was Asbury fitted up? " Scotland on Sunday has previously revealed that police fingerprint experts manipulated evidence and covered up errors in the investigation.

Several fingerprint experts at SCRO failed positively to identify McKie's print, only for their views to be ignored. A report into the affair by James Mackay, the former deputy Chief Constable of Tayside Police, later concluded that McKie's print "was disputed from the outset". A spokesman for the SCRO said: "A civil action by David Asbury is ongoing and it would be inappropriate to comment further." Strathclyde Police refused to comment but a spokeswoman said: "Any new information that comes to light in respect of this inquiry will be investigated." A Crown Office spokesman said it had no comment to make.



I just returned from a screening of Aaron Russo's Master peace AMERICA From FREEDOM to Fascism. This particular theater has a seating capacity of 900 people and I do not believe there were 50 to 75 seats left empty.

The Screening was sponsored be We The People Foundation. Mr. Russo and Several Leaders of both the National and Local leadership were present for Questions and Answers. After the 95 minute film there was a very loud standing ovation. If you whish to get a look into that Bigger Picture I am always speaking of, you must see this film ,you will be in the dark no longer.

Please go to

and while you are at it please also visit

I will post more as time permits...........Bob

Darling supports torture flights 17 March 2006

Darling is even more dangerous than Blunkett

Alistair Darling Secretary of State and QC a dangerous combination supports torture flights

'Rendition flights' landed in UK

Six US planes linked by campaigners to "extraordinary rendition" used UK airports 73 times since 2001, Transport Secretary Alistair Darling has said. Campaigners claim to have details of planes used by the CIA to transfer terror suspects to countries where they could be tortured. Mr Darling confirmed the serial numbers of planes that had landed in the UK matched those on the campaigners' list. But he said he had no evidence they were involved in rendition. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has denied the US uses torture, but insisted the practice of extraordinary rendition was not unlawful, adding: "Renditions take terrorists out of action, and save lives." The British government says it has told Washington it expects it to seek permission for any rendition flights taking detainees via UK territory and airspace.

'Not aware'

But Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told MPs earlier this year the government was only aware of two cases of the US requesting and being granted permission to transfer detainees via the UK, both in 1998. The National Air Traffic Service has previously said there were 200 flights through British airspace in the past five years by the CIA planes associated by campaigners with rendition. Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Michael Moore asked Mr Darling for details of landings by six jets with the registration numbers N2189M, N8183J, N970SJ, N129QS, N368CE and N85VM.

In a written Parliamentary answer, Mr Darling confirmed the planes had landed respectively 10, 12, two, five, 20 and 24 times at UK airports since January 1 2001. But he added: "None of the information held by my department provides evidence that these flights were involved in rendition. "The British government is not aware of any cases of rendition through the UK since May 1997, apart from the two cases in 1998 about which the foreign secretary has informed Parliament." The flights revealed by Mr Darling included one stopover on the way between the Afghan capital Kabul and Washington and others stopping on their way to destinations in the Middle East such as Amman in Jordan and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia. Earlier this week, Mr Straw said claims the US has secretly flown terror suspects through the UK would eventually "fall away" due to lack of evidence.

Scotlands Two-tiered justice system 17 March 2006


The crooked establishment go free while innocent whistleblowers are jailed and murdered in state mental hospitals.Andy McCardle (Murdered in Carstairs)is only one example of how that system operates to shut down anyone with evidence of criminality by those in the above list. Dixie Deans and George Farquhar(IMO/FFI member) are two fortunate souls who survived the chemical labotomies sanctioned by the EVIL establishment masons controlling the UK the worst ones operate in Scotland.


Justice bungle allows lying PC to escape prison

Sheriff criticises summary prosecution of PC who faked car theft Police constable Gavin cannot be jailed for attempted insurance scam Second such summary incident; Crown office 'bemused' by criticism Key quote "This isn't good enough. People are effectively getting off with crimes" - Alex Neil, SNP MSP

Story in full A SHERIFF last night hit out at prosecutors for preventing him from passing a lengthy prison sentence on a corrupt police officer, heaping more criticism on Scotland's justice system. Sheriff Craig Caldwell said he was "unable to comprehend" why the Crown Office had prosecuted Police Constable Alan Gavin - who faked the theft of his own car and torched it for the insurance money - under summary procedure. Sheriff Caldwell said the "surprising" decision not to put the case before a jury meant instead of getting a two to three-year jail sentence, he would give Gavin no custodial sentence at all.

His remarks came only a day after another sheriff criticised the Crown Office for a similar decision, which prevented him from giving a lengthy sentence to a thief. Sheriff Michael Fletcher said the maximum time to which he could sentence James Brown under summary procedure was "a complete waste of time". Politicians last night attacked the Crown Office and Lord Advocate Colin Boyd, saying the two cases showed the service's judgment was "getting worse". The Lord Advocate and Cathy Jamieson, the justice minister, have come under fire in recent weeks for failing to order an inquiry into the Shirley McKie affair, while an investigation has also been launched into how vital evidence was withheld from defence lawyers in the Arlene Fraser murder case.

But the Crown Office last night defended the way they handled the two latest cases. Insiders said they were "bemused" at the criticism, as the sheriffs could have jailed Gavin and Brown but chose to impose community-based sentences. Gavin, a police officer for 22 years, was found guilty last month of defrauding his insurers and wasting police time by making a false report of a crime. The 43-year-old broke the law after his two-litre Nissan Primera GT blew a cylinder head on the M9 on the way back to his home in Falkirk from Edinburgh. After taking it to a garage, which removed the part for inspection, he found he could not afford the repair bill, so he decided to pretend it was stolen.

He arranged for his brother Hugh, also a Central Scotland police constable, to tow it to a lonely spot near Armadale used by joyriders for dumping trashed cars. There he doused it in an accelerant and set it on fire, burning his hand and scorching his eyebrows in the flashback. He later went to Linlithgow police station, where he reported the car had been stolen from a lochside car park while he and his brother were in a local pub. Gavin claimed £4,225 for the car from the Allianz Cornhill Insurance Company, which paid out in full, less a £100 excess, and bought a replacement car. Sheriff Caldwell yesterday said it would have been appropriate to jail the officer for "a significant period". But the sheriff said a "surprising" decision by the Crown Office and the procurator fiscal service had tied his hands. He told Gavin: "If this case had been prosecuted before a sheriff and jury, you'd be facing two to three years' imprisonment.

"However, for reasons which I'm not able to comprehend, you have been prosecuted in terms of summary procedure. "The significance of that is that, being a first offender, the maximum sentence is one of three months, which would mean an effective sentence of six weeks' incarceration. I see no purpose in that whatsoever." In choosing not to jail Gavin at all, Sheriff Caldwell said he had been moved by letters written to him by Gavin's son Mark, 12, and his daughter Amy, 14.

Alex Neil, an SNP MSP, claimed the case showed the Crown Office's judgment was "getting worse". He said: "This isn't good enough. People are effectively getting off with crimes. The Lord Advocate has to take the rap because he's the head of the Crown Office. He's presiding over a shambolic situation at the Crown Office, where bungle after bungle is being made." Margaret Mitchell, the Tory's justice spokeswoman, also voiced concern over the decisions. "I would have thought there would be sufficient checks and balances within the Crown Office to make sure mistakes are not made. If that is not being done, I wonder whether that is because of a lack of resources," she said. A spokeswoman for the Crown Office said: "Prosecution decisions are never taken lightly and are always taken in the public interest. It would not be appropriate to prosecute a case before a jury if it was not serious enough to justify that course."

Two-tiered justice

SCOTLAND operates a two-tier system of criminal prosecution, and the method of trial means the difference between a jail sentence measured in months and one measured in years. The most serious offences must be taken under solemn procedure. It requires a trial before a jury, and can be either in the High Court or the Sheriff Court. Some crimes, notably murder and rape, are always heard in the High Court, where the maximum sentence is life in prison. The Lord Advocate, as the head of the prosecution service, has the choice between the courts in other instances, such as drugs charges, robbery or assault. The determining factors are usually the severity of the crime and the record, if any, of the offender.

The second tier, called summary procedure, is used for less serious offences and for less hardened offenders. It is for non-jury trials in the sheriff or district courts. The choice between summary or solemn, like that between Sheriff and High Court within the solemn procedure, is for the Lord Advocate alone. The maximum sentence under summary procedure is generally six months.

Fingerprint expert who spoke out over McKie faces discipline 16 March 2006

McKie row official faces action

A fingerprint expert who spoke out over the Shirley McKie case is to face disciplinary action, it has emerged. Former detective Ms McKie was cleared of leaving a print at a murder scene. Gary Dempster, who works for the fingerprint bureau in Aberdeen, told the BBC it was wrong to suggest an honest mistake had been made.

The SNP said possible Grampian Police action showed "paranoid secrecy" but ministers accused the party of playing politics with the prosecution service. Ms McKie was cleared of perjury and compensated after being accused of leaving her fingerprint at a murder scene in Ayrshire. The first minister has previously called the prosecution an honest mistake.
'Service overhaul'

But that verdict was disputed by fingerprint officer Gary Dempster, speaking to the BBC's Frontline Scotland programme. Grampian Police have now told Mr Webster that he faces a hearing as to whether he had broken rules by speaking to the BBC. SNP Holyrood leader Nicola Sturgeon said it was clear that a cover-up culture persisted. She said: "Does the deputy first minister share my concern that Mr Dempster was informed yesterday - and I have a copy of the letter here - that he is to face disciplinary proceedings at the specific request of the director of the Scottish Criminal Records Office - an organisation we are told is beyond reproach and has nothing to hide?"

Nicol Stephen, standing in for the first minister, said he was unaware of Mr Dempster's case and said it was "a matter between employee and employer". But he insisted flaws in the fingerprint service had been tackled. "There could not have been a more major, a more significant overhaul of the fingerprint service," he said. "We have acted and we have taken decisive action."

Policeman faked car theft escapes jail sentence 16 March 2006

Officer spared after child's plea

A policeman who faked the theft of his own car and burned it for insurance money has escaped a jail sentence. Scottish Crime Squad detective Alan Gavin, from Falkirk, will instead carry out community service thanks to a plea by his 14-year-old daughter.Sheriff Craig Caldwell also said a "surprising" decision by the Crown Office and the procurator fiscal had led to a more lenient sentence. If the case had gone before a jury, a prison sentence would have been likely. Gavin, 43, one of only six qualified snipers in Central Scotland Police, acted after his two litre Nissan Primera GT blew a cylinder head on the M9 as he travelled home to Falkirk from a shopping trip to Edinburgh.

Lonely spot

After taking it to a garage, he found he could not afford the repair bill, so he decided to pretend the 150 brake-horsepower car had been stolen. He arranged for his brother Hugh - also a Central Scotland Police constable - to tow it to a lonely spot near Armadale used by joyriders for dumping trashed cars where. Gavin then set it on fire. He later claimed £4,225 from an insurance company and bought a replacement car. I take into account the impact on your family, and the moving and articulate representations made to me on your behalf by your daughter Sheriff Caldwell

At Falkirk Sheriff Court, father-of-two Gavin, whose career varied from acting as an armed guard at the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands to serving as a community policeman, was sentenced to 240 hours' community service. The sheriff revealed he had been moved to clemency by letters written to him by Gavin's children and in particular by his 14-year-old daughter Amy. Sheriff Caldwell said: "I take into account the impact on your family, and the moving and articulate representations made to me on your behalf by your daughter." The sheriff said it would have been appropriate to jail him for "a significant period" for committing a double fraud. He told Gavin: "If this case had been prosecuted before a sheriff and jury you'd be facing a sentence of two to three years' imprisonment. "However, for reasons which I'm not able to comprehend you have been prosecuted in terms of summary procedure. "The significance of that is that, being a first offender, the maximum sentence is one of three months, which would mean an effective sentence of six weeks' incarceration. "I see no purpose in that whatsoever." Gavin has since resigned from his position with the police force.

