WHY ?? ???!!!!!!!! !!! !??? ????? ?????

[Malogg Profile]

JUSTICE FOR HOLLIE

GONE LOL . They have removed my eat this and choke thread from DiscloseTV eat-this-and-choke-salmond-you-fat-pedo-protector-t67156.html

I see you complaining about having a thread deleted here and talking about the [removed] fairy story.

Me too!

......Was an EPIC thread though compared to your lying dribble ahahahaha.......

......The wee dancing banana says it all haha.......

.......Yar the only simpleton - EVIL- fairy tale around here......

Perverting the course of Justice
Posted on February 12, 2013 by Admin
Just a short update to let all our followers know that there is plenty going on behind the scenes with our investigators.

We now have compelling evidence that Hollie’s abusers were behind the referral made by Grampian Police to MAPPA which in turn led to a series of contrived events including the spurious use of the Mental Health Act, Anne and Hollie being reported as missing persons, the break-in to Anne and Hollies home in 2010, the ongoing Court hearings and other subsequent events in an attempt to separate Anne and Hollie in order to silence them both, with a view to perverting the course of justice.

It is our opinion that this is why Sylvia Major travelled over 700 miles to watch Anne & Hollie in the High Court back in March 2012.

developing……



Original Article at Hollie Demands Justice http://holliedemandsjustice.org/content ... f-justice/

BBC SCOTLAND AND THE [removed] CASE

In the wake of the BBC`s conduct over the Jimmy Savile issue and the Newsnight programme, the BBC Trust has been contacted over BBC Scotland`s abrupt decision to withdraw from broadcasting two commissioned programmes about Hollie`s case in 2009.

Stephanie Harris, BBC`s Head of Accountability, has responded in a most unsatisfactory manner by failing to support the complaint as a result of inadequate research. The reasons for her decision seem to rest largely on the unwise production of a selected piece from a lengthy document that the BBC had already agreed was flawed and on accepting at face value, an explanation by a transparently unreliable witness, journalist Mark Daly.

Those who have already viewed the overwhelmingly supportive evidence for Hollie`s case and the details of BBC`s commitment will understand, I feel sure. For those who have not seen it, here is the link. Please note that I do not enter the programme until 47 minutes have elapsed.

http://www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-column ... ember-2012

No fair-minded person could surely have any doubt that on the basis of this expert witness evidence, [removed] was indeed the victim of sexual crimes against her and that the police`s utter refusal to investigate in 2009 was indefensible.

A revealing example of Mark Daly`s lack of credibility appears in Ms Harris`s report, which seems to have been allowed to go unchallenged, probably due to the Head of Accountability`s failure to personally scrutinise the crucial documents on which the BBC mainly relied as a basis for its documented enthusiasm to commission the two programmes. I quote from Ms Harris`s letter that Mr Daly now says "We felt the claims about Hollie`s family abuse might possibly have been true (I no longer hold that view)".

Yet in a letter from the BBC written by Mark Daly after the withdrawal, he says "We are convinced that Hollie was indeed abused and we do not dispute the police and professional evidence regarding what happened to her."

If you care to look at the evidence contained in the link above, you will see that Mr Daly`s latest revised opinion is absolutely without foundation, yet Stephanie Harris has allowed it to influence her decision. What Mark Daly is saying, although this is in direct contradiction to his opinion when we were in discussion in 2009, is that he now sees fit to regard himself more qualified, as a journalist who was only involved in the case for a few weeks, to judge Hollie`s complaints than all the expert witnesses, most of whom dealt directly with Hollie.

Those who gave this entirely supportive evidence include Dr Jack Boyle, Dr Frances Kelly, Dr Eva Harding, Dr Paul Carter, Ruth Beckmann and Susannah Seymann of the Down`s Syndrome Association, plus Detective Inspector Iain Alley and his fellow police officers. Additionally, there is the not insignificant matter of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority`s acceptance of the weight of evidence in supporting a financial award to Hollie as a victim of the crimes. Yet Mark Daly, in his own eyes at least, thinks he is now better able to make a contrasting judgement.

Readers are all entitled to their views about Mark Daly`s statement.

I cannot comment, of course, on any other complaints that have been presented to the BBC over the Savile case and others that may have similarities, but let us hope, in the public interest, that this is but an isolated lapse by the BBC`s Head of Accountability.

