- Frank Skuse
Doctor Frank Skuse was a
forensic scientist for the North West Forensic Laboratories based inChorley inLancashire , England. His flawed conclusions, eventually discredited, contributed to the convictions ofJudith Ward and theBirmingham Six . [The Birmingham Framework -Six Innocent Men Framed for the Birmingham Bombingsby Fr.Denis Faul and Fr. Raymond Murray (1976) ]Judith Ward
Skuse used the
Griess test in which the presence of NO2− (nitrite ions) is detected in a sample by formation of a redazo dye . He used the extraction solventether .Skuse analysed samples from Ward using
thin layer chromatography in addition to the Griess test. ["Expert Witnesses And The Duties Of Disclosure & Impartiality: The Lessons Of The IRA Cases In England"; Beverley Schurr]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. [cite web |url= http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/medicine/schurr.pdf |title= Expert Witnesses And The Duties Of Disclosure & Impartiality: The Lessons Of The IRA Cases In England. |accessdate=2007-08-05 |author= Beverley Schurr |authorlink= NSW Legal Aid Commission |coauthors= |date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |publisher=|pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= ]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. [R v McIlkenney (1991) 93 Cr.App.R. 287]
Appeals
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." [R v McIlkenney (1991) 93 Cr.App.R. 53-54]
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", [R v McIlkenney (1991) 93 Cr.App.R. 297] which was "an absurdity." [R v McIlkenney (1991) 93 Cr.App.R. 298] 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 thenitrocellulose polymer used on playing cards.Judith Ward appeal
The Court of Appeal stated: [R v Ward (1993) 96 Cr.App.R. 1]
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. [cite web |url= http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/medicine/schurr.pdf |title= Expert Witnesses And The Duties Of Disclosure & Impartiality: The Lessons Of The IRA Cases In England. |accessdate=2007-08-05 |author= Beverley Schurr |authorlink= NSW Legal Aid Commission |coauthors= |date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |publisher=|pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= ] 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.
References
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