The "secret society" of U.S. judges 16 March 2006

Citizens can file evaluations on judges and attorneys here

Judges To Be Scrutinized By People Who Appear Before Them

The "secret society'' of U.S. judges is about to be invaded by a web site that lets people who have appeared before them rate judges in the first such public forum.

Lawdragon Web site will lift veil on judges By Gina Keating

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The "secret society'' of U.S. judges is about to be invaded by a Web site that lets people who have appeared before them rate judges in the first such public forum. The tooth-comb scrutiny will come from, run by Katrina Dewey, an attorney and former editor of the Los Angeles Daily Journal, the largest U.S. legal daily newspaper.

Lawdragon set out last summer to become the first Web site to allow legal professionals and clients to evaluate the nation's 1.1 million lawyers and judges. "I thought it was important to ask the tough questions and to say when they did a bad job,'' Dewey said of her fellow attorneys. "You might want to know that they are lazy or not prepared. These are things that you want to know whether you are a litigator or a juror or a client.''

Diane Karpman, a nationally recognized legal ethics expert, praised the site, saying: "The reason that Lawdragon is so good is that it provides the public and profession with education about our judges, which is basically like a secret society.' Next week, begins posting thousands of evaluations of judges and lawyers submitted by colleagues, clients and legal watchdogs -- a sort of of legal professionals. Federal judges and most state judges come to the bench as political appointees. Federal judges keep their posts for life.

State judges stand for reelection but rarely face opposition even if lawyers believe them to be incompetent, said Karpman. "We live in an era where you can't find out a lot about our judges,'' Karpman said. "Most of the public goes to the polls and reelects judges without a clue, and these are the people who enforce the laws.''

Karpman said although most bar associations do some form of judicial evaluations, that information is usually available only to the legal community. Federal judges, who keep their posts for life, can be removed only by impeachment and were once protected by a law barring lawyers from publicly criticizing them because such speech was seen as a means of judge shopping.

The American Bar Association rates federal judge candidates as "well-qualified,'' "qualified'' or "not qualified'' before they take the bench but does no other evaluations, ABA spokeswoman Nancy Slonim said. Los Angeles attorney Stephen Yagman, who set a 1995 precedent by removing the bar to lawyerly speech about judges, said an open marketplace of unqualified opinion may not be the best way to rate judges.

"You need to talk to someone who has been in front of that judge and many other judges of the same court so there is the direct observations as well as a comparative evaluation,'' Yagman said. Dewey, who left the Daily Journal in 2005 after nine years as editor, hired eight legal journalists to solicit evaluations of attorney and judges, then to vet them to insure that each contributor has standing as a client, opposing counsel, or qualified observer of the person they evaluated. now receives about 100 evaluations per day and last week scored 400,000 hits for its legal news content and lawyer directory. The one-page evaluation, which can by submitted online, promises confidentiality but requires evaluators to reveal their names to Lawdragon staff. The form asks evaluators to rate attorneys and judges on their expertise, professional dealings with other lawyers and clients and whether clients get their money's worth. The site also plans to offer a comparison of attorneys fees.

"This is a legal community online where you can have your voice heard,'' Dewey said. "At Lawdragon, they will be able to find the best lawyer, the cheapest one or somebody that can see them right away.'' "The quarterly magazine provides us with great visibility for the Web site. Because many of the decision makers in the legal profession are not in the Internet era yet, it was important to provide a forum that they felt comfortable with.''

Next? Dewey envisions dossiers on all 8 million legal service providers worldwide. "We believe there is a great opportunity ... as business becomes more global, as people do business in countries they are not familiar with and in practice areas they don't know.'' For more information, contact -j4j

This is a result of all our work on the J.A.I.L. initiative. When there is accountability of judges and prosecutors only then can we see even a modicum of justice. Law Dragon is a compelling name. Reform comes in baby steps and only because you constantly work toward it.

B. Cayenne Bird

MI5 and Royal family plotted to oust PM Harold Wilson 16 March 2006

UK Secret Services MI5 and MI6 ,who's members are largely MASONIC, are there first and foremost to protect the UK's royalty ABOVE all else.

MI5 denies conspiracy to overthrow Wilson as PM

THE Security Service MI5 yesterday made a pre-emptive move to rubbish new allegations that its officers plotted to bring down Harold Wilson in the 1960s. Claims that MI5 members conspired against the then prime minister will be given a fresh airing tonight in a BBC documentary, which suggests that senior military officers and even members of the Royal Family tacitly endorsed a planned coup d'état. However, the intelligence agency has issued what amounts to a public denial of any conspiracy. Although MI5 does not comment publicly on its activities, it maintains a public website, that was yesterday updated with an entry about "The Wilson Plot". The entry seeks to undermine the credibility of Peter Wright, a former MI5 officer who wrote of a plot against Wilson in his 1987 book Spycatcher. Wright's evidence is "discredited," MI5 says, pointing to the former officer's own admission that his memory of discussions with colleagues about Wilson was "unreliable".

The Security Service's latest contribution to the debate on Wilson's fear of persecution is unlikely to allay suspicions of a plot against him. Careful readers will note that nowhere on its internet posting does MI5 deny that some of its members did, indeed, consider removing Wilson from office.

Police force has 25 officers with criminal convictions 14 March 2006

Are police recruits with criminal records members of the local masonic lodge?

A disgraced police officer who killed a teenage girl after speeding through a red light was one of 25 serving officers in his force with criminal convictions. Fabian Wright, 28, was jailed for five years yesterday after being found guilty at an earlier hearing of jumping the light in his Audi sports car at 50mph on Aberdeen's Beach Boulevard and hitting the Ford Ka in which Lisa-Marie Wyllie, 16, was a passenger. She died later in hospital. During his trial, it emerged that the officer with Grampian Police had a previous conviction for theft, and yesterday his force revealed that 24 of their 1400 serving officers have previous convictions ranging from drink-driving and attempting to pervert the course of justice to breach of the peace and assault.

His conviction for theft was six years before he was recruited for the force, and Pat Shearer, the deputy chief constable, said measures to strengthen the vetting procedures for officers had been put in place before the tragedy. He said that when Wright applied to join the police his application would have been carefully considered and only accepted after the close scrutiny of a senior officer. "However these procedures at that time would not have been as exacting as are in place today and as we have implemented over the last year." Mr Shearer said that of the 24 remaining officers with convictions, eight had convictions when they were recruited.

"The majority of these offences are such as breach of the peace and vandalism. Some of them are for road traffic matters and one or two are for dishonesties. We have one officer who was recruited with a drink-driving offence. "All convictions resulted in admonishment, fine or compensation orders." He said all applicants' convictions would be examined in detail. "One of the factors that is considered is the age of the officer at the time of the crime or offence and the severity of the offence and particularly the length of time between the offence and recruitment." Sentencing Wright yesterday at the High Court in Edinburgh, Lord Menzies told him: "You have done a terrible wrong. By your dangerous driving you took the life of Lisa-Marie Wyllie, a young girl who had the whole of her life to look forward to."

Lord Menzies told Wright that this was not a case of a split-second mistake. "You were driving far too fast and had time to stop before the traffic lights." He said it was not a court of vengeance or retribution, but a court of law which had to fix an appropriate sentence. Lisa-Marie's parents hugged in court as the judge announced the sentence on Wright, but left without comment. The £20,000-a-year policeman had been suspended on full pay until he resigned from the force last week. Mr Shearer said: "This was a tragedy which will be with Fabian Wright for the rest of his life. Fabian Wright will have the opportunity to rebuild his life after serving his sentence – Lisa-Marie Wyllie will not."

Cop killer jailed for 5 years 14 March 2006

Officer is jailed for death crash

An off-duty police officer convicted of causing the death of a 16-year-old girl by dangerous driving has been sentenced to five years in prison. Fabian Wright was speeding when he went through a red light, crashing into a car on Aberdeen's beach boulevard in January 2005.

Lisa-Marie Wyllie, a passenger in the Ford Ka, was severely injured and died five days later.

Wright has also been disqualified from driving for 10 years.

Lawyer who brought drugs into jail 'made £50,000' 14 March 2006

Angela Baillie caught smuggling heroin and diazepam for prisoner
Prosecutors seeking £50,000 for alleged smuggling profits
Case provoked outrage when judge ordered lawyer should not be named

A CORRUPT lawyer who smuggled drugs into prison has made more than £50,000 from crime, it was alleged yesterday. Angela Baillie, 32, is awaiting sentence for taking heroin and diazepam tablets worth £1,558 to a client in Glasgow's Barlinnie jail.

However, in a parallel case under the Proceeds of Crime Act, prosecutors are seeking a confiscation order against her to the sum of £52,556. The figure has been calculated by trawling her financial affairs over recent years and working out her expenditure beyond her known income. Baillie, of Newton Mearns, near Glasgow, is contesting the application. Her prosecution attracted widespread publicity last month when a judge initially made an order which temporarily prevented her from being named. The following day, after representations from the media, Lord Kinclaven lifted the ban under the Contempt of Court Act.

Baillie, who worked for a criminal law firm in Glasgow, had been caught after an insider claimed to the authorities that drugs were being supplied to an inmate by his legal representative during confidential prison visits. The police were alerted and special screenings were carried out to ensure that none of the prisoners due to meet their lawyers had anything on them before a one-to-one meeting in an individual cubicle.

Baillie's client was strip-searched after his consultation with her and he was found to have a cigarette packet, which had been opened and resealed with sticky tape. It contained 158 diazepam tablets and 14.85g of heroin. DNA on the sticky tape matched samples from Baillie. The advocate-depute, Peter Ferguson, QC, told the High Court in Paisley that, due to the quantities involved, it was "plain beyond doubt" that the drugs were "for supply to the prison system generally".

Baillie could face a jail term when she appears for sentencing later this month.

Yesterday, a preliminary hearing in the confiscation proceedings was held at the High Court in Edinburgh. The Crown claimed that Baillie's expenditure over the last six years, funded other than from known sources - she was earning around £30,000 a year - amounted to £52,556 and "represents the benefit from general criminal conduct". It added that she had a realisable asset, her home, which was worth an estimated £165,000, and she did not have a mortgage on the property. John Scullion, counsel for Baillie, said both sides were requesting a continuation in the case "to enable these inquiries to be completed". The judge, Lord Emslie, agreed to schedule another hearing for next month.

MSP threatens to force McKie inquiry 14 March 2006

Shirley McKie was wrongly accused of leaving her thumbprint at the scene of a murder

McKie affair: MSP threatens to force inquiry

A SENIOR Labour MSP has threatened to force a parliamentary inquiry into the McKie scandal unless ministers provide answers to crucial questions about the case. Pauline McNeill, convener of Holyrood's Justice 1 Committee and a loyal party member, has promised to "hold ministers to account" unless they explain clearly what went wrong with the Scottish Fingerprint Service and how it has been remedied. McNeill warns that her committee will hold an inquiry into the matter if members feel crucial questions have not been properly answered. The Scottish Fingerprint Service has been engulfed by a crisis of confidence as a result of the Shirley McKie affair. McKie was a detective with Strathclyde Police when, in February 1997, she was wrongly accused of leaving her thumbprint at the scene of a murder. Fingerprint experts at the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) identified McKie's print, and when she continued to protest her innocence she was tried for perjury. She was acquitted after two American experts successfully challenged the fingerprint evidence.

