Jump to content

Talk:Shirley McKie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The McKie/Lockerbie connection[edit]

Lucifer(sc) has today removed from the McKie article the link via Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd, to the Lockerbie bombing on the basis that fingerprinting for the Lockerbie investigation was carried out by the Metropolitan Police rather than the SCRO. Strictly speaking, this may indeed be the case but there do seem to be both clear and subtle links between the McKie and Lockerbie cases, which need to be explored and elaborated upon:

  • Harry Bell, formerly with Strathclyde Police (like Shirley McKie), former head of the SCRO, and key prosecution witness at Camp Zeist, Netherlands
  • alleged FBI pressure applied on two American fingerprint experts (David Grieve and Pat Wertheim) not to testify on McKie's behalf lest they undermine the credibility of the Crown's forensic case against the accused Libyans
  • suppression in the autumn of 2000 of the final report by James Mackay QPM into the SCRO
  • unpublicised decision in 2000 by Colin Boyd not to prosecute 5 SCRO fingerprint officers, identified in the Mackay report as colluding in criminality
  • refusal by Colin Boyd to hold a judicial inquiry into the McKie case
  • refusal by Scottish First Minister to hold a public inquiry into the McKie case
  • grudging support on March 22, 2006 for a Scottish parliamentary inquiry (four opposition votes for a remit to discover why the SCRO did what they did, against three Labour votes to restrict the remit)
  • the last-minute £750,000 pay-out to McKie, preventing inter alia evidence of alleged Lockerbie links being heard in open court

A new section embracing these links would seem to be required in the McKie and Lockerbie articles.Phase4 15:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Phase4 for the response. It is perfectly sensible to have a link to the Lord Advocate as he does have a role in the McKie affair.

I find the Lockerbie connection more iffy. Phase4's first and second points only may be relevant but as he quite rightly appears to accept, they would require elaboration and preferably sources.

The fact that the Lord Advocate may have acted in a dodgy manner in one case to do with fingerprints does not seem to take us far in how he has dealt with other cases involving fingerpints.

--Lucifer(sc) 17:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Lucifer(sc). The McKie/Lockerbie cases have already been connected elsewhere – see, for example:[1] and [2]. And all of my points above – not just the first two – can very easily be elaborated upon and sourced by reference to recent articles in The Scotsman. It's probably not such a good idea at this fairly fluid stage, though, to carry out the exercise I suggested of linking the articles. Maybe it would be better to await the decision (expected imminently) by the SCCRC as to whether the Lockerbie bomber (Megrahi) should have his case referred back to the High Court of Justiciary for another appeal. Megrahi's counsel in such an appeal can be expected draw all the parallels between the McKie/Lockerbie cases that I cited, and more.
Meanwhile, since you now apparently agree that the articles should be linked via the Lord Advocate, I am reverting the second edit you made yesterday to the McKie article.Phase4 20:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer there not to be a reference to the fact that the LA conducted the Pan Am prosecution. This is axiomatic given that it was a Scottish prosecution and suggests the sort of link which I think is contentious. Further links to other wikiepdia articles simply demonstrate that the same error may have been repeated. Nonetheless Phase4's first and second points may become significant, particularly in light of the apparently imminent SCCRC decision. I'm happy to leave the short reference to Pan Am for now.

--Lucifer(sc) 14:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No less contentious, from your point of view, is this example of the McKie/Lockerbie link, I presume: Jim Mackay#Possible link with Lockerbie.Phase4 15:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link is to an article which makes identical points to Phase4's first and second points above, which, I have already accepted, may be relevant.

--Lucifer(sc) 12:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have said before that Phase4's first two points above may be relevant. There remains no source whatsoever for this despite the passage of time. The apparently imminent SCCRC decision has yet to materialise and again there is no citation for the position that the SCCRC decision is imminent or that they are investigating any sort of link with McKie. I reiterate that there appears to have been some pretty suspicious behaviour by the Lord Advocate and/or others. I also accept that the Lockerbie prosecution involves some matters of dubiety. There is no evidence of a link though. That is the stuff of conspiracy theories.
--Lucifer(sc) 16:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The SCCRC decision is rumoured to be taken in the first half of 2006. I would call that imminent, wouldn't you Lucifer(sc)? The possibility of a McKie/Lockerbie link – see citations above – is strengthened by the reluctance/refusal of the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Executive to hand over McKie case documents to the Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish parliament which is currently carrying out its own inquiry into the Shirley McKie case.[3] You also blanked out a section concerning the citing of the McKie case as a precedent for another compensation claim: why?Phase4 18:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that rumour? The relevant "citations" above have no sources. The Lord Advocate's intransigence is indicative at most of him trying to cover something up, not of him trying to cover a Lockerbie link up. Do the Justice Committee suspect a link? You've also reverted the whole thing repeating errors confusing the two Court of Session actions. Both actions were raised in the Court of Session. The first was against Strathclyde police for the manner in which she was arrested. This failed. The second was against various persons for the alleged dishonesty of the SCRO staff causing her to be wrongfully prosecuted. It was in the second case that the lord Advocate suggested expert witnesses should be immune. The two have been confused in the article. Also there is no question of an action requiring "leave", it may be that an appeal during the proceedings is being referred to but I don't know.
As for the precedent I accept my "blanking" here is more contentious. I would suggest the reference would benefit from elaboration as to how on earth the civil servant thinks his case is at all comparable to McKie.
I shall allow time for Phase4 or others to comment but my intention is to re-revert.
--Lucifer(sc)

