page 1 1 Friday, June 12th 2009 2 (10.15 am) 3 ROBERT MACNEIL (continued) 4 Examination by Miss Carmichael (continued) 5 Q. Mr MacNeil was in the course of giving his evidence when 6 we closed yesterday. 7 Mr MacNeil, I am showing you a document DB0251 at 8 page 33. Can you tell us, please, what the document is? 9 A. Yes, certainly. The document is known within the 10 department as a 13B form. It generally comes in with 11 any item to our examination room that requires to be 12 examined for marks, finger-marks. 13 That form is in triplicate form: so you have the main 14 sheet, you then have, what you see there is an underside 15 sheet, and that should then follow the fingerprints, if 16 any, that have been recovered from an item after 17 treatment and submitted then to the Scottish Criminal 18 Record Office. 19 Q. So the top sheet perhaps comes to you with the -- 20 A. Sorry, the whole triplicate form comes to us. 21 Q. And then you fill in, what, the top part? 22 A. We fill in the top part which would go through to the 23 other two sheets, but on the front sheet there's a 24 backing to that sheet which we would write on the back 25 of it any marks that we found. That won't be then page 2 1 reflected on the other two sheets. 2 Q. You keep the top sheet then? 3 A. No, we would keep, at that point, we would keep the last 4 sheet. 5 Q. The third sheet? 6 A. The third sheet and two sheets, I think, then were 7 submitted to the Criminal Records Office who would then 8 operate from that sheet and then I think they would 9 return the front sheet back to my department. 10 Q. So we're looking at the middle of the three sheets here? 11 A. We are, yes. 12 Q. And this is one of the sheets then that goes on to the 13 Scottish Criminal Record Office? 14 A. It is, yes. 15 Q. I think you started to tell us that you had filled in 16 part of this form that we are looking at here. 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. Can you tell us which part is in your writing? 19 A. Yes, I filled in the part after where we have the bars 20 assault and robbery, motor vehicle then we move down to 21 time received, examination date, from thereon in I have 22 filled in the rest of the details. 23 Q. So where we see impressions photographed and where found 24 that's in your writing, "QB2 - QL2"? 25 A. That's all my writing and just above it the two or three page 3 1 lines above that as well. 2 Q. What do we see written just to the right of QB2 - QL2? 3 A. We see "see MI sheet". 4 Q. And that would be a reference to -- 5 A. That's a reference to major incident sheet. Because 6 these 13B forms there's only limited information you can 7 put on the back of it, we tend to fill in a major 8 incident sheet to explain all the impressions that we 9 found on that item and that would be attached to the 13B 10 form when it was submitted through to the Scottish 11 Criminal Record Office. 12 Q. Underneath the lines we have just been looking at can 13 you tell us what is written there? 14 A. We have on 27th January 1997 -- 15 Q. Just "QB2 - QL2 see MI sheet" and then we have like an 16 asterisk, please tell us -- 17 A. We do have. I have written, "ident required for 18 deceased." 19 Q. Why did you write that, Mr MacNeil? 20 A. I wrote that because at the time I was made aware that 21 the item that we examined, which was a tin, had come 22 from a suspect's house, namely a David Asbury, who I've 23 also mentioned on that form which there's a place for 24 suspects. So it was to highlight to the Scottish 25 Criminal Records Office that -- sorry, I was aware that page 4 1 the tin had come from David Asbury's house but I was 2 also aware that there was a possibility that this tin 3 had been taken from the deceased's house, Marion Ross. 4 So, therefore, so that there was no -- knowing how the 5 whole thing works, I would want to make the Scottish 6 Criminal Records Office aware to do a comparison for 7 David Asbury which we have the prints for and a 8 comparison for the deceased, who was Marion Ross. 9 Q. You referred there to knowing how the whole thing works. 10 What do you mean by that? 11 A. Well, because these forms are -- they are designed 12 simply for suspects and accused, they are not designed 13 to be matched up for deceased's prints and things like 14 that so you've got to put in just whatever you feel for 15 comparison to be made. 16 I have mentioned "ident required". Mainly in those 17 days, and probably even still now, we refer to 18 comparisons as "idents" more than as, as they are, 19 comparisons. We just work on the word "ident" all the 20 time. So I was wanting SCRO to be aware to check 21 against Marion Ross and that's all it was. 22 Q. Because it might be suggested to you that you could have 23 simply said if you wanted to convey that, "Please 24 compare with deceased"? 25 A. Yes and probably in hindsight maybe that is a better way page 5 1 to phrase things but in those days that's how we phrased 2 things. We always -- we discussed within the department 3 or my department or SCRO on idents rather than 4 comparisons. So when we got a comparison compared 5 against someone we wouldn't regard it as a comparison, 6 we would regard it as an ident. 7 Q. I appreciate that I may be asking you something that is 8 outwith your own personal expertise but are you aware 9 that there is a difference potentially between the 10 process for eliminating someone when you compare 11 fingerprints and for making a positive identification to 12 a court standard at the time? 13 A. I am, but within my department and how we operated, 14 going back then, we used to -- as far as how many idents 15 you got for, you know, a particular section when they 16 were coming through into the department. 17 A deceased's comparison was regarded as another ident 18 as far as the statistics goes. So therefore that's -- I 19 mean, there's nothing untowards about what I've said on 20 that form. 21 Q. If I can just explore a little more with you what you 22 have just said, what statistics are you referring to? 23 A. It was just sort of informal statistics that would come 24 from SCRO regarding all the comparisons for the crimes 25 for a particular month or a particular year, nothing to page 6 1 do with any particular crime but just about the 2 performance of the department at the time and the 3 performance of individuals within the department at that 4 time. 5 Q. Sorry, how was performance measured in these statistics? 6 A. It wasn't really measured to a great degree, it was just 7 measured as to individuals and how many idents, 8 comparisons, call it what you like, that one achieved. 9 Q. I wonder if we can, just in the context of the 10 statistics that you are mentioning, call it what you 11 like, because one might say just, for example, that an 12 examiner had carried out 100 comparisons but in those 13 100 comparisons that examiner might -- I'm plucking 14 figures out of the air here -- might have made a court 15 standard identification in 3 and might have made 10 16 eliminations. Would you accept that? 17 A. Yes, but when I'm not talking about examiners I'm 18 talking about scene examiners, not fingerprint 19 examiners. I'm talking about my department. 20 Q. I am sorry, I must have misunderstood you then. 21 So in terms of measurement for people in your own 22 department -- 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. -- how was that done by reference to anything coming 25 back from SCRO? page 7 1 A. Well, it was done by the amount of items that we looked 2 at within any department or how many scenes that were 3 attended and at that point we had a league-type table, 4 nothing too heavy, nothing too pressurised on any 5 individual, but there was a sort of league table in 6 which how many comparisons or idents came back from the 7 Scottish Criminal Records Office depending where 8 individuals were within that league table as such -- 9 pretty informal. 10 Q. I would just like to try to understand this a little 11 better, please, Mr MacNeil. 12 If we took an example where you have discovered let's 13 just take this example: you have discovered some marks, 14 let us say, on a tin. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Now, if those marks go to SCRO and they say those marks 17 are fragmentary and insufficient for comparison, how 18 does that come back as a statistic for you? 19 A. It would be recorded -- it was only idents and 20 comparisons were recorded. 21 Q. Let us take that stage by stage, please. Supposing 22 those marks go off to SCRO and they say, "We compared 23 the marks on just", for example, "the tin with 100 sets 24 of elimination prints that we had in the murder 25 investigation but we weren't able to identify anyone page 8 1 from that". 2 How does that come back as a statistic from your point 3 of view? 4 A. That would still be a negative. 5 Q. So that wouldn't come back as a number at all? 6 A. No, it would only be ones where fingerprints were 7 identified to individuals, be it suspects or 8 eliminations. Quite often if we had, say, an 9 unidentified body where a comparison was required to 10 identify the victim of that unidentified body, then that 11 would -- excuse me, it's an elimination but it would 12 come back as another ident into my department. So 13 that's where this ident word -- it's not as in we're 14 looking at idents; it's just a word that we always use. 15 Q. So if I understand this rightly, if the marks go to SCRO 16 and they manage to eliminate somebody on the basis of 17 the mark you have sent them or they manage to make a 18 court standard identification, either of those would 19 come back as a positive statistic for you? 20 A. Generally, yes. 21 Q. I wonder if I could explore this a little bit further 22 with you, Mr MacNeil, because sitting where I am sitting 23 it is not immediately obvious, given your job is simply 24 to find the marks and get them photographed, how it 25 reflects on you as a statistic why SCRO should or should page 9 1 not be able to find someone who matches it? 2 A. I understand that and that whole system has now stopped 3 within my department. But, going back then, it was like 4 an informal performance indicator on an individual's 5 performance and our team's performance within the 6 examination room, which is where I worked at that 7 particular point, it was looked on as far as the 8 examination room, not for me particularly but more on 9 the team that I worked with. 10 Q. But it is hardly your fault or that of any of your 11 colleagues, surely, if for whatever reason the SCRO 12 fingerprint officers can't find someone who matches? 13 A. I would agree entirely. It was probably a poor 14 performance measure and hence the reason it's been 15 dropped now. But through that whole period, that's why 16 I mentioned the word "ident" is that we looked at all 17 these things as idents, although "comparison" is 18 something I would take on board now and use. 19 Q. So does this form, the way you filled it in, reflect 20 some pressure on you to have identifications achieved at 21 SCRO to reflect any statistics that apply to you? 22 A. Not at all, no. There wasn't any pressure anyway, but 23 why I filled that in the way I did, as I explained 24 earlier, "ident" -- "comparison" would probably be a 25 better term that I would use now but probably in that page 10 1 year I would still have used that word "ident". There 2 was no pressure. There's no place on that for me to put 3 Marion Ross on it, Complainer the Crown ... so, 4 therefore, I am aware SCRO would have other 5 documentation regarding this particular case because 6 that's probably not the first impression that's been 7 sent through to them so hence the reason I'm saying an 8 ident required for -- I can understand your concerns but 9 I would like to alleviate it by saying that is just a 10 term I used and there was no other hidden agenda behind 11 it. 12 Q. Just staying on the subject of your departmental 13 statistics for a little longer, Mr MacNeil, what effect 14 did it have for you if your statistics were better or 15 worse in a particular period? 16 A. For me personally it had no real effect. For certain 17 individuals within my department it was an ego boost 18 that they were maybe top of the table. But for me 19 personally, no effect whatsoever. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Was it thought to reflect on the quality of 21 the prints that you were sending -- 22 A. Sorry sir? 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Was it thought to reflect on the quality of 24 the prints that you were sending to the Scottish 25 Criminal Records Office? In other words, if they were page 11 1 able to make an identification or if they were able to 2 eliminate a print, then that would show that it was a 3 good quality print that you had sent to them? 4 A. Not so much on the quality, it was more so probably on 5 the success of the department. If we had -- I mean, 6 every department's got to justify their existence. Our 7 department was no exception in the fact that they had to 8 show that there was certain successes from the amount of 9 items that were submitted. In my team at that 10 particular point we could show 30 per cent, 40 per cent, 11 whatever, success as far as results from 12 identifications. It's just about justifying people's 13 existence. 14 MISS CARMICHAEL: I have perhaps two questions for you 15 following on from that. Again, it may be an ignorant 16 view -- and please put me right if it is -- but one 17 might have thought that success for somebody such as 18 yourself is producing a good quality image of a mark 19 that you have detected. 20 A. Yes, but personal success would be to know that that 21 good quality mark has been through into the system, has 22 been resulted, it's been into court and beyond 23 reasonable doubt somebody's been found guilty on that 24 mark. So personally you would get some personal 25 achievement from that. page 12 1 Q. One can perhaps understand how that might be rewarding 2 for you, but simply in terms of the job that you do and 3 your place in the chain, would you agree that success 4 for you really is about producing a good quality mark so 5 that it's passed on to those who can look at it and deal 6 with it -- 7 A. Yes, but I would still say that it wasn't just -- I 8 mean, yes, I worked on a sort of production line, right. 9 Images -- items came in and we were unaware on most 10 occasions which crime scene they came from. So it was 11 basically a production line. We worked on marks. But 12 if we had an awareness and certainly with major 13 incidents we would have more of awareness, if items came 14 in then you would take a wee bit more personal interest 15 into the case and if results came back from SCRO, yes, 16 we would all feel quite good about it. 17 Q. And that's, I suppose, a feeling of personal 18 satisfaction in being involved in -- well, solving a 19 horrible crime? 20 A. Very much so. 21 Q. Still on the question of the statistics, Mr MacNeil, how 22 were the statistics viewed from the management point of 23 view, leaving aside how perhaps they made you and your 24 colleagues feel in terms of your personal achievement? 25 A. Well, at that point I wasn't a manager and probably page 13 1 you'd need to ask the managers of that period but they 2 weren't taken too seriously but they had to justify the 3 department's existence. You couldn't just have things 4 coming and going and not be able to say to more senior 5 management within Strathclyde Police at that particular 6 time that, "Yes, we've got success". Everybody wants to 7 be able to measure some sort of success, no matter what 8 line of industry we're working in and my department was 9 no different. 10 Q. I appreciate that you are not a manager and I don't want 11 to ask you about something that you cannot tell us 12 about, Mr MacNeil, but generally when management take a 13 view of a particular statistic the people who are doing 14 the work on the ground tend to find out about it because 15 there will be some consequence of some sort; would you 16 agree? 17 A. I understand and then, to go back to your question, 18 there was no great consequence. I think it was probably 19 used more to justify it to further senior management on 20 the success of the items being submitted or the scenes 21 attended and how the department were doing. 22 As far as the individual staff goes, there was no -- 23 my recollection at that point was there was no great 24 pressure on any member of staff to boost any issue of 25 performance. There was a slight encouragement to say to page 14 1 staff to go out there and to try and get as much 2 evidence as you possibly can to submit to the SCRO. 3 Q. You say no great consequence. Was there any 4 consequence? 5 A. I can't recall, to be honest. The problem -- the more 6 consequence would be through other peers by maybe one 7 saying to another, "I'm the top of the table", or that 8 type of thing. So that would be more consequence rather 9 than coming from the senior management. 10 Q. I appreciate we have departed a little bit from the form 11 itself, Mr MacNeil, but I wonder if I could just take 12 you back to that. 13 You explained to us why you used the word "ident" 14 there and I wonder -- I appreciate we have perhaps taken 15 this apart word by word in a way that you may not have 16 expected when you wrote the form, but if I can just look 17 at the word "required" there, Mr MacNeil, even allowing 18 for the use of ident that you have told us about you 19 might say, I suppose, "ident please against deceased". 20 It looks like a very positive instruction. 21 A. It does and it was a positive instruction how I took it 22 at the time. It was a positive instruction to the 23 Scottish Criminal Records Office so that there would be 24 no doubt in the chain of examinations that the prints 25 that I was submitting to them would be checked against page 15 1 Marion Ross and that's all that is. 2 Q. I do want to put this to you, Mr MacNeil: had anybody 3 else asked you to write the instruction in this form? 4 A. Probably not, to be honest. It was just due to -- I 5 mean, I can't tell. I can't remember that far back but, 6 to be honest, in my recollection of working in that 7 section, if I learned information that this tin had come 8 from the deceased's house or any other particular crime 9 I would have written the exact same thing. 