Naturally, a request for an appeal has been sent to the BBC Trust and copies of all the documentation accepted by Mark Daly in April 2009 as an essential basis for investigation have been forwarded to Director-General Tony Hall and BBC Trust Chairman, Lord Patten.

http://robertgreensblog-holliegreigcamp ... pot.co.uk/

[Malogg Profile]

Dear Mr Ogilvy,

From Jack and the 17,000 people whose lives are being changed, Thank You!

Your generous support during 2012 meant so much to them and it means so much to everyone here at Quarriers that you are part of the team.






The money you give us helps make a real difference to the lives of families across Scotland.

Like seven year old Jack and his mum Donna. Donna is attending a parent support group where they discuss the effects of parental addiction on children. She hadn't realised that Jack had become quietly independent as a result of her not being there for him. She's getting the support she needs now to change this. Jack is also being supported. Every week a befriender from Quarriers takes him out giving him time to do something different and have a stable presence and friend in his life.

But it's not just Jack who needs our help. Thousands of families across Scotland need our help every day. Your regular gifts have shown us how much you believe in the work we are doing to support them.

Together we can make life even better for those who need us in 2013.

Thank You.

Paul Moore
Chief Executive

.....Dang Ima feel bad canni wait to start fkn working ,to restart donations.....

[Malogg Profile]

............Ya better go ask L&M for a raise to learn how to read before ya take me on...........

Perhaps you can show me a list of ranks in the police and show me where 'Chief finger print officer' is?

Had a look so there is no need for you to. Here you go have a read and try to find the rank of 'Chief Fingerprint Officer'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_ranks_of_the_United_Kingdom

......Ima sure there is plenty more examples but Ima nae gonna waste my time looking for the likes of a Moron like you or for any other fkn NINNYHAMMER'S !!!......

Part 3 The SCRO Fingerprint Bureau - Chapter 21 The SCRO Fingerprint Bureau And Training Of Fingerprint Examiners

Introduction

21.1. This is the first of three chapters about the Glasgow fingerprint bureau at the time of the events of 1997-1999.

21.2. This chapter outlines the organisation and considers the training and development of fingerprint staff, arrangements for monitoring competence, workload and working conditions, and perceptions of the bureau.

The Scottish Criminal Record Office

21.3. The Glasgow fingerprint bureau was part of the Scottish Criminal Record Office.1 The Scottish Criminal Record Office had been established in 1960 and it was a common police service for all eight Scottish police forces.2

21.4. The Glasgow bureau was one of a number of fingerprint bureaux in Scotland.

21.5. The governing body that oversaw the Scottish Criminal Record Office was the SCRO Controlling Committee, which comprised the chief constables of the eight Scottish police forces and representatives from the Scottish Criminal Record Office and the Scottish Office. By convention it was chaired by the chief constable holding office as President of the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland (ACPOS). Chief police officers (or deputies) from the eight forces, with representatives from SCRO and the Scottish Office, attended the SCRO Fingerprint Standing Committee which was chaired by a chief constable.

21.6. From 1999 these committees became the Executive Committee and the Management Committee. The first was chaired by the President of ACPOS and comprised the eight chief constables, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland and representatives from the Scottish Executive3 and COSLA,4 while the second was chaired by a representative of the Scottish Executive and comprised representatives from the eight police forces and COSLA and the Director and Deputy Director of SCRO.5

21.7. The primary functions of the Scottish Criminal Record Office were to provide a computerised criminal record system and fingerprint verification and identification facility for all eight Scottish police forces. In practice six of the eight police forces had their own fingerprint bureaux and the Scottish Criminal Record Office fingerprint bureau (i.e. what is generally referred to in this Report as 'SCRO') provided a service for Strathclyde Police and also Dumfries and Galloway.6 Occasionally other forces sent crime scene marks to the Glasgow bureau for comparison and/or search in its finger and palm print collections.7

21.8. The Director of the Scottish Criminal Record Office was a police chief superintendent and the Head of the Fingerprint Bureau was a chief inspector, not a fingerprint examiner.8 Strathclyde Police did not have management responsibility for the Scottish Criminal Record Office but in 1997-1999 it was located in Strathclyde Police headquarters and the Strathclyde Joint Police Board had responsibility for its support staff.9

21.9. The post of Assistant Chief Fingerprint Officer was created in 1996 and re-designated as Deputy Head of Bureau around 1998. This post was held by Mr Robert Mackenzie. There was no Chief Fingerprint Officer as the Head of the Bureau was a police officer.10 In 1997 SCRO had 34 fingerprint officers.11

Staff training and development

Trainee examiners
Training in the 1970s
21.10. Mr Mackenzie joined as a trainee in 1967. Two of those who identified the marks in this case, Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart, joined the organisation in 1970. Mr Dunbar joined in 1971 and Mr McKenna in 1977.