Precedent[edit]

Some days ago I noted the Haseldine reference "would benefit from elaboration as to how on earth the civil servant thinks his case is at all comparable to McKie". I know User:Phase4 has been occupied re. amending the article's references to Lockerbie and correcting my poor typing but I would be grateful for his thoughts on this. --Lucifer(sc) 16:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, the parallels between the two cases are superficially not greatly aligned. The Haseldine case relates to English law (does/did a civil servant have a "contract of employment"?) having been sacked for writing a letter to a newspaper, and the European Human Rights Convention (Art. 10 - Freedom of expression) whereby his employers would have been liable, if found to be in breach, to pay compensation. He might have been (but wasn't) criminally charged under the 1911 Official Secrets Act. The McKie case falls obviously under Scots law. She was charged with perjury, but acquitted. McKie lost her job as a result and sued for damages. She failed on her first attempt but appeared likely to succeed on her second. She was paid ex gratia compensation of £750,000. Lockerbie seems to impact upon both cases.Phase4 20:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very fair comments on this. Having read the article on Haseldine I note that he has his own theories on Lockerbie and I imagine that's how he came to mention the McKie case. I can see why you describe McKie's comepnsation as *ex gratia* as it was paid without admission of liability. However I would suggest that as the money was paid to compromise a court action then it can hardly be described as having been paid merely as a matter of good will/moral obligation. I note what you say re. Article 10 but his case before the EComHR, of course, failed. There are no legal proccedings threatened against the UK Govt. I think he would have great difficulty with nay legal proceedings (*inter alia* because, as you quite correctly point out, the official secrets legislation and the question of the employment status of civil servants).
You say the lack of great alignment is superficial. I think these cases are very different in appearence and substance.
I would intend to re-blank.

--Lucifer(sc) 18:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before taking precipitate action you would, I assume, want to consider whether your concerns about the "precedent" relate more to the legal basis than to the fact that it has been cited.Phase4 10:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have always explained my edits and in fact usually put the point to you before editing. I would hardly call that precipitate.
The distinction you make regarding my concerns is well made, although I would perhaps suggest that the matter lacks any real logical or moral force as a precedent either. The fact of citation, seemingly without logical basis, would be in my view non-notable.
--Lucifer(sc) 17:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, I have no more insight into this "precedent" than you have; but, let us suppose that Haseldine had been criminally charged under the 1911 Official Secrets Act for publishing a letter in The Guardian in 1988. Let us also suppose that (like Clive Ponting) he was acquitted, because the Act (until it was amended in 1989 to remove the "public interest" defence) had become a somewhat blunted tool to silence voluble civil servants. Scroll forward to Shirley McKie, her acquittal against a criminal charge, and a compensation payment (whether ex gratia or out-of-court). When you stir into the mix an element of Lockerbie, then a moral, logical or even legal basis for the "precedent" becomes apparent, if not obvious.Phase4 19:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you want to reflect on whether the reference to "precedent" relate more to the legal basis than to the fact that it has been cited? Supposing this that and the other doesn't really take us anywhere. The public interest defence was never available: look at the case of Chandler v. DPP, c. 1965. Clive Ponting's acquittal was legally peverse (the judge directed aginst it) albeit morally welcome. If Haseldine had been tried and acquitted then his compensation would be for being wrongfully prosecuted* but he hasn't so its not. His complaint is about being dismissed for shooting his mouth off, not for being falsely accused of lying and then prosecuted. You're attitude appears to be generally that if two separate events have some remote connexion to Lockerbie they therefore a quite possibly part of the same cover-up, or one is a precedent for another. This is sloppy reasoning either in legal or logical terms.
--Lucifer(sc) 13:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[*this word was originally "compensated", which was an error on my part that I've now corrected. This may have been what caused Phase4 to become "lost".--Lucifer(sc)]~

