Frank Skuse

Doctor Frank Skuse (born about 1934)[1] 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.[2] Others who claim they were wrongfully convicted on Skuse's evidence include Ann Gillespie, wife of Pat the Cope Gallagher.[3]

Summerland

As an employee of the Home Office North-West forensic science laboratory, Skuse helped investigate the Summerland Fire. He concluded that the fire had started in a plastic mini-golf hut.[4]

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.

He analysed samples from Ward using thin layer chromatography in addition to the Griess test.[5]

Birmingham Six

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.[5]

His 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.[6]

Questions of competence

In 1981 and 1982 line managers at Chorley forensic science laboratory referred to a deterioration in the performance of Skuse and in January 1983 he was removed from reporting cases to court.[7] In October 1985 a World in Action documentary In The Interests of Justice concluded that the real Birmingham pub bombers had gone free.[8] Days after the TV programme, the Home Office retired Skuse,[9] aged 51, from the Civil Service on the grounds of "limited effectiveness".[1] Throughout the following year all 350 of Skuse's cases, dating back to 1966, were examined by the Laboratory Director.[7]

On 1 December 1986 another "World in Action" documentary: A Surprise Witness made public the doubts about Skuse's methods.[7][10] Skuse was subsequently portrayed by David Ryall in the March 1990 docudrama Who Bombed Birmingham? [11]

Appeals

Birmingham Six appeal

In 1991 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.[12]

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,[13] which was an absurdity.[14] 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, as well as the nitrocellulose polymer used on playing cards.

Judith Ward appeal

In 1993 The Court of Appeal stated:[15]

“ 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.[5] 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.

Libel

The successful appeals ended sub judice issues and in March 1993 Skuse won an appeal allowing him to sue Granada TV for libel over the World in Action programmes. The action was partly funded by James Goldsmith.[16] Wishing to prove he had not negligently misrepresented to the court as claimed,[17] Skuse's defence was that that it was possible for someone to be wrong without being negligent.[18] The libel action was dropped in October 1994 following attempts by scientists on both sides to reproduce the tests which Skuse claimed to have carried out. No damages or costs were awarded and Ian McBride, producer of the 1985 programme, stated "We stand by our programme".[16] Skuse's total legal bill was estimated at £290,000[19] and in May 1995 his solicitor, Peter Carter-Ruck, commenced proceedings for £130,000 in unpaid fees.[20]

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

References

  1. 1 2 Hansard HC Deb 12 June 1990 vol 174 cc261-70
  2. ↑ The Birmingham Framework -Six Innocent Men Framed for the Birmingham Bombings by Fr. Denis Faul and Fr. Raymond Murray (1976).
  3. ↑ The Sunday Times; I don't want English pardon; 27 November 2005.
  4. ↑ The Guardian, Clear advice on Oroglas from America, 21 November 1973
  5. 1 2 3 Beverley Schurr. "Expert Witnesses And The Duties Of Disclosure & Impartiality: The Lessons Of The IRA Cases In England." (PDF). Retrieved 2007-08-05.
  6. ↑ R v McIlkenney (1991) 93 Cr.App.R. 287.
  7. 1 2 3 Hansard HC Deb 17 March 1988 vol 129 cc1209-10
  8. ↑ BFI Film & TV Database World in Action: In The Interests of Justice (1985)
  9. ↑ New Scientist magazine - 16 February 1991.
  10. ↑ University of Hull Catalog] DMU/1 Birmingham Six Case Papers.
  11. ↑ ITN Source
  12. ↑ R v McIlkenney (1991) 93 Cr.App.R. 53-54.
  13. ↑ R v McIlkenney (1991) 93 Cr.App.R. 297.
  14. ↑ R v McIlkenney (1991) 93 Cr.App.R. 298.
  15. ↑ R v Ward (1993) 96 Cr.App.R. 1.
  16. 1 2 The Independent; 18 October 1994; Pub blasts scientist drops libel action.
  17. ↑ The Times Skuse wins right to sue 31 March 1993.
  18. ↑ The Times; 5 October 1994; Birmingham Six scientist says he has new evidence.
  19. ↑ Times Higher Education; 24 March 2000 It could be you: a sure-fire way to lose a million
  20. ↑ The Independent (London); 27 May 1995; Scientist sued.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Saturday, August 01, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.