Last month the Executive awarded her £750,000 damages in an out-of-court settlement. Scotland on Sunday has subsequently revealed details of a police report into the case which found evidence of criminality and conflicting opinions within the SCRO. Now, in a letter to Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson, McNeill, on behalf of the committee, is demanding answers to seven key questions, including:

• Will the Executive provide details of the weaknesses identified in the Scottish Fingerprint Service following internal reviews and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary inspections?

• Precisely what steps have been taken since 2000 in order to address these weaknesses?

• What has been done to review identifications made by the SCRO fingerprint bureau, including through external peer review, in order to validate their findings?

• What has been done in response to recommendations contained in a 2000 report into the SCRO which was critical of the agency?

• What further steps will be taken in order to restore confidence in the SCRO and Scottish Fingerprint Service?

Last week MSPs voted along party lines against a public or judicial inquiry into the McKie case despite widespread public concern that the affair was damaging the reputation of Scottish justice. McNeill said: "I cannot say if there will be an inquiry - that will be up to the committee. What I can say is that we will hold the Executive to account and we will continue asking questions until we are satisfied. Our job is to hold the Executive to account." She added: "In our letter to the Executive we made it clear that an inquiry had not been ruled out."

McNeill said MSPs would consider calling and questioning David Mulhearn, the interim director of the Scottish Police Service Authority who is preparing a report on the restructuring of the Scottish Fingerprint Service. A spokeswoman for the Executive said: "The minister has made it clear that she will be happy to co-operate with the committee." Meanwhile, the beleaguered Scottish Fingerprint Service is on the verge of all-out civil war, with experts in Aberdeen poised to move a vote of no confidence against their Glasgow colleagues unless ministers rubber-stamp their independence of the SCRO.

A public declaration of no confidence in the SCRO fingerprint bureau has been placed on hold only because managers in the Scottish Fingerprint Service have assured experts in Aberdeen and Edinburgh that the SCRO is to be stripped of its supervisory role. One senior expert said: "We can't continue to operate within the current set-up because of the damage that has been done to the reputation of Scottish fingerprinting. "Whether the mistakes were honest or not, the fundamental position remains unchanged - they should not still be employed by the SCRO and should not be doing this kind of work. Unfortunately, they have many good colleagues, both in Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland, but we are all tarred by the same brush."

Fingerprint experts boycott conference over McKie affair 14 March 2006

A MAJOR international fingerprint conference to be held in Scotland this week will be boycotted by experts over the refusal of Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) analysts to admit they misidentified a fingerprint as policewoman Shirley McKie’s. The Fingerprint Society, one of the world’s most prestigious forensic bodies, is facing an unprecedented crisis after a decision to accept an SCRO invitation to host its annual gathering at Tulliallan police training college in Fife. Experts have told the Sunday Herald that, despite the meeting being the biggest date in the UK’s forensic calendar, they will refuse to travel to Scotland because they believe their presence would “legitimise” the SCRO experts’ position that no mistakes were made in the Marion Ross murder investigation. The three-day conference, to begin next Friday, comes as controversy continues to rage over the case, in which a fingerprint found at the victim’s home in 1997 was said by the SCRO to belong to McKie, then a police detective.

Last month the Scottish Executive paid McKie £750,000 in damages and admitted the analysts had got it wrong. It was also revealed that as far back as 2000, a police inquiry into the print had found evidence of “criminality and cover-up” on the part of the SCRO experts and had recommended their prosecution, but no action was taken by Lord Advocate Colin Boyd. The society agreed to take its conference to Scotland this year after a personal invitation by Robert Mackenzie, the SCRO’s deputy head and a member of the Fingerprint Society committee. Mackenzie, whose name appears on the society’s website as the contact for the event, was one of six SCRO experts named in the McKie legal case. The SCRO experts deny any wrongdoing and insist the print belongs to McKie. Last night, the revelation that the controversial case had now spilled over into open dissent among members of the Fingerprint Society led to further pressure on the Scottish Executive to resolve the crisis. It also underlined the devastating effect that the McKie affair is having on fingerprinting internationally. News of the boycott follows demands for a public inquiry from politicians, criminal lawyers and former high court judges over the past month.

The Sunday Herald has been told of UK and US experts who are boycotting the conference. One UK expert who is a member of the Fingerprint Society said: “I will not be going this year and I know that I’m not alone. I know several others who are boycotting the conference from the UK because of the involvement of the SCRO in this and because they have made mistakes but are not prepared to admit their errors. “I would have gone had the conference been held outside Scotland, but I can’t come to Tulliallan because it will be interpreted as legitimising what the SCRO have done. I can’t do that.” Another said he was aware of a “large number” of Scottish fingerprint experts, and some from the US, who were refusing to attend. Allan Bayle, an independent expert from England who concluded that the disputed mark was not McKie’s, said: “I won’t be going this year because the Fingerprint Society has sat on the fence as this case devastates fingerprinting. They’ve done nothing to resolve it.

“How can I go to a conference organised in Scotland by the very people who are damaging fingerprinting?” Bayle also confirmed that other finger print experts were boycotting the Tulliallan conference. Another aspect that has drawn criticism of the meeting is the decision not to have any mention of the McKie case at the conference. A source told the Sunday Herald that fingerprint experts had approached the society with the suggestion that the meeting should be used as a forum to resolve the McKie crisis. He added, however, that the request had been ignored. Pat Wertheim, a US expert who withdrew his Fingerprint Society membership in 2001, said: “I did not agree with the society’s complete silence on controversial cases. I can understand why many are boycotting this year. If I was still a member I wouldn’t be going.”

The decision to hold the con ference at Tulliallan is also contentious, as the police college was the venue at which Mackenzie made a presentation to police chiefs and international fingerprint experts on behalf of the SCRO showing why he believed the disputed mark was McKie’s. At the presentation in August 2000, alongside Alan Dunbar, the SCRO’s quality assurance manager, Mackenzie claimed to have found 45 matching characteristics. Both agreed that if the crime scene mark was proved to have been made by a single touch, then it could not have been made by McKie. However, as the Sunday Herald reported last week, Peter Swann – an independent fingerprint expert and the main supporter of the SCRO’s case that the print is McKie’s – told this news paper that the mark could only have been made by one touch.

One international fingerprint expert said the society had a “duty” to debate the issue and help resolve the crisis caused by the McKie case. He said: “If the most important matter in fingerprinting just now is avoided, then the conference is just a sham. ” Iain McKie, Shirley’s father, said: “I told them a year ago that the legal case would be taking place around now and the very person hosting it would be one of the individuals named in the court action. “It seems to me that by holding this conference in Scotland they are endor sing an organisation and aligning themselves with people who have been pro ven to be incompetent at best and criminal at worst.” Annabel Goldie, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, said the boycott highlighted the need for a public inquiry.

“This could not be a clearer signal from a group of highly regarded professionals that the Scottish Executive has failed abysmally to address escalating concerns over the whole issue of the Shirley McKie fingerprint,” she said. “The only answer is a public inquiry. This is yet another very damning judgement on the Scottish Executive by people who have no political axe at all to grind.” Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader, added: “Fingerprint experts around the world don’t have confidence in the Scottish system and understandably don’t want to be put in a position to almost endorse a system that they have got concerns about. A public inquiry is essential because we’ve got to begin to restore confidence and credibility in our fingerprint service.” A spokesperson for the the Fingerprint Society said that nobody was available for comment. A Scottish Executive spokeswoman said last night that ministers did not consider that a public inquiry would “shed any new light on a incident that occurred nine years ago”.


Many people are still unaware of the sophisticated and subtle mechanisms of tyranny that are in place throughout our society. These mechanisms have been a big part of our daily routine for so long, that we hardly notice the tyranny we are subject to.

Those who notice and speak out are labeled "conspiracy theory nuts or wackos" to discourage such scrutiny. The best documented and most glaring example of a tyranny mechanism is the Federal Reserve, which gave control of the United States money supply, and government, to an elite group of foreign bankers representing the New World Order which George H W Bush referred to many times during his Presidency. In 1996, an incredible video documentary about international banking aired on PBS to reveal this truth with conclusive historical evidence. The Money Masters has been made available free of charge for mass distribution via the Internet.

You can download it here:
Long Documentary detailing "How International Bankers Gained Control of America"

(Part 1)

(Part 2)

U.S. prison industry: big business or a new form of slavery? 14 March 2006

by Vicky Pelaez

Activists protest the American Corrections Association prison industry trade show.

Human rights organizations, as well as political and social ones, are condemning what they are calling a new form of inhumane exploitation in the United States, where they say a prison population of up to 2 million – mostly Black and Hispanic – are working for various industries for a pittance. For the tycoons who have invested in the prison industry, it has been like finding a pot of gold. They don’t have to worry about strikes or paying unemployment insurance, vacations or comp time. All of their workers are full-time and never arrive late or are absent because of family problems; moreover, if they don’t like the pay of 25 cents an hour and refuse to work, they are locked up in isolation cells.

There are over 2 million inmates in state, federal and private prisons throughout the country. According to California Prison Focus, “No other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens.” The figures show that the United States has locked up more people than any other country: a half million more than China, which has a population five times greater than the U.S. Statistics reveal that the United States holds 25 percent of the world’s prison population but only 5 percent of the world’s people. From less than 300,000 inmates in 1972, the jail population grew to 2 million by the year 2000. In 1990 it was 1 million. Ten years ago, there were only five private prisons in the country with a population of 2,000 inmates; now, there are 100, with 62,000 inmates. It is expected that by the coming decade, the number will hit 360,000, according to reports.

What has happened over the last 10 years? Why are there so many prisoners? “The private contracting of prisoners for work fosters incentives to lock people up. Prisons depend on this income. Corporate stockholders who make money off prisoners’ work lobby for longer sentences in order to expand their workforce. The system feeds itself,” says a study by the Progressive Labor Party, which accuses the prison industry of being “an imitation of Nazi Germany with respect to forced slave labor and concentration camps.” The prison industry complex is one of the fastest-growing industries in the United States and its investors are on Wall Street. “This multimillion-dollar industry has its own trade exhibitions, conventions, websites and mail-order and Internet catalogs. It also has direct advertising campaigns, architecture companies, construction companies, investment houses on Wall Street, plumbing supply companies, food supply companies, armed security and padded cells in a large variety of colors.”

