Dutch expert criticises McKie print officers

Published on Sunday 25 June 2006 00:19

A FINGERPRINT expert brought in to oversee the reform of the Scottish Fingerprint Service yesterday accused those involved in the Shirley McKie case of "bad management".

Dutch fingerprint specialist Arie Zeelenberg makes the claim in a report submitted to MSPs. In it he states that those involved put self-interest before justice.

Zeelenberg has already given evidence to MSPs as part of their probe into the fingerprint service. The inquiry is being held after McKie, from Troon, Ayrshire, was awarded 750,000 in an out-of-court settlement by the Scottish Executive.

She was accused of perjury after denying a print found in the Kilmarnock home of murder victim Marion Ross was hers. But she was cleared of the charge after challenging the evidence of fingerprint experts from the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO).

Last week, an Executive-commissioned report by fingerprint expert John MacLeod, which said the print was not hers, was released to the public.

MacLeod's report, from July 2004, said even if it had been her print - which he did not believe it was - it was of such poor quality that it should not have gone to court. Zeelenberg, a senior fingerprints adviser with the Dutch police, has been asked by the Executive to oversee the reforms of SCRO's fingerprint bureau.

When he appeared before MSPs earlier this month, he told them that the print found at the murder scene was not that of Ms McKie.

After making his presentation to the committee he has now submitted an additional report to the MSPs. In it he states: "The management of the case by all levels involved is very poor to say the least."

The four experts involved - Hugh Macpherson, Fiona McBride, Anthony McKenna and Charles Stewart - still maintain that the print was made by the former policewoman.

They have complained that First Minister Jack McConnell "sold them out" and Eastwood Labour MSP Ken Macintosh, who represents three of them, claimed the Executive had left them "high and dry".

But in his report, Zeelenberg claims: "The McKie case stands out for its long-standing and persistent denial by the experts involved and the bad management. The inability to recognise a huge mistake on the doorstep is incompatible with a professional organisation that wants to be transparent, accountable and reliable."