19.1. Dr Bleay prepared a report for the Inquiry showing that different development processes can affect the appearance of level 2 and level 3 features in marks deposited by the same finger, even under controlled conditions. He concluded that the process used may be one of the factors that influences the features observed, although other factors such as deposition pressure and fingertip deformation will also play a major role.1
19.2. This is examined more fully in this chapter alongside associated issues concerning the taking of controlled prints and the photographing of marks.
The detection and recording process
19.3. Fingerprint marks may be detected and recorded at the scene of the crime or by examination of objects in an examination room or laboratory. Y7 was detected and recorded at the crime scene and marks XF, QD2 and QI2 in the then Identification Bureau's (IB) examination room.2
19.4. A variety of techniques, compounds and chemicals can be used in the detection or development of marks depending on the surface or material on which the mark has been deposited.
XF (the mark on a gift tag) was detected by superglue treatment.3 This process involved putting an item into a sealed chamber and adding chemical (a cyanoacrylate compound) and moisture. After about twenty minutes a coating would adhere to any contaminants on the item.4
Quaser was really the only/best means of recording evidence on that particular tin." The tin was subjected to a fluorescence examination first to see if anything was visible, then the tin was superglued and dipped in the dye and the marks that were fluorescent using Quaser were photographed.7
19.5. At the time a mark was recorded it was given a unique alphanumeric identifier.8 The prefix Q was assigned to marks obtained by means of a Quaser light examination.9 When a number of marks were found in close proximity the practice was to label the system of marks and therefore each individual mark would not necessarily be assigned a unique identifier,10 as was the case with the mark QI2.
19.6. The technique used to detect a mark can determine how it is recorded. Marks found using black powder were photographed at the scene.11 Marks found with aluminium powder were normally 'lifted' using adhesive tape,12 and the 'lift' transferred to an acetate film and labelled.13 The acetate was then printed using a specialist piece of equipment in the IB and the resultant photographic image was used by the fingerprint bureau to identify the fingerprint marks.14
19.7. The particular technique involved in the development and recording of the mark may not be readily apparent from the photographic image.15 This can cause some confusion. For example, Mr Graham, in a statement for the Scottish Government in connection with the civil case, said that when he examined the tin on 7 May 1997 "the box had been very well handled and fingerprints had been developed with fingerprint powder on the bottom, the sides and the lid."16 Mr Graham accepted that he was incorrect in referring to powder. He said it can be difficult to distinguish between powder and superglue development without microscopic examination or scraping the surface17 and Mr Gibbens explained that, after supergluing, a white powder would be left on the tin since the superglue takes on "a sort of white crystallised form" and he acknowledged that somebody examining the tin might mistake this residue for powder.18 Mr Graham said that this made no difference to his conclusions.19
Impact of detection technique on appearance of marks
19.8. Dr Bleay's report reproduced eight images from an HOSDB study in 2004-5 using marks obtained from a single donor who was asked to make plain impressions with medium pressure sufficient to deposit a mark but not so heavy as to cause the ridges to be compressed or distorted (though deposition pressure was neither controlled nor measured). The marks included some natural deposits, some contacts made after the finger had been dipped in blood, an inked mark and a greasy one. They were developed using the principal development processes in accordance with the Home Office manual. The images highlight the same three features in the mark and examination of them shows that the interpretation of the nature of the ridge feature (as a bifurcation or a ridge ending) may differ according to which image is being considered. Some of these differences can be attributed to the fact that different development techniques target different fingerprint constituents (DFO - amino acids, Basic Violet 3 - lipids/skin cells, superglue - salts, Acid Violet 17 - blood/proteins), and these constituents are not necessarily evenly distributed across the surface of the finger.20
19.9. Mr MacPherson said that in addition to factors such as superimposition, double touch and background interference the appearance of a mark depended on the amount of sweat that had been left and on the developing agent.21 Mr Zeelenberg agreed that in general the detection technique matters. One technique may adhere to the fatty substance and others more to the moisture.22 Mr Wertheim indicated that different processes and different touches might produce what appeared to be a very thin ridge in one mark and a thicker ridge in another.23
19.10. Mr Grigg mentioned that where superglue is used it is possible that there can be a build-up of the substance that is used to disclose the mark which will lead to a thickening of the ridges in some places, the timing of the process being quite critical. On being asked if he had taken this into account in carrying out his examination of QI2, he said he had taken into account the fact that there were areas where the mark appeared faint and areas where there were very thick black deposits, which he took to either be the background showing through or the development medium over-developing various areas.24
