"Yesterday, in the most damning report into the scandal yet, a forensics expert employed by the Executive to look into the case said it was negligence that led to the misidentification of the fingerprint.
John MacLeod went on to say the case should never have come to court.
The report was commissioned by the Executive to look into whether professional negligence led to the misidentification of the print after Ms McKie took the SCRO to court. However, it was not until 20 months later that ministers decided to settle by compensating Ms McKie with £750,000."
To rehash last night's Newsnicht, in these circumstances, how could the First Minister claim that "an honest mistake" had been made?
Perhaps more pertinently, can anyone say how this affair can be drawn to a close? Or will it just limp on, accusation followed by counter-accusation, revelation followed by inquiry followed by revelation, until all of the participants die of old age?
No comments:
Post a Comment