[MUSIC] Welcome to the second video where we will discuss another case of disputed identification, involving fingerprint evidence. And more specifically, the case against David Asbury and Shirley McKee. I will try to summarize the main circumstances, but with a very broad brush. In January 1997, the body of Miss Ross, 51 years old, was found in her home in Kilmarnock, Scotland, on the floor of the bedroom. She had died as a result of multiple stab wounds to her head and neck. The crime scene investigation lead to the detection of various marks. Amongst them a finger mark that will become one of the major contested marks in the history of forensic science. The mark has been detected with black powder on a door frame inside the bungalow of the victim. The the location is shown with a blue arrow here. The mark label Y7, is partial and correspond to the tip of a finger. Part of the investigation team was Detective Constable Shirley McKee, who attended the site without going inside to investigate the murder. The investigation progresses, and a few days later, a suspect, David Hasbury, was nominated. He had carried out minor construction work in the victim's house. Of course all marks recorded from the crime scene, were compared to Asbury. And, a mark on a gift tag found in the victim's home was associated with him by the fingerprint expert of the Scottish Criminal Record Office, SCRO. At Asbury's home, a Marks & Spencer biscuit tin has been found. It contained 1,400 pounds, and was told to have been taken from Marion Ross home. On that metallic box, her mark was detected with super glue and flourescent dye staining. When compared with the left index fingerprint of the deceased, expert from the SCRO concluded to an identification. We show here the last documentation made by the SCRO, proving the identification with 16 points in correspondence. At the time, the minimal standard required is Scotland to conclude to an identification, persistently 16. Part of the fingerprint war is to compare an identified marks to the police officer dispatched to the scene. Is not uncommon indeed for officer to inadvertently touch a surface. To carry out the task, elimination print were taken from Shirley McKee in the early February. The mark Y7 from the door frame, was then identified by the SCRO to the left thumb of Shirley McKee. The identification was initially marked with the initial of the examiners. Much later, a full documentation of the identification will be prepared with 70 matching point. Shirley McKee, strenuously denied even having been in the house. Christoph, that case seemed reasonably straightforward. How did it become a cause célèbre? >> David Asbury was charged and put on trial for the murder of Marion Ross. And Shirley McKee was called as a witness. David Asbury's defense team had been made aware or for denial that finger mark Y7 was hers. Shortly before the trial, a police disciplinary inquiry was started against her. At trial, she was asked to explain how the mark, Y7, attributed to her by the SCRO, could have been left there. And she maintained that she never entered the bungalow, hence never touched anything inside. The defense used that testimony to cast doubt on the fingerprint identifications of both David Asbury and Marion Ross. Which of a prosecution hoped would link David Asbury to the crime scene, and to Marion Ross to David Asbury's bedroom. The defense did not challenge the identification per se. The infallibility of that type of evidence is very much grounded in people's mind. But the defense suggested that the mark on the tin may have been left or forged by the dead finger of Marion Ross. David Asbury was declared guilty of a murder, and received a life sentence. It is at this point that things got very complicated for Shirley McKee. The police charged her with perjury convinced of the soundness of the elimination identification claimed by SCRO, and confirmed that Asbury's trial. On 6th of Match 1997 she was arrested, body search, and on the charge of perjury. Shirley McKie was left depressed and suspended from duty, without any support from police force organizations. Shirley and her father, Ian McKee, who you will hear in an interview, challenged the fingerprint evidence. At the outset, convinced of the quality of the SCRO work, they explored whether the mark could be a forgery, a gummy mark left with devious intention against Shirley. Pat Wertheim, a specialist in the area of forgery, was consulted. Pat Wertheim's conclusion was unambiguous. In his opinion, it was not forgery, but simply a wrong identification. An obvious mistake that in his view should have been immediately detected by the police authorities. Given SCRO's good reputation, he was at loss to explain how such a gross error could have occurred. Wertheim was joined by another well-known fingerprint expert form the US, David Grieve, who concurred to his conclusions. SCRO never deviated from their initial conclusion, that were verified by four colleagues. At her trial for perjury in April 1999, experts from both sides testified. An SCRO expert testified that with 16 matching characteristics, the probability of an erroneous correspondence is about one in ten to the power of 16. When challenged that no one else in court could see these 16 features, the four Scottish experts said that they were able to do so, thanks to their years of experience in the discipline. The judge described the mark as a blob. The experts for the defense, Wertheim and Grieve, both indicated with full documentation that there were discrepancies between the mark, Y7, and Shirley McKee's print. And that was compelling evidence to conclude that the mark was not belonging to her. On the 14th of May, 1999, the jury unanimously declared Shirley McKee not guilty of perjury. But the case didn't stop here. The police declared Shirley McKee unfit for police duties. As the years past, the case received heavy coverage by the media. The BBC put free programs together. The BBC also asked Wertheim and another expert from Scotland named Allan Bayle, to examine the identification used again David Asbury. The mark on the tin associated with Marion Ross, and they both concluded that that mark was not of the deceased. Scottish politicians became involved in challenging the authorities, to ensure that the experts had not made any other mistakes in other cases. The images associated with the case were published on the internet. More than 100 experts around the world signed a petition to say, that the identifications professed by the Scottish Criminal Record Office, was wrong. Thank you for watching this video. You can follow us in the next video. [MUSIC]