19.11. QI2 Ross is considered further below.
19.12. Impressions vary, even as between prints taken from the same digit in controlled conditions. The condition of a finger when a print is taken on a ten-print form can affect its appearance, such as whether it is clean or not,25 as can the way in which the print is taken.
19.13. In Ms McKie's prints the point that was SCRO 4 appeared as a bifurcation in a plain impression and a ridge ending in rolled impressions.26 Mr Mackenzie considered that on Ms McKie's first and second ten-print forms27 the rolled impression of her left thumb was smudged, so he used the plain impression.28 Mr Jeffrey Logan, Head of the Fingerprint Bureau at the Police Service for Northern Ireland (PSNI), said that although a rolled impression should be better because it gives a bigger surface area, the very fact that it is rolled means that there is more chance of it being distorted. If prints are not well taken there can be smeared areas or, if too much ink and pressure is applied, "ten black blobs rather than fingerprints" appear. Although the surface area is smaller with a plain impression it tends to be clearer because it is a single touch down and then off.29
19.14. Turning to the prints of Miss Ross, Mr Grigg explained that prints may be taken from a deceased person in a variety of ways depending on the condition of the body. If there is no decomposition prints are often taken by inking the fingers and rolling them onto card or powder can be applied to the fingers and lifted off with adhesive tape. He said that if the process is carried out carefully it should reveal the information accurately but excess powder or ink can obscure detail. Also, the impression can have a broken appearance, as QI2 Ross did, for a number of reasons: the condition of the skin may be such that the ridges are broken; the powder may not have been applied properly; or the powder may be prevented from adhering to the ridges because the finger may be wet through condensation or as a result of other contaminants on the surface.30
19.15. Mr Grigg did not know how Miss Ross's prints were taken.31 Mr MacPherson's evidence was that the prints were obtained by black powder being applied to the fingers and tape applied and lifted and an acetate placed on top of it.32 My examination of the print form suggests that Mr MacPherson may be correct.
19.16. The techniques applied in order to obtain Miss Ross's print and to develop the mark entered the debate concerning the point SCRO 2 in QI2 Ross.
19.17. Mr MacPherson, Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg were all agreed that SCRO 2 was a bifurcation in both mark and print. Mr MacPherson viewed it as a point of identity but Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg disagreed pointing out that the two ridges that formed the bifurcation were of equivalent thickness in the mark but of different thickness in the print.33 Mr MacPherson did not regard the variation in the thickness of the ridges as a difference34 but, in any event, he suggested that the dissimilarity in appearance could be attributable to the manner in which Miss Ross's prints had been taken. He suggested that there might have been a lack of powder applied at the specific point or the tape was applied and lifted with differential pressure and had not quite lifted the ridge in its entirety. Mr Mackenzie, who disagreed with all three of the other witnesses because his opinion was that there was no bifurcation at this point,35 nonetheless agreed with Mr MacPherson in attributing the dissimilarity in the thickness of the ridges to a difference in pressure when the tape was used to lift the print.36
19.18. The possibility that the dissimilarity in the thickness of the ridges was attributable to the manner in which Miss Ross's prints had been taken was not explored by the Inquiry with Mr Zeelenberg and Mr Wertheim. When they were questioned the focus was on the alternative possibility that the dissimilarity may be attributable to the development technique applied to the mark. Their evidence was that while different development techniques may have different effects on the mark, the application of any one technique should affect all the ridges in the same way.37 That was at variance with the evidence of Mr Grigg that superglue (the process used on QI2) can produce a thickening of the ridges in some places.38
19.19. Beyond noting the potential for debate among fingerprint examiners turning on the processes applied in obtaining the mark and print, I have not considered it necessary to resolve this particular subordinate issue because in my conclusions on QI2 Ross I have preferred the view that in the mark SCRO 2 is a ridge ending39 and therefore it has been unnecessary to consider the question whether, if a bifurcation, there is an acceptable explanation for the dissimilar thicknesses of the ridges.