10 Q. How often do you write an instruction in this sort of 11 form? 12 A. Very rare. I don't know -- probably maybe I have 13 written that two or three times in my career because 14 there was very little -- possibly I've done it for 15 deceased's fingerprints at the city mortuary. I would 16 maybe write "ident required for deceased" or something 17 like that for comparison when they don't know who the 18 person is that was lying within the mortuary. 19 As far as crime scenes goes, it was very rare. It was 20 very rare to go and get evidence from one place, from a 21 suspect's place where I've been told it's came or I've 22 had knowledge that it's came from a suspect's house and 23 the suspect is now deceased. 24 Q. I am slightly confused by the last thing you said there 25 about the suspect being deceased. page 16 1 A. Sorry, no, I got that wrong -- apologies. When it's 2 came from the suspect's house but there's an allegation 3 that it's came from the crime scene house. 4 Q. Because you will appreciate obviously that we are asking 5 you this because one of the marks in the series that 6 this form deals with did become controversial? 7 A. I understand. 8 Q. And you are telling us that this is something you would 9 not in fact have written very frequently. 10 A. No, because there would be no requirement. This case is 11 an individual case, as is every case generally that you 12 attend, especially MI. They are all quite different. 13 This case was -- you know, I think, for some time it was 14 an unsolved case. I don't know how many weeks but when 15 this information came in to me, when I examined this 16 thing, I had knowledge of -- to be honest, I don't 17 understand. I'm looking at this. I can understand your 18 concerns, but when this form was written there was no 19 pressure on any -- certainly not on me, certainly not on 20 SCRO. 21 I can understand how you are looking through 22 word-by-word and analysing it. However, I think we're 23 looking into it too deeply. When I wrote that I wrote 24 it basically for comparison against the deceased and 25 really that's all there is to that. page 17 1 Q. I take it from what you said about this being relatively 2 unusual that you wouldn't be surprised if I told you 3 that in this document we have a series of maybe 20-odd 4 forms like this and not one of them has a similar 5 instruction on it. 6 A. Well, I wouldn't be surprised because all those other 7 documents -- this is only referring to one item that's 8 came in to me to be examined that I'm aware of that's 9 come from the suspect's house but there's a possibility 10 it's came from the deceased's house. So my knowledge at 11 the time and my knowledge within the job stated to me 12 that I need to advise SCRO that they should be doing a 13 comparison -- I'm saying comparison now because that's 14 what we're talking; at the time I would have said ident. 15 Q. I would like to ask you about something just slightly 16 different, Mr MacNeil. 17 I think you have told us that what you wrote there 18 derived from the knowledge that you had about where the 19 tin had come from? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. I think you told us yesterday that you now can't 22 remember where your knowledge about the items in the 23 case had come directly from? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. But what I would like to explore with you a little bit page 18 1 is whether you really needed the information about where 2 the tin had come from in order to do your job properly. 3 A. Well, if I thought the tin had come from a house 4 break-in, possibly the sequential examination that would 5 have been carried out at that time would be less of a 6 degree than knowing it came from a murder and knowing 7 the significance of that particular tin. So, no, I 8 think it's important that scene examiners are told the 9 significance of certain items prior to being examined. 10 Q. I can readily see that a murder is a much more serious 11 crime than a house break-in and are you saying that 12 perhaps more resources and more tests would be done on 13 an item that came from a very serious crime than from a 14 relatively minor one? 15 A. Yes. Not only that, but some items that come from 16 murders can have less significance to the case than 17 other items from the same murder. So things that are 18 found or discovered around the body and all that sort of 19 stuff we give greater significance and greater attention 20 during the examination sequential process than things 21 that were found outside that may have some significance, 22 that may not have some significance. So yes. 23 Q. Just so that we understand properly, Mr MacNeil, when 24 you talk about within the sequential process, are you 25 simply talking about prioritisation there or are you page 19 1 talking about something else? 2 A. No, I'm talking about the sequential process of the 3 examination of a particular item that comes in for 4 examination. 5 Q. And just to be clear, can you explain to us exactly what 6 you mean by that. 7 A. Yes, it's been explained in the last few days as well. 8 At a crime scene whether you would use powders, whether 9 you would use different -- going for aluminium, going 10 for black, going for chemical treatments. The same 11 thing happened within my section of the examination room 12 except we had more items at our disposal for part of 13 that sequential process. 14 This tin, yes, it could have been looked at with 15 powders, success could have been very limited but, 16 because of the significance of this tin, I gave it the 17 full process. We talked yesterday or the day before 18 about the Home Office Guidelines, which is something we 19 worked quite strongly to within the examination room, 20 and that went through virtually the whole process. 21 Q. Again, please don't take this part of what I am asking 22 you as any sort of criticism. It really is to try to 23 understand -- 24 A. I understand. 25 Q. -- how things worked, Mr MacNeil. page 20 1 I suppose what you might have been told about a tin 2 like this is this relates to a murder, to a serious 3 crime. This is something -- this is an item that we 4 think is important, please treat it with everything 5 you've got. You know, give it the A-starred treatment. 6 That perhaps could have been conveyed to you in just 7 that way without you necessarily having to know it came 8 from Mr Asbury's house, we think it might have come from 9 Miss Ross' house? 10 A. Yes, I understand that but can I tell you for the volume 11 of work that we do within the examination room, if that 12 was the instruction out of Strathclyde Police at the 13 time, then every murder and every item that came into my 14 section that would be the instruction and they would 15 want everything examined fully and there would be 16 backlogs galore. We'd never get through it all. So we 17 do need a wee bit more knowledge on certain items to 18 carry out certain procedures. 19 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you, Mr MacNeil. I have no more 20 questions for you. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any area that counsel to the Inquiry 22 has not covered that you wish to? I think Mr Smith 23 should be first. 24 MR SMITH: Thank you, sir. There are some areas. The areas 25 are a few more questions regarding the question of page 21 1 statistics and success. I would like to ask what the 2 attitude of management was. Secondly, some questions 3 that some evidence was touched on about the order in 4 which various powders should be used and, in particular, 5 with reference to what we understand the Home Office 6 Guidance actually was. 7 The third area is whether this particular tin had, 8 in fact, been subjected to dusting at any stage to the 9 knowledge of this witness and, finally, the question of 10 his appreciation of whether the examination was a 11 suspicious death or a suicide that we have touched on. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. 13 Cross-examined by MR SMITH 14 Q. Mr MacNeil, if I can ask you, first of all, on the 15 question of the status of this investigation at the time 16 you first became involved in it. 17 We have heard some evidence that obviously some cases 18 are known to be murder cases, very obviously, some are 19 heavily suspected or known to be suicide and in between 20 we get suspicious death. 21 Can you let me know, please, what your understanding 22 was of the attitude of the police as far as you can 23 understand it, what was conveyed to you about the status 24 of this investigation at the early stage you became 25 involved? page 22 1 A. At my stage of involvement, it was a murder. It was a 2 murder inquiry. 3 Q. And you are saying when it was first logged, your view 4 was it was a murder inquiry; is that right? 5 A. When stuff first started to come into my section, it was 6 a murder inquiry, yes. 7 Q. I wonder if I can ask you to confirm that in your 8 Inquiry statement, reading from numbered paragraph 7 and 9 going through an extract at the moment what appears to 10 be recorded is this: 11 "Looking back, my recollection is that it was first 12 logged as a suspicious death and there was a feeling 13 within the force first that it was a suicide." 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Can you help me to try and reconcile the position here 16 with what appears to be in that statement? 17 A. I can, yes. When you asked me earlier there for my 18 first involvement within the case, which was stuff 19 coming into my section, at that point we were dealing 20 with a murder inquiry. At this point in my statement I 21 am referring to the general talk prior to me becoming 22 involved in this particular case. 23 Q. It may be my fault but I just want to be clear about it. 24 The general talk as you describe -- 25 A. Well -- page 23 1 Q. Can you let me finish the question, please -- the 2 general talk was it may be suicide; is that your 3 position? 4 A. No, the general talk -- I said, I think in my statement 5 somewhere, we would read -- come in in the morning, we 6 would read the incidents of note, which was just a list 7 of all the serious incidents that occurred in the last 8 12 hours or so. On that there would have been the 9 suspicious death and then we would have possibly spoke 10 to the Scenes of Crime Officer that attended that night 11 when they arrive in the morning to get a wee update as 12 to what occurred for that particular call-out. It's 13 from that knowledge that we would have ascertained that 14 possibly we had a possible suicide. It was only through 15 the post-mortem it was actually confirmed that we were 16 dealing with a murder inquiry at that particular point. 17 Q. I am interested in your use of the words, "a general 18 talk". Are you saying it would just be from the Scenes 19 of Crime Officer that had been there or are you saying 20 there was some kind of general chit-chat going on about 21 the status of the investigation? 22 A. No. To be honest, again, it's so long ago and maybe I'm 23 getting confused with all the talk from all the years, 24 but at the time, if my recollection serves me well, we 25 had a suspicious death, it was a possibility of maybe a page 24 1 suicide but it was clarified at the post-mortem. 2 Q. Mr MacNeil, I am sorry, I am just reading what is said 3 in your written statement which you agreed at the 4 outset effectively was accurate and what we see in 5 paragraph 7, amongst other things, is: 6 "There was a feeling within the force at first that it 7 was a suicide." 8 Now are you sticking with that or are you departing 9 from it? 10 A. Well, there was a feeling within the force ... possibly. 11 It's probably wrong, to be honest, and I would say maybe 12 most of my feeling within this -- I had discussion 13 within my section. 14 Q. Who in the section had obtained that view? 15 A. Well, it would be from the information revealed to us at 16 the time. 17 Q. From whom? 18 A. Within the first 24 hours. Well, I can't tell you 19 because I don't know but it would be possibly from the 20 scene examiner at the time, possibly from -- I don't 21 know to be honest. I don't know where I got that 22 information from. 23 Q. I am still confused, Mr MacNeil -- I am sure it is my 24 fault -- as to whether you are departing from or 25 sticking with the statement in your signed statement to page 25 1 the Inquiry, that no doubt you revised, that there was a 2 feeling within the force at first that it was a suicide? 3 A. Well, I won't take that away. It may be a suicide, 4 because there was no clear indication from those, that 5 I'm aware anyway and from the information I had -- which 6 was very limited, can I tell you -- that we were dealing 7 with a murder right away. 8 Q. Just following through from that point, you worked at 9 Pitt Street at that time, didn't you? 10 A. I did, yes. 11 Q. And police headquarters for the Strathclyde Police: 12 that's what Pitt Street is amongst other things? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. And at some stage I understand SCRO worked from Pitt 15 Street? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. When was it they moved out of Pitt Street? 18 A. Oh, I don't know. I'm sorry. 19 Q. Were they there in 1997? 20 A. I think they possibly were. 21 Q. Did you share a canteen with SCRO? 22 A. We shared a canteen with everybody in the whole 23 building, yes. 24 Q. I am interested in SCRO as you understand. Did you ever 25 at any stage discuss any case you were involved in that page 26 1 the SCRO would have been involved in? I am talking 2 about over coffee, over lunch. 3 A. No, because I never mingled with SCRO within the 4 canteen. I would say hello and I'd say hi but not 5 talk ... to be honest, I very rarely used the canteen 6 anyway. 7 Q. So we can take it then that even though you were sending 8 a note off to someone at SCRO that day, when you saw 9 them in the canteen you wouldn't say, "Listen, I'm 10 sending something urgent over" -- 11 A. No, I probably would have. I would have probably said, 12 "I sent that over. Did you get it", or something like 13 that possibly. 14 Q. So the answer to the question did you ever discuss 15 matters in the canteen, the answer is yes -- 16 A. No. No, I would probably have met them in the corridor 17 on the way to the office for whatever reason I was 18 going. 19 Q. What I am getting at, as I am sure you understand, 20 Mr MacNeil, is there would be on occasions informal 21 discussion about cases you were involved in, your team 22 was involved in and SCRO were involved in and that's 23 fair, isn't it? 24 A. No, not really -- not informal discussions. It would be 25 more so stuff that I probably sent over where there's page 27 1 something I want looked at would create a priority to 2 something else. 3 Q. Let us say that the way you work is to have informal 4 communication with them. 5 A. There is an informal communication in every aspect of my 6 work, yes. 7 Q. Now I would like to ask you if I can about the evidence 8 you gave regarding statistics. 9 Do you remember being asked a number of questions by 10 Miss Carmichael about that matter and the tenor of the 11 evidence I think was to the effect there was some almost 12 like a league table, some kind of observation that was 13 taking place on success, if I can use that phrase. I 14 think success was your word. Is that right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Was this an informal or formal league table, if I put it 17 that way? 18 A. It was formal. 19 Q. Formal? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Can you help me -- 22 A. I think. 23 Q. You think. You don't know? 24 A. It was recorded by the head of my department at that 25 time. page 28 1 Q. What was your understanding of the types of success? 2 A. Well, my understanding and everybody else's 3 understanding may be different but my understanding was 4 I didn't regard it as a particular success. As I 5 mentioned to Miss Carmichael, I didn't regard it as any 6 real indication on performance and hence the reason it 7 has been dropped now. 8 From your question to look at what other people may 9 find from it was that, yes, if they were high up in the 10 table then they would have regarded it as quite good 11 performance. But it was no great indicator, to be 12 honest. 13 Q. I am just trying to imagine this, as I put it, this 14 league table that applies a standard. There was 15 largely -- the standard was largely unknown, certainly 16 to you, but you are trying to do your job and the 17 department has to be justified. 18 Now can you help me with how such a system is supposed 19 to work when someone is trying to perhaps achieve 20 success but they don't know what the test of success 21 is -- 22 A. Again, you would need to talk to the senior management 23 about dealing with that particular model at the time 24 which, in my view, was not the greatest to show 25 performance anyway and hence the reason it has been page 29 1 dropped. 2 Q. But I think you explained in your statement in those 3 days you were very active in the union. 4 Is it not something that in that capacity you would 5 raise with management and say, "How are we supposed to 6 work with this" -- 7 A. I probably did and hence the reason it's been dropped. 8 Q. Well, did you? 9 A. I can't remember but I would imagine I would have 10 because I was very active. 11 Q. I am going to ask you, if I can, sticking with the 12 success, I am trying to imagine the scene: you get an 13 item to examine, you get an item, not necessarily this 14 tin. You examine it and there is not a single 15 fingerprint to be found on it. Are you with me? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. You have done your job properly but there is no 18 fingerprint. Is that not successful, because you have 19 done your job properly? 20 A. It wasn't measured at the time regarding a success or a 21 non-success. It just wasn't referred to. 22 Q. Let us suppose you get a very good fingerprint from it 23 and it goes to SCRO and it turns out to be an innocently 24 left fingerprint? 25 A. A what, sorry? page 30 1 Q. An innocently left -- it's the owner of the tin rather 2 than the alleged thief. In your understanding would 3 that be a success? 4 A. It would be, yes. 5 Q. So it is lifting a good print that SCRO can examine and 6 come up with a result, either yes or no; that is the 7 measure of a success? 