I'm afraid you've lost me there.Phase4 21:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything particularly you did not understand?--Lucifer(sc) 16:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just about everything!Phase4 19:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I cannot help you then.--Lucifer(sc) 14:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your argumentation lacks customary rigour. However, pro tem I'm prepared to let your unnecessary reverting go by the board: events, dear boy, events! The coming weeks will doubtless prove you wrong, and I shall then reinsert today's excision.Phase4 21:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very graceful of you.--Lucifer(sc) 08:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Personally, while there may indeed be links between the cases, they aren't strong enough - and haven't been remarked on enough by the press - to justify the level of inclusion Phase4 is interested in. If the "integrity of the whole Scottish judicial system" in in question, obviously that includes Lockerbie. We don't need to mention that Colin Boyd was the chief prosecutor in the Lockerbie case; if people want to find this out, they can click the link to his article. It's also getting silly if you mention every subject that wasn't in Panorama, although the link to the BBC website is good - cite as many references as you can. Let people make the connections to Lockerbie by inference. Rubbing the links in peoples faces like this sails perilously close to original research and non-neutral point of view. On the other hand, if a major news outlet makes a report on the connections it's well worth a paragraph. --Scott Wilson 23:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Scott Wilson will find the following press remarks sufficient to justify the level of inclusion I am interested in:
"Cash appeal for McKie case review
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. Mr McKie said he did not want to use his daughter's settlement money to fund the appeal. 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 Flight 103 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 at 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 justice system will depend upon how these cases are sorted out."[4]
In the light of this widely-reported press article, does Third Opinion now support or oppose Lucifer(sc)'s proposed reversion of the McKie/Lockerbie link?Phase4 11:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still support the reversion back to the old case - the links are excessive and/or unnecessary as I state above - but perhaps a sentence or two at the end of the article mentioning that there have been allegations of a link would be helpful. --Scott Wilson 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed the silly links to the Panorama program: how does that grab you?Phase4 21:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, but you still haven't addressed my concerns about the other two ones- they aren't relevant either - if people want to know about Colin Boyd's career, they can click the link to his article: we don't need told that here; it's not relevant. Similarly, it's redundant to say that the Scottish judicial system includes the Lockerbie case - that's self evident. It's really not NPOV because of the constant pushing of this idea that they are connected. Make a short couple of sentences for the bottom, by all means, but saturating the article with links and references to Lockerbie doesn't accurately reflect the treatment that the Shirley McKie case has been getting in the press. --Scott Wilson 22:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now

  • removed the whole Implications section;
  • expanded the Parliamentary inquiry section; and
  • inserted the Protest song section.

Hoping your concerns are now fully allayed.Phase4 12:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a lot better - and there's some good additions in there. The references to Lockerbie are also now more in line with the press coverage, and make it clear that there have only been allegations of a link but don't rub all the connections and coincidences in the reader's face. --Scott Wilson 13:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

OK, so as a North American I know nothing about this case aside from the links I've followed from this article. I agree that the implications for Lockerbie needs to be expanded upon. But what about the original murder victim, was her case ever solved? She almost deserves to have her own article. Why did an errant fingerprint blow up to be a big deal? Did they think Shirley killed the woman?--Hooperbloob 00:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right Hooperbloob the murder victim, Marion Ross, seems to have been overlooked. But the Shirley McKie case is only a big story in Scotland (see for example[5]): elsewhere, it hardly gets a mention in the media. This could all change, of course, with expected developments in the Pan Am Flight 103 case.Phase4 10:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The background is quite unclear to one not already familiar with the case - why was a fingerprint so important? Who was the victim? I hope someone can help out here! 68.2.244.69 (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCRO officer's view[edit]

Several paragrapsh have been added recently by an unregistered user (nothing wrong with that, of course), regarding 1.) SCRO officers maintaining their innocence, 2.) not being permitted to comment because of the terms of their employment, 3.) evidence to the Justice Committee of a "vindictive" campaign and 4.) also noting other expert's opinions concurring with the assessment made by the SCRO. I imagine (1) is correct as I have heard it been said by their MSPs, (2) I would not be suprised if it were true, (3) I don't know about and (4) is supported by the statement made to Parliament made by the Lord Advocate. In any event all these points would benefit from citation of evidence particularly as they are likely to be contentious. --Lucifer(sc) 13:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You took the words right out of my mouth, Lucifer! I've changed your "citation needed" tags to "fact" tags, which boils down to the same thing.Phase4 13:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McKie print expert wins tribunal[edit]

Please see:

--Mais oui! (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folk Song[edit]

Whilst I can understand the mention of a folk song in the article I don't think that given the quality of the lyrics justifies a quotation or two from the song and the song having it's own section in an otherwise excellent article. Does anyone else have any comment about this? Trevor Marron (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basis of determination[edit]

I think the article seems to utterly miss the point that the SCRO's official position was unsupported by the evidence and that five other SCRO officers were prepared to dispute the finding that the Doorframe Print was that of Detective-Constable McKie. It was agreed in later testimony that although the prints did have several points of similarity it was clear that each print contained sufficient dissimilar points that no person with any training or experience in the identification of fingerprints should have formed an opinion that the Doorframe Print and the Constables Print were made by the same finger. Over a hundred USA and European fingerprint experts have acknowledged that the two prints were clearly not made by the same finger.

It is likely that the article should contain some statement relating to the SCRO Doorframe Print having later appeared in a misleadingly cropped and poorly focused format.

I think the article's use of "whispering campaign" is a fairly mild description of a capaign of outright harassment.

TinkersDam (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be wise to discuss that Constable McKie, knowing that her print could not have been on the doorframe but accepting the official identification of the print, assumed that the print had been intentionally placed there by the investigating officer and therefore may have approached defense counsel. TinkersDam (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shirley McKie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shirley_McKie&oldid=1212409980"