Crime scene marks - photography
19.20. SCRO examiners worked by comparing known prints against photographs of lifted impressions or photographed impressions of crime scene marks.40 Photographs of lifted impressions were produced by the IB and the vinyl lifts were retained by the IB until productions were being prepared for trial when they were mounted in a fingerprint bureau production book and sent to the procurator fiscal.41 Since none of the marks of concern to the Inquiry were produced by lifts the Inquiry did not investigate procedures surrounding their preparation and use. The Inquiry did investigate the photography of marks such as Y7, QI2 and QD2 developed by powders at the scene of the crime or by chemical procedures in the laboratory.
Taking the photographs
19.21. The marks in the murder investigation were photographed by IB staff. Mr MacNeil or Mr Gibbens photographed the mark XF on the tag for fingerprint comparisons,42 and the mark QD2 on the banknote.43 Mr MacNeil explained that they captured a mark such as QD2 by taking a photograph in the same high-intensity light source used to bring it up.44 Mr MacNeil was reasonably certain that it was he who photographed the marks on the tin,45 and Mr Moffat photographed Y7 at the crime scene, using a fixed focus system.46
19.22. Those who photograph marks aim to get an actual size image of the mark. It was not the practice of Strathclyde Police IB to put a ruler next to a mark when photographing it47 and Mr Moffat explained the fixed focus system.48 The camera was attached to a fixed frame about 12-14 inches long so that each impression was taken from the same distance away. On the bottom of the frame were two small needles three inches apart and these were included in the photograph. When the photographic print was produced the technician could check that the pins on the photographic prints were still three inches apart, ensuring a life-size photograph. In some circumstances, for example if there was insufficient space to use the fixed focus frame, a sticky scale would be placed next to the mark before it was photographed, which allowed the technician to print to life-size.49
19.23. When Mr Wilson took photographs of Y7 at the crime scene on 12 February 1997 he used a separate flash gun to get different lighting angles on the mark.50 Mr Moffat said that common practice among scene examiners was to take only two exposures of each set of prints. He usually took extra exposures if there were only a few marks to give the printers a better negative quality choice.51
19.24. Mr Kent said that with a black powdered fingerprint such as Y7 it was possible that different parts of the print might show optimum information with different exposures.52
19.25. Dr Bleay included within one of his reports a note on digital and 'conventional film' images, in which he explained that in conventional film cameras because there is no preview of the image the photographer uses his expertise to choose conditions of lighting, lens aperture and exposure time to produce "a correctly exposed" image. Often, he said, it is preferable to take a series of images under slightly different conditions to ensure that one of these images will be at the optimum exposure.53
19.26. It is PSNI policy to have marks photographed in a number of different ways with different exposures in order to give fingerprint examiners a range of images to look at. The amount of exposure determines how the mark looks and how the examiner can look at it whenever he examines the mark itself.54 PSNI have a dedicated fingerprint photographer, trained by the fingerprint trainer,55 who is able to judge the quality of the mark and determine how many photographs to take.56 Mr Logan indicated that he would generally be given more images if the mark was of poor quality.57
Developing and printing the photographs
19.27. In his note about conventional and digital images, Dr Bleay explained that, with images from conventional film, adjustments are possible during processing from a negative into a positive print. With digital images, which can be obtained by capturing the image on a digital camera or by converting a conventional negative or positive print by scanning it, adjustments can be made to the digital image and the results of those adjustments viewed on screen before the image is printed out.58
19.28. At the time of the Miss Ross murder investigation, films were developed and printed in the photographic department of the IB, then the prints were sent to the fingerprint bureau and the negatives retained in the IB, available for making further prints later if required.59