8 A. That was, yes. 9 Q. I would like to ask you then about some methods of 10 examining fingerprints for ID. We have heard some 11 evidence already that there are various powders that can 12 be used, aluminium powder and various kinds of black 13 powder and so on? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Apart from powder and at this particular time there is 16 another method that is used commonly described as 17 supergluing; is that right? 18 A. It is, yes. 19 Q. Can you describe for us, just in simple terms, what is 20 done to carry out a superglue analysis of the pieces of 21 potential items. 22 A. It is basically a sealed chamber which we had at the 23 time -- there's different techniques on the market 24 now -- a sealed chamber which we put in the item or the 25 items into this chamber. We would enter some I can't page 31 1 remember the actual product name but it was basically 2 superglue in which we put a small amount of within this 3 chamber along with some moisture. It would be turned on 4 for 20 minutes or so and the whole coating would then 5 adhere to any contaminants left on the item which was 6 being submitted within that chamber. 7 Q. So let us suppose you do the supergluing as your first 8 line, for good reason, and then you decide, "Well, I 9 wonder if I missed anything". Is there any point 10 whatsoever in going over it with either aluminium or 11 black powder? 12 A. After the supergluing, if we are talking about the tin 13 in question here, are we? 14 Q. Yes. 15 A. For this particular product, not with aluminium and 16 certainly not with black because of the actual product 17 itself. There would be a possibility of going over it 18 with white powder after the superglue. The superglue 19 goes a sort of whitey crystallised form but this 20 particular tin, if I remember correctly, was various 21 colours and had quite a rough texture to it. So if we 22 were going to do anything it would be white powder. 23 Q. So it would not be dusted with powder before the 24 supergluing? 25 A. Not this particular product. page 32 1 Q. So dealing with this tin if we can, this particular 2 item, this tin was not dusted before it was superglued; 3 is that right? 4 A. I have no recollection of that but my recollection at 5 this particular time it was just too rough to be dusted 6 with fine powders. 7 Q. I am sorry, I wasn't listening. You have no 8 recollection of -- 9 A. Of this being dusted with powders. The tin itself was 10 too rough to be dusted with fine powders. 11 Q. Was that the position after the superglue as well? 12 A. After the superglue -- to be honest, I can't remember. 13 I may have put white powder on it after that to see if 14 anything was enhanced but doubt it because of the actual 15 texture of the surface that that particular tin was. It 16 was just too rough. 17 Q. I would like you if you can to look at something with 18 me, please. It is document SG0368 which should be a 19 report by Mr Malcolm Graham and within that document can 20 we please go to page 3. It will be shown to you. 21 On that page you will see at the bottom in the last 22 paragraph of that page, which will be expanded 23 hopefully, this is Mr Graham's report which says this: 24 "I was asked to pay particular attention to 25 fingerprints marked QI2 which had been found on the page 33 1 Marks & Spencers tin box. I removed the tin box from 2 the sealed security bag and examined the surfaces of the 3 tin. The box had been very well handled and 4 fingerprints had been developed with fingerprint powder 5 on the bottom, the sides and the lid." 6 Just pausing if I can at that point, do you have any 7 recollection of you carrying out any dusting as is 8 described in that report? 9 A. I have no recollection of that, no. When was that 10 report written? 11 Q. I will tell you when the examination was carried out. I 12 think it is on the first page. 7th May 1997 is the date 13 of the examination carried out. 14 A. And my date of the examination was ... just so that's 15 clear in my mind. 16 Q. I am sorry, I will just try to find out for you. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: You received the tin on 24th January. That 18 is paragraph 23 of your statement. 19 A. Yes. No, I have no recollection of that. My 20 recollection of that particular tin was that -- and I 21 could be mistaken but I don't think so -- was that we 22 examined it using superglue. We then carried out -- we 23 would have done a flourescence examin first prior to the 24 superglue to see if anything was visible on the tin 25 prior to carrying out the examination. Then it would be page 34 1 Quasered -- sorry, superglued, then dipped in, 2 basically, L40 which is a dye to adhere to any 3 contaminants left by the superglue which is attached to 4 the sweat and fingerprint marks that had been left on 5 it, and then we would have photographed any prints that 6 were flourescent through the Quaser. 7 I do remember that to try and do anything else with 8 that particular tin, because of the colours and the 9 texture, Quaser was really the only best means of 10 recording evidence on that particular tin. So I've no 11 recollection of that, no. 12 Q. Yes, I think you used the word "we" there, "what we 13 would have done". 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. This is you and your team? 16 A. Well, it was just me and on this occasion it was Les 17 Gibbens and he was my senior at the time. 18 Q. And, apart from you and Les Gibbens, would you expect, 19 in the ordinary course of things, it would be you 20 examined it and it would be examined by Malcolm Graham, 21 anyone else who, as it were, had a go? 22 A. To be honest, with this particular inquiry nothing would 23 surprise me because -- I mean, I look at other things 24 within the inquiry and there's been so many different 25 examinations carried out, so many different things over page 35 1 the many years that that wouldn't surprise me. But as 2 far as my team goes and the initial examination of that 3 particular product, that's how it was carried out. 4 Q. I take it obviously there would be some kind of audit 5 trail if anyone else in your office, or indeed anybody 6 outside your office, examined it and dusted it. We 7 should be able to track down -- 8 A. I would hope so. I don't know about -- certainly we 9 would have an audit trail of what had come into my 10 office and then once it's left my office. At that point 11 we would then finish with it. We would then send it to 12 Strathclyde Police Productions. Where it went, who 13 looked at it, whether they would record that or not, I 14 wouldn't know. And at that point, as long as 15 Strathclyde Police were satisfied that we carried out 16 the best examinations possible to that particular 17 product, I'm sure they'd be happy and let everyone else 18 do what they wanted. 19 Q. The final thing I want to ask you about is the practice 20 of the order of using, generally speaking, various 21 powders. We have heard evidence about aluminium powder, 22 about various black powders that could be used and so on 23 and so forth. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. I take it you are familiar with the fact that the Home page 36 1 Office issues guidance as to the order in which certain 2 powders should be used under certain circumstances. 3 A. I am. 4 Q. Can you tell us, please, what you are understanding 5 is -- well, let us deal with the present time at the 6 moment -- as to whether aluminium should be used before 7 black powder or always or sometimes or whether black 8 should be used first. Just give us your evidence of 9 what your understanding of the present day guidance is 10 from the Home Office? 11 A. Again, it's a personal judgment of the scene examiners 12 that attend looking at items for examination. Generally 13 you're talking about non-destructive methods of 14 examination is powder examinations and it depends on the 15 item. But generally you would be talking about an 16 aluminium examination first, which is non-destructive. 17 It could then easily be followed by a black powder 18 examination or a black magna powder examination. But 19 every case and every scene is quite different. It's 20 down to probably the most experienced person to make the 21 decision on the best course of action for that 22 examination. 23 I would see no reason to -- sorry, if I was carrying 24 out generally I would go for aluminium in the first 25 instance. It's most effective generally but not for all page 37 1 surfaces and it gives quick and easy results. With 2 aluminium once you've discovered a fingerprint you can 3 then lift that fingerprint and you've got it instantly. 4 Q. Are you able to help us with the Home Office Guidance on 5 that question of aluminium first or when has changed 6 materially over the past few years? 7 A. I've not looked at it for a few years. I would need 8 to -- it's easy to obtain a copy of that Home Office 9 Guidance. 10 Q. It's available on the Internet, isn't it? 11 A. It should be available on the Internet. I should have a 12 copy of it, I guess. 13 Q. What I would like to do is read to you from a document. 14 It is August 2004 which appears to be Home Office 15 Guidance in 2004 and ask for your comment. Under a 16 section which is "Brushes used with aluminium powder", I 17 will just read exactly: 18 "Within the UK, aluminium powder has become one of the 19 most popular powders used by scene examiners. However, 20 surveys, focus groups and conversations with users have 21 led us to believe that there is a wide variation in the 22 way it is used. For example, some use aluminium powder 23 in preference to alternative powders on all surfaces 24 whilst others will use alternative powders for all 25 surfaces and never use aluminium powder. As far as we page 38 1 know, the majority of practitioners use aluminium powder 2 on smooth/clean surfaces and would consider one of the 3 many alternative powders when presented with surfaces 4 with texture/contamination." 5 Do you agree with that as a point? 6 A. I would think most of -- what I would say is nowadays 7 there are more powders on the market, probably within my 8 own department the most commonly used powder is we call 9 it silver magna powder -- sorry, magneta flake powder 10 which is just another aluminium-based powder but it 11 tends to adhere to surfaces a lot better. The actual 12 procedure is the exact same as aluminium except we're 13 putting it on with a magna brush. It's a far superior 14 powder but there are implications. Going back 15 10/12 years ago we didn't have a lot of these powders so 16 aluminium, which is a fine brush to be used, so 17 ultimately if you are examining a scene using this fine 18 brush there's less of a chance that you're going to 19 disturb anything. If you go straight on to a black 20 brush, a more robust brush, there's a good chance you 21 can wipe prints away. Yes, you get an instant clear 22 result, the contrast is good, but there's a chance you 23 could be wiping away prints so, therefore, I would 24 always recommend as a first process aluminium where 25 there's unlikely chance you're going to be rubbing page 39 1 anything away. 2 Q. I am really just interested in the position of the Home 3 Office Guidance is not prescriptive in using aluminium 4 powder first and always first? 5 A. To be honest, you know, that's in 1994, did you say? 6 Q. No, I said it's 2004. 7 A. 2004. So it's been updated now. You need to go back to 8 what the Home Office Guidance was in those days. 9 Q. I am actually interested in more or less the current 10 period of time. 11 A. Right. 12 Q. Before I ask you to look at another document, can I just 13 understand this correctly: there is Home Office Guidance 14 that you have actually -- and I don't criticise you for 15 not following this because no doubt there are many 16 documents that you have to look at -- but you personally 17 are not au fait with that, if I can put it that way? 18 A. There's lots of things we're aware of but we don't look 19 at every day of the week. We're too busy for that. My 20 expertise, my experience in attending scenes -- I've 21 been in the job now for 26 years. I really don't need 22 to go to, I wouldn't think anyway, a Home Office 23 guideline when I know at most scenes at the most what is 24 going to be attracted to one surface than another 25 surface except with the new techniques I need to keep page 40 1 up-to-date with. 2 Q. I am just reminded of your evidence this morning at 3 page 19 about -- 4 A. Sorry, about what? 5 Q. It's really for other people I am giving reference to 6 the page, page 19, line 11, and thereabouts you 7 indicated that: 8 "This tin it could have been looked at with powders, 9 success would have been very limited but because of the 10 significance of this tin I gave it the full process. We 11 talked yesterday or the day before about Home Office 12 Guidelines which is something we worked quite strongly 13 to within the examination room and that went through 14 virtually the whole process." 15 A. Yes, that was 12 years ago when I worked in the 16 examination room. 17 Q. So 12 years ago you worked to the Home Office 18 guidelines? 19 A. We did. 20 Q. And you knew then -- 21 A. I would have known a lot more then about the actual 22 guidance, yes, than I do now. 23 Q. What do you consider the current status of the Home 24 Office Guidelines -- 25 A. Sorry? page 41 1 Q. On a day-to-day basis now, do you consider the Home 2 Office Guidelines? Do you ignore them or do you apply 3 them? 4 A. I generally apply them. 5 Q. Well, you seem, with respect, to be a little doubtful as 6 to what they actually are at the present? 7 A. Yes, but I'm aware of sequential processes. 8 Q. Maybe you can help me with this: I have a copy of a flow 9 chart from the document that was referred to by 10 Mr Thurley I think or perhaps by Mr Moffat. I don't 11 know what the problem is. There is a problem with 12 getting photocopies prepared. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: The problem is that we are trying, with great 14 difficulty, so that those who are not present can follow 15 what is happening on the website and our problem is that 16 when we have productions, getting those on the website 17 is proving difficult but it is a problem being 18 surmounted so we have been trying to refer this morning 19 reading the Home Office Guidelines so that people could 20 follow the flow of the evidence. 21 Perhaps if we just ask Miss Carmichael. She is more 22 familiar with ... 23 MISS CARMICHAEL: There are some issues here, sir. The 24 guidance that Mr Smith is, I think, referring to is not 25 something that is on the database. It is something that page 42 1 he is seeking to introduce today. It is something 2 certainly that I am aware of and that I have looked at 3 myself. I am not sure we can say with certainty whether 4 this particular flow chart was something that other 5 witnesses were referring to or not and I am a little 6 concerned that both he and, potentially, I if I get into 7 this exercise as well am in danger of referring loosely 8 to Home Office Guidance when there are a number of Home 9 Office -- there is a Home Office manual, there is a 10 short document, there is a flow chart, there are at 11 least three research papers on the website there which 12 refer to different aspects of powders and how they are 13 used. 14 I am slightly uneasy about the introduction of this 15 document at this stage in isolation. But it is very 16 much a matter for yourself, Mr Chairman, and for 17 Mr Smith as to what can use can be made of this at this 18 stage. 19 I should say that Mr Smith raised this issue or a 20 related one with me this morning and my suggestion is 21 that we maybe go to get, as it were, a rather more 22 omnibus and authoritative picture from a witness who 23 will be called later as to just what the position was 24 regarding Home Office Guidance as at 1997 and as at the 25 present date. page 43 1 I am slightly concerned that my own picture at the 2 moment is a partial one and so might be that of the 3 others. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: So, rather than introduce it piecemeal, we 5 should put it all together? 6 MISS CARMICHAEL: Yes. Mr Smith has, in fairness, said that 7 may not be fair to witnesses who have already given 8 evidence on the matter and you have heard a variety of 9 views expressed and also I think probably a variety of 10 representations of what may be in the Home Office 11 Guidance whether that is one document or many and I just 12 wondered if there may be a slightly more efficient way 13 of dealing with this and if it comes to be that you take 14 the view that, in fairness, others should be required to 15 comment on what we ultimately hear from this witness, 16 steps could perhaps be taken to do that in due course 17 when we have a clear picture. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Would it be convenient if we tried to connect 19 it all? 20 MR SMITH: It certainly would be but I may say, sir, that 21 it's a somewhat cumbersome procedure to think about the 22 possibility of recalling witnesses. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: You are quite right. I am anxious not to 24 have to bring people back. It is very inconvenient to 25 them but if this is an important issue, then we cannot page 44 1 avoid that. 2 MR SMITH: Very well, sir. All I was proposing that the 3 flow chart be put on the overhead camera and I can maybe 4 ask the witness one or two short questions about it. 5 That's all I was proposing at this stage but I am in 6 your hands, sir. 7 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, I raise it not as an objection 8 because clearly if it is something that may be of value 9 at this stage I don't want to prevent that happening but 10 I simply wanted to make you aware of discussions that 11 had been ongoing in the background. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: If it is just two or three short questions on 13 the flow chart we can put it on the overhead then we 14 will do that rather than bring the witness back. 15 Could you just identify for the purpose of the 16 record, Mr Smith, exactly where this comes from so that 17 we can put it eventually on. 18 MR SMITH: I think, sir, this is from a document issued by 19 the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch. 20 It is dated August of 2004 and the publication number is 21 54/04. It is apparently available on the Internet and I 22 can provide the Internet address in due course if 23 required. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: That is fine. So long as we have the 25 reference. page 45 1 MR SMITH: Thank you, sir. 2 Mr MacNeil, I just wanted to ask if you have seen 3 anything like this flow chart before? 4 A. Yes, I've seen it before. 5 Q. Is this something replicated in a number of different 6 issues being referred to as being the source of this? 7 A. It is, yes. 8 Q. I think we can see that there are some circumstances, if 9 you follow the flow chart down and across where the 10 first line would be, for example, black magnetic powder; 11 do you see that? 12 A. Yes, and the UPVC. 13 Q. Of course and also down to the right if it's a textured 14 surface and then you might go for black magnetic or 15 white magnetic; do you see that? 16 A. I've got this guidance -- it's not always applied by 17 individual scene examiners. This is guidance that's 18 been under research by academics. Generally we would go 19 by most of this but you would have gut feelings, 20 individual scene examiners maybe carry out their own 21 preference of examination. 22 Q. Just finally I would like to ask you this: we heard some 23 evidence from Mr Thurley earlier and he said -- and this 24 is page 19 to 20 and particularly page 20 -- he said 25 but: page 46 1 "As I've said before sometimes you'll find that you'll 2 get younger inexperienced people possibly will go 3 straight to black powder because it's simpler to use and 4 it's easier to see. There is less work involved because 5 with aluminium powder you have to work at it to get the 6 print. That is the logic for using aluminium powder 7 before anything else." 8 That was Mr Thurley's evidence. Can I ask you whether 9 you would agree with the suggestion looking at this flow 10 chart that even a younger inexperienced person may 11 justifiably go straight to black magnetic? That's fair, 12 isn't it? 13 A. I can understand that. However, I don't think I would 14 have done anything different, as Mr Thurley stated, 15 especially if you are dealing with uncertainties at the 16 time of any particular examination then I would be 17 carrying out the least destructive method of examination 18 first, which would be aluminium powder. 19 Q. So if you were dealing with a textured surface that was 20 the same colour as aluminium powder you would do 21 something different to what was in the flow chart, which 22 appears to be go for black magnetic? 23 A. Nowadays we have magneta flake which is something I 24 would probably have gone in for first, which is 25 aluminium -- almost sort of a solid-based aluminium. page 47 1 Q. If I am correct and it may be I am being unfair to 2 Mr Thurley when he was making a general comment that the 3 default position would be aluminium and only 4 inexperienced people would not go for aluminium first. 5 If he is making a general statement that we should 6 always go for aluminium first, are you saying you agree 7 with that or do you say there are some circumstances 8 where you are justified in not going to aluminium? 9 A. Yes, there are some circumstances where you would be 10 justified but you need to speak to him on the surfaces 11 that he was dealing with at that particular time. I 12 would need to be in the same scenario to be telling you 13 and saying what I would do. 14 MR SMITH: Thank you. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, Mr Holmes? 16 MR HOLMES: I have no questions for Mr MacNeil. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other application? 18 MISS GRAHAME: No, thank you. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to ask you one matter. 20 Can we have again DB0251. Thank you. 21 You see there's a passage there for eliminations -- 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. -- on the form. Now if this tin had been found in 24 Miss Ross' own home, then may I take it that you might 25 have put in her name there? page 48 1 A. I would have done, yes. As well as that, if I took 2 elimination prints from individuals at a scene and I was 3 attaching them to that particular form, their names 4 would go in there but I didn't have any eliminations 5 submitted with it. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: But I just want to get it clear in my own 7 mind. If it is found in the victim's own house, then 8 you would expect the victim's prints to be on the 9 object. 10 A. Yes. Well, possibly. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: But where, as here, it is found in the 12 suspect's house -- 13 A. That's correct. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: -- then you, as I understand your evidence, 15 you feel you need to draw it to the attention of the 16 examiners that it could be -- 17 A. Very much so -- the chances of SCRO knowing the 18 information which I know at that particular point would 19 be, I would think, very doubtful. By the time the 20 prints came through to them, they would not have known 21 that this tin had come or they may have known the tin 22 through the paperwork that's been attached has come from 23 the suspect's house, but they would have no indication 24 that there would be an attachment possibly with this tin 25 to the deceased's house. page 49 1 So I was just making it pretty clear on the paperwork 2 to let them know that they've got to check that. I'm 3 not telling them anything about that information, I'm 4 just saying we need to look at the deceased's prints on 5 this tin as well. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: What I understood from your evidence is that 7 you would not do this very often -- 8 A. No. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: -- this would be rare, and I am sure you 10 cannot remember, but if you can please say so: would you 11 use the expression "ident required for" whoever it is on 12 those other occasions? 13 A. Every time I would have used "ident required for" 14 whoever. It was a term I used and probably a lot of my 15 colleagues used, whether they were referring to another 16 relation or a suspect to be identified. It was just a 17 term we used. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: So when you say it would have been better to 19 have used the word "comparison" -- 20 A. Only as a result of this Inquiry. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: But that does not mean that this was a 22 one-off as far as you were concerned; you had done it 23 before and you say your colleagues have done. 24 A. Yes. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: The last thing I want to ask you is on this page 50 1 point: there must be many serious crimes in which at the 2 home of the suspect something is found that could be 3 connect to the victim, including all sorts of occasions 4 I do not need to recite -- I sure you can think of them 5 more easily than I can -- and so that is why I am a 6 little surprised that there have been very few occasions 7 that you would do that. I would have expected it to be 8 fairly common that you would be warning them to look for 9 the victim's fingerprint on the item found. 10 A. Yes. It depends on the paperwork that's come into my 11 section. If the information in the paperwork is quite 12 clear and that paperwork was then going to the Scottish 13 Criminal Records Office, then there would be no 14 requirement for me to write that information on it. 15 It's only because -- the paperwork in this was very 16 limited. 17 I was aware that I'm thinking more how I became aware 18 and it could well have been it's a possibility that it 19 was a scene examiner, Scenes of Crime Officer who maybe 20 went and photographed this tin when it was recovered 21 from the suspect's house. It's another possibility in 22 how I learned that information because when they come 23 back we talk about incidents together, as teams, as 24 colleagues, and it's possible I got that information 25 from him. It's just another possibility. page 51 1 But, no, there's nothing sinister about what I've 2 written on that particular form. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe that leads me to the last question: you 4 cannot remember if anybody did say to you that you 5 should put that on -- 6 A. I can tell you now nobody did say that to me. Nobody 7 said that to me. That was me that put that on, for the 8 reasons I have explained. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: So it was entirely on your own initiative -- 10 A. Very much so. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 12 A. Could I just make one point of observation. Yesterday 13 the Inquiry team took some criticism from the former 14 Fiscal Depute over productions. I would just like to 15 say that there's been a lot of discussions and talk over 16 the years over missing productions that have came from 17 my section in my department and the Inquiry team have 18 disproved all those. They found all the productions and 19 I think they've to have been commended on it. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Thank you, again, for 21 your assistance. 22 We will rise now until 11.50. Sorry, you would like 23 to ask some ... 24 MISS CARMICHAEL: If it is more convenient to do it after a 25 break, then I am happy to do that. It should be two page 52 1 quite swift questions. 2 Re-examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 3 Q. Mr MacNeil, first to clarify something that you said 4 when Mr Smith was asking you questions about the 5 statistics in your department and I think he said to you 6 that if SCRO could say yes or no, then that was a 7 success and I think you agreed with him. I just want it 8 to be quite clear about what your evidence was on that 9 because I wasn't sure that what you were saying there 10 was just exactly what you said when I was asking you 11 questions. Perhaps I can tell you what I had understood 12 from what you told me and you can tell me if I am wrong 13 and, if so, why. 14 I had understood that if SCRO received the mark that 15 you had found and they weren't able to identify or 16 eliminate anyone, that would not be a success. 17 A. Yes, it just didn't get recorded. We're maybe using 18 "success" a wee bit too much but -- 19 Q. What would be recorded is if they get the mark and are 20 able to say "Yes, that mark belongs to someone on the 21 list that we have in this particular investigation". 22 A. Generally if a fingerprint is put through and we had a 23 suspect on our eliminations, it would come back -- 24 whether it was the person who committed the crime or 25 not, if it came back to my department that we had got a page 53 1 match, then that would be regarded, for want of a better 2 term, as a success. 3 Q. Thank you. That is what I had understood you to say. 4 The other matter that I would like to ask you about is 5 just, if you will forgive me, a little bit more about 6 what you were saying about the order of powders and so 7 on because I think it was being suggested to you that 8 Mr Thurley had told us that no matter what you were 9 doing, you would always use aluminium powders and I 10 would like just to put a passage oft of his evidence to 11 you and see if you agree with his position in this 12 passage. 13 A. Certainly. 14 Q. This is at day 5, page 24, line 24 where it starts. 15 Mr Thurley was asked the question: 16 "Aluminium powder isn't suitable for all surfaces as a 17 first port of call, is it?" 18 And he said: 19 "No, if you go down the lines of paper or, you know, 20 stone or emulsion paint or things like that then I would 21 say most definitely not." 22 Would that reflect your own understanding? 23 A. 100 per cent, yes. 24 Q. Is it the case, however, that if one was thinking of 25 using aluminium powder, you would have to use that page 54 1 before other treatments? 2 A. Generally, yes. 3 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you for your assistance and 5 we will try to sit as near to 11.55, I think, just so we 6 don't lose any time. 7 (11.35 am) 8 (A short break) 9 (11.56 am) 10 THE CHAIRMAN: The next witness? 11 MISS CARMICHAEL: The next witness is Leslie Gibbens. 12 LESLIE ALFRED LORDON GIBBENS (sworn) 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you could give us your full name. 14 A. Leslie Alfred Lordon Gibbens. 15 Examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 16 Q. Mr Gibbens, we have found it sometimes help with people 17 being able to hear if you sit quite close to the 18 microphones. I think they are only sensitive if you sit 19 close. Thank you very much. 20 Mr Gibbens, I think you have given a signed witness 21 statement to the Inquiry already? 22 A. I have. 23 Q. Are you content that that records your position about 24 matters you were asked about? 25 A. Yes. page 55 1 Q. I think you, back in 1997, were working alongside 2 Mr MacNeil who has just given evidence to the Inquiry. 3 Were you senior to Mr MacNeil? 4 A. I was. 5 Q. And was that reflected in any title or rank, if I can 6 put it that way, rather than just being your years' of 7 experience? 8 A. My full title was Senior Scenes of Crime Officer as 9 opposed to a Scenes of Crime Officer. 10 Q. I am afraid I'm not hearing you very well. 11 A. My full title was a Senior Scenes of Crime Officer as 12 opposed to a Scenes of Crime Officer. 13 Q. And Mr MacNeil at the time had been a Scenes of Crime 14 Officer? 15 A. He was. 16 Q. And you worked together on a number of items in the 17 investigation into the murder of Marion Ross? 18 A. We did. 19 Q. Now you were asked when you gave your statement about 20 the information that you had about certain productions 21 and I would like to refer you to paragraph 15 of your 22 statement if you have that to hand, Mr Gibbens. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. You say that ordinarily you wouldn't expect to be made 25 aware by the police that any particular items were of page 56 1 potential significance to an inquiry. 2 A. No. 3 Q. We have heard in this case from Mr MacNeil that he 4 certainly seemed to have some understanding that the tin 5 that you both examined was of some significance. 6 Just giving the matter your best thought and best 7 recollection, do you agree or disagree with Mr MacNeil 8 about that? 9 A. I don't remember. I don't remember anything at all 10 about that. 11 Q. You will be aware that this is a case where there has 12 come to be a good deal of controversy about some of the 13 finger-marks involved in the case. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And some of that controversy arose in the relatively 16 early days of the case, even as early as the trial of 17 Mr Asbury. That was in the public domain in, what, 18 May 1997? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. I am just slightly curious that you remember nothing at 21 all about a case in which you were involved which became 22 controversial so quickly. 23 Can you tell us why that would be? 24 A. That I don't remember anything about it? 25 Q. Well, yes. page 57 1 A. I remember maybe examining articles but I don't remember 2 any individual items that I may have examined, no. 3 Q. I will ask you to try to help with one matter and it may 4 be from what you are saying that you are not going to be 5 able to help with any of the matters that I would like 6 to ask you about, but I wonder if you would look, 7 please, for me at a document that we have looked at 8 already today, SG0368.003. This is a report, I should 9 say, by a gentleman who examined the tin for the defence 10 in about May 1997, just to give you the context of that 11 and he records in the final paragraph on the page that 12 we are looking at here that he was asked to pay 13 particular attention to fingerprints marked QI2 on the 14 Marks & Spencers tin box and he records that 15 fingerprints had been developed with fingerprint powder 16 on the bottom, the sides and the lid. 17 I wonder if you can help us at all with whether you 18 recall examining that item with powder? 19 A. I don't remember. 20 Q. Would there be any reason to examine a tin of the sort 21 we are talking here about, a Marks & Spencers sweetie 22 tin, would there be any reason to examine it with a 23 powder after you had examined it with superglue? 24 A. I would have thought not. 25 Q. What sort of appearance is left on a tin once you've page 58 1 examined it with superglue in the way that, as I think 2 we heard from Mr MacNeil, this tin was examined? 3 A. A white deposit would be left on the tin. 4 Q. Is there any possibility that somebody looking at 5 fingerprint productions could have mistaken the white 6 residue that they might see on something that had been 7 developed with superglue for examination with powder? 8 A. I would have thought that's a possibility, yes. 9 Q. I would like to ask you, please, to have a look at the 10 document DB0251 at page 33. This is a document which I 11 think you may have filled in the top half of it but the 12 top part perhaps down to where we see the fourth line 13 locus; would that be correct? 14 A. I am sorry? 15 Q. I am asking you if you perhaps filled in the top part of 16 the form about the date and crime and the locus? 17 A. No, I didn't. 18 Q. We have heard from Mr MacNeil that certainly the portion 19 below that he did fill in and he put in an entry for a 20 certain series of marks "ident required for deceased". 21 Is this a form of words that you would be familiar 22 with in filling in a form of this type, Mr Gibbens? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Would you ever have used it? 25 A. The type of form? page 59 1 Q. No, I am sorry; it is my fault. Would you ever have 2 used an expression along the lines of "ident required 3 for deceased" when filling in a form of this sort? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Why not? 6 A. Because there's space there for elimination purposes of 7 suspect persons. 8 Q. Perhaps if I put to you that immediately underneath 9 where we see "Ident required for deceased" you see a 10 little box "eliminations"? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. That has just been highlighted for you on the screen if 13 you look at that. Where in relation to that little 14 highlight is it that you would fill in that you wanted 15 eliminations? 16 A. Under eliminations you could put a name there for 17 elimination. 