TRAPPED IN A MASONIC WORLD

- 28 -
During December 2010, and whilst Julian Assange was still remanded in police custody and kept in
solitary confinement at Wandsworth Prison in London, Wikileaks disclosed a confidential US State
Department cable that revealed the State Department had asked embassies abroad to collect biometric
information [DNA] on individuals that include the Director General of the World Health Organisation
[WHO] and key advisors to United Nations, including Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. And I‘m glad to
see Wikileaks have been able to shine the light on the seriousness of this matter, and how prevalent this
kind of sinister way in gathering peoples DNA really is, and how easy it can be obtained.
I would also like to add, that in my own personal opinion, the allegations brought forward by those two
unscrupulous honey-pot women in Sweden, most certainly look false, and a more worrying thing is, that
they too could have obtained Mr Assange‘s DNA or other biometric information such as his saliva, semen
or fingerprints, and I think this kind of knowledge should be made public, in case somewhere along the
line, ‗they‘, Mr Assange‘s enemies, suddenly try and come out with some other, but even far more worse
allegations than his presently facing, they even may try a use it as evidence against him in the present case?
Because what‘s interesting to note Mr Assange, it‘s quite possible that they now too have your DNA as
well as your fingerprints following your recent spell in ―Wanno‖.
In Michael Mansfield‘s book: Memoirs of a Radical Lawyer, in his chapter ‗Prints and Impressions‘-
The Angry Brigade and the Fallibility of Forensic Science, he raises such dangers and also mentions, that
he too has suspected the validity of certain fingerprint evidence in past trials, and that he could see how it
could be possible to fabricate such evidence to begin with. However, saying that, - even he throws some
doubt as to whether it could be successfully done without the forensic scientist discovering this fact, but
before I go onto that here‘s what Mansfield‘s says about his own experience, page 36, - he talks about a
case in 1975 where one of his defendants, Cornelius McFadden, was accused of planting a firebomb
contained within a cigarette packet, though it didn‘t detonate, so was therefore discovered. McFadden‘s
fingerprints were alleged to have been found on the face of an alarm clock used to activate the device,
though he vehemently denied ever touching it.
Mansfield goes on to say he and his team had to examine whether it was possible the fingerprints had
been planted. Page 37, he states that when it came to cross-examining the prosecution fingerprint expert,
they asked him; ―...lifted [fingerprints] from a crime scene and then deposited onto a laboratory slide, is
there any reason why it cannot also be placed on any other surface?‖ The expert was adamant ‗this was
not possible‘, though Mansfield and his team went on to prove it could be done by ways as I‘ve already
explained, - whereas when they did it in the court to prove the possibility, they used Ninhydrin aluminium
fine dusting powder, a smooth piece of glass surface, and Sellotape to prove the point, and very effectively
they did.
However, Mansfield goes on to question his teams own findings in regards to some complications from
a forensic point of view by asking on page 38; ―How do you remove the Sellotape from the transposed
mark without leaving an outline of the sticky tape?‖ ―How do you prevent some of the fingerprint powder
remaining on the transferred mark?‖ - ―Most of all, the whole operation would necessitate corruption on
a massive scale by Scene of Crime Officers [SOCO‘s], laboratory assistants, liaison officers, exhibits
officers and fingerprint experts themselves.‖ It seems as if Mansfield is assuming, that surely they would
find some form of residue of Ninhydrin aluminium fine dusting powder used by forensic teams in helping
to emphasise suspected prints, and that this procedure would contaminate that evidence, and that traces of
the aluminium powder would be found among the transferred print.
Other processes can be used such as Iodine or fluorescence lighting etc. Normally when a suspected
print is found, it is then dusted with the fine powder which is then blown away, and the remaining powder
sticks to the fingerprint ridges thus revealing the required print. Then once this has been established, it is
normally then ―lifted‖ using sticky tape and then transferred to a piece of white paper or card [or glass
slide], which then enables the forensic scientist to truly examine it close-up, and perhaps compare it, or
them, to the current fingerprint database. - After all, if a finger print had been found on the direct surface of
the bodywork of car, a kitchen worktop surface, fridge, freezer, cooker or a sheet of glass etc., then
obviously you wouldn‘t normally be able to take these kind of sized items along to the laboratory for
further examination.
Mansfield‘s assumption is specific to a sequence of events, which is in order to be able to successfully
dust-down and highlight a hidden fingerprint, - that during that detection process it would be far too
difficult, or in fact impossible for someone else, and especially so by a police officer, to then be able to