19.29. SCRO could get multiple photographs of a finger mark taken with differing contrasts. As a rule, SCRO would work with whatever photographs come in from the IB but if it was thought that an examiner could do better with a photograph with a different contrast, that could be requested.60
19.30. One of the tasks that Dr Bleay undertook for the Inquiry was the production of multiple photographs using the material made available to the Inquiry, as well as the production of new images arising from the investigative work he carried out. His reports detail the processes followed and range of images prepared.61 For example, as well as enlargements he produced photographic prints at a 1:1 magnification, "representative of the form in which fingerprint images are received by a fingerprint bureau." In some circumstances he adjusted the exposure so that a "well-balanced" photographic print was obtained,62 or he adjusted the colour balance so that the image appeared as a greyscale image i.e. equivalent to what would be seen on a photographic print from a black and white film negative.63 He noted that images saved electronically could be adjusted in terms of contrast, brightness, colour saturation etc to satisfy the preferences of each individual fingerprint examiner.64
19.31. The Inquiry found that different experts preferred different photographic images of a mark. Mr Paul Chamberlain, the National Scientific Lead for Fingerprints with Forensic Science Services, had experience of images from the same negative appearing different to examiners depending on the way the image was developed.65 Ms Redgewell and Mr Logan both said that an examiner would look through a series of photographs to ensure he or she obtained the photograph with optimum clarity. Once chosen that would be the photograph the examiner would use.66
19.32. Mr Kent said that he would generally produce different contrasts of a mark. Although some fingerprint experts liked to work with very black and white high contrast images because they felt certain types of detail were more readily picked out, in fact, he said, using a high contrast could actually remove some of the fine detail so it was good practice to print out a lower contrast with a broader grey scale. In a critical case he would normally recommend printing out at least two or three different versions.67
19.33. That coincides with the explanation given by Mr Logan of the circumstances behind his change of opinion in relation to QI2 (Asbury). He was unable to identify the mark in images with high contrast which showed only some of the ridge detail clearly. Among the range of images reproduced from the same negative by the PSNI photographer was one with reduced contrast which proved to be easier to work with.68
19.34. In the images of marks that the Inquiry studied the ridges were dark against a lighter background. Development of marks using the chemical ninhydrin produces such an image.69 QD2 on the banknote was developed using DFO70 and photographed under illumination from a Quaser. Those processes cause the mark to fluoresce and when initially photographed the ridges appear bright against a darker background. The photograph can be printed in reverse colour to give black ridges for easier comparison with the fingerprint form, a process which Dr Bleay called "grayscale inverted".71 This distinction between ninhydrin and DFO formed part of the controversy surrounding the mark QD2.72
QI2 and blurring of images
19.35. Mr Wertheim gave evidence to the Inquiry that the image of the mark QI2 that was included in Production 99 prepared for the Asbury trial was an out of focus photograph and that elsewhere in the SCRO productions held by the procurator fiscal he had found another image of the mark which was a "crisp, clear photograph". He said that it seemed to him to have been "disingenuous" to use an out of focus image for charting purposes when a crisply focused image showing sharper detail was available. He suggested that the use of the out of focus image violated the best evidence rule because the blurring of the image obscured not only the background noise of the picture on the tin but also any level 3 detail such as the numerous incipient ridges that existed in Miss Ross's print.73