According to the Left Business Observer, the federal prison industry produces 100 percent of all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags and canteens. Along with war supplies, prison workers supply 98 percent of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93 percent of paints and paintbrushes; 92 percent of stove assembly; 46 percent of body armor; 36 percent of home appliances; 30 percent of headphones, microphones and speakers; and 21 percent of office furniture. Airplane parts, medical supplies and much more: prisoners are even raising seeing-eye dogs for blind people. Crime goes down, jail population goes up

According to reports by human rights organizations, these are the factors that increase the profit potential for those who invest in the prison industry complex:
• Jailing persons convicted of non-violent crimes and long prison sentences for possession of microscopic quantities of illegal drugs. Federal law stipulates five years’ imprisonment without possibility of parole for possession of 5 grams of crack or 3.5 ounces of heroin, and 10 years for possession of less than 2 ounces of rock-cocaine or crack. A sentence of 5 years for cocaine powder requires possession of 500 grams – 100 times more than the quantity of rock cocaine for the same sentence. Most of those who use cocaine powder are white, middle-class or rich people, while mostly Blacks and Latinos use rock cocaine. In Texas, a person may be sentenced for up to two years’ imprisonment for possessing 4 ounces of marijuana. In New York, the 1973 Nelson Rockefeller anti-drug law provides for a mandatory prison sentence of 15 years to life for possession of 4 ounces of any illegal drug.
• The passage in 13 states of the “three strikes” laws (life in prison after being convicted of three felonies) made it necessary to build 20 new federal prisons. One of the most disturbing cases resulting from this measure was that of a prisoner who for stealing a car and two bicycles received three 25-year sentences.
• Longer sentences.
• The passage of laws that require minimum sentencing, without regard for circumstances.
• A large expansion of work by prisoners, creating profits that motivate the incarceration of more people for longer periods of time.
• More punishment of prisoners, so as to lengthen their sentences. History of prison labor in the United States

Prison labor has its roots in slavery. After the 1861-1865 Civil War, a system of “hiring out prisoners” was introduced in order to continue the slavery tradition. Freed slaves were charged with not carrying out their sharecropping commitments (cultivating someone else’s land in exchange for part of the harvest) or petty thievery – which were almost never proven – and were then “hired out” for cotton picking, working in mines and building railroads. From 1870 until 1910 in the state of Georgia, 88 percent of hired-out convicts were Black. In Alabama, 93 percent of hired-out miners were Black. In Mississippi, a huge prison farm similar to the old slave plantations replaced the system of hiring out convicts. The notorious Parchman plantation existed until 1972.

During the post-Civil War period, Jim Crow racial segregation laws were imposed on every state, with legal segregation in schools, housing, marriages and many other aspects of daily life. “Today, a new set of markedly racist laws is imposing slave labor and sweatshops on the criminal justice system, now known as the prison industry complex,” comments the Left Business Observer. Who is investing? At least 37 states have legalized the contracting of prison labor by private corporations that mount their operations inside state prisons. The list of such companies contains the cream of U.S. corporate society: IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T Wireless, Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel, Lucent Technologies, 3Com, Intel, Northern Telecom, TWA, Nordstrom’s, Revlon, Macy’s, Pierre Cardin, Target Stores and many more.

All of these businesses are excited about the economic boom generated by prison labor. Just between 1980 and 1994, profits went up from $392 million to $1.31 billion. Inmates in state penitentiaries generally receive the minimum wage for their work, but not all; in Colorado, they get about $2 per hour, well under the minimum. And in privately-run prisons, they receive as little as 17 cents per hour for a maximum of six hours a day, the equivalent of $20 per month. The highest-paying private prison is CCA in Tennessee, where prisoners receive 50 cents per hour for what they call “highly skilled positions.”

At those rates, it is no surprise that inmates find the pay in federal prisons to be very generous. There, they can earn $1.25 an hour and work eight hours a day and sometimes overtime. They can send home $200-$300 per month. Thanks to prison labor, the United States is once again an attractive location for investment in work that was designed for Third World labor markets. A company that operated a maquiladora (assembly plant in Mexico near the border) closed down its operations there and relocated to San Quentin State Prison in California.

In Texas, a factory fired its 150 workers and contracted the services of prisoner-workers from the private Lockhart Texas prison, where circuit boards are assembled for companies like IBM and Compaq. Oregon state Rep. Kevin Mannix recently urged Nike to cut its production in Indonesia and bring it to his state, telling the shoe manufacturer that “there won’t be any transportation costs; we’re offering you competitive prison labor (here).”

Private prisons
The prison privatization boom began in the 1980s under the governments of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. but reached its height in 1990 under William Clinton, when Wall Street stocks were selling like hotcakes. Clinton’s program for cutting the cutting the federal workforce resulted in the Justice Department’s contracting of private prison corporations for the incarceration of undocumented workers and high-security inmates. Private prisons are the biggest business in the prison industry complex. About 18 corporations guard 10,000 prisoners in 27 states. The two largest are Correctional Corporation of America (CCA) and Wackenhut, which together control 75 percent. Private prisons receive a guaranteed amount of money for each prisoner, independent of what it costs to maintain each one. According to Russell Boraas, a private prison administrator in Virginia, “The secret to low operating costs is having a minimal number of guards for the maximum number of prisoners.” The CCA has an ultra-modern prison in Lawrenceville, Virginia, where five guards on dayshift and two at night watch over 750 prisoners. In these prisons, inmates may get their sentences reduced for “good behavior,” but for any infraction, they get 30 days added – which means more profits for CCA. According to a study of New Mexico prisons, it was found that CCA inmates lost “good behavior time” at a rate eight times higher than those in state prisons.

Importing and exporting inmates
Profits are so good that now there is a new business: importing inmates with long sentences, meaning the worst criminals. When a federal judge ruled that overcrowding in Texas prisons was cruel and unusual punishment, the CCA signed contracts with sheriffs in poor counties to build and run new jails and share the profits. According to a December 1998 Atlantic Monthly magazine article, this program was backed by investors from Merrill-Lynch, Shearson-Lehman, American Express and Allstate, and the operation was scattered all over rural Texas. That state’s governor, Ann Richards, followed the example of Mario Cuomo in New York and built so many state prisons that the market became flooded, cutting into private prison profits.

After a law signed by Clinton in 1996 – ending court supervision and decisions – caused overcrowding and violent, unsafe conditions in federal prisons, private prison corporations in Texas began to contact other states whose prisons were overcrowded, offering “rent-a-cell” services in the CCA prisons located in small towns in Texas. The commission for a rent-a-cell salesman is $2.50 to $5.50 per day per bed. The county gets $1.50 for each prisoner.

Ninety-seven percent of 125,000 federal inmates have been convicted of non-violent crimes. It is believed that more than half of the 623,000 inmates in municipal or county jails are innocent of the crimes they are accused of. Of these, the majority are awaiting trial. Two-thirds of the one million state prisoners have committed non-violent offenses. Sixteen percent of the country’s 2 million prisoners suffer from mental illness. This story, originally published in El Diario-La Prensa, New York, was reprinted in the Cuban newspaper Granma,

McKie case has implications for any accused persons going to the courts 10 March 2006

While I welcome Paul McBride's views, (Platform, 8 March) on the matter of a public inquiry into the Shirley McKie case, they are ill-informed. His total belief in the Lord Advocate and the justice minister must be heartening for them. However, it is not so heartening for accused persons going before our courts who might hope for some more objective analysis from a criminal lawyer and perhaps just a touch of caution before swallowing the party line and accepting that all is well within the Scottish Criminal Records Office. On a point of detail, there were only two civil actions and not three, as he suggests at the instance of Shirley McKie. Both were disposed of without evidence having been led. In neither were any issues answered by any independent person, judge or otherwise. He suggests there have been two "inquiries". The HMIC report of 2000 says: "The experts were not asked to explain why in their view SCRO experts were mistaken ... They were asked to assist HMIC in the inspection process and not to undertake an enquiry."

They examined the systems to root out an error, and not to find out why an error occurred or how culpable it is. The other inquiry referred to is presumably that of Deputy Chief Constable James MacKay. That his conclusions do not echo Mr McBride's complacency about the justice system has been only too evident over the past weeks. Mr McBride says he is unaware of any person being refused legal aid to check fingerprint evidence. David Asbury, who was eventually released from life imprisonment because SCRO identifications could not be trusted, was on at least three occasions refused that legal aid. It was only once BBC Panorama paid for the expert examination that the events leading to his acquittal fell in to place. Paul McBride's suggestion that the media have listened to the McKie campaign because they shouted the loudest is insulting and inaccurate. When people as respected as Lord Mackay and Lord McCluskey speak out, perhaps he should listen.


I am grateful to Lord McCluskey (Letters, 4 March) for conceding that the first issue of fact for the proposed judicial inquiry would be whether the SCRO fingerprint experts were right or wrong in their identification of Shirley McKie's fingerprint. That is, indeed, progress, particularly given his Lordship's previous statement (25 February) that the issue was: "Did [SCRO] officers lie, or just make a mistake?" While he accuses me of writing in sour terms, he ignores the daily attacks on the SCRO experts by, for example, BBC Scotland, which clearly assumed these people were a soft target. The Scottish people are entitled to the whole truth.

Manygates Lane
Wakefield, Yorkshire

Lord McCluskey calls for a judicial Inquiry into the Shirley McKie case, which has dragged on for the past nine years, mostly due to the Scottish Executive dragging its heels hoping it would go away. Its failure, in not sanctioning a judicial inquiry could bring the Scottish legal system into disrepute. As Lord McCluskey says: "Justice must be seen to be done." Most people wish to see this fiasco come to a just and honest conclusion.

Haig Street, Portknockie

McKie Nine-year fight to clear name 10 March 2006

Cash appeal for McKie case review

CAMPAIGNERS have launched a "fighting fund" to lobby for an inquiry into the Shirley McKie case. Iain McKie, the father of the policewoman wrongly accused of leaving a fingerprint at a murder scene, said he hoped to raise between £50,000 and £100,000 from the public for a legal campaign.

After a call for a public inquiry was defeated in parliament on Wednesday, the money will fund the cost of lobbying for a judicial review. If that process is unsuccessful, the money could fund a private prosecution, Mr McKie said. Last month Ms McKie won £750,000 in an out-of-court payment by the Executive at the end of a nine-year legal battle. But opposition politicians and a host of campaigners have called for a public inquiry into allegations of criminality within the fingerprint department of the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO). Mr McKie said the plan for a fighting fund followed a groundswell in public support. He said: " We are first of all going to seek a judicial review of the government's decision not to have an inquiry.

If that is not successful, we are going to look at a private prosecution. To do that we need cash." Mr McKie said he did not want to use his daughter's settlement money to fund the appeal. If the fighting fund money is not used to finance a judicial review or a private prosecution, it would be donated to a justice charity. The announcement came after a meeting between Mr McKie and Jim Swire, the father of a Lockerbie victim. The two men have asked for revelations suggesting a link between the McKie case and the Pan Am bombing trial to be explored at the inquiry. A former Lockerbie investigator has told The Scotsman that the FBI wanted the McKie case "swept under the carpet" to avoid any embarrassment about doubtful fingerprint evidence.

The Lord Advocate has insisted there was no link between the two cases.

Mr McKie and Mr Swire said they still sought answers to several questions - such as the role of Harry Bell, the head of the SCRO and a key investigator in the Lockerbie trial. Mr Swire, who lost his 24-year-old daughter, Flora, in the Pan Am air disaster in 1988, said he, the McKie family and observers across the world needed explanations. He said: "The reputation of our country and its criminal system will depend upon how these cases are sorted out." In the history of modern Scots law, no more than a couple of private prosecutions have succeeded. Such prosecutions, which substitute privately-hired lawyers in place of the Crown, require the consent of the Lord Advocate, who has already denied there was any criminality in the McKie case.

During Question Time in parliament yesterday, Jack McConnell insisted it was "time to move on" . The First Minister said: "A move towards a settlement last year resulted in a letter from Miss McKie's father to the minister for justice, thanking her for her approach and welcoming the steps she was then taking. "I think that was a positive indication from the McKie family that they welcomed that approach at that time." Opposition leaders challenged Mr McConnell to a free vote over a public inquiry. The Nationalists' leader at Holyrood, Nicola Sturgeon, made the call a day after ministers survived an opposition onslaught over their stance on the McKie affair.

The £750,000 honest mistake 10 March 2006

Judge urged to increase pay-out by £100,000

A JUDGE was urged yesterday to penalise the Scottish Executive's handling of the Shirley McKie fingerprint case by adding a possible £100,000 to the cost of the litigation on the public purse. Lawyers for Ms McKie claimed ministers had "caved in" after more than four years of fighting her damages claim by agreeing a £750,000 settlement on the day it was to be heard in court. They said the figure did not sit easily with an insistence that there had been only "an honest mistake" in identifying a fingerprint at a murder scene as Ms McKie's.

