Dropsy Swann- (he dropped his old fashioned boards at the Inquiry)

Justin R wrote:

Dropsy Swann- (he dropped his old fashioned boards at the Inquiry)

Yes I read about Iain McKie's glee at this fact in his scabby book. What does this prove Colin other than McKie really is a vindictive nasty bit of work? Old fashioned boards? Compared with what? Arie Zeelenbergs swish powerpoint? When I was a kid I used to love playing battleships, but it's hardly an appropriate way of performing fingerprint comparisons. I'd take Zeelenberg more seriously if his team had done better with the Evett & Williams comparative study. Concentrate on the content not the format. McKie will praise ANY expert so long as they say that Y7 was not made by Shirley. The toruble with this is that the reports by his various experts are directly contradictory to each an other (t's a difficult print, too difficult for the SCRO according to one, but so easy it could be seen as a mistake in 60 seconds according to another, it's definately a right thumb say some McKie experts, definately a left say others, can they all be correct? Obviously not, but don't let that upset you) not quite the consistancy we would expect from what is claimed to be such an obvious mistake on the part of the SCRO. Sure the SCRO officers, Peter Swann, Malcolm Graham etc differ slightly int heir approach to the print, but they agree on the obvious things, most importantly, who it was made by. It's clear you've been spun spun spun. Big Wullie, you are correct, the payment of £750'000 was not for nothing, it was intended by Colin Boyd and Cathy Jamieson to make the whole thing go away. If the guilt of the SCRO officers was so obvious why did they stay in employment for 10 years after their apprant mistakes? If they colluded with criminal intent then why aren't they in jail? Was Peter Swann involved in this conspiracy? Was Malcolm Graham? Was William Gilchrist? Was Stephen Heath? Why aren't they all in jail? Maybe all of these people were in fact doing their job professionally and competently. Maybe it was somebody else who is guilty of a lie, of a criminal conspiracy. Alec Salmond has promised us we shall find out. The Justice One report roundly condemned the figure of £750'000, and in fact that there was a payment at all, as there is obviously ongoing disagreement about the ownership of the print. The expert consulted by the executive was John Macleod. John Macleod went on to make a further allegation of an obvious mistake in another SCRO case. This prompted an external verification by Scotland Yard who confirmed that the SCRO were correct in this other case and that it was John MacLeod who had made the mistake. John Macleod did not work alone in making this claim, his claim was supported by Allan Bayle (who claims to have provided the fingerprint evidence in the Lockerbie case, be very very afraid) and Gary Dempster, who also broke rank to appear on BBC to say how it was so obvious that the SCRO were wrong with the McKie case. Gary Dempster was hailed as a victimised whistle blower by Iain McKie, but appeared as a fool to anybody else following this case. Do you see what is happening, there are experts who have been spun by the McKie campaign and cannot wait to jump on his rattly bandwagon and attack the SCRO experts who made the Y7 identification. They should be more concerned about their own ability before they tell lies on television.

The Seekers After Truth..... wrote:

Justin R wrote:

Dropsy Swann- (he dropped his old fashioned boards at the Inquiry)