19.36. Dr Bleay commented on that evidence observing that it was possible to print a blurred image from an in focus negative and in response to the suggestion that that would be done to mislead the jury he gave the alternative explanation that it could have been done to assist the interpretation of ridge flow by an examiner.74 He began by observing that the mark QI2 was not visible under normal lighting conditions. The tin had required to be treated with superglue and a chemical called basic yellow 40 and examined under Quaser light. The treatment process causes not only the ridge structure of the mark but also the picture printed on the surface of the tin itself to fluoresce quite strongly and Dr Bleay said that the fluorescence of the background made the mark difficult to visualise. When discussing the printing of the negatives for the purposes of the Inquiry with John Smith, a lecturer in Imaging Science at the University of Westminster and a former forensic image specialist with FSS and LGC Forensics,75 Mr Smith suggested that he print sharp and blurred images because an examiner might prefer to look at a blurred image. This was something that Mr Smith had done in the past at the request of an examiner. The benefit of blurring was thought to be that it would diminish the background and bring the ridge detail into greater prominence.76 Mr Smith duly produced sharp (or normal) and blurred prints from the same negative. While accepting that interpretation of image quality was subjective, Dr Bleay's evidence was that to his eye the ridge flow was clearer in the blurred image77 but Mr Wertheim considered the sharp image to be the clearer.78
19.37. When SCRO were asked which enlarged image they wanted to use for the comparative exercise they were offered both the blurred and non-blurred 'Bleay' images but instead they chose a version 'scanned from the original image' prepared by the Metropolitan Police.79 Consequently the images prepared by Mr Smith did not feature in the comparative exercise but they were available to be studied by the examiners who gave evidence to the Inquiry.
QI2 - Significance of examination of the object
19.38. QI2 illustrates that interpretation of detail can be more than just a product of image quality. It can be influenced by an understanding of the substrate on which the mark was found. It was not evident to the Inquiry that examiners are routinely shown either the object on which the mark is found or a photograph of it.
19.39. During Mr Grigg's oral evidence a white crescent-shaped area on the image of QI2 stretching from the bottom of the image to the core of the mark was shown to him. He was not initially able to say what it was, but on being shown photographs of the tin,80 which he had not seen before, he considered that it was part of the design printed on the tin.81 Mr Logan too was able to see during the Inquiry hearing how certain white and dark areas were part of the tin.82
Audit trail of image adjustments
19.40. Dr Bleay had been told that historically adjustments were made to images during wet photographic processing, such as colour reversal, contrast enhancement, and "dodging and burning to reduce areas that had been overexposed." Image adjustment is easier to perform with digital images and automated fingerprint identification systems come with enhancement tools, including blurring and sharpening functions, to assist examiners interpreting marks viewed on screen. Since 2001 the Home Office has produced guidance for digital imaging. The original image is set aside and sealed as the master copy and an audit trail must be kept of any adjustments that are made. If a modified image is presented in court in England and Wales the audit trail must be presented so that the jury can see what has been done to the master copy to arrive at the image that is being used.83 Dr Bleay showed the Inquiry an illustrative example of an audit note.84
19.41. Mr Gary Pugh, Director of Forensic Services, Specialist Crime Directorate, Metropolitan Police, also referred to the possibility of using image processing to assist examiners. For example, with a mark on a printed or coloured background a variety of imaging tools may be used to enhance the image so that more information may be seen or the background taken away. He agreed with Dr Bleay that an audit trail was required for such alterations.85
Digitally displayed images
19.42. The phase one contributions to the comparative exercise were based on reproductions of original images.86 The contributions were scanned and stored digitally and then displayed on computer screens at the Inquiry.87
19.43. The PSNI's photographer produced four different images of QI2 for Mr Logan and his colleagues and they selected what they believed was the clearest of the four. Mr Logan said in evidence that the selected image had not come up as the clearest on screen, there being a difference in contrast between the version on screen and the original provided by the photographer.88