18 Q. So another way of doing this might have been to put the 19 name Marion Ross under -- I think we have put a name 20 there on the form? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. Is that what you would have done? 23 A. More than likely, yes. 24 Q. Do you have any comment as to whether it's appropriate 25 to put in an entry like "Ident required for deceased" on page 60 1 a form like this? 2 A. I can't see any reason for it. 3 Q. Mr MacNeil has told us that the use of the word "ident" 4 in your department commonly was used where perhaps other 5 people would have used the word "comparison". Is that 6 something that you can remember happening? 7 A. No. 8 Q. May it have happened and you do not remember it or are 9 you saying that it did not happen? 10 A. I don't remember it. 11 Q. Mr MacNeil also told us a little bit about the practices 12 with statistics within your office and what he told us 13 was -- and I hope I am representing him correctly -- is 14 that there would be positive statistics for an 15 individual examiner in the department if ultimately SCRO 16 fingerprint bureau were able to make an elimination or a 17 identification against the mark the examiner had found. 18 Does that represent correctly what went on within your 19 department as well as you can remember? 20 A. No. 21 Q. How did it work? 22 A. A form 13B which we are looking at now would be 23 forwarded to SCRO with the photographs of the 24 impressions. If an identification was made, the top 25 part of that form would be returned to our department page 61 1 and would be recorded in the log. 2 On the back of that, the name of the identification 3 would be on. If identification hadn't been made, that 4 form would still come back and still be recorded in the 5 same way. 6 Q. Mr MacNeil told us that there was something almost along 7 the lines of a league table for the examiners in the 8 department and that the entries on that depended on 9 whether or not the fingerprint examiners at SCRO had 10 been able to match a mark that you had sent them with 11 somebody in whatever investigation they had carried out. 12 Is that correct? 13 A. I would never refer to it as a "league table". 14 Q. What would you refer to it as? 15 A. The identifications made within the whole of the 16 department we would record it for statistical purposes 17 because jobs may be visited. 18 Q. I didn't catch the last two or three words you said 19 there, Mr Gibbens. It may be my fault. 20 A. Identifications that have been made within the 21 department would be counted but compared against a 22 number of incidents that we had attended and maybe we 23 would have got an idea of the percentage or successful 24 percentage that we got against the jobs that we have 25 attended. page 62 1 Q. I put this to Mr MacNeil and I will put it to you as 2 well, Mr Gibbens: from, I suppose, the outside or lay 3 perspective I would have thought that success for 4 somebody like yourself would be in discovering the mark 5 and developing and photographing it clearly so it could 6 be sent on to the next stage of the progress. 7 Would that be correct? 8 A. And recorded things on the items that were sent for 9 examination, if we got a positive result and when I say 10 "positive", I mean if we found any impressions. That 11 was my job, to record that photographically and to 12 forward it to the SCRO. 13 Q. So what I am curious about is why then success for you 14 might be measured in relation to what the SCRO might 15 thereafter have been able to do with the material. 16 A. I suppose it could be described as a success if we had 17 an identification made. 18 Q. If you have developed and recorded a mark professionally 19 and clearly, it is hardly your fault if ultimately it 20 does not match with something on the list that the 21 people at SCRO have. 22 A. That is correct. 23 Q. So from the outside it does not seem like a very fair 24 measure of your success. 25 A. No. page 63 1 Q. Were you happy with it as a measure of your success at 2 the time? 3 A. I was doing my job and that was it. If I didn't have a 4 success, then that was not my fault. 5 Q. I am sorry, you said it was not your fault? 6 A. It was not my fault, no. 7 Q. I think Mr MacNeil told us that the practice of 8 recording success in the way that we have been talking 9 about was discontinued. 10 Are you aware of that? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Can you recall any incidents you were involved in, in 13 helping investigate, where the police did give you 14 contextual information about perhaps where they had 15 found an item or the particular significance that they 16 put on it in there own inquiry? 17 A. When an article came in from an incident, it always had 18 a production label with it. On that production label it 19 would be stated where that item was found and what locus 20 it was from. 21 Q. Aside from what you had seen on the label that came with 22 it, can you recall occasions when you were perhaps told 23 more about it or perhaps why police were particularly 24 interested in it on an investigation? 25 A. No. page 64 1 Q. May that have happened and you do not remember it or are 2 you saying it never happened? 3 A. I don't remember. 4 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you, Mr Gibbens. I don't have any 5 further questions for you. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any applications? 7 MR HOLMES: No questions, sir. 8 MR SMITH: I have no questions. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: If you have nothing further. 10 MISS CARMICHAEL: I do not think it is appropriate for me to 11 seek to re-examine where nobody has asked any questions. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to be sure. 13 The one matter I wanted to ask you is this: on this 14 form which we have on the screen, you have a place for 15 suspects and a place for eliminations? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: In this particular case, with the benefit of 18 the information we have, this tin had come from the 19 victim's house and was found in the house of a suspect. 20 A. Yes, sir. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you regard the victim's fingerprint on 22 that tin as being an elimination? Certainly she was not 23 a suspect because she was the victim, but would it be an 24 elimination or is it something different where it is not 25 found in her own house. page 65 1 A. An elimination purpose. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: You would call it an elimination. 3 A. I would, sir, yes. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Thank you for your 5 help. 6 (The witness withdrew) 7 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, the next witness is Gary Gray. 8 GARY GRAY (sworn) 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Your full name, please? 10 A. Gary Gray. 11 Examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 12 Q. Mr Gray, we sometimes find it a little bit difficult to 13 hear people in this hall if we don't sit reasonably 14 closely to the microphone so it may help if you sit 15 forward a bit and speak directly into the microphone. 16 Mr Gray, I think you are currently a police constable 17 with Strathclyde Police? 18 A. I'm a police sergeant. 19 Q. You are a police sergeant. I am sorry, I think that may 20 be an aspect of your statement that is not accurate. I 21 think you gave your statement on 22nd May 2009? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. Have you been promoted since then or is it just 24 something wrong in the first paragraph? 25 A. I was promoted since then. page 66 1 Q. I suppose congratulations are in order then Sergeant 2 Gray. 3 But prior to that I think you were a police constable 4 with Strathclyde Police and you were serving in 1997? 5 A. At that time I was a Detective Constable in '97. 6 Q. You became involved in an inquiry into a murder in 7 Kilmarnock? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. Where the victim was Miss Marion Ross? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. I wonder if you could sit forward a little bit. We tend 12 to find that unless we can hear your voice echoing 13 around you, you are probably not speaking closely enough 14 into the microphones. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Bend the microphone up a little bit because 16 you are quite tall. Thank you. 17 MISS CARMICHAEL: I think you were on duty and attended at 18 43 Irvine Road, Kilmarnock, in the evening of 19 8th January 1997 when the death of Miss Ross had been 20 discovered? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. There is an issue in particular I would like to ask you 23 about first and it is about the arrangements that were 24 made for the officers who came to keep watch at that 25 scene during the course of that evening. The Inquiry page 67 1 has heard some evidence, Mr Gray, that a series of 2 officers were stationed to keep watch in the living room 3 rather than the porch of the property there. 4 Can you remember that? 5 A. I don't. 6 Q. We have heard evidence that the delegation of the 7 organisation of the people to keep watch may have been 8 made either to DI McAllister or to yourself. 9 Can you recall if organising that was delegated to 10 you? 11 A. No, it certainly wasn't, no. 12 Q. There is another particular matter that I would like to 13 ask you about, Sergeant Gray, and that is this: 14 Mr Moffat has given evidence to the Inquiry and I wonder 15 if you can recall, in the first instance, being at the 16 crime scene along with Mr Moffat. 17 A. I remember there was other Scenes of Crime Officers 18 there but I couldn't recall the actual names of the 19 persons that were there. 20 Q. Would we be correct to understand that you and others 21 were present at the scene together late into the evening 22 until you left with undertakers to accompany them and 23 Miss Ross' body to Glasgow City Mortuary? 24 A. Yes, that's correct. 25 Q. And that is something that you remember? page 68 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Mr Moffat has told the Inquiry about an incident which 3 he says occurred when you and he together were removing 4 Miss Ross' body from the bathroom of the property. 5 In the first place, do you recall removing her body 6 from the bathroom along with Mr Moffat? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Now, I would like you to tell the Chairman in your own 9 words just exactly what you and Mr Moffat were doing 10 together in carrying out that task. 11 A. Prior to the body's being removed to the mortuary we had 12 to obviously get the body out of the bathroom and myself 13 and one other person had to place the body into a body 14 bag to allow the undertakers to then take the body away. 15 Q. Who was the other person? 16 A. That would have been a Scenes of Crime Officer but I 17 don't remember his name. 18 Q. I am sorry, it was yourself and one other person. So it 19 may be that that other person is Mr Moffat who has given 20 evidence to the Inquiry. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Can you recall who was positioned where within or 23 outwith the bathroom as between yourself and this other 24 individual? 25 A. I don't remember where we were actually positioned in page 69 1 the room, no. 2 Q. The Inquiry has heard some evidence that Miss Ross' body 3 was positioned within the bathroom with her feet towards 4 the door and her head in the interior of the bathroom 5 possibly near to where the WC itself was located. 6 Does that accord with your recollection of the scene? 7 A. It does, yes. 8 Q. Bearing that in mind, would you be able to say whether 9 you were lifting Miss Ross' body from the feet or from 10 the head? 11 A. I'm sorry, I don't remember where I was positioned at 12 the body. 13 Q. Can you recall whether there were any undertakers within 14 the house at the time? 15 A. I can't, no. 16 Q. Is it possible there may have been? 17 A. I think it's likely they were in the house. 18 Q. We have heard some evidence to say that it would not be 19 normal for undertakers to be allowed in there because it 20 might give them, as it were, special knowledge of the 21 cram scene which they would then be in a position to 22 relay outwith the crime scene and that might not be 23 helpful to the police inquiry? 24 A. I understand that and that's the reason why myself and 25 the Scenes of Crime Officer placed the body into the page 70 1 body bag to prevent that specialist knowledge being put 2 out there. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: I suppose it would be inappropriate to put 4 the body in the body bag outside the house. You would 5 do it in the house. 6 A. Yes. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: And then the undertakers would take it from 8 that point. 9 A. That's correct. 10 MISS CARMICHAEL: Mr Moffat has told the Inquiry about his 11 having noticed, after you and he had lifted Miss Ross' 12 body, he drew to your attention that your glove had 13 burst. 14 Is that something that you recall? 15 A. I don't, no. 16 Q. He has also said that while you were in the process of 17 lifting Miss Ross' body you were more or less in the 18 doorway near to where her feet were and that at some 19 point your left hand came into contact with the 20 doorframe of the bathroom. 21 Is that something you recall? 22 A. No. 23 Q. He has told us that he gave you a warning at that point 24 not to touch the surface. Again, is that something that 25 you remember at all? page 71 1 A. No. 2 Q. Is it possible that either of these things may have 3 happened but you do not remember them, Sergeant Gray? 4 A. Yes, that's possible. 5 Q. I take it that, like other people, you became aware, 6 probably at some point in 1997, that there was a 7 controversy about a fingerprint found at the scene in 8 this case? 9 A. Yes, I was. 10 Q. You may have been aware that it was a controversy about 11 a mark that was found on the very doorframe of the 12 bathroom that we have been talking about? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. At that time did it ever cross your mind that yourself, 15 having been involved in moving the body, you may have 16 deposited the mark there? 17 A. No. 18 Q. So we can take it then that your position is that 19 Mr Moffat may not be correct in what he is telling us 20 about what happened at the scene? 21 A. It's a possibility. I certainly don't recall my glove 22 being burst. I certainly don't recall him saying to me 23 that my glove was burst and I don't recall being 24 positioned in that doorway and touching that doorframe. 25 Q. But you are not saying he's wrong? page 72 1 A. No. 2 Q. I would like to direct your attention to paragraph 16 of 3 the signed statement that you gave to the Inquiry. Do 4 you have that in front of you? 5 A. I do, yes. 6 Q. You say: 7 "I do not recall being involved in moving the body 8 from the bathroom." 9 That does not seem to be exactly what you are telling 10 us today, Sergeant Gray. 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. Can you explain the difference? 13 A. Just since providing a statement obviously I've had time 14 to think about it and I did remember being involved in 15 moving the body. 16 Q. I would like to give you an opportunity to read through 17 your statement carefully at this point and tell us if 18 there is anything else in it that you say now is not 19 your current recollection? 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Take a moment now. Take your own time to do 21 that. 22 A. Yes, my Lord. (Pause) 23 MISS CARMICHAEL: Is there anything else there that's wrong? 24 A. No. 25 Q. I think, like other witnesses in this Inquiry, somebody page 73 1 came along to interview you to take this statement from 2 you, correct? 3 A. That's correct, yes. 4 Q. You were then given a copy of your statement to revise 5 as you saw fit? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. And you signed the statement in the form that we see it 8 today? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. And the first time that you have mentioned to anybody 11 involved in this Inquiry that it is not correct is in 12 the witness box in answer to questions from me today? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. Can you recall how long you had this statement with you 15 to revise it before you returned it signed? 16 A. I don't know. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you give any indication? Did you have it 18 for days or weeks or months? 19 A. Maybe days, maybe a week, something like that. It's not 20 a long time. 21 MISS CARMICHAEL: I may have some dates to put to you. I've 22 been struggling with the computer here. 23 The record that I have indicates that you were 24 interviewed for the Inquiry at some point before 25 9th February 2009. page 74 1 Would you agree with that? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And that the draft was sent back out to you on 4 19th February this year. 5 Do you receiving it around that time? 6 A. I don't recall the exact dates but I certainly wouldn't 7 disagree with that. 8 Q. I think you sent in your amendments to your statement 9 round about 23rd March this year. 10 Again, would you agree with that? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. The record here is that the final form was sent to you 13 for signature on 1st ... in fact, it may be that in fact 14 you contacted the Inquiry at some point to say you 15 hadn't received something that had been sent to you. 16 Is that something that you recall? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. That may have been at some point between 24th March and 19 1st May of this year. 20 A. I don't recall the exact dates but I'll agree with that. 21 Q. It may be that there was contact between you and the 22 Inquiry in which you indicated that you had not received 23 the statement that had been sent out to you for 24 signature? 25 A. Yes. page 75 1 Q. But a further copy was sent to you on 1st May 2009. 2 Did you receive it round about then? 3 A. Again I don't recall the date but I'll agree with that. 4 Q. Certainly your statement appears to have been signed on 5 2nd May and it was received on -- I think the Inquiry 6 received it on 26th May. 7 Please tell the Chairman what contact the Inquiry made 8 with you before 26th May to try to achieve receiving 9 your statement? 