21.11. Their training was over seven years and was all delivered in-house with examinations set by the bureau. Learning was encouraged "very much as a hands-on experience". 12 At this time the Glasgow fingerprint bureau trained people for Scotland, other parts of Great Britain and elsewhere.13

21.12. The outline of the training programme can be taken from Mr MacPherson. During the first two years the training mostly involved manual searching in a collection of fingerprints of convicted persons. This 'main collection' had around 300,000 sets of fingerprints, and the job included examining and classifying incoming fingerprint forms and searching them against the collection. The work "allowed trainees to hone their skills in fingerprint pattern recognition." Trainees also carried out 'ten-print to ten-print' comparisons for example when a dead body required to be identified. After the first two years, a trainee moved on to scene of crime work, comparing finger and palm prints from the collection against marks left by perpetrators of crime.14 Examinations were held during the first five years and then an officer practised for a further two years before he could give evidence in court.15

21.13. The trainees at SCRO, unlike those in other bureaux in Scotland,16 specialised in fingerprint comparison work and were not involved in crime scene examinations but as part of that training they did learn how scene of crime officers found and recorded fingerprints, and how the surface on which a print was left could affect the way in which a fingerprint expert would analyse it.17 Mr Mackenzie referred to a three month period of secondment to the Identification Bureau for training in crime scene examination techniques.18

The 1980s
21.14. Mr Halliday became a trainee in 1979, Mr Bruce in 1982, Mr Foley in 1983, Ms McBride in 1984 and Mr Geddes and Mr Padden in 1988.

21.15. In the 1980s, the training period was reduced to five years19 but remained in-house. "Prior to 1993, SCRO fingerprint staff were all trained 'in-house' and did not receive any external training input."20

21.16. Two comparative examples may be given. Mr Grigg, a fingerprint training instructor since 1997 at the National Policing Improvement Agency (formerly the NTC), Durham, also trained in the 1980s. He joined Norfolk Constabulary as a trainee fingerprint expert in 1981 and qualified in 1986. His training involved training "on the job" and attendance at two courses at Hendon Police College21 as did that of Mr John McGregor, a fingerprint examiner in Aberdeen, who also trained in England at this time.22

Training in the 1990s
21.17. In September 1991 the Glasgow bureau was the first in the United Kingdom to introduce the Automatic Fingerprint Recognition system (AFR).23 Staff had to learn how AFR worked and develop processes for its operation. AFR superseded the searches in the manual collections. These were now done by computer so the training changed to compensate.24

21.18. Mr Halliday, who was the AFR Manager in 1997, said that before the advent of AFR searching the manual collection, while labour intensive, was very good experience for comparing groups of prints, recognising patterns and the development of searching and comparison skills. Mr Mackenzie thought that officers in place in 1991 had a better grounding in fingerprint comparison due to their experience dealing with volumes of manual comparison work during their training,25 and Mr Dunbar said that although at the time he trained the programme was not as structured as later formalised courses, trainees arguably gained more experience because the work was all manual.26

21.19. Delegations of experts from outside Scotland visited the Glasgow bureau to see how AFR worked27 and SCRO experts such as Mr Dunbar trained other British fingerprint experts in the system.28

21.20. In 1993 Mr Mackenzie was appointed as the first SCRO bureau trainer, and he was asked to ensure that SCRO was matching the programmes of the other main training facilities in the UK. SCRO had not sent people to Durham or Hendon "due mainly to the differences between court proceedings in Scotland and England." Staff members were now sent on courses at Durham to see what the differences were and SCRO management decided that the intermediate level course at Durham would be best suited to the needs of SCRO fingerprint officers' training.29 The 'intermediate course' was the equivalent of the bureau's training up to four years and also included mock trials, with an emphasis on court preparation and presentation. Mr Dunbar said that in the UK all the teaching was generally from the same documents.30

21.21. It was not until after 2000 that SCRO trainee fingerprint examiners were sent on all three courses at Durham.31 This was as a result of the HMICS September 2000 report.32

Training as at 1997
21.22. Mr Dunbar succeeded Mr Mackenzie in 1996. His post of Quality Assurance Officer also carried responsibility for training. The five year training programme included examinations at the end of the first, second and fourth years of training and a final examination, after which a trainee became a fingerprint officer. The emphasis remained on practical training. At the time the bureau was divided into teams that dealt with various geographic areas and after spending time in the ten-print and AFR sections, the remainder of trainees' training would be in the various teams, where they would be 'mentored' by a fingerprint officer. Obtaining expert status was significant in terms of qualification and salary.33