The Executive maintained, however, that the deal was made expressly without any admission of liability, and that it had acted properly and should not have to face the "draconian sanction" of paying an enhanced level of expenses to Ms McKie. After a day of legal argument in the Court of Session, the judge, Lord Hodge, announced that he would issue his ruling at a later date. The settlement last month included payment of £750,000 to Ms McKie, and the Executive covering her expenses - a sum yet to be calculated - for lawyers and witnesses. A higher scale of fee can be used in the calculation of expenses if a judge deems it appropriate to mark "the court's displeasure".

Fiscals climate of fear? 10 March 2006

The are the same members of the Law Society of Scotland who seldom if ever prosecute crooked lawyers ,who are members of the same legal mafia ,and who are ripping off Scotland on a GRAND scale.

Fiscals complain of working in culture of fear

SCOTLAND'S procurators fiscal are working in a culture of fear and low morale that is damaging progress in improving the workings of the courts, according to a report released yesterday. A survey of Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) staff revealed that just under 25 per cent said they had been subjected to intimidation, humiliation, bullying or harassment.

Fiscals complained they felt "devalued" and afraid to speak out about the pressure they were under to implement improvements demanded by the Scottish Executive. The independent survey commissioned by COPFS also found that fiscals believed they were treated as inferior and paid less than lawyers drafting policy for the Executive. More than a third of staff reported regular or constant stress. Jim Caldwell, the Scottish secretary of the FDA trade union, said: "These results mirror the findings of a staff survey undertaken three years ago and it appears that nothing has changed, apart from the increasing workload of our staff. "Since devolution, the dedication of our members in COPFS has meant that the public can be assured that the effectiveness of the justice system is of paramount importance to them. However, these survey results show that staff feel they still are not being adequately supported by their own management."

A COPFS spokeswoman said the survey showed staff were committed to their work, but she admitted there was room for improvement.

Was Hamilton a sleeper for the ILLUMINATI 10 March 2006

The problem ,reaction ,solution seems to be in place.

1.Problem - How to strip Scotland of any means to protect itself from a forthcoming tyrannical state machine.

2.Hamiltons gun massacre caused widespread panic and demos to limit guns, with parents of the children unwittingly backing gun control.

3.Solution the state provides the answer .Stripping us of any way to protect ourselves when the UK establishment turn progressively from BAD to worse .Anyone caught up in litigation knows how destructive that machine is.

Massacre led to stringent laws to control guns

BRITAIN now has some of the most stringent gun laws in the world. Prior to the Dunblane tragedy, gun law in the UK had been changed following the Hungerford massacre in 1987 when Michael Ryan gunned down 16 people with a Kalashnikov. The loner belonged to two gun clubs and had a huge arsenal of weapons, all of which were licensed. A year after the killings, gun laws were changed and semi-automatic weapons such as Ryan's Kalashnikov were outlawed. The Dunblane atrocity was also carried out with legally-owned guns – two 9mm Browning HP pistols, two Smith & Wesson .357 revolvers and 743 cartridges.

After the incident, a widely supported campaign named the Snowdrop Petition gathered 705,000 signatures to press parliament into tightening gun laws. In October 1996, the Cullen Report into the Dunblane tragedy recommended a number of changes relating to the licensing and use of handguns but stopped short of recommending a ban. The Conservative government went beyond the recommendations and introduced a bill to outlaw the private ownership of handguns greater than .22 calibre.

Despite opposition from the gun lobby, the Firearms (Amendment) Bill became law in February 1997 and a partial ban on handguns was introduced in the UK. In May 1997, the Labour government was elected and immediately introduced another Firearms (Amendment) Bill to ban all remaining handguns. Later, during an amnesty lasting a few months, a total of 160,000 handguns were surrendered to police. However, nearly a decade after Dunblane, the government came in for fierce criticism for not having a national firearms register up and running.

Last month Whitehall admitted that the project was delayed again and Geoff Hoon MP, Commons leader, was forced to issue a reassurance that the government was still committed to a register. His comments failed to pacify campaigners, who accused the government of betraying the victims. In Scotland, a database of firearms licence-holders is accessible online to all Scottish police forces via the criminal history system (CHS). This means that each force in Scotland holds its own register of those who have been issued with a firearms certificate and details of the weapons held. In addition to this, the executive publishes information each year collected from forces on the number of firearms certificates held and the weapons which these relate to. A spokeswoman for the executive added: "A project is currently under way, led by the Home Office, to create a national register, to be held on the police national computer (PNC) for England and Wales. "This is being developed by the Police Information Technology Organisation (Pito) and, once developed, Scottish forces will provide information to this national database via the Scottish Criminal Record Office. And Scottish forces will also be able to access information about firearms holders in England and Wales via the SCRO/PNC database."

The change in law has been effective in Scotland.

In 2004/05, Scottish police recorded 1165 offences in which a firearm was alleged to have been used, a figure 42% lower than the peak 1991/92 figure of 1998. At present, legislation to ban increasingly common imitation weapons is making its way through parliament and, since the death of two-year-old Andrew Morton, killed last year by a pellet to the head in Glasgow's Easterhouse, pressure has been growing to outlaw airguns. The Gun Control Network, born out of Dunblane, still campaigns hard, and its objectives include that no-one under 18 should be allowed to own or use a gun, that airguns are certified and that there should be a ban on multi-shot rifles and shotguns.

Lord Advocate fingerprint cover up 10 March 2006

Law chief threatens gagging order

The lord advocate yesterday threatened to impose a rare gagging order on lawyers representing Shirley McKie, to limit what they could mention in a court action. The threatened use of a public interest immunity certificate was defended by counsel for Colin Boyd, even although the document the Crown is trying to keep confidential, a report by the former deputy chief constable of Tayside police, has already been extensively quoted in the press. At the Court of Session yesterday, the McKie camp was seeking extra costs because it says the Scottish Executive obstructed Ms McKie's case for compensation. The case opened with reference to the possible gagging order. Andrew Smith, QC, counsel for Ms McKie, made clear that Paul Cullen, QC, appearing for the lord advocate, had agreed to his written line of argument, provided he did not stray from it.

Should he do so, Lord Hodge heard, Mr Cullen could invoke the gagging order in relation to the use of a report by James MacKay, formerly of Tayside police, who had been asked to carry out investigations into the affair. Mr MacKay's confidential report referred to an alleged "criminal course of action" by staff at the Scottish Criminal Record Office. Mr Cullen said that, after discussions with Ms McKie's counsel over the report, there would be no need to address the issue of a public interest immunity certificate. After complaints of alleged criminal conduct by SCRO staff, the lord advocate instructed the regional prosecutor for North Strathclyde to carry out a parallel investigation. The Tayside inquiry then fell to be regarded as a police inquiry, and it was ultimately given consideration in the Crown Office. Mr Cullen said: "The lord advocate's view is clear that the report in question is a confidential police report, and it relates to the investigation into allegations of criminal conduct by a number of individuals.

"He has carefully considered whether it would be in the public interest for that document to be produced, and has come to the clear conclusion that it would not be in the public interest. "The lord advocate regards as important that further reference to this confidential report would effectively expose persons involved to a form of public trial without having been given an opportunity to defend themselves or explain their position." Mr Smith said yesterday that the decision to pay as much as £750,000 in compensation was an indication that the wrongful identification of a fingerprint at the Kilmarnock murder scene of Marion Ross was, in itself, evidence that it was not seen as an honest mistake against Ms McKie. Arguing that there had been malice on the part of the SCRO, and subsequent obstruction by the executive, he said: "We were trying to fight this case with our hands tied behind our backs. We were not being given information voluntarily. We were frustrated by not being allowed to precognose SCRO officers." Lord Hodge reserved judgment but, if he awards extra expenses, thought to be about £100,000, that will be seen as a criticism of the way ministers have handled the case.

John Scott, the human rights lawyer, said he could recall only one recourse to public interest immunity certificates in Scotland, in a case that involved protecting police informants inside prison. He said: "The threat of a PIIC is wholly inappropriate, adding to the impression of a cover-up of an issue that will not go away." The McKie case continued to rumble on yesterday at the Scottish Parliament, with Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP seeking to pin down the first minister on a claim he made earlier this week that the executive continued to fight the case in order to save the taxpayer money. She pointed out that the sum settled for, £750,000, was exactly the sum first claimed more than four years before the settlement. When Jack McConnell tried to hide behind the qualification that it was this sum "plus interest" there were noisy exchanges in the chamber. Afterwards Ms Sturgeon said the fight for a full public inquiry would go on, while for the Tories, Bill Aitken accused the first minister of acting "like a second-hand car salesman". Ian McKie, father of Ms McKie, announced that a fighting fund was now being opened to help force a public inquiry into the saga.

McKie cover-up 9 March 2006

It is right that the Shirley McKie case should continue to command attention in the media. All cases involving cover-ups by the establishment should be pursued until properly resolved. The thing that strikes one about this case, and others similar to it, is the stench of lies and hypocrisy that emanate from them. Here we have government and its agencies, refusing to tell the truth and open the books to fair and reasonable scrutiny.

Not so long ago, the First Minister, Jack McConnell, stood before the Queen, subscribing to the virtues of truth, compassion, justice and integrity. Now he must decide which is more important - that vow, or power at any cost. Should we hold our breath? For the sake of the woman who suffered the disappointment of what "Brave New Scotland" offered in 1999, but has so far failed to deliver, I sincerely hope so.

Elgin, Moray

Lord McCluskey (Letters, 4 March), set out in plain words all the compelling reasons why a full and fair judicial inquiry must be held into the Shirley McKie case. By refusing to hold such an inquiry, a few political and legal reputations can be temporarily preserved, while a greater number of ordinary people continue to be denied justice. The much vilified Scottish Criminal Records Office personnel involved in this case have so far received no redress to the serious and frequently fanciful allegations as to their competence. Iain and Shirley McKie are also denied justice, although they might not find the outcome of a judicial or any other inquiry to their liking.

Thornfield Terrace Selkirk

Remember the real issue in McKie case 9 March 2006

SO the pressure for a public inquiry into the Shirley McKie case mounts on a daily basis. There are different reasons expressed for the need of such an exercise. As far as I am concerned, there are two reasons further investigations of the whole affair are required. Most people are now totally confused as to who said what and which "expert" to believe. However, more importantly and with respect to Ms McKie's feelings of aggrievement, a wee lady who appears never to have harmed anyone suffered a lonely and brutal death. As someone who lives in Kilmarnock I wish the perpetrator of this horrific crime identified, brought to justice and punished. That is the real issue in this case and it appears frequently to be lost sight of.

Timothy J Purdon, 18 Howard Park Drive, Kilmarnock.

LORD Mackay's salient points (March 8) on the Shirley McKie case lay out quite clearly the way ahead in resolving some of the disturbing features in the actions of the executive, the Scottish Criminal Record Office, the Crown Office and the lord advocate, Colin Boyd. If his advice that Ms McKie should bring a private prosecution, if she so wishes, against some or all of those implicated in her wrongful accusations, is taken up, I am sure great numbers of the public, including myself, will amply fund such a course. The second point about the separation of the powers and function of the executive and the Crown Office in the person of the lord advocate will astonish many people, here and abroad, that such a proposal is required.

The final request for the SCRO to be subject to an inquiry, so that their methods and applications can be trusted by the public, is admirable, and I trust international agencies would be willing to help. One aspect is still greatly perplexing me. If it can be shown that the office of lord advocate can be manipulated for political purposes, from whatever source, at the expense of justice for individuals like Shirley McKie and Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, could Lord Mackay (or Lord Hardie) advise as to the proper procedures for a prosecution of the lord advocate?