10 A. Yes, there was quite a bit of contact. Unfortunately, 11 there was at least two occasions I was absent from my 12 work and they didn't get statements in time. They were 13 posted to my place of work and I wasn't there for quite 14 some time. So the time it took for amendments it was 15 back and forth between myself and the Inquiry so I -- I 16 remember there was a bit of pressure from the Inquiry to 17 get the statement back to them. So it did take me a bit 18 of time. 19 Q. Would I be right in saying that in fact a formal notice 20 was served on you to achieve getting your statement into 21 the Inquiry? 22 A. That's correct and, as I said, I was off my work for 23 some time so I actually didn't have possession of that 24 statement at the time. 25 Q. But you had a long time even in the time since you have page 76 1 been interviewed from the Inquiry to think about whether 2 you were in the bathroom lifting Miss Ross' body, 3 Sergeant Gray, hadn't you? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And I think the Inquiry is entitled to some explanation 6 as to why it is only today that we have heard that what 7 is in your statement is not what you have to say is 8 correct. 9 A. I don't have an explanation for that. I was just 10 thinking about it over the last few days and it just 11 came back to me as I was thinking about the time I spent 12 there. 13 Q. Because, Mr Gray, would I be right in thinking that when 14 the Inquiry team asked you about this matter it was not 15 the first time you had been asked about it? 16 A. I don't follow. 17 Q. Well, am I correct in saying to you that you were 18 perhaps interviewed by officers from Tayside Police in 19 about August 2000? 20 A. When I was interviewed for this Inquiry recently that 21 was put to me and I don't recollect that interview 22 taking place. 23 Q. You don't recollect -- yes, I think you refer to that at 24 paragraph 12 of your statement. 25 A. Yes. page 77 1 Q. And you simply have no recollection of giving -- we 2 perhaps should bring up the statement for you, CO1090. 3 This appears to have been a statement given by you. We 4 see S90 in the top corner and perhaps you will take it 5 from me it does derive from papers that the Inquiry has 6 from Operation Alba, the Mackay Inquiry. 7 It starts: 8 "I joined Strathclyde Police in 21st July, 1987 and am 9 presently a uniformed officer stationed at Blackstoun 10 Road Police Station, Paisley." 11 I take it that is something you may well have said in 12 giving that statement at that time? 13 A. No. 14 Q. No? 15 A. I worked at that time -- in 2000 I was stationed at 16 Ferguslie Park Police Office but I would never refer to 17 it as Blackstoun Road Police Station. No-one refers to 18 that Police Office as Blackstoun Road Police Station. 19 The Police Station is situated in Blackstoun Road but I 20 also referred to it, and everyone refers to it as, 21 Ferguslie Park Police Office. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Can the witness see the end of the statement 23 to see if you recognise the document at all. 24 MISS CARMICHAEL: Can you go to the last page? 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Does it come back to you at all this page 78 1 document? 2 A. No. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you recall it? 4 A. Not at all. 5 MISS CARMICHAEL: It does record your annual leave dates. 6 Is there any way the person taking the statement could 7 have got those other than from yourself? 8 A. Well, they are well documented in the force. It's 9 common knowledge if you speak to HR or lay managers. 10 Q. Could you go back a page, please. I am sorry could you 11 go back one further page. 12 You will see if we look at the second paragraph on 13 this page that what was recorded here -- I'm sorry, can 14 you keep the whole page up: 15 "Some time later two undertakers arrived at the locus, 16 properly protected and placed the body of the deceased 17 into a shell and removed it from the locus. These 18 undertakers had occasion, therefore, to be within the 19 bathroom in question. The standard procedure is to 20 place the body of the deceased into a protective bag but 21 I cannot recall that taking place in this instance." 22 First of all, do you recall giving a statement to that 23 effect? 24 A. No. 25 Q. If you did, it differs in some respects from what you page 79 1 have told the Inquiry today in that I think you were 2 saying that the moving of the body was a matter for you 3 and a Scenes of Crime Officer. 4 That is your position today? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. You were also asked: 7 "The area where the deceased had been found was quite 8 narrow and restrictive and the deceased was quite a 9 large woman and it was an awkward process to remove the 10 body. I cannot recall directly being involved in 11 removing the body but, given the circumstances, I may 12 have." 13 Again, that does not accord with what you have told 14 the Inquiry today, no? 15 A. No. 16 Q. In the following paragraph it is recorded: 17 "As far as I can recall, no person removed their 18 gloves during their time in the house, nor do I recall 19 anyone having damaged gloves. I personally wore only 20 one pair of examination gloves which were intact during 21 the entire time. They were not damaged as far as I can 22 remember and I had no reason to change them." 23 Now, would you accept that that certainly implies that 24 you were being asked questions by the interviewing 25 officers about the question of your involvement, about page 80 1 your moving the body and whether you had damaged gloves? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. So assuming that this is your statement, Sergeant Gray, 4 you were asked about precisely these matters as early as 5 2000. That is nearly nine years ago. Is that not 6 correct? 7 A. That appears to be the case, yes. 8 Q. And I am just wondering if you can give the Inquiry any 9 idea at all as to why it would be that you, despite 10 having been asked about this three years after the event 11 you were not able to assist the officers with any 12 recollection at all about being involved in moving 13 Miss Ross' body but today for the very first time you 14 are? 15 A. I can't give an explanation. It's just something I 16 remember about being at the locus. 17 Q. Because if you weren't clear before, you must have been 18 pretty clear by the time the Tayside officers came to 19 speak to you that there was a matter of some controversy 20 that was of great importance to Ms McKie and it was of 21 great importance to the SCRO examiners who had become 22 involved in her case? 23 A. I would say I don't recall giving that statement at that 24 time in 2000. 25 Q. Well, are you alleging that officers of Tayside Police page 81 1 have made up this statement? 2 A. No, not at all. 3 Q. So if you accept that you may have given this statement, 4 albeit that you don't remember it, it would be right, 5 wouldn't it, that people were asking you about this in 6 2000? 7 A. Sorry, could you repeat that? 8 Q. Do you accept that you may have given this statement, 9 albeit that you don't remember it? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. So if we accept that, it follows that you were being 12 asked questions of this type in 2000, does it not? 13 A. Yes, it does. 14 Q. And you knew in 2000 that there was a serious matter 15 involved for Ms McKie and, particularly at that time, 16 for the SCRO examiners who had been involved in her 17 case. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And you can give no explanation whatsoever as to why in 20 that serious context you were unable to remember 21 something that you have been able to remember today? 22 A. No. 23 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you, Sergeant Gray. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any applications? 25 MR SMITH: Certainly I have one matter. I would like to put page 82 1 a suggestion to the witness as to why his evidence might 2 have changed in this and if I may do so I would be 3 obliged if I could. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: If you wish to do so. 5 MR SMITH: Thank you, sir. There is also another matter 6 relating to part of the statement to the Robertson 7 Inquiry I would like to ask the witness. It relates to 8 the integrity of the locus and I would like to find out 9 what his recollection is today about the position in 10 relation to these two matters. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: This is about other police officers being in 12 the lounge? 13 MR SMITH: It is actually about whether everyone who was 14 there was in the appropriate clothing in the 15 circumstances. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 17 Cross-examined by MR SMITH 18 MR SMITH: Can I ask you, please, Sergeant Gray, to look at 19 the statement that appears to have been produced, at 20 least by the Mackay Robertson Inquiry, CO1090 which will 21 be shown to you. 22 Can you go to page 3, please. 23 On page 3, towards the top if you read from line 4 24 we see a sentence beginning, "Detective Superintendent 25 Malcolm ..." page 83 1 Do you see that? 2 A. I do, yes. 3 Q. "... arrived within the house during that time and I 4 recall that he was not properly dressed in that he 5 either did not wear gloves or did not wear a paper suit. 6 I also noted that Detective Superintendent Malcolm 7 placed his overcoat upon a table situated within the 8 front porch of the house. I cannot recall any other 9 persons present in the house at that time. It was 10 unclear at the time whether the deceased had taken her 11 own life or had been murdered." 12 I think I should have asked for permission to ask that 13 last part of the sentence, whether it was unclear 14 whether the deceased had taken her own life or been 15 murdered. I take it that was something that you are 16 sticking with today, whether you gave a statement to 17 that effect. 18 Is that your position here today: when you first 19 arrived, it was unclear what had happened to Miss Ross? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. Can I ask you about the information that appears to be 22 recorded here about Detective Superintendent Malcolm (a) 23 not apparently being properly dressed and (b) putting 24 his overcoat on the table. Are either or both of these 25 your recollection today? page 84 1 A. The only part of that I do remember is the fact that I 2 recollect him placing his overcoat on the table in the 3 porch but, as far as not being properly dressed, I don't 4 remember that at all. 5 Q. Might it have been correct? 6 A. He wasn't properly dressed? 7 Q. That he was improperly dressed, might it be so? 8 A. I've no recollection of that. My recollection was that 9 the people in the house at the time were properly 10 dressed; they were wearing protective clothing. My 11 recollection as far as his coat's concerned was he left 12 his coat on the table in the porch. 13 Q. You see, Sergeant Gray, as the Chairman pointed out, at 14 the very last page -- perhaps if we could just have 15 that -- there's an indication in the statement that it 16 was noted by Detective Sergeant Dunn between 12.50 and 17 1400 hours -- so I reasonable amount of time taken -- on 18 16th August 2000 at the Police Station and corroborated 19 by another police officer Detective Constable Grieg 20 Steele. 21 I must confess I am a little unclear as to whether you 22 just simply have no recollection at all of giving any 23 statement to anybody regarding the Mackay Robertson 24 Inquiry or you remember giving a statement but you don't 25 remember what you said? page 85 1 A. I've got no recollection of giving that statement at 2 that time. 3 Q. But I take it that, assuming that these police officers, 4 Detective Sergeant Dunn and Detective Constable Steele, 5 were doing their job properly you would accept they at 6 least took a statement, unless -- 7 A. No, I absolutely accept that they took a statement. I 8 just don't remember giving a statement. 9 Q. They seem to have noted down a lot of things attributed 10 to what you have said? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Again, unless they both have made some terrible error or 13 made it up, then are you not prepared to accept that 14 it's probably a reasonably accurate representation of 15 what you said? 16 A. There is a possibility of that but, as I said, I don't 17 remember saying that at the time. 18 Q. Very well. 19 So can you help us with this: when, can you tell us, 20 you were first aware that there was some suggestion that 21 you may have deposited a fingerprint through a burst 22 glove at the locus? When were you first aware of that 23 suggestion? 24 A. The first time I became aware of that suggestion was 25 when I precognosced for this Inquiry and I was surprised page 86 1 that suggestion was put to me. 2 Q. Of course this follows your involvement with looking at 3 the body and (inaudible) your precognition today where 4 you have accepted there may be something different 5 happened. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Were you asked to provide fingerprints to this Inquiry 8 within the past few days and weeks? 9 A. I was, yes. 10 Q. What was your response to that? 11 A. Initially, I said I would like to consult with my force 12 solicitor before. It was an unusual suggestion. I 13 wasn't aware of a reason behind it. I spoke to the 14 force, he had no objection with it and I agreed for my 15 fingerprints. 16 Q. Just as easy as that, can you understand that it was 17 entirely something (inaudible); is that right? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. You saw fit to consult the force solicitor, is that what 20 you said? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. Why did you think you needed legal advice about a 23 request from a public inquiry, that has you under a 24 citation, to attend to provide fingerprints? 25 A. Well, this is the first public Inquiry I've been page 87 1 involved in. I didn't know what the protocol was. I 2 don't know if the force had any objection, I didn't know 3 if there was any reasons, I didn't know what the 4 protocol was and I wanted to take advice before I did 5 that. 6 Q. At any stage did the Inquiry have to say they would 7 obtain an order to get your fingerprints they required? 8 A. No. 9 Q. When finally did you give your fingerprints? 10 A. That was yesterday. 11 Q. I think you are aware that they are going to be examined 12 to see if they coincide with the mark Y7. You know 13 that, don't you? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And of course if they do coincide with mark Y7 if your 16 position was you weren't moving the body and you didn't 17 have a burst glove at all, then you have a little 18 explaining to do, wouldn't you? 19 A. I would do yes. 20 Q. Whereas if there was -- if it wasn't your fingerprint, 21 Y7, you would be entirely comfortable with your position 22 as in your statement, wouldn't you? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. I am going to suggest to you the doubts that you now 25 have with it being examined is perhaps your motivation page 88 1 for recognising that your statement as is really showed 2 to be false; is that not right? 3 A. I don't quite understand that. 4 Q. I am suggesting to you that in your statement, you give 5 a version in your written statement, you give a written 6 statement, that is inconsistent with your print being 7 Y7. 8 A. As far as today is concerned the only inconsistency I'm 9 aware of is in relation to my handling of the body. 10 Q. Yes, the body was positioned right at the doorframe, 11 wasn't it? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. So if Y7 is your fingerprint, then you must have been 14 approximate to the body, correct? 15 A. I'd accept that, yes. 16 Q. What I am suggesting to you is that it would certainly 17 require an explanation as to what you were doing near 18 the body if you weren't moving it, if it turns out your 19 fingerprint is Y7. 20 Do you understand what I am putting to you? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. I am suggesting to you that your knowledge of some doubt 23 of it, the authorship of Y7 in particular might be 24 yours, then it is clear that your statement requires to 25 be reviewed? page 89 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Sergeant Gray, have you been entirely truthful with this 3 Inquiry about your recollection of events? 4 A. Yes, I have. 5 MR SMITH: Thank you. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other applications. 7 MR HOLMES: I have no questions for Sergeant Gray, sir. 8 MISS GRAHAME: No questions, thank you. 9 Cross-examined by MR MACPHERSON 10 Q. I do have one or two matters of clarification, issues I 11 would just like to address. I don't think it will take 12 particularly long. 13 Sergeant Gray, Mr Smith, my learned friend there, 14 suggested to you that your statement might partially 15 need to be reviewed in certain circumstances but am I 16 right in understanding that in fact you accept that 17 there is a change required to your witness statement to 18 the Inquiry in relation to whether you were involved in 19 moving the body? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. So you accepted that to that extent the statement 22 requires to be reviewed? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. I wonder if I may just ask you about another paragraph 25 in your statement just to complete the picture, please, page 90 1 if you have your statement there and if the Inquiry 2 wishes to put it up on the screen the statement is 3 reference FI0069 and at paragraph 6 on page 2 of the 4 statement; do you have that, Sergeant? 5 I think at paragraph 6 your witness statement says: 6 "I recall being in the house with DCI but I can't 7 recall what I was doing. The only other involvement I 8 remember was to accompany the body to the mortuary in 9 Glasgow." 10 Would I be right from what you have now told us that 11 that also requires to be reviewed in that you did not 12 have another involvement that you now recall? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. And your evidence to the Inquiry is that you do recall 15 having an involvement in moving the body? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. Can I take it, Sergeant, that you have, and indeed at 18 that time, been to many other similar crime scenes? