Frank Skuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Frank Skuse was a forensic scientist for the North West Forensic Laboratories based in Chorley in Lancashire, England. His flawed conclusions, eventually discredited, contributed to the convictions of Judith Ward and the Birmingham Six.^[1]

Contents 1 Judith Ward 2 Birmingham Six 3 Appeals 3.1 Birmingham Six Appeal 3.2 Judith Ward appeal 4 References

[edit] Judith Ward

Skuse used the Griess test in which the presence of NO₂⁻ (nitrite ions) is detected in a sample by formation of a red azo dye. He used the extraction solvent ether.

Skuse analysed samples from Ward using thin layer chromatography in addition to the Griess test.^[2]

[edit] Birmingham Six

Frank Skuse used the results of the Griess test to claim that Patrick Hill and William Power had handled explosives. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry tests at a later date were negative for Power and contradicted the initial results for Hill.^[3]

Skuse's 99% certainty that Power and Hill had explosives traces on their hands was fundamentally opposed by defence expert Dr Hugh Kenneth Black FRIC (ex HM Chief Inspector of Explosives, Home Office)

Skuse's evidence was clearly preferred by The Hon. Mr Justice Bridge, the trial judge.^[4]

[edit] Appeals

[edit] Birmingham Six Appeal

The Court of Appeal stated that the Griess test should only be used as a gateway or preliminary test and that:

Dr Skuse's conclusion was wrong, and demonstrably wrong, judged even by the state of forensic science in 1974.^[5]

Caustic soda is used to break down the molecule of nitroglycerine to produce nitrite ions. The concentration is crucial to the test. If Skuse had used a dilute solution as he claimed, the test would react positive only on hands dripping with nitroglycerine,^[6] which was an absurdity.^[7] A stronger solution would react positive to any number of chemicals. Contaminants suggested included laboratory detergents used to wash the test containers and some soaps.

[edit] Judith Ward appeal

The Court of Appeal stated:^[8]

“

there is...impressive...expert opinion...that Dr Skuse's tests...were of no value in establishing contact between the appellant and...explosives....

”

Scientific evidence showed that the samples taken by Skuse were 57 hours after the last bomb, and as such there could be no suggestion of explosives on Ward's hands.^[9] In addition Skuse had relied on one TLC test spot which was not pink, causing the judges to question his handling of the Griess test too.

Sir John May's inquiry accused other scientists of lies; Skuse's veracity was not in doubt, however, his compentence was.

[edit] References

1. ^ The Birmingham Framework -Six Innocent Men Framed for the Birmingham Bombings by Fr. Denis Faul and Fr. Raymond Murray (1976)
2. ^ Expert Witnesses And The Duties Of Disclosure & Impartiality: The Lessons Of The IRA Cases In England; Beverley Schurr
3. ^ Beverley Schurr. Expert Witnesses And The Duties Of Disclosure & Impartiality: The Lessons Of The IRA Cases In England.. Retrieved on 2007-08-05.
4. ^ R v McIlkenney (1991) 93 Cr.App.R. 287
5. ^ R v McIlkenney (1991) 93 Cr.App.R. 53-54
6. ^ R v McIlkenney (1991) 93 Cr.App.R. 297
7. ^ R v McIlkenney (1991) 93 Cr.App.R. 298
8. ^ R v Ward (1993) 96 Cr.App.R. 1
9. ^ Beverley Schurr. Expert Witnesses And The Duties Of Disclosure & Impartiality: The Lessons Of The IRA Cases In England.. Retrieved on 2007-08-05.