Iain Johnstone, Westbank Cottages,Macmerry, East Lothian.

HOW utterly crass but depressingly typical were the grounds advanced by Jack McConnell in resisting demands for a public inquiry into the McKie case. What is the political motivation of leading lawyers, prominent police officers, fingerprint experts and citizens concerned for the future of the criminal justice system? What is the party political motivation of Baillie Dr Christopher Mason, a Liberal Democrat, who called for an inquiry in these columns last month? (I should declare a personal interest: Dr Mason is my local councillor and called at my home last year – long after the 2003 elections! – to thank me for my letters on Iraq. My citation of him is in no wise motivated by personal gratitude.)

Despite his membership of Thatcher governments, I would include Lord Mackay of Clashfern in the same category. Before his appointment as lord advocate and subsequent elevation to the Woolsack he had, as far as I know, no record of political activity. His own call for a judicial inquiry is now clarified and amplified by a masterly exposition of the case. The headless chickens of the Holyrood opposition who could not agree exactly into what they wanted to inquire should cut out and keep his letter. Lord Mackay, a mathematician before his fall from (academic) grace into the law, distinguishes with Euclidean lucidity among matters fit for the courts, those appropriate for debate and those suitable for a public inquiry: "the underlying science of fingerprint evidence and the practical application of that science to the identification of an individuals." His intervention, alas, probably disqualifies a man superbly equipped to chair the inquiry: Lord Mackay himself.

Thomas McLaughlin, 4 Munro Road, Glasgow.

Court costs ruling may open new chapter in McKie case 9 March 2006

MINISTERS last night won a key battle in their campaign to bring an end to the Shirley McKie affair but a court action will today examine their conduct in the case. There have been mounting calls for a public inquiry to be held after the former Strathclyde Police officer received a £750,000 settlement from the Scottish Executive. Ms McKie had been accused of leaving her fingerprint at a murder scene. She repeatedly protested she had not been present, and was later cleared of perjury. MSPs debated the matter last week with the SNP, Tories and Greens joining forces to urge ministers – who have insisted Ms McKie was simply the victim of "an honest mistake" by fingerprint experts at the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) – to acknowledge concerns about the case.

MSPs yesterday rejected by 64 votes to 51 the SNP motion, which claimed the issues in the McKie case went to the heart of public trust in the criminal justice system. The McKie campaign will today seek a judgment on legal costs in the Court of Session. If Lord Hodge finds in favour of Ms McKie and allows a higher settlement on costs, he will be, in effect, accepting that throughout the saga ministers failed to act in good faith. The executive is already on difficult grounds this week following an insistence by Jack McConnell, the first minister, on Monday that the delay in settlement to Ms McKie related to her making an increased compensation claim, which was not the case.

Today's action before Lord Hodge will decide whether legal fees should be on the standard scale, or whether the expenses should be "uplifted" on the basis that the executive or Crown Office did not act in good faith by denying key evidence to the McKie side. The Herald understands that the argument in court today will focus on the MacKay report. The conclusions of an investigation by James MacKay, Tayside Police's then deputy chief constable, into the affair was withheld by the executive until it was leaked on the eve of Ms McKie's civil court action. One MSP said last night: "Today's hearing is critical to the credibility of the government. If a judge rules that the executive's behaviour has been reprehensible in withholding crucial information from the McKie side it could hardly be more damaging." Iain McKie, Ms McKie's father and himself a former Strathclyde Police superintendent, said: "It is a very significant hearing because the application has been phrased in order to demonstrate whether or not there was bad faith."

It was also alleged yesterday that the McKie inquiry was closed down as a result of involvement by the FBI in the US who were concerned that question marks over the SCRO would spread to the Lockerbie case. A spokeswoman for the fingerprint service said: "SCRO can confirm that a fingerprint expert did visit the FBI around those dates. The purpose of this visit was to look at methods for court preparation, training and third level detail, and was totally unrelated to the McKie case. "At no time during this visit was the case of Shirley McKie discussed or the name McKie mentioned. "SCRO was not involved in any way with the fingerprinting of the Lockerbie disaster. The recent speculation about a link between the cases is without foundation." The statement continued: "A settlement has been reached and it's time to draw a line under this. Ms McKie could have taken the opportunity of having this heard in court but chose to accept a settlement." Ministers insist that the issue has been fully aired and there is no need for any further inquiry, but the court ruling today could call that judgement into question.

FBI ordered McKie case 'swept under carpet' 8 March 2006

Pan Am investigator Juval Aviv revealed US agents put pressure on SCRO McKie faced trial for perjury after denying she left a print at a crime scene MPs have called for a public inquiry

Key quote "This revelation makes the case for an inquiry absolutely compelling. If ministers knew about this, they should have disclosed it to parliament earlier." - SNP MSP Alex Neil Story in full THE FBI met senior members of Scotland's forensic service to ensure the Shirley McKie affair was "swept under the carpet" and so avoid any embarrassment in the run-up to the Lockerbie trial, according to an investigator into the bombing. Juval Aviv, who was Pan Am's senior Lockerbie investigator, said officers from the Federal Bureau of Investigation travelled to Scotland to pressure the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) into a swift resolution of the McKie fingerprint case.

Mr Aviv said that during discussions with two senior members of staff in the fingerprint laboratory at SCRO in 1999 or 2000, both told him they had misgivings over the evidence against Ms McKie but had been urged to "fall in line with the evidence". Campaigners and politicians, some of whom will tomorrow hold a press conference on the possible links between the two cases, said Mr Aviv's revelation reinforced the urgent need for a public inquiry into the whole McKie affair. The SCRO admitted last night that the FBI met its officers to talk about Lockerbie but vehemently denied any comments were made about the McKie case.

Mr Aviv's accusations centre on an intense period of activity leading up to the trial of two Libyans accused of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988. Part of the case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi involved a contentious fingerprint lifted from a travel document in Malta. The fingerprint had only 12 matching points to suspected bomber Megrahi; many courts require 16 matching points. Although the SCRO had nothing to do with identifying it, the credibility of the fingerprint was important. In 1999, a year before the trial was due to get under way at Kamp van Zeist, the McKie controversy blew up.

The Strathclyde policewoman had been put on trial for perjury after denying she had left a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. However, scores of international fingerprint experts said the disputed print was not hers and she was acquitted. The revelation put at risk the credibility of Scotland's fingerprint service. Mr Aviv said it was about this time the FBI flew to Scotland. "I heard about the [McKie] case and FBI putting pressure on the labs. I received phone calls from sources within the fingerprint lab saying the FBI visited Scotland and met with people in charge to discuss falling in line with the [McKie] evidence. They met several times and they co-ordinated actions." He went on: "[The SCRO] was under pressure from the FBI to manufacture evidence to suit this trial and convict the Libyan. [The FBI told it] any scandal that could taint this evidence could really interfere with Lockerbie and should be put under the carpet." Mr Aviv said the FBI visit was part of a larger effort to gain consensus among Scottish investigators over Lockerbie evidence. He said: "The sources were appalled. That's one thing that you do not do - interfere with a court case in The Hague and accuse two people who could get life in prison with manufactured evidence. They [the sources] were fed up with it." Mr Aviv would not reveal the SCRO sources nor allow The Scotsman to interview them, despite promises of anonymity. He also refused to provide details of which FBI officers visited Scotland and could not recall the exact date of the visit.

Last month, it was reported that David Grieve and Pat Wertheim, two American fingerprint experts who were consulted in the McKie case, had been told by FBI officials not to speak publicly about the case in the months before the Lockerbie trail. Shirley McKie's father, Iain McKie, said yesterday that Mr Aviv's claims added to a growing body of evidence linking the two cases. "The only logical explanation for the ordeal my daughter has gone through is that the SCRO was making sure there was nothing to rock the boat before such an important case that also relied on forensic evidence," he said. "This new evidence [from Mr Aviv] of cross-fertilisation shows the common cast of characters, in the FBI and SCRO, were indeed linked."

Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, said Mr Aviv's claims made the case for a public inquiry "overwhelming". "These latest allegations reinforce the need for a judicial inquiry," he said. "We have no way of knowing whether the allegations can be substantiated, which makes it fundamentally important that a judge is placed in a position to find out. "It is unfathomable that revelation should follow revelation, and accusation follow accusation, and still there has been no inquiry, which is something just about everyone involved in the case now demands."

The SNP MSP Alex Neil said: "This revelation makes the case for an inquiry absolutely compelling. If ministers knew about this, they should have disclosed it to parliament earlier. If they did not, it begs the question as to how much they did know and how much they were kept in the dark by the SCRO." Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the Lockerbie bombing and who believes Megrahi was wrongly convicted, said Mr Aviv's claims were consistent with a general pattern. He said: "Juval Aviv's comments seem to tally with previous reports that there may have been pressure brought on the SCRO by the FBI, which might have amounted to, or contributed to, a perversion of the course of justice in the McKie case, and that this pressure may have been motivated by an improper attempt to protect the interests of the burgeoning Lockerbie case at the time." Yesterday, a spokesman for the SCRO said: "SCRO can confirm that a fingerprint expert did visit the FBI around those dates. The purpose of this visit was to look at methods for court preparation, training and third-level detail, and was totally unrelated to the McKie case. At no time during this visit was the case of Shirley McKie discussed or the name 'McKie' mentioned.

"SCRO was not involved in any way with the fingerprinting of the Lockerbie disaster. The recent speculation about a link between the cases is without foundation." A spokesman for the Crown Office said: "If any person said anything of this nature it was not on the authority of anyone connected with the prosecution. There was no connection between the cases and no involvement of SCRO. "As the Lord Advocate said in parliament on 22 February, the suggestion that the decision-making in the cases was in any way connected is deeply offensive to all those involved. It is entirely without foundation."

The parallel cases McKie
• January 1997: Marion Ross is found stabbed to death in her home in Kilmarnock, Ayrshire.

• February 1997: Four Scottish Criminal Record officers claim a rogue fingerprint at the crime scene belongs to Mckie.

• June 1997: David Asbury, a 21-year-old joiner, is jailed for the killing. McKie denies ever visiting the crime scene.

• February 1999: McKie is charged by police for lying during the trial.

• 15 May,1999: McKie is cleared of perjury after two American specialists demolished the evidence of the SCRO experts.

• December 1999: Discharged from police on medical grounds and wins her full pension.

• September 2001 Lord Advocate claims there isn't enough evidence to press charges against the SCRO workers.

• December 2003: McKie allowed to take civil case against Scottish Executive.

• April 2004: Strathclyde Police demand £23,000 in legal costs after McKie's bid to sue the force fails.

• February 2006: Scottish Executive pay £750,000 in out-of-court settlement ahead of a hearing at the court of session.

• The Libyans confirm that they would accept a trial in a neutral country, operating under Scottish law.

• 21 July, 1998: Britain and the US agree that the two suspects can be tried in The Hague under Scottish law.

• 19 March, 1999: Nelson Mandela arranges for the Lockerbie suspects to be surrendered on or before 6 April.

• April 1999: Suspects taken into Dutch custody after flying to an airbase near The Hague. Sanctions suspended.

• February 2000: The suspects formally plead not guilty to the charges.

May 2000: The trial begins at Kamp van Zeist, in the Netherlands.

• 31 January, 2001: A panel of three judges unanimously find Megrahi guilty and jail him for life. Mr Fhimah is acquitted.

• March 2002: Megrahi loses his appeal against conviction.

• September 2003: Lawyers for Megrahi apply to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for a review of conviction.