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Including scenes where there was a death or a murder? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And you had to move the body, been involved in the 23 removal of the body? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Was there any reason, at the time you were there at the page 91 1 locus in this case, for that particular incident to 2 stick in your mind? 3 A. It's -- the main reason is that in order for the body to 4 be taken out the bathroom, in order to keep the 5 information in relation to how the deceased was killed, 6 then that's specialist knowledge and we wouldn't want 7 that to go out into the public domain. So the reason 8 would be that myself and another would then place the 9 body into the body bag to prevent undertakers viewing 10 the deceased in that position. 11 Q. In relation to the question of the gloves, you have been 12 asked about, and in your statement to the Inquiry you 13 said, that you don't recall your glove being damaged -- 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. -- when you gave a statement to the Inquiry, was it 16 suggested to you that a witness had said your glove was 17 damaged? 18 A. That's correct, sir, yes. 19 Q. Is having a damaged or torn glove something that you 20 might recall? Is it something out of the ordinary? 21 A. I would have recalled it, yes, and the fact that I don't 22 makes me think that my glove wasn't torn. 23 Q. Were you told by the person taking the statement for the 24 Inquiry who the witness was who said that your glove was 25 torn? page 92 1 A. No. 2 Q. I think Miss Carmichael asked you whether you could 3 remember the names of the Scenes of Crime Officers there 4 and you said you could not. 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. There was reference in your evidence earlier to 7 Mr Moffat. 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. Do you know Mr Moffat, who is or was a Scenes of Crimes 10 Officer? 11 A. The name's certainly familiar to me. 12 Q. Do you know who he is? Can you picture him, for 13 example? 14 A. If he walked past me I probably couldn't, no. 15 Q. Then the finally one last thing, Sergeant: you have been 16 shown the statement that it is said you gave to the 17 Mackay Inquiry in 2000. I understand your evidence to 18 this Inquiry is you don't recall giving that statement. 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. But you don't dispute that it may have been given? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. As you said to Mr Smith, if evidence is led that you did 23 give such a statement, you will not disagree with that? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Can I just confirm, even if it is true that you did give page 93 1 a statement, did you or do you recall -- perhaps I can 2 put that another way. 3 Even if you gave a statement, you do not recall 4 receiving a copy of that statement at any stage? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. Or being asked to look over it or to revise it? 7 A. That's correct. 8 MR MACPHERSON: I have no further questions, sir. 9 MISS CARMICHAEL: No thank you, sir. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Could I just you just to direct your mind to 11 this proposition: I have been told in the course of this 12 Inquiry that police officers naturally from time to time 13 accidentally leave a fingerprint on a scene, that that 14 is just human nature and these things can happen. 15 A. Yes. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Of course, if that happens, then one would 17 want to draw that to the attention of your authorities 18 as soon as possible so that they would understand that 19 this unfortunate thing had happened. 20 A. That's correct. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: If -- and I appreciate that you have no 22 recollection of this -- but if it had been drawn to your 23 attention that you might have left a mark accidentally 24 at the scene, what would have been your approach to 25 that? page 94 1 A. I would have drawn it to the attention of one of my 2 supervisors to make them aware that that had actually 3 happened. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Would there be any reason for you not to do 5 that? 6 A. The only reason I can think of is the glove wasn't burst 7 and there was no reason to put that forward. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: So if your glove had burst and if it was 9 possible that you might have left a mark, then you say 10 you would have drawn that to the attention of -- 11 A. Yes, absolutely. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: If it was brought to your attention, you 13 would have told your supervisor. 14 A. Yes. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Thank you for your 16 assistance. 17 Now, it is 1.00. We will rise until 1.50 and I 18 think, as I indicated, on Fridays I intend to rise at 19 3.00. 20 (1.00 pm) 21 (Luncheon Adjournment) 22 (1.50 pm) 23 MISS CARMICHAEL: The next witness is Alexander McAllister. 24 ALEXANDER McALLISTER (sworn) 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Could we just have your full name for the page 95 1 record. 2 A. Yes -- may I sit down? 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, of course. 4 A. My name is Alexander McAllister. I'm a Detective Chief 5 Superintendent with Strathclyde Police. 6 Examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 7 Q. Mr McAllister, I think you prepared a written statement 8 for the Inquiry. 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And you have signed that? 11 A. I'm sorry? 12 Q. You signed that, you signed your statement? 13 A. I have signed it, yes. 14 Q. Do you have a copy of that to hand? 15 A. I do, yes. 16 Q. And you are satisfied that records your position in 17 relation to the matters you were asked about? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. I think we have heard from your colleague, your former 20 colleague anyway, Mr Heath, that you were the Deputy 21 Senior Investigating Officer in relation to the 22 investigation into the murder of Marion Ross in 1997. 23 A. Yes, that's correct. 24 Q. Can you tell us a little about what that roll involved. 25 A. The role, it's fairly self-explanatory. As it says, I page 96 1 was a deputy, the second in command in a chain in other 2 words, for the investigation of the death of Marion 3 Ross. As part of that role my job is to maintain the 4 same level of knowledge as the Senior Investigating 5 Officer whilst still taking instructions from him in 6 order that, if necessary, I can deputise or take over 7 completely if that is ever found to be necessary. 8 Q. I think we heard from Mr Heath as well you had a 9 particular role in liaising with the laboratory, with 10 SCRO Fingerprint Bureau and with the Identification 11 Bureau in this investigation. 12 I wonder if you could tell us a little more in general 13 terms, we will deal with this in more detail later, if 14 you can tell us in general terms what that involved? 15 A. Yes. Because of the nature of this investigation, 16 Mr Heath as SIO had tasked me specifically to maintain 17 liaison with the forensic investigation branches (in 18 other words Strathclyde Police Forensic Science 19 Laboratory and Strathclyde Police Identification Bureau 20 and the SCRO fingerprint section so that the knowledge 21 coming from the work of these areas were laying in one 22 person rather than simply it being spread round various 23 people within the investigation team. 24 Q. I will come back and ask you a little bit more about the 25 murder investigation itself in due course, page 97 1 Mr McAllister, but I would like to ask you first about a 2 particular matter that has been perhaps occupying us 3 this morning. 4 I think possibly because of your role with liaising 5 with SCRO and so on there came to be a point where you 6 reviewed the scene of the murder and I think that was on 7 23rd January? 8 A. That's correct, yes. It was the day following the 9 arrest of Mr Asbury. 10 Q. I wonder if you could tell us what that scene review 11 consisted of. 12 A. My review of the fingerprint investigation of the scene 13 was part of a series of actions which also included a 14 review of the search of the scene by Strathclyde Police 15 officers and the following day included a further search 16 by specialist trained officers of the whole house. 17 Do you wish me to continue in detail with the 18 fingerprint element? 19 Q. Yes. It is of course the fingerprints that we are 20 particularly interested in and I am interested in your 21 review of the scene, so far as fingerprints were 22 concerned, as at 23rd January. 23 A. Yes. To put it in context, on the following day the 24 specialist search team that was going to be 25 introduced into the house were officers who had nothing page 98 1 to do with the inquiry. The reason for them being there 2 was to try and identify if there were any possible areas 3 within the house or curtilage that had been missed 4 hitherto, areas like voids within the house, that's 5 their particular expertise. Because we were introducing 6 this specialist team in who would necessarily have to 7 intrude in the scene, I felt it prudent to conduct a 8 review before doing so, both of the forensic examination 9 by the fingerprint examiners and also the search of the 10 house by my own staff. 11 In relation to the fingerprints, I was seeking to -- 12 well, essentially seeking an assurance from 13 Identification Bureau that the strategy between myself 14 and Mr Hogg at the outset had been followed through and, 15 more specifically within that, I was seeking information 16 about the small number of outstanding marks which had 17 yet to be identified. 18 Q. Which Identification Bureau staff did you take along 19 with you? 20 A. Well, the member of the staff who -- I can't recall 21 whether we went together or whether they simply met me 22 there but the member of staff was a Mr Michael Moffat. 23 Q. What did you and Mr Moffat do? 24 A. We had a general -- my detailed recollection is somewhat 25 hazy after 12 years but I was satisfied in general terms page 99 1 that essentially the whole house had been fingerprinted, 2 if I simplify it, and thereafter I got Mr Moffat to show 3 me the location of the -- I think there were 18 4 outstanding marks at that time -- to show me the 5 location of each of them and I made some notes for my 6 own benefit to follow-up, to try and achieve elimination 7 of those marks. 8 Q. Am I right you were particularly interested in some 9 marks on the bathroom doorframe? 10 A. Only in as much as Miss Ross' body had been found in the 11 bathroom on the ground floor so clearly any marks within 12 the bathroom itself or for this matter on the doors or 13 door surround to the bathroom were clearly of particular 14 importance, but only from a perspective of they were in 15 the vicinity of where Miss Ross' body had lay. 16 Q. Some of these marks, if I understand your statement 17 correctly, were marks that had not been identified at 18 the stage that you were visiting? 19 A. There were a number of marks there which had yet to be 20 identified, yes. 21 Q. What was the discussion between you and Mr Moffat about 22 the marks on the doorframe? 23 A. I don't recall the detail of the discussion, I must say, 24 but what I was looking for was to assess each of these 25 outstanding marks to see what further actions we might page 100 1 take to try and achieve identification. 2 I did make a note shortly after that meeting on each 3 of these 18 or so marks in which I recorded my thoughts 4 which arose from our discussion at the time. 5 Q. I think we have your note and I will take you to that, 6 Mr McAllister, in due course. 7 Thinking about particularly some marks, Y7 and Z7, I 8 think these were marks on, if they were in the hallway 9 of the property, on the right-hand side of the 10 doorframe? 11 A. Yes, my recollection is they were on the frame at the 12 right -- that's the doorway into the bathroom where 13 Miss Ross' body was. 14 Q. I think you came to discuss those marks with Mr Moffat? 15 A. I'm sorry? 16 Q. You came to discuss those marks with Mr Moffat? 17 A. We probably had discussion on each one of the 18 marks 18 that were around the house. As I say, I don't remember 19 specifically but I don't doubt we probably did discuss 20 at least in some degree what the origin of those marks 21 may have been. 22 Q. What, if anything, did Mr Moffat say to you? 23 A. I'm sorry? 24 Q. What did Mr Moffat say to you about those marks if you 25 can remember? page 101 1 A. No, I've no recollection of the specific discussions, if 2 any, that took place in relation to any of the 18 marks. 3 Q. Mr Moffat has told the Inquiry, and I think you are 4 aware of this suggestion already, that what he said to 5 you on that occasion was that he thought that the marks 6 might belong to an officer called Gary Gray. 7 A. I became aware of that suggestion in the year 2000 and 8 that was the first -- I think that was the first I was 9 aware of that. 10 Q. How did you become aware of that? 11 A. I was made aware of that by officers of Tayside Police 12 who were interviewing me. This is for the Inquiry 13 carried out under the direction of Mr Mackay, then the 14 Deputy Chief Constable. 15 The officers from Tayside Police who interviewed me 16 made me aware that Michael Moffat had made comment that 17 and I think it was along the lines of I had told him 18 that I knew that the mark Y7 was that of a police 19 officer, which was absolute nonsense. 20 Q. We will come to the question of that part of it in a 21 moment, but just thinking about the account that he had 22 said to you he thought it was Gary Gray's print, what is 23 your response to that? Is that something you remember 24 happening? 25 A. Did Mr Moffat say anything to me directly? page 102 1 Q. Yes. 2 A. No. No, as I said, the first I became aware of this was 3 in the year 2000 when interviewed by Tayside police 4 officers who were relating it second-hand. 5 Q. When you became aware of it, did you become aware of a 6 suggestion that you had been told it was Gary Gray's 7 print? 8 A. Yes, I think that was part of that general information 9 that they conveyed to me at that time. 10 Q. Have you ever had any occasion to take it up with 11 Mr Gray at all? 12 A. No. By that stage it was three years after the 13 investigation. I was aware that Gary Gray had been one 14 of the first detective officers to attend the scene and, 15 in fact, had been in the house and as a matter of 16 routine his own fingerprints would have been checked 17 against any outstanding marks in the house. 18 Q. But your position is that the name Gary Gray was never 19 mentioned to you at that time. 20 A. No, not at all. 21 Q. You started to tell us, I think, you are aware also of 22 the suggestion that you said to Michael Moffat that you 23 were aware that the mark belonged to another police 24 officer. 25 A. Yes. That was the gist of what I learned from the page 103 1 Tayside officers. 2 Q. And your response to that? 3 A. My response to that was to question of them the 4 credibility of that information and I subsequently 5 submitted a report on that matter to the then head of 6 CID in Strathclyde Police to formally put on record my 7 concerns around this information which Mr Moffat had 8 given. 9 Q. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit more about 10 that. Who was the officer of CID? 11 A. At that time it was a Detective Chief Superintendent 12 John Malcolm. 13 Q. So you made a report to John Malcolm in, what, about 14 2000? 15 A. It was very soon after the interview by the Tayside 16 officers. 17 Q. If you take it from me they were generally interviewing 18 people in August and September 2000. 19 A. I actually still have a copy of my report. I actually 20 have it in my bag today for some reference purposes. I 21 don't think -- I'm not aware of this particular report 22 having been obtained by the Inquiry team previously. 23 Q. No, I think we're as one on that. 24 I wonder, sir, this may be of some significance. I 25 don't know if it is perhaps worth obtaining this at this page 104 1 stage? 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. It is not available to us at the 3 moment? 4 MISS CARMICHAEL: It not available. It is not something 5 that I have seen and it is not something that I know 6 about. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: I am not sure who can help us. I take it 8 there is no point just out of the blue, you cannot help 9 Mr Macpherson? 10 MR MACPHERSON: No, sir, I'm not aware of this document. 11 MISS CARMICHAEL: I wonder if I could beg for a brief 12 adjournment to look at this document at this stage. It 13 may be of some significance and I wouldn't want to lose 14 the opportunity of dealing with it this afternoon. It 15 may be possible perhaps to photocopy it, if it is of 16 significance, and to display it for everybody to see 17 this afternoon since we have become aware of its 18 existence. I am sorry to break so soon after we have 19 started. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: It can then be put on the system? 21 MISS CARMICHAEL: Certainly it can. It can't 22 instantaneously be put on it today but there are ways of 23 dealing with it today, if it is relevant. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: If we can do that, then will adjourn just for 25 a few minutes. page 105 1 (2.07 pm) 2 (A short break) 3 (2.11 pm) 4 MISS CARMICHAEL: I am sorry to ask you to adjourn for what 5 has turned out not to be a good purpose. He does not 6 have the document with him and I wondered if it could be 7 faxed here today but I don't think it is going to be 8 possible. Given the timing, I suspect strongly that we 9 might be asking Mr McAllister to come back on Tuesday 10 anyway with the prospect of bringing this document, that 11 now becomes more like a certainty. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: If you would be good enough. 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: In fact, if you can get the document sooner 15 to the Inquiry or a copy of it, then the process of 16 loading it on to our data bank can be advanced. 17 MISS CARMICHAEL: Yes, sir. I am told there may be 18 arrangements that can be made to have it picked up from 19 Kilmarnock. 