“The review of the methodology for collecting
and submitting fingerprint evidence by the Scottish Criminal Records Office
which features so prominently in my constituent's case, will report this
month (June) but I am concerned that the review also encompasses the competency
of those involved in gathering that evidence as well as the quality assurance
procedures in place to verify the accuracy of the evidence amassed and
the way it is presented to juries” said Mr Wilson.
“In David Asbury’s case the evidence
was supposedly checked four times, each time independently of the other,
by four separate experts and subsequently by the defence team’s own expert,
yet errors in identification allegedly noticeable to students of the forensic
science were overlooked, according to Mr Pat Wertheim, a fingerprint expert
from Oregon in the USA.
“This raises serious questions about
the quality control mechanisms in place at the Scottish Criminal Records
Office not to mention the competency of those involved.
“There were also a number of issues
raised with me by the independent experts retained by the BBC in relation
to the manner in which the evidence was presented to the jury in David
Asbury’s case which will need to be addressed at appeal and if they are
not addressed by the review, then subsequently” said Mr Wilson.
“There also remains the possibility
that if the print in this case was miss-identified then there could be other
cases where such fingerprint evidence was critical to the conviction and
appeals could be pending in a number of other cases”.
“I have, therefore, written to the
Deputy First Minister and tabled three Parliamentary Questions making these
points and asking the relevant questions of officialdom. I would expect
to get a reply within fourteen days.” said Mr Wilson.
|