21.23. The team leader was responsible for trainees on the team, including allocating and monitoring their work and explaining the theory they were putting into practice, as well as ensuring that the workload was dealt with and the work carried out to the requisite quality.34

21.24. The training/quality assurance officer would oversee a trainee's training.35 A trainee's signature in relation to any crime scene mark did not count towards the four experts required to make an identification.36 Trainees would attend various necessary external courses such as courses on equal opportunities at Tulliallan.37

21.25. The trainee's final, 'expert', examination comprised all aspects of fingerprints and included the history of fingerprints, evidence, relevant legislation, Scots law, and biology in relation to how ridge units are formed. Officers had to prove their competence in this examination in order to qualify. The fingerprint identification element had a 100% pass mark. The examination also included a competency test of searching the AFR system and other aspects of a fingerprint officer's duties (such as the day-to-day running of the office, how one went about the procedures for identification of a mark and the preparation and presentation of evidence), and there was a mock trial. Mr Dunbar marked the expert examinations and they were checked by Mr Mackenzie. Not everyone satisfied every stage of competence at the first attempt.38

Training and development of qualified fingerprint examiners
21.26. Newly qualified fingerprint officers would continue to be monitored by the supervisor of the team in which they were placed and their progress reported back to the training department.39 As an officer progressed and developed, much of his learning would be 'on the job' with staff expected to learn from one another, and read about latest developments, for example using the SCRO library.40

21.27. 'Informal training' took place on a day-to-day basis. For example if there was a difficult or interesting mark the fingerprint officers would speak with other officers about it. Officers would also keep themselves up to date by discussing articles of interest and copies of such articles were passed around the office and kept in a folder.41

21.28. Fingerprint officers were given 'in-house' training when new developments occurred. When new technology was brought in staff had to complete specific courses, such as an in-house week-long introductory course held for everyone on AFR.42

21.29. Seminars were provided from time to time, for example Mr Mackenzie presented a two day course 'Demystifying Palms'.43 Occasionally external speakers would be invited to come and talk to the bureau. Arie Zeelenberg once came to speak, as did Stephen Meagher, Head of the FBI Latent Fingerprint Unit, and Dale Clegg from Australia.44 Mr Stewart said that as individual experts and as a bureau they were always trying to improve their knowledge and ability. As well as receiving visits from experts, Glasgow experts visited other bureaux and the bureau was used to setting up trials for possible changes.45

21.30. It appears that as at 1997 a formal continuing professional development (CPD) process was not in place. Mr Stewart's recollection was that around 1998 a more formal CPD process was introduced, with training becoming more structured and including away days, generally at Tulliallan.46 HMICS in its September 2000 report found that little provision was made for refresher training for fingerprint experts.47

External training attended post qualification
21.31. Some SCRO personnel attended external courses. Mr Dunbar attended courses and obtained various external qualifications in connection with his responsibilities for quality assurance and training including the Bureau trainers' course at Durham (1996) and a Vocational Assessor course (1999).48

21.32. Two SCRO officers attended a course on ridgeology given by David Ashbaugh in late 1999 at the NTC in Durham and then disseminated information from this to other SCRO officers. Mr Mackenzie visited the FBI in Washington for a week, arranged by Stephen Meagher, to look at their training methods and the work they had done on third level detail.49

21.33. Mr McKenna, who in 1997 was a team leader, was given additional training as he took on more managerial responsibility. For example he attended courses by the Institute of Leaders and Managers and undertook training on process mapping and business continuity and change.50 He attended an external Scottish Fingerprint Conference at Tulliallan, but not external fingerprint conferences such as the Fingerprint Society Conference.51

21.34. It appears that the opportunity for staff generally to attend external seminars and conferences was limited.52 Ms McBride said that she did not go on many external courses. Normally there were not enough funds to send staff on all of the external courses requested. A few people would go to fingerprint conferences and some staff would pay to attend themselves.53 By the mid 1990s the cost of one person attending would be met by the organisation and the practice was for staff to split the funding among those attending, with the balance being met by the individuals. Those who could not go "missed out", Mr Stewart thought, because conferences were invaluable not only for the formal presentations but also for the informal discussions that took place among working experts.54

The monitoring of examiner competence

21.35. By 1995 the Director of SCRO and the head of the bureau wanted to set up competency testing for fingerprint bureau expert staff. This came "on the back of" the Evett and Williams report in the 1980s which suggested regular competency testing, blind tests and dip sampling of cases. 'Dip sampling' (the random checking of work) was introduced, followed by competency testing.