Mackay’s reasoning on McKie inquiry 8 March 2006

Lord Mackay of Clashfern has set out the reasons and remit for a public inquiry into the Shirley McKie case, on the day MSPs are expected to vote down the proposal.

The most distinguished lawyer of his generation, the former lord advocate and lord chancellor has written to The Herald, saying there is a lack of confidence in the use of fingerprints as a means of identification in court cases. In response to the attack from Jack McConnell that those campaigning for an inquiry are "politically-motivated", Lord Mackay says an inquiry is necessary "for the future standing of the prosecution system in Scotland".

Fingerprinting is key issue for a McKie inquiry 8 March 2006

AS a former lord advocate and lord chancellor, I have been interested in the McKie case and its consequences, and I have supported the call for a public inquiry. I have done so not for any thought of political mischief-making but for the future standing of the prosecution system in Scotland. Not everyone who has called for an inquiry has the same subject matter in mind. Shirley McKie's civil claim has been settled but some appear to think that a prosecution should have been brought against those responsible for the evidence linking her with the fingerprint found inside the house. This was a matter for the decision of the lord advocate and he decided against it some considerable time ago.

If Shirley McKie wishes to challenge that decision now, in my view the correct course is for her to apply to the court to be allowed to present a private prosecution. A public inquiry could not achieve the initiation of a prosecution. I have raised the question whether the lord advocate as the person responsible for public prosecutions in Scotland should be a member of the executive since this tends to suggest that prosecution decisions are matters for the executive. It was to make clear that this is not the position, that before devolution the lord advocate was not a member of the cabinet and that the attorney-general is still not a member of the United Kingdom cabinet. This is however a matter for debate and not for an inquiry The third issue that arises is the safety of convictions based on fingerprint evidence. This matter is vital to Scottish criminal justice in the future. The reason that Shirley McKie was acquitted was that the fingerprint evidence in her case was not accepted as justifying a conviction. This has raised considerable doubt about the practice of the Scottish Criminal Record Office in relation to fingerprint evidence which so far as I know has not been fully resolved. What I would like to see set up is an inquiry into the underlying science of fingerprint evidence and the practical application of that science to the identification of an individual. This a matter of continuing importance and it does require to be examined in a public inquiry. This would not involve the Scottish Executive in any political question but it would give an opportunity to set fingerprint evidence on a secure foundation for the future.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern,House of Lords.

Simply demanding justice and fair play

I am incensed by Mr McConnell's claim that those of us demanding a public inquiry into the treatment of Shirley McKie are motivated by political considerations. This may be the way in which the first minister conducts his life but it is clear that justice and fair play are being demanded by a broad spectrum of people in Scotland including a number of those implicated in the scandal. A leading legal figure in Scotland, Derek Ogg, stated the case for an inquiry in a typically eloquent fashion in Monday's Newsnight programme. He is merely backing up the opinions expressed by other major figures within the justice body that the integrity of the Scottish legal system is being brought into doubt both at home and abroad.

As long as the executive and its cohorts continue to stonewall the demands for a full judicial inquiry, those of us who care for proper justice will wonder what there is to hide. It is a major concern that there is a deafening silence from a huge block of Labour and Liberal MSPs. Also, while the nation's quality papers and Newsnight have been very active in pursuing developments in the McKie case, there does not appear to be the same interest from the so-called popular press. It appears to me that the executive is now using the standard New Labour tactic of toughing the situation out until the cause loses momentum. In fairness to both the Scottish justice system and the McKie family, I hope that this will not be allowed to happen. Dr William Thomson (March 6) has come up with the excellent idea of raising a petition to present to the Scottish Parliament's Petitions Committee. I am sure that if the McKies and their supporters were to raise such a petition, it would receive such unprecedented backing that even the intransigent Scottish Executive would find it difficult to ignore.

Gordon Evans,5 York Drive, Burnside, Rutherglen.

I AM a retired police officer. During my police career I served in the Serious Crime Squad of Strathclyde Police and the Scottish Crime Squad. Of course the demand for an investigation into the facts surrounding the sacking of Shirley McKie is political. I applaud Mr McConnell's grasp of the situation. We, the public, want to find out if those politicians involved broke the law. I find it hard to understand why no criminal investigation has been made into these matters especially when a former assistant chief constable from Tayside reported that he had found criminality at the SCRO offices in Glasgow. I can only surmise that because those involved are establishment figures, such an investigation is being blocked. This whole fiasco only strengthens my belief that those wishing to aspire to the post of chief constable and lord advocate should stand for election. Only by doing so will the public be convinced that they are serving them and not their political masters

Alistair Watson,62 Falloch Road, Milngavie.

IT IS a sad fact of life that taking action in our courts of law does not always promote the cause of justice, as is evidenced by the recent case involving Shirley McKie. The system rewards winners and punishes losers. However, in this particular instance consider who was the winner and who was the loser. Was it Shirley McKie who won a large sum of money in compensation for her troubles but lost the opportunity to reveal the truth, or was it Mr Boyd and Ms Jamieson who lost £750,000 of public money but won the dubious right to keep their guilty secrets hidden? And where does justice feature in all of this? Nowhere, it would seem, if left to the flawed judgment of the Scottish Executive. J W Hosea, 61 John Street, Helensburgh.

British Do Not Bother To Complain About Police 8 March 2006

According to a recent survey more than 20 million Britons do not believe it is worth complaining about police behaviour. The survey, carried out by The Independent Police Complaints Commission found that the British public thought official complaints about police would be handled ineffectually, time consuming and bureaucratic.

The survey also found that 75% of adults would complain if they were 'really annoyed' with a police officer, with women slightly more likely to complain than men. It was also found that younger people and those who had recently had a bad experience with police were less likely to complain. The IPCC is concerned that if people do not complain to the organization responsible then the problem will never be put right and the same thing will keep on happening. A spokesman said that the IPCC would use the survey as a benchmark for its progress in coming years.

Why are all judges, sheriffs and advocates not seeking judicial inquiry? 6 March 2006

They are ALL part of Scotlands legal mafia

A McKie inquiry

I WAS impressed and indeed moved by the letter from Iain McKie (March 4). This is a man whose entirely innocent daughter and family have suffered grievously for years at the hands of an uncaring, cynical and perhaps corrupt political establishment. Despite this, his previous letters to The Herald putting his daughter's case have always been balanced and reasonable. This time, though, his sense of frustration and justified outrage is clear for all to see, and who could blame him, after the pathetic response of the executive to the debate on Thursday? "It was an honest mistake – we have learned lessons – it's time to move on." Mr McKie rightly accuses the first minister, the justice minister and the lord advocate in this scandalous affair, and they didn't even have the common decency to say sorry. But the failure of other senior members of the executive to speak up for justice, and the total silence of most MSPs of the two coalition parties, is frankly disgraceful.

So what should happen now? These so-called servants of the public obviously pay no attention to public opinion. My hope is that the full weight of the Scottish legal establishment will now be brought to bear. The eminent senior judges Lord McCluskey and Lord Mackay have spoken out publicly in favour of an independent inquiry. But all those in the the legal establishment must be just as appalled by this affair which is bringing the whole of the Scottish legal system into disrepute. So why are all the judges, sheriffs and advocates not speaking out now and demanding a full judicial inquiry? Surely they have a responsibility to defend the integrity of the justice system they represent, and to protect the interest of ordinary individuals against politicians and powerful vested interests?

Iain A D Mann, 7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

Scottish legal system was "in serious doubt" 6 March 2006

Our groups have known about this for MANY years

Fingerprint experts changed minds

Two outside experts whose support for members of the fingerprint service helped spare them from prosecution over the Shirley McKie affair later changed their minds, it emerged yesterday. Peter Swann and Malcolm Graham backed four Scottish Criminal Records Office staff in their identification of a fingerprint found at a murder scene in 1997 as that of Ms McKie. Ms McKie, then a Strathclyde police officer, denied that the print was hers, was tried for perjury and acquitted, and last month won a £750,000 compensation payout from the Scottish Executive.

In 2000, an investigation by James Mackay, then deputy chief constable of Tayside, concluded that SCRO staff were guilty of "cover-up and criminality" in presenting the print as McKie's. Colin Boyd, the lord advocate, decided not to prosecute them, partly because Mr Swann and Mr Graham had backed the SCRO identification. The Sunday Herald reported yesterday that Mr Swann now disagrees with the SCRO's interpretation of the print, while Mr Graham admitted in a letter to the McKie family that he had made "a terrible mistake".

It also emerged that Mr Boyd was unaware of doubts within the SCRO about the McKie print when he decided not to prosecute. Nicola Sturgeon, SNP Holyrood leader, said that the case for a public inquiry was now overwhelming. "Ms McKie deserves justice, and the people of Scotland deserve answers," she said. "No-one who has nothing to hide has anything to fear from the truth being told. "Ministers must now abandon their head-in-the-sand attitude and instigate a full public inquiry." Hans Kochler, a UN observer at the Lockerbie trial, also called for an inquiry yesterday, saying many international lawyers now felt the integrity of the Scottish legal system was "in serious doubt". The executive said it saw no merit in a public inquiry.

Finger points to McKie experts 5 March 2006

A CRUCIAL document at the heart of the Shirley McKie investigation was not signed off personally by all of the fingerprint experts working on the case. Evidence obtained by The Sunday Times raises fresh doubts over the way fingerprint evidence was handled in the case and has prompted renewed calls for a public inquiry into the affair. Records show that experts at the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) signed documents on behalf of colleagues and highlight apparent discrepancies over when evidence was collected.

Politicians and senior legal figures claim the documents reveal new evidence of sloppy practices at the SCRO and cast further doubt on claims by ministers that the affair was the result of a single “honest” mistake. The Sunday Times has obtained a copy of the original photograph of the fingerprint, originally believed to be McKie’s, found at the home of the murdered spinster Marion Ross. The print was used as evidence in McKie’s trial, in which she was later cleared of perjury. Under SCRO rules, at least four fingerprint experts were required to make a “positive” identification. However the photograph reveals that one of the experts, Fiona McBride, initialled the print on behalf of her colleagues Charles Stewart and Hugh MacPherson. A fourth expert, Anthony McKenna, signed his own initial on the document.

The SCRO yesterday insisted that it was common for experts to sign on behalf of colleagues — a practice now banned — and did not mean that Stewart and MacPherson had not witnessed and identified the print. McBride’s own signature, and those she made on behalf of her colleagues, were dated February 11, 1997 on the document. However, an investigation in 2000 by a team led by James Mackay, the former deputy chief constable of Tayside police, asserted that McBride had not been shown the print until February 12. Yesterday McBride challenged the accuracy of Mackay’s findings, claiming he must have been mistaken. However campaigners insisted the new evidence provided further ammunition for a public inquiry. “We need to know exactly what was going on when these productions were being presented. It is clear that even within SCRO there were misgivings about the identification,” said Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National party.

Derek Ogg QC, the chairman of the Scottish criminal bar association, said the SCRO officers’ actions seemed to represent “a surprising departure from normal procedures”. McKie, 43, a former detective constable, was involved in an investigation into the murder of Ross, 51, at her home in Kilmarnock in 1997. She received £750,000 compensation after fighting allegations that she had been inside Ross’s home.