19.44. The medium used to display an image (paper or digital) can itself critically affect the image quality.
19.45. Views differed in relation to the use of enlargements.
19.46. Mr Logan said that the image that PSNI used under glass in identifying QI2 Asbury did not in his view scan well. As a result he would have found it difficult to debate points on the basis of the image on screen, because the quality generally degraded when an image was blown up. He had worked only with the actual size images: "You never, ever make a comparison on the basis of an enlargement."89 There was value in using images on screen "up to a point" but one had to be careful that the image being viewed might not be of the same clarity as the image on which one had made one's identification.90
19.47. Ms McBride indicated that she would sometimes request a photographic enlargement if a mark was unclear and she considered it preferable to study a photographic enlargement than to examine the mark on a comparator machine.91 Mrs Redgewell of the Metropolitan Police could also use an enlargement in the event of doubt. She would check the enlargement against the life-size image to ensure that there was no loss of clarity but said that there would not necessarily be a loss of clarity with enlargement, particularly with recent advances in technology.92
Lessons to be learned
19.48. On being asked the lessons he would derive from the exercise he had conducted for the Inquiry Mr Logan singled out the importance of the following:
(i) working from original images;
(ii) having a selection of images available, at different contrasts etc;
(iii) sizing - the image must be scaled properly;
(iv) a dedicated fingerprint photographer;
(v) a close working relationship between the photographer and the fingerprint experts; and
(vi) keeping and reviewing marks with insufficient ridge detail.93
19.49. To that should be added the need for an audit trail to record the means by which marks have been detected and recorded and, if necessary, prints obtained and any adjustments made to photographic images. Those records should be available to fingerprint examiners when they are comparing marks to keep to a minimum the assumptions that they require to make when forming an opinion. Any critical material from the audit trail should be flagged in the examiner's individual opinion. The audit trail should also be available to the Crown or defence on request.
19.50. By disclosing the adjustments that have been made to images an audit trail would have the incidental benefit of reducing the risk of suspicion that court productions have been manipulated for some illegitimate purpose.
19.51. Consideration requires to be given to the need for examiners to examine the object on which the print was found.
2. In 1997 the Identification Bureau was part of Strathclyde Police. Now the functions are subsumed within SPSA Forensic Services.
3. FI_0018 paras 34 and 40 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacNeil. Mr MacNeil's reference to the possible use of black magma powder seems to be mistaken in light of Dr Bleay's confirmation that the tag shows evidence consistent with the use of superglue: 16 November, pages 157-158.
4. Mr MacNeil 12 June pages 29-30
5. FI_0018 paras 41-42 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacNeil. Mr MacNeil went on to say that the banknotes were later re-examined, with ninhydrin, and additional marks found (table PS_0016). This was a sequential process of examination and that chemical could have destroyed the marks he had developed - para 51.
6. FI_0018 para 57 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacNeil - Basic Yellow 40 (L40) was a dye which would adhere to any contaminants.
7. Mr MacNeil 12 June pages 33-34
8. Usually the first mark recorded (which may not be the first mark found) was given the identifier 'A', the next 'B' and so on. Once all the letters had been used the alphabet was used again with a numeric suffix so that, for example, the 27th fingerprint mark found was given the identifier 'A2' and the 53rd 'A3' - FI_0037 para 32 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Thurley and PS_0019.
9. FI_0018 para 44 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacNeil
10. FI_0037 para 59 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Thurley
11. FI_0037 para 30 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Thurley
12. FI_0019 para 32 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Ferguson, Mr Ferguson 10 June page 100 and FI_0003 para 31 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Moffat
13. FI_0037 para 29 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Thurley
14. FI_0034 para 27 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Hogg and FI_0046 para 70 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
15. Mr Grigg 30 September page 8
17. FI_0089 para 15 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Graham and Mr Graham 9 July pages 100-102
18. Mr Gibbens 12 June page 57-58
19. FI_0089 para 15 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Graham and Mr Graham 9 July pages 100-102
21. Mr MacPherson 27 October pages 21, 57-58, 80-81, Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 117-118 (in connection with the detail of Y7) and Mr Mackenzie 2 October page 137