Yes I read about Iain McKie\'s glee at this fact in his scabby book. What does this prove Colin other than McKie really is a vindictive nasty bit of work? Old fashioned boards? Compared with what? Arie Zeelenbergs swish powerpoint? When I was a kid I used to love playing battleships, but it\'s hardly an appropriate way of performing fingerprint comparisons. I\'d take Zeelenberg more seriously if his team had done better with the Evett & Williams comparative study. Concentrate on the content not the format. McKie will praise ANY expert so long as they say that Y7 was not made by Shirley. The toruble with this is that the reports by his various experts are directly contradictory to each an other (t\'s a difficult print, too difficult for the SCRO according to one, but so easy it could be seen as a mistake in 60 seconds according to another, it\'s definately a right thumb say some McKie experts, definately a left say others, can they all be correct? Obviously not, but don\'t let that upset you) not quite the consistancy we would expect from what is claimed to be such an obvious mistake on the part of the SCRO. Sure the SCRO officers, Peter Swann, Malcolm Graham etc differ slightly int heir approach to the print, but they agree on the obvious things, most importantly, who it was made by. It\'s clear you\'ve been spun spun spun. Big Wullie, you are correct, the payment of £750\'000 was not for nothing, it was intended by Colin Boyd and Cathy Jamieson to make the whole thing go away. If the guilt of the SCRO officers was so obvious why did they stay in employment for 10 years after their apprant mistakes? If they colluded with criminal intent then why aren\'t they in jail? Was Peter Swann involved in this conspiracy? Was Malcolm Graham? Was William Gilchrist? Was Stephen Heath? Why aren\'t they all in jail? Maybe all of these people were in fact doing their job professionally and competently. Maybe it was somebody else who is guilty of a lie, of a criminal conspiracy. Alec Salmond has promised us we shall find out. The Justice One report roundly condemned the figure of £750\'000, and in fact that there was a payment at all, as there is obviously ongoing disagreement about the ownership of the print. The expert consulted by the executive was John Macleod. John Macleod went on to make a further allegation of an obvious mistake in another SCRO case. This prompted an external verification by Scotland Yard who confirmed that the SCRO were correct in this other case and that it was John MacLeod who had made the mistake. John Macleod did not work alone in making this claim, his claim was supported by Allan Bayle (who claims to have provided the fingerprint evidence in the Lockerbie case, be very very afraid) and Gary Dempster, who also broke rank to appear on BBC to say how it was so obvious that the SCRO were wrong with the McKie case. Gary Dempster was hailed as a victimised whistle blower by Iain McKie, but appeared as a fool to anybody else following this case. Do you see what is happening, there are experts who have been spun by the McKie campaign and cannot wait to jump on his rattly bandwagon and attack the SCRO experts who made the Y7 identification. They should be more concerned about their own ability before they tell lies on television.

Well Justin R. We dinna hae tae read very far intae yer posting tae see who the nasty piece of work is, dae we? An\' as fur prain\' oany expert that agrees wi\' him, he\'s gauny be a busy boy...there being no less than 170 o\' them !!!...an\' is it no\' obvious even tae you that the vast raft of experts..on baith sides...canny agree oan the details o\'Y7....it surely follows that all ithir things bein\' equal, the Crown didnae prove its case and the jury were right tae acquit,even if YOU hate tae hear it...that\'s the way things are done, intit? think it\'s GAME,SET,and MATCH my boy !. As for the McKie money, I cannot see that it\'s too much for a nine year plus battle over injustice, and ah dinna hear oany real evidence fae the \"other\" side tae this tale?? Whit\'s stoappin\' them if therr that inocent? An\' as fur thaim no bein\' in the jile...maybe that wil still happen, if the evidence comes oot.If ye think that Colin boyd was gaun\' tae hae a trial o\' the SCRO boys while the libiyan tril wiz gaun\' tae be heard...then ah\'m sorry, ah never thocht that he wiz likely tae be that daft, becaase despite whit you say, ah dont think Boyd is incompetence..deviou s maybe..bit incompetent,,,NAW. Whit aboot a judiceal innquiry then. Isthat no what we need..you say so, and the mckies huv said so..so wherrs the problem..letus dae it as soon asp ossible then.

Colin R wrote:
Raymond, am afraid your forgetting Shirley has already been cleared of perjury, unanimously , even the judge apologised and Boyd admitted he would not prosecute again. \'Dropsy Swann- (he dropped his old fashioned boards at the Inquiry) is not evidence of perjury, nor does the defence have to prove innocence or disclose to the Crown prior. No corroboration exist. You are making up law and facts as you go along. As for evidence against the SCRO apart from \'criminality\' per MacKay Ms McBride admitted signing for two other experts usurping the \'blind\' test, McKenna failed to give evidence to Parliament and there was the no comments submissions to the earlier enquiry and of course there is the matter of Asbury errors.As for the reasons for Boyd resigning I\'d suggest his Labour party comrade Lord McCluskey exposed his failings so well and his fear of the Lockerbie/ Asbury/Fraser hearings are the reasons. Double jeopardy prevents him prosecuting McKie again. So Raymond I hope this has improved your understanding of the legal system and corrected some errors you seem to believe in. Boyd claimed his departure was long planned to take up opportunities in the Lords and private sector. However he was at leisure on both counts for 8 months. Not even Labour, who tried to call him ( a labour party member who took the whip)a \'cross bencher\', want anything to do with this person .