A paper produced for an external police inquiry indicates that MacPherson may have been the only SCRO officer to check the print before Detective Chief Inspector Heath, the officer in charge, was told the print belonged to McKie. Mackay’s report claims “an unbelievable attitude” among the experts that was “designed to protect reputations, irrespective of the impact on others”. Last night McBride said: “I distinctly remember being asked by Hugh to look at (the print). It’s simply not true that it was phoned through by him alone. The Tayside police report appears to be wrong.” A spokeswoman for the SCRO declined to comment.,,176-2071126,00.html

Dispute over Mackay's account of McKie affair 5 March 2006

I WRITE with regard to your article last week on the Shirley McKie fingerprint case, and in particular the passage which relates to myself. I have never had the opportunity to read the Mackay Report, but strongly dispute the part quoted by yourselves in the Mackay Report where I make some sort of admission that if the original identification by SCRO is wrong, then I accept that I am wrong. If that is indeed in the Mackay Report, then it raises issues about the accuracy of the report and the conclusions Mr Mackay has drawn from his perceptions.

I was interviewed three times by officers from Tayside Police, but never intended at any time to give them that impression. I was also interviewed in 2001 by Mr Gilchrist, the procurator fiscal at Paisley, who I understood was re-interviewing the people who had already been interviewed by Tayside Police. I was also given sight of the illustrations prepared by Mr Werheim and the National Fingerprint Training Centre at Durham. Perhaps Mr Gilchrist was more objective in his assessment of the evidence than Mr Mackay. I was due to give evidence for the Scottish Ministers at the Court of Session last month before it was settled in a disgraceful manner.

Malcolm Graham, Edinburgh

LIKE your correspondent Mr Watson (Letters, February 26) I am a retired police officer, and like many others am understandably concerned that the McKie case is doing untold damage to our justice system. There has to be a full judicial public enquiry which must start with examination of the original case. What was it about the unidentified fingerprint at the crime scene that led to this "mistake"? Why did they try to pressure Shirley to admit it was hers? There were obviously concerns on the part of the Crown and the investigating officer re the print? Was this covered in Jim Mackay's review? If not, why not?

Jimmy Waugh, Ballachulish

IT WOULD appear now beyond all doubt that it is time for the First Minister, the Justice Minister and the Lord Advocate to get cracking with their buckets of soapy water and Chamois leathers and clean the fog from the windows of their 'alleged' transparent house! However, they should be well warned to be careful not to trip over any whitewash buckets that may have been left lying about in anticipation.

I also see that the Justice Minister has latched on to those feeble and now meaningless words of one Tony Blair: "We must move on" - nowadays usually taken to mean 'guilty' of whatever the particular charge of the day is, no matter the problem. The future is already looking vastly more interesting than hitherto!

Victor Smith, Balintore

UN law expert joins calls for McKie probe 5 March 2006

A LEADING critic of the Lockerbie trial has become the latest figure to call for a judicial inquiry into the Shirley McKie case, amid claims by police, forensic experts and senior legal figures that the scandal has led to a massive crisis of confidence in the Scottish justice system. Hans Kochler, president of the International Progress Organisation, who was appointed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan as one of two international observers for the Lockerbie trial, said a full public inquiry was the only way to restore faith in the process of law in Scotland.

It follows the publication of a secret report by one of the country's top police officers, which accused Scotland's fingerprint service, the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO), of "unbelievable...arrogance...and complacency" in which reputations of officials were put before the course of justice. Kochler warned that the refusal of ministers to reveal the facts behind the McKie case was now damaging Scottish justice's international reputation even further. "There is now a growing body of opinion among international lawyers and international experts that the integrity of the Scottish criminal justice system is in serious doubt," he said.

The report, by former deputy chief constable of Tayside Police, James Mackay, accuses fingerprint experts of manipulating evidence and covering up errors after they had wrongly identifying Detective Constable Shirley McKie as having been present at a crime scene. Police and forensic experts not connected with the scandal believe the mistakes were covered up because admitting to the errors would leave them open to further scandal. Kochler added: "It seems very clear to an external and impartial observer that if you have experts who investigate forensic evidence and crime scenes and their evidence is shown to be unreliable, you have a problem.

"If after scrupulous investigation, as in this case, that error appears to be subject to manipulation, cover-up and collusion then the problem is much more deep-rooted." Kochler warned that the case had raised doubts about the position of the Lord Advocate in Scotland, who sits in the Scottish Cabinet while deciding on prosecutions in the public's name. He said: "It seems the system fails to maintain the separation of powers it lays claim to between the government, the state prosecutor and the judiciary. From my role as an observer, I formed the view that in the UK, the establishment and the power behind the establishment can influence judicial matters in a way that is impossible elsewhere."

The question marks over the affair are now being aired within Scotland's justice system. One senior source close to the Mackay investigation said: "It is a source of some frustration and anger among police officers and forensic examiners, who have done their jobs professionally, with honesty and integrity, that the Crown and Executive have failed to take appropriate action." Another fingerprint expert added: "Those fingerprint experts who work outside the SCRO office are getting increasingly frustrated at being tarred with the same brush." Lawyers added that the effects of the affair had now seeped into the way trials were being conducted. Jim Keegan, one of Scotland's busiest solicitor-advocates, said: "Over the past year or so, the suspicion has grown that there are chronic problems at the SCRO and that everything they handle has to be heavily scrutinised."

He added: "In a drugs case I defended, my client was acquitted even though his fingerprint was found on the outside of a bag containing drugs. The marking-up of the print was a shambles and no one could have followed it. However, our expert confirmed the print had been correctly identified. Despite this, the jury, perhaps aware of doubts about the calibre of the Crown case, acquitted." QC Donald Findlay, who defended McKie in her perjury trial in 1999, added: "Fingerprint evidence used to be considered as sacrosanct. Now I would be more inclined to challenge it. For all we know, people may have been convicted wrongly on fingerprint evidence, and that is an appalling business," he added.

In a speech to his party's National Council in Perth yesterday, SNP leader Alex Salmond said: "The issues raised by the fingerprint scandal are 10 times as important to the future of Scotland as those that led to the Holyrood inquiry." "The issues in the McKie case go right to the heart of the justice system in Scotland." Ministers insist they will not budge and say the justice system has cleaned up its act since the first events of the McKie affair, now nearly nine years old.

Prosecutor unaware of doubts over McKie case 5 March 2006

Boyd has NEVER prosecuted a crooked lawyer from evidence of the public only when his masonic pals at the Law Society of Scotland wanted action against a lawyer who bucked their corrupt system.

Prosecutor unaware of doubts over McKie case

LORD Advocate Colin Boyd prosecuted Shirley McKie without being informed that doubts about her guilt had already been raised within Scotland's fingerprint service, Scotland on Sunday can reveal. Boyd has admitted that when he brought charges against McKie, he was not told at least two staff within the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) had failed to back supposedly irrefutable proof she had left her print at a crime scene. McKie stood trial for perjury in 1999 but was acquitted and recently awarded a £750,000 out-of-court settlement by the Scottish Executive. Demands are continuing to grow for a public inquiry into the case.

Scotland on Sunday revealed last week that several fingerprint experts at SCRO failed positively to identify McKie's print, only for their views to be ignored. A report into the affair by James Mackay, deputy Chief Constable of Tayside police, later concluded that McKie's print "was disputed from the outset". Boyd ordered an inquiry into what the Crown Office knew about disagreement within the SCRO at the time. In a letter to Nationalist MSP Fergus Ewing, Boyd now claims that he was "not aware" of these views at the time and only discovered them 18 months after McKie had been cleared.

McKie's father, Iain, last night said the new revelations posed further worrying questions over the competence of Scotland's justice system. "The decision to prosecute was taken without knowledge of all the evidence," he said. "That is a very serious admission to make as the police have an obligation to inform the Crown office of all evidence that has occurred. "The Crown Office were very quick to prosecute in Shirley's case. It now has been shown that their grounds for doing so have become less and less convincing."

The new revelations come with ministers still refusing to countenance a public inquiry into the affair, despite calls from all sides of the political and legal spectrum. They insist the problems at the SCRO have been dealt with and that a further inquiry would serve little point. Boyd made his admission of ignorance in a letter to Ewing, who had demanded to know whether the Lord Advocate had been aware of a 'blind test' carried out in February 1997 by four SCRO experts on McKie's print.

McKie had already been identified by a senior expert, but two of the 'blind test' experts were unable to provide the same guarantees. Boyd was forced to issue an internal inquiry of his own in order to find out exactly what the Crown Office knew of the case. In a letter to Ewing, he declared: "I am satisfied that the Crown was not aware of the blind testing . . . until the submission of the Mackay report in October 2000."

Boyd also claims in the letter - contrary to Mackay's report - that "none of the experts were in disagreement" over the print. He argues that the two officers who had failed to make a match did so because they were not given the right conditions to do so. Ewing last night said that Boyd's reply had raised more questions than answers.

He said: "If the Lord Advocate thinks that the SCRO processes were properly carried out, why on earth was three-quarters of a million of taxpayers cash paid out?" He added: "This latest event in the McKie case simply raises yet more questions, and highlights the need for an inquiry to be conducted by a judge. None of the reports or investigations has yet explained how and why there were two mistaken identifications of prints in the one case."

The goldiggers womens aid forget 2 March 2006

Hitman case 'brazen hussy' claim

A woman accused of hiring a hitman to murder her millionaire husband has admitted to a jury at Cardiff Crown Court that she was a "brazen hussy". Jane Jones, 37, from Blackrock, Monmouthshire, admitted being unfaithful because she was "frustrated" by her workaholic chemist husband. Mrs Jones denies soliciting a man to murder pharmacist Francis Jones, 60. But she admitted having affairs to "get back" at her husband by having sex. The trial continues.

Giving evidence on Monday, Mrs Jones, who has a disabled child, told the jury she had never asked anyone to kill her husband. She said a conversation she had with a former lover, during which she is alleged to have asked him to run her husband off the road in return for £20,000, had just been "having a moan". "I may have said I wished him dead, or that someone would do it, but it was a stupid off-the-cuff, throwaway remark," she said.

"I'm not a murdering, cold person. I don't wish him dead and I never did." Twice-married Mrs Jones said she was initially happily married, but her husband's commitment to his business meant they would rarely go out and she looked "for a shoulder to cry on". She took nine lovers. They included her husband's son - who later died in a road accident - with whom she slept on her wedding day. She told the court how a relationship with ex-SAS soldier Bob Routledge - whom she met through the stables where she kept her horses - saw their meetings become the "highlight" of her week.

"I was frustrated. I was ground down by life, and sex was my release," she said, adding that she was "a lousy wife". "I should never have done it, but at the time it was what I needed to do." She later moved with her son out of the cottage her husband had bought for her. She later returned to the marital home, but said she continued to have sex with other men.

I was a brazen hussy but it seemed like a good idea at the time
Jane Jones

"I tried to rekindle what we had at the beginning, but I felt resentful and bitter," she said. "His business came first, rather than the family. By having sex with other men, I felt I was getting back at him. "If he didn't want to be with me, I thought I would find someone who did want to spend time with me, whether it was just for sex or turned into something else." She also described how she had sex in woods with a builder called Dan, who had wolf-whistled at her with his friends as she passed in her soft-top Saab car. She said: "I was a brazen hussy but it seemed like a good idea at the time."

'Domestic bliss'

The trial had previously heard from another of Mrs Jones' former lovers, Lenny Loveridge, who said he had refused her suggestion that he kill the chemist. He said he was told his "finances would be sorted out" if he did this. The prosecution allege Mrs Jones' marriage was "entirely financially motivated", and she could have inherited £2m . Mr Jones, a chemist of the village of Llanhilleth, south Wales, told the court he thought their marriage was "domestic bliss". A former friend, Deborah Benjamin, told the jury how Mrs Jones told her of numerous attempts to persuade a string of lovers to murder her husband. Mrs Jones is charged that between January 2003 and August 2005, she solicited Mr Loveridge to murder Mr Jones.