21.36. SCRO was aware of only one commercial company marketing competency test products in the forensic field at this time, and Mr Mackenzie was instructed to utilise material available at SCRO. Before each series of competency tests was introduced, staff at Durham were asked to assess that they were a fair test of examiners' skills. No other fingerprint bureau in England and Wales at this time was undertaking competency testing like this until a pilot scheme was eventually rolled out in bureaux in the north west of England a couple of years later. Testing material which had been used in the Glasgow bureau was passed on to other fingerprint bureaux in Scotland for the purpose of testing their staff. Around the time of the Shirley McKie case the last set of in-house competency tests was prepared. Competency tests were confidential; no one other than the actual person being tested knew the results of his or her own tests.55

21.37. These tests involved preparation of eight cases based on solved cases with a range of identifications, marks insufficient for comparison and negative results. There were no time limits. Staff were encouraged not to discuss the content of any tests. During the in-house testing there was never a misidentification made by a member of SCRO staff within the bureau, although on occasions an officer might incorrectly classify a mark as insufficient for comparison. If staff did not satisfy a level of competency at the first test then there would be an opportunity to sit a second test.56

21.38. As well as competency testing, all experts in SCRO had their work second checked by their peers, which Mr Stewart described as "a greater test of competence than any other test" and in addition any identified marks were checked by three other experts after the initial identification was made.57

Workload and working conditions

21.39. This Report is not considering in detail the workload or working conditions of the Glasgow bureau, which have been addressed by other reviews. The bureau was at the relevant time located in the headquarters of Strathclyde Police. It moved to new purpose-built premises in 2000 which were considered to be an improvement,58 and to have helped foster an independent corporate identity for SCRO.59

21.40. The Glasgow bureau was busy. It was said to be overworked and understaffed.60 Electronic capture of arrestees' fingerprints using 'live scan' devices was introduced in April 1997.61 As these were available electronically on a 24 hour basis, the bureau changed from an 8am to 8pm working day to a 24 hour, seven day a week facility, with a knock on effect on case work, staffing and training. Additional staff had to be recruited and trained to address substantial backlogs of scene of crime mark caseloads which built up as a result.62 The bureau carried a number of staff vacancies.63

Perceptions of the bureau

21.41. The SCRO examiners told the Inquiry of the high reputation of the bureau and of individual examiners. Mr Mackenzie said that the bureau was a market leader in the UK in respect of fingerprint training, testing and quality assurance and was at the time the only bureau to have regular testing of staff.64 Mr Padden said that "we had been told by others in the past that we were the best fingerprint bureau in the world" and that "The experts that were involved in the [Asbury/McKie] case¿are hugely respected. In particular Hugh MacPherson had a reputation of being the top guy in the bureau, based on the quality of his work."65

21.42. Ms McBride said "The general view in SCRO was that our experts were very well trained ¿the view was that the standard of our bureau was second to none which was supported by the comments of other bureaux staff from England and elsewhere. The Evett and Williams study suggested that this was the case. Other fingerprint bureaux would adopt our processes."66

21.43. Mr Stewart said that in his experience other bureaux would declare marks fragmentary and insufficient that SCRO could compare.67 The examiners in the bureau specialised in fingerprint comparison as their full-time remit68 and Mr MacPherson cited this specialisation as a reason for their ability to make identifications where others could not.69

21.44. The belief that SCRO examiners, or at least the more experienced among them, could identify marks that other bureaux would discard as fragmentary and inconclusive is discussed in Chapter 28.

21.45. SCRO was held in high regard by others outside the bureau. Mr Grigg considered SCRO to be a "professional and very competent" bureau.70 He did not have direct dealings with SCRO at the relevant time but had trained some of their staff and had met Alan Dunbar for whom he had "high regard". He had no reason to think anything other than highly of SCRO.71

21.46. There were other views.

21.47. Mr Sheppard, who was Head of NTC Fingerprint Training from 1996 to 2005,72 said that he had formed the impression that SCRO did not have a culture that encouraged experts to work independently and draw their own conclusions. This was derived from two experiences. Firstly, a two day visit to SCRO in 1990 to look at the AFR system when he formed the impression that "SCRO was an excessively hierarchical organisation and that independence of thought was not encouraged." Secondly, there was his experience with students (i.e. trainee fingerprint examiners) from SCRO attending the NTC who, when shown difficult marks, would often say that they would not draw their own conclusions but would pass the mark on to a more experienced officer, from which he inferred "there was a great deal of peer pressure and that it was alien to challenge the conclusions of others."73

21.48. The evidence of Mr Richard Luckraft, who worked in the Glasgow bureau from January 2000 to March 2001, is discussed in chapters 23 and 28.