22. Mr Zeelenberg 8 October page 161
23. Mr Wertheim 23 September page 110
24. Mr Grigg 30 September pages 8-10
25. Mr Mackenzie 2 October page 137
26. See Chapter 25 para 45
27. Taken on 6 and 18 February respectively.
28. Mr Mackenzie 2 October page 91
29. Mr Logan 16 November pages 83-84
30. Mr Grigg 30 September pages 5-8
31. Mr Grigg 30 November pages 5-6
32. Mr MacPherson 27 October pages 57-58, 29 October pages 74-75 and 3 November pages 124-125
33. See Chapter 26 para 45
34. Mr MacPherson 3 November pages 125-126
35. See Chapter 26 para 45
36. Mr MacPherson 29 October pages 74-75, Mr MacPherson 3 November pages 124-127 and Mr Mackenzie 11 November page 108ff
37. Mr Wertheim 23 September page 110 and Mr Zeelenberg 8 October page 161
38. See para 10 above
39. See Chapter 26 para 84
40. FI_0046 para 47 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
41. FI_0046 para 70-72 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
42. FI_0018 para 34 and 40 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacNeil and CO_1986h
43. SG_0691 and SG_0692
44. FI_0018 para 44 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacNeil
45. FI_0018 para 58 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacNeil
46. Mr Moffat 11 June page 50ff and FI_0003 para 37 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Moffat
47. FI_0047 para 23 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Mr Mackenzie
48. Mr Moffat 11 June page 50 and Mr Thurley 10 June page 39ff
49. Mr Thurley 10 June pages 39-41, FI_0037 para 59 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Thurley and FI_0019 para 49 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Wilson. An example of an image showing pins is FI_1106-01.
50. FI_0019 para 49 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Wilson
51. FI_0003 para 42 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Moffat
52. FI_0052 para 20 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Kent
53. EA_0069 pdf pages 24-26
54. Mr Logan 16 November page 16
55. Mr Logan 16 November page 91
56. Mr Logan 16 November page 18
57. Mr Logan 16 November pages 17-18
58. EA_0069 pdf pages 24-26
59. FI_0034 paras 45-50 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Hogg
60. FI_0031 paras 46 and 48 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes
61. For example EA_0067 pdf pages 2-4, 9, EA_0069 pdf pages 7-8, EA_0069 pdf pages 19-20 and EA_0068 pdf pages 3-4
62. EA_0068 pdf pages 2-3
63. EA_0067 pdf page 2
64. EA_0067 pdf pages 2-3 and EA_0068 pdf page 3
65. Mr Chamberlain 18 November page 108
66. Ms Redgewell 24 November page 128-129 and Mr Logan 16 November page 18
67. Mr Kent 7 July page 119
68. Mr Logan 16 November pages 73-74 and Chapter 27 para 39ff
69. Dr Bleay EA_0067 para 3.1.4
70. See para 4
71. Dr Bleay 16 November page 155, EA_0171 slide 46 and EA_ 0068 pdf page 6 and Mr Grigg 30 September pages 8-10
72. See Chapter 27 para 26
73. Mr Wertheim 23 September pages 111-112 and 24 September page 37ff
74. Dr Bleay 16 November page 150ff and EA_0171 slides 43-47
75. EA_0069 pdf page 8
76. Dr Bleay 16 November pages 166-167
77. Dr Bleay 16 November pages 153-154 under reference to EA_0171 slide 44
78. Mr Wertheim 24 September page 42
79. See Chapter 24
80. DB_0176 pdf page 4
81. Mr Grigg 30 September pages 10-14
82. Mr Logan 16 November page 75ff
83. Dr Bleay 16 November pages 154-157 and EA_0171 slides 43-45
84. EA_0171 slide 46
85. Mr Pugh 24 November pages 126-128
86. See Chapter 24
87. See reader's guide
88. Mr Logan 16 November pages 73-74
89. Mr Logan 16 November page 78
90. Mr Logan 16 November page 77ff
91. FI_0039 para 22 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
92. Mrs Redgewell 24 November pages 131-133
93. Mr Logan 16 November pages 89-96 - this was after the SCRO witnesses had given oral evidence and was not put to them for comment.