21.49. The HMICS September 2000 report discloses that SCRO was the biggest fingerprint bureau in Scotland and the fourth largest in the UK. The report advised that historically the bureau had been held in high regard by other experts, though it did appear to have "an 'internalised' culture".74 This was a comment on the emphasis on in-house training, the failure until relatively recently to recruit externally trained qualified officers and the fact that senior posts were not always advertised externally and the report made recommendations about the need for a more "open and transparent culture" within the organisation as a whole.75

http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... /3077.html

.............................................................................................................

Police are compiling what is believed to be the world's largest computer database of ear prints to be used in the same way as fingerprint evidence in linking suspects to crimes.
The database is the brainchild of the same organisation that last month successfully brought the first prosecution of a criminal on the basis of an ear print.

Mark Dallagher was convicted of murdering an elderly woman in Huddersfield after the prosecution showed that ear prints on a newly washed window could only have been left by him as he listened for signs of movement inside the house.

And another case, expected to come to court early in the New Year, could add further weight to the forensic uses of the technique.



Dallagher was convicted on the strength of his ear print
The National Training Centre for Scientific Support to Crime Investigation has so far collected more than 1,200 ear images in its database at Harpeley Hall, County Durham, and researchers hope to take that figure up to 2,000.

The aim is to build a comprehensive research tool to back up evidence that no two ears are exactly the same. The database has been built up using volunteers from among trainees at the centre and includes samples from identical twins which are still different enough to be identifiable.

Since research started more than two years ago, police have detected about 100 ear prints at crime scenes.

These cases have been passed on to John Kennerley, Chief Fingerprint Officer with Lancashire police and the detective pioneering the new technique.

Vital breakthrough

He believes police only detect ear prints in a fraction of cases where they are left, mainly because officers scouring the scene of a crime, unaware of their value, are simply not searching for them.

Mr Kennerley estimates there could be several hundred cases each year where detection of prints could prove to be a vital breakthrough - although this would not be enough to make it worthwhile compiling a national database of offenders' ears.

The project has had input from the acknowledged world expert on ear prints, Cornelis Van Der Lugt of the Netherlands, who has been studying the subject for 12 years.

Alongside the work in the Netherlands, the UK scheme is leading the world in developing the technique which is winning support elsewhere in Europe and America.

Forensic toolbox

Mr Kennerley said: "It's never going to be like fingerprints or DNA, but it's another tool in the forensic toolbox.

"No two things in nature are alike, but we need the investigative skills to analyse the data.

"Essentially they're like fingerprints. Although they don't have the ridges, the cartilage and contours of every ear give it a unique shape."

Mr Kennerley admitted suspects were sometimes surprised when asked to provide an ear print - taken by the suspect leaning against a window or door to replicate the sample taken from the crime scene.

But if the search for ear prints becomes as routine as Mr Kennerley would like, it could mean that burglars who already don gloves before ransacking someone else's property will be adding ear muffs to their list of essential kit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/246713.stm

......................................................................

http://www.kenyalaw.org/klr/fileadmin/p ... .107l_.pdf

http://www.thefingerprintinquiryscotlan ... I_0112.pdf

[TruthPrevails Profile]

21.9. The post of Assistant Chief Fingerprint Officer was created in 1996 and re-designated as Deputy Head of Bureau around 1998. This post was held by Mr Robert Mackenzie. There was no Chief Fingerprint Officer as the Head of the Bureau was a police officer.10 In 1997 SCRO had 34 fingerprint officers.11

See he is called 'Mister', that means he is not a police man

21.33. Mr McKenna, who in 1997 was a team leader, was given additional training as he took on more managerial responsibility. For example he attended courses by the Institute of Leaders and Managers and undertook training on process mapping and business continuity and change.50 He attended an external Scottish Fingerprint Conference at Tulliallan, but not external fingerprint conferences such as the Fingerprint Society Conference.51

Team leader is a 'Mister'

21.47. Mr Sheppard, who was Head of NTC Fingerprint Training from 1996 to 2005,72 said that he had formed the impression that SCRO did not have a culture that encouraged experts to work independently and draw their own conclusions. This was derived from two experiences. Firstly, a two day visit to SCRO in 1990 to look at the AFR system when he formed the impression that "SCRO was an excessively hierarchical organisation and that independence of thought was not encouraged." Secondly, there was his experience with students (i.e. trainee fingerprint examiners) from SCRO attending the NTC who, when shown difficult marks, would often say that they would not draw their own conclusions but would pass the mark on to a more experienced officer, from which he inferred "there was a great deal of peer pressure and that it was alien to challenge the conclusions of others."73

See again 'Mister'

These cases have been passed on to John Kennerley, Chief Fingerprint Officer with Lancashire police and the detective pioneering the new technique.

No rank again mentioned so he is not a policeman

[Malogg Profile]

In the Shirley McKie case, Aberdeen police officer Gary Dempster, in his formal statement, described the then deceased Terry Major as former Chief Fingerprint Officer at Grampian Police.

Robert

[Malogg Profile]

21.9. The post of Assistant Chief Fingerprint Officer was created in 1996 and re-designated as Deputy Head of Bureau around 1998. This post was held by Mr Robert Mackenzie. There was no Chief Fingerprint Officer as the Head of the Bureau was a police officer.10 In 1997 SCRO had 34 fingerprint officers.11

See he is called 'Mister', that means he is not a police man

21.33. Mr McKenna, who in 1997 was a team leader, was given additional training as he took on more managerial responsibility. For example he attended courses by the Institute of Leaders and Managers and undertook training on process mapping and business continuity and change.50 He attended an external Scottish Fingerprint Conference at Tulliallan, but not external fingerprint conferences such as the Fingerprint Society Conference.51

Team leader is a 'Mister'

21.47. Mr Sheppard, who was Head of NTC Fingerprint Training from 1996 to 2005,72 said that he had formed the impression that SCRO did not have a culture that encouraged experts to work independently and draw their own conclusions. This was derived from two experiences. Firstly, a two day visit to SCRO in 1990 to look at the AFR system when he formed the impression that "SCRO was an excessively hierarchical organisation and that independence of thought was not encouraged." Secondly, there was his experience with students (i.e. trainee fingerprint examiners) from SCRO attending the NTC who, when shown difficult marks, would often say that they would not draw their own conclusions but would pass the mark on to a more experienced officer, from which he inferred "there was a great deal of peer pressure and that it was alien to challenge the conclusions of others."73

See again 'Mister'

These cases have been passed on to John Kennerley, Chief Fingerprint Officer with Lancashire police and the detective pioneering the new technique.

No rank again mentioned so he is not a policeman

Delusional stuff ya dribbled there ,yet again utter bamboozling and rather moronic ,as to what ya are saying then is that (Chief Constable Colin McKerracher) is not an officer !!!! >>> because he is a Mr

As this well shows yer fkn dribbling p1sh again

Mr Colin McKerracher was appointed Chief Constable of Grampian Police on 12 April 2004.

Chief Constable Colin McKerracher CBE QPM LLB


Mr Colin McKerracher was appointed Chief Constable of Grampian Police on 12 April 2004.
He was raised in Glasgow and served as a Police Cadet before joining The City of Glasgow Police on 20 May 1974.
Throughout his career in Strathclyde Police, Mr McKerracher performed many roles in both operational and support positions, including a wide variety of general policing duties. He became Divisional Commander and also worked in a number of departments, including the Force Research and Development and Force Personnel Departments, before becoming Assistant Chief Constable responsible for Management Services, Community Safety and subsequently the Operational Portfolio. On 6 September 2001, he was appointed Deputy Chief Constable.
During his career he studied for three years at Strathclyde University and in 1987 he graduated LLB.
Since joining Grampian Police, Mr McKerracher has been instrumental in achieving a more community based policing approach across the Force. This function came to function when the Force introduced a community focussed policing model under the banner "Local Policing, closer to you". This model provides dedicated Local Policing Teams in each of the 24 local policing areas across the Force. He has ensured that national best practice and policy has been adopted by the Force to help reduce road traffic collisions and casualties.
He has overall responsibility for the policing of offshore installations, Royal residences on Deeside, as well as Aberdeen International Airport. He is a member of many local and national committees including those across the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland Business Areas, which incorporates a responsibility for Counter Terrorism in the United Kingdom.
Of his many ambitions for Grampian Police, he believes primarily in developing an integrated organisational and planning structure capable of supporting community based policing to achieve real outcomes that meet community needs. Core to this, he has challenged historical practice, has focussed minds on the empowerment and development of staff and he has reintroduced the Police Cadet Scheme to Grampian Police, having identified the benefits to both the Force and youth in the local community.
In June 2005, Mr McKerracher received recognition for his Police Service to date, when he was awarded the Queen's Police Medal and in May 2006 he was admitted as Burgess of Guild as a mark of gratitude for his faithful service to the Burgh of Aberdeen.
On 1 March 2007, Mr McKerracher was appointed to the Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA) Board and has an obligation to oversee the governance of the newly formed SPSA which provides Forensic Services and operates SCRO, SPIS, the Scottish Police College and provides support services to the SCDEA.
On 1 July 2007, he became ACPOS President with commensurate national responsibilities and a desire to develop the strategic vision of the Scottish Police Service. Mr McKerracher continued this role until March 2009.
In January 2009, Mr McKerracher was awarded the CBE for services to the Police.
In June 2010 his work in the Child Protection area was recognised in his appointment as Chair of the National Child Protection Committee Chairs Forum.<<<< (((FKN EVIL JOKE IN MY OPINION !!!)))
Mr McKerracher is committed to the work of his local church and charities and is a keen sportsman with a particular interest in football.
He is married with two grown up children and two grandchildren.

http://www.grampian.police.uk/About2c92 ... id=30;31;1

[TruthPrevails Profile]

....

I have never seen police oficers described in that manner before, strange to say the least. Nevertheless Terry Major was a civilian not a serving police officer. Why not get someone to put an FOI request for you in for you on the matter.

[Malogg Profile]

So again with what you say Slyvia Major or whom ever got this written up has lied again (NO!!! surprise) in here > http://www.thisisannouncements.co.uk/46 ... =clna_zzzz

....

I have never seen* police officers* described in that manner before, strange to say the least. Nevertheless Terry Major was a civilian not a serving police officer. Why not get someone to put an FOI request for you in for you on the matter.

WTF that would be another waste of my time even as I have wasted so much fkn time/unpaid talking to you hhmm let me state this that every fkn question I answer from now on for you ,YOU can give me hhmm lets just say £1000 so I can donate it to this charity >>>>



If nae ,go waste your time on another forum as my time is well toooo precious for the likes to wasted on you.PERIOD.

Please get in touch with your obvious employer L&M to let them know this ,as there is gonna be no answer to yer dribble until such has been deemed in documentation as a firm fixed agreement that has to be signed and wittnessed by the (WITCH) > (IN MY OPINION) >>> Elish Angiolini as this is strict terms that apply apon any such future agreement of myself talking to you or any of your HoaxJokeTeam.

.....Now if ya do not mind get the feck off my threads until such a time.....

Ima BUSY!!!...


.......PS your simpleton spelling mistakes gives away your alt sock acc's....YA MORON!!!........

.............REALLY* YOU THINK SO ???? .................

............Ima think ya FEEBLY rather nieve ......PERIOD.....

"Plays along wi simpletons games ahaha"

breaking-news-pope-benedict-xvi-is-to-resign-t84365-100.html

Upload to Disclose.tv

[TruthPrevails Profile]

Facts.

1. The doctors who examined Hollie and saw the common disease warts on her genitals some how managed to miss the very obvious injuries and scarring that would have been there if she has been raped by 22 child abusers over the course of 14 years.

2. Warts can be caught by sharing a towel with someone or can be shared by touching.

3. 22 people were named as those who allegedly raped Hollie for 14 years of those people 3 do not exist and the Sherriff she named did not even move into the area till after the allegations started.

4. The Saville inquiry has over 4-500 victims coming forward who claim to have been attacked by Saville, where are the other victims from this paedophile gang from Aberdeen?

5. 7 others were claimed to have been victims of this paedophile gang of those all 7 have come forward to publicly state that the allegations are completely untrue.

6. The Truth Ranger Robert Green has never at any time ever tried to speak to the people he alleged to have been part of this paedophile ring at any time nor has he ever tried to speak to the other 'victims'.

7. Green/Gerrish/Icke have made it very clear that there was a satanic element to this story however HDJ has clearly stated that it is completely untrue. Since HDJ works directly with Ann and Hollie they should know. So why did Green/Gerrish/Icke lie about it. More importantly what else have they lied about?

8. Mark Daly has secret recordings which he made when talking to Robert Green, why does Green and HDJ not wish them to be released?

9. People are learning the facts now and are leaving this campaign very fast it is evidenced here on this group 'We need answers to the abuse of [removed]', https://www.facebook.com/groups/hollieg4justice/members/, some weeks ago there was 2,340 in the group now it is down another 9 people in spite of the constant people being added. No one bar the admins are posting on the group or commenting. People realise they have been fooled and are bored with it all.

[Malogg Profile]

[removed]