20 A. I can certainly have the document made available first 21 thing on Monday. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: I am sure arrangements can be made to see 23 about that. 24 MISS CARMICHAEL: But you were telling us that you had 25 reported to Mr Malcolm, the head of CID, about the page 106 1 matter. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. In what terms -- and I appreciate that we will see your 4 report in due course now -- what were you saying about 5 it? 6 A. My concern was that the information given by Mr Moffat 7 was completely and utterly erroneous and both impacting 8 on myself personally and also because he, at that time, 9 was a serving officer of Strathclyde Police. 10 Q. At that stage did you have any concerns about Gary Gray 11 himself as being somebody named in what Mr Moffat was 12 saying? 13 A. Around something to do with a burst glove at the scene? 14 Q. Yes. Did you have any concerns about that? 15 A. No, I didn't have any concerns about that. It's not 16 that uncommon for an officer to inadvertently leave a 17 mark at the scene, hence the stringent methods taken 18 around elimination and checking officers against 19 outstanding marks. 20 Q. Were you, at the stage you were reporting to Mr Malcolm, 21 aware of what Gary Gray's position was in relation to 22 the allegation that he had a burst glove at the scene? 23 A. No. As I said, this was information coming to me 24 second-hand. It was the first, I think, I'd heard of 25 that and my response in all the circumstances was to page 107 1 report the matter to my senior line manager for whatever 2 action he thought was appropriate in the circumstances. 3 Q. Do you know whether anyone in Strathclyde Police ever 4 made any investigations into the matter from the point 5 of view of finding out whether what Mr Moffat said about 6 Gary Gray was correct? 7 A. I don't know what was done with that. Obviously 8 Mr Mackay's Inquiry was then in full flow and I don't 9 know what follow-on action, if any, was taken by my own 10 force. 11 Q. Might it be that Mr Malcolm is the person who will be 12 able to tell us about that? 13 A. Possibly. 14 Q. I think we will see your report in due course then, 15 Mr McAllister. Thank you for telling us about that. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. You started to tell me, and I said we would come to it, 18 about some notes you made at the time. I wonder if you 19 could look, please, at CO1706 at page 4. 20 Is this one of the pages of the notes that you made? 21 A. Yes, it is. 22 Q. That you were referring to making. Can you tell the 23 Inquiry to the best of your recollection when you made 24 these notes? 25 A. I didn't date the note but I would have made it fairly page 108 1 soon after concluding the review of the crime scene, 2 possibly that afternoon or perhaps the following 3 morning. 4 Q. We see there is an entry for Y7 that is highlighted 5 there. Is the highlighting yours or somebody else's 6 that's come to it later? 7 A. It's someone else's. 8 Q. You record there a location for Y7 "RHS hallway bathroom 9 door surround 5 feet", and a little arrow. What does 10 the arrow mean from your point of view? 11 A. The arrow, I think -- well, that element is simply 12 copied from the schedule prepared by the fingerprint 13 examiners at the Identification Bureau. I'm by no means 14 an expert. I think the arrow refers to the orientation 15 of the mark in the opinion of the examiner. 16 Q. You write: 17 "Very interesting position on R ...", I take it that's 18 right? 19 A. Right. 20 Q. "... door surround leaning into bathroom?" 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Why did you think it was very interesting position, 23 Mr McAllister? 24 A. Because of the proximity of the mark to the location of 25 Miss Ross' body. page 109 1 Q. Why did you write, "leaning into bathroom?" What should 2 we take from that? 3 A. That comment is my own thought or a question to myself 4 at the time. In other words, has the mark been left by 5 someone leaning into the bathroom and having their hand 6 on the door surround at the time. 7 Q. Do you yourself have any expertise in interpreting from 8 a fingerprint that that might be the case that someone 9 is leaning into the bathroom? 10 A. None whatsoever. 11 Q. You write "Possibly R little finger of palmer Z7." 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Again, what made you write that? 14 A. As I recall, Z7 was a palmer impression, which was in 15 close proximity to Y7 and, again, it's a question to 16 myself in terms of trying to achieve elimination of Y7. 17 The question I'm asking myself is it related to Z7, in 18 other words are they from the same donor and at some 19 point thereafter I have made a check and noted that Z7, 20 in fact, was insufficient for identification. 21 Q. I wondered when in relation to the rest of the notes the 22 note about Z7 had been made? 23 A. In terms of the "insufficient" comment? 24 Q. Yes. 25 A. I don't know specifically when but I had marked up the page 110 1 answers to some of the questions, if you like, to a 2 number of the unidentified marks at some later point, 3 presumably after checking with SCRO around the 4 identification or elimination of marks. I can't say 5 when exactly that would have been. 6 Q. Can you recall, going back to 23rd January, were you 7 perhaps recalling at the scene that you expressed a view 8 that the mark belonged to a woman or a child, that you 9 might have said something of that sort? 10 A. I don't recall specifically saying so. I may have done. 11 Again, I'm not a fingerprint expert at all and, as I've 12 noted, there's at least in my mind at least the 13 possibility that it may have been a little finger of the 14 palmer and for that matter there may not have been a 15 huge amount of mark visible. I may have thought out 16 loud, if you like, and speculated whether it might have 17 been because of the size of the mark whether it might 18 have been left by a child or possibly a woman. 19 Obviously fingerprints or the marks left tend to be 20 smaller than for men by and large. It would be no more 21 than just speculation from the mark. 22 Q. Again, this is you as a police officer speaking without 23 any particular expertise in interpreting fingerprints? 24 A. I have taken fingerprints from people on many occasions 25 in order to submit them and, because of doing so, I am page 111 1 aware that in general terms the impressions taken from 2 females tend to be smaller and neater than impressions 3 from men but no more than that. 4 Q. Which I suspect, as to the relative sizes of most men 5 and most women, we might suspect in any event. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. I suspect we may return to that chapter when your 8 document is available, Mr McAllister, but if we can 9 perhaps go back, out of order, to the night of 10 8th January 1997, which would be when you first became 11 aware of and involved in the inquiry. 12 There has been some discussion and various accounts in 13 evidence to the Inquiry regarding whether a forensic 14 examination may have been carried out on the evening of 15 8th January. I would like you to look for me, please, 16 at paragraph 11 of your statement, just at the foot of 17 page 3, and I think you record there that you were met 18 by a member of the Forensic Laboratory, Mr Martin 19 Fairley, as well as a member of the Identification 20 Bureau? 21 A. Mmm. 22 Q. Can you recall what Mr Fairley was doing that night? 23 A. No. To explain -- if I may explain, I had no 24 involvement within the house itself. That was 25 undertaken by Mr Heath who was keen to limit intrusion page 112 1 into the house. So I was never any closer to the house 2 on that evening than essentially the front driveway and, 3 in fact, I have to say that it was only by reference to 4 some other documentation that I can recall it was Martin 5 Fairley specifically who represented the Forensic 6 Science Laboratory at that time. 7 Q. So all we can say on the basis of your evidence is that 8 he was there? 9 A. Yes. I am satisfied it was Mr Fairley who represented 10 the Laboratory. 11 Q. It is also -- if I can refer you then next to 12 paragraph 17 of your statement, the Inquiry has also 13 heard some evidence about whether the investigation was 14 a murder inquiry or whether it was a suspicious death or 15 whether it was thought that the lady had in fact 16 committed suicide. 17 I would like your best recollection of what the 18 position was, please. 19 A. My recollection and the view that I took at the time 20 from the various briefings that took place was that we 21 were in all probability dealing with a homicide, albeit 22 that, as I recall, the pathologist in attendance had not 23 excluded the possibility of suicide. But given the 24 rather graphic detail, the manner of death and the 25 manner in which Miss Ross' body was found, it seemed to page 113 1 me that it was very probable that it was in fact a 2 homicide. 3 Q. What effect -- I think we heard from Mr Heath that the 4 investigation couldn't be officially designated as a 5 murder inquiry until there had been post-mortem results? 6 A. That would be the normal course of events in terms of a 7 suspicious death, that the official determination, if 8 you like, as a murder inquiry would hinge on the 9 pathologist's cause of death. 10 Q. Is that, according to your recollection, how matters 11 proceeded, at least as regards the official designation 12 in this case? 13 A. We effectively proceeded as though it was a murder, to 14 put it in simplistic terms. To explain, police 15 procedures when a death is deemed to be suspicious, 16 that's really on a scale. Sometimes the suspicion might 17 simply be some minor unexplained bruising which is noted 18 by the police casualty surgeon. So the level of 19 suspicion can be very low. 20 In this case the level of suspicion was very high 21 indeed, so we were effectively treating it as a homicide 22 notwithstanding the fact that ultimately it was for the 23 pathologist to provide the cause of death. 24 Q. The Inquiry has also heard a suggestion that a series of 25 officers, I think up to six of them in pairs serially, page 114 1 were stationed to keep watch from the living room rather 2 than from the within the porch during the night of 3 8th January into the morning of 9th January. 4 Is that something that you recall? 5 A. I've no recollection of that, no. 6 Q. Who would have been in charge of instructing the 7 watch-keeping officers, if I can call them that, where 8 to go? 9 A. I may have been involved in that myself although I have 10 no specific recollection about whether I did or not give 11 any specific instructions. I think what I can say is 12 that my expectation of that scene was that the guard, 13 the overnight guard, would be done from outside the 14 house itself, possibly with the officers being allowed 15 to use the front porch at the house but certainly not 16 within the house itself. 17 Q. When you say "outside the house", I am starting to feel 18 a little bit sorry for the officers because we are 19 talking about the start of January in Kilmarnock. Would 20 that have been a realistic possibility in those days? 21 A. That officers would have to keep guard from outside. 22 Q. Outside the house in January? 23 A. Yes. Yes, I have seen many crime scenes -- I've had to 24 do some myself as a young officer -- where in very 25 inclement weather a guard has to be maintained outside. page 115 1 Q. Can you think of any reason they might have been 2 stationed in the living room? 3 A. I can't in all honesty, no. I wouldn't -- thinking back 4 to the layout of the house, the porch itself, though 5 it's not luxurious, would have given shelter from the 6 elements. I can think of no reason, no good reason, why 7 the officers on guard would access the house itself. 8 Q. Looking at matters the other way, would there be any 9 positive reason why they should not be stationed in the 10 living room? 11 A. Oh, absolutely. From the outset, Mr Heath was keen to 12 minimise intrusion into the scene. For example, even as 13 the second most senior detective officer at the scene, I 14 did not enter the scene that evening at all, 15 notwithstanding professional curiosity about what we 16 were dealing with, because there was no necessity for 17 both Mr Heath and I to enter the scene, so we were keen 18 to minimise intrusion into the house of Miss Ross. 19 Q. You told us a little bit in very general terms about 20 what your role in liaising with various other bodies, 21 the Forensic Science Laboratory, the Identification 22 Bureau and the SCRO fingerprint section and you give us 23 more detail about that in your statement at paragraphs 24 31 onwards, if you have that to hand. 25 Focussing first on the Identification Bureau, what was page 116 1 your direct point of contact with them? 2 A. My point of contact on the first morning of the 3 investigation, on the Thursday morning, was with then 4 Chief Inspector Ian Hogg who was the head of Strathclyde 5 Police Identification Bureau. 6 Q. As the investigation went on, how often would you be in 7 touch with Chief Inspector Hogg? 8 A. We didn't require to have a lot of contact. There was 9 certainly contact at the first formal debrief, forensic 10 debrief, which was chaired by Ian Hogg and we may have 11 communicated on a small number of occasions thereafter, 12 although I don't have any specific recollections. 13 Q. Just so that we can be clear we understand who is in 14 charge of what, Mr Hogg would have been essentially the 15 boss of the Scenes of Crime officers? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And that's the Scenes of Crime Officers who would be at 18 the scene trying to find fingerprints? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And also of the officers trying to find fingerprints 21 when they are working in the laboratory? 22 A. Yes, yes. 23 Q. We have heard some evidence to indicate that people 24 working in the lab finding fingerprints on items that 25 were recovered did come into possession of some page 117 1 contextual information about, for example, where items 2 had been recovered and, in particular, we have learned 3 that at least one of them is aware that a tin that came 4 to be significant in this investigation had been 5 recovered from the house of an accused person and was 6 thought, perhaps, to have come from the house of the 7 deceased. 8 Thinking about the channels of communication in this 9 case, how would he get that information? How would that 10 get to him? 11 A. Well, certainly at the formal debrief which was held 12 there would be -- the SI or myself, I think, probably it 13 was Steven Heath, would have given a summary of the 14 investigation, a summary of the circumstances leading up 15 to Miss Ross' death, as far as we had been able to 16 establish, with a view to informing everyone who had a 17 part to play in the investigation; in other words, so 18 that people were not working blindly but they were all 19 working away with at least that base level of knowledge 20 of the investigation. 21 Q. You mentioned a formal debrief. Just so I am quite 22 clear about what kind of debrief this is and who was 23 there I wonder if you can tell us a little more around 24 that. 25 A. Certainly the process at that time was to have a full page 118 1 formal forensic debrief fairly quickly, I think on this 2 occasion about one week or so into the investigation. 3 That was chaired by the head of the Identification 4 Bureau, was attended by some Identification Bureau 5 staff, by representatives from the Forensic Science 6 Laboratory, that's biologists and/or chemists, by the 7 senior investigators, the SIO, and potentially the 8 deputy SIO and hopefully by the pathologist, if 9 available to attend. 10 The idea behind this process was so that the Senior 11 Investigating Officer could draw a level of assurance 12 that the necessary specialist forensic work to try to 13 progress the inquiry was in fact agreed by all and was 14 being carried out. 15 Q. I think just focussing for the moment on the tin that 16 came to be of significance in this inquiry, I think we 17 have learned that that was a tin that was recovered on 18 22nd January, a couple of weeks into this investigation. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Bearing that time-frame in mind, how would this 21 information about it have come to the attention of the 22 gentleman who was working on it to recover fingerprints 23 from it? 24 A. When the tin was seized during the search of David 25 Asbury's house, that was done as a full forensic and page 119 1 video recorded and photographed search which involved a 2 number of staff from the Identification Bureau itself, 3 from the Forensic Science Laboratory and, for that 4 matter, police officers. The existence of the tin was 5 already known prior to the search because it had been 6 noted by Detective Sergeant Shields and Detective 7 Constable Cardwell when they had made initial enquiries 8 at that house. 9 It's relevance around that time was the large amount 10 of money that was contained within the tin rather than 11 the tin itself. 12 Q. In a sense, I am less interested in what the particular 13 relevance of it to the inquiry was than how the 14 information about its relevancy came to be disseminated 15 into different areas and, in particular, to the people 16 who came to be looking for fingerprints on it. 17 A. Sorry, I perhaps didn't make that entirely clear. To go 18 back to the identification and the seizure of the tin in 19 the first place there were representatives from all the 20 branches of the investigation present there who would 21 have been aware the fact the tin was seized at that time 22 and, for that matter, why it was seized. 23 In addition to that, there may have been communication 24 between the SIO and staff and possibly even by myself to 25 staff at the Identification Bureau, although I can't page 120 1 specifically recall any discussion about the tin per se. 2 Q. So it may be that the information simply filters out 3 because some of their colleagues are working at the 4 scene recovering the item? 5 A. Yes. There were many items being submitted to the 6 examination room at the Identification Bureau for latent 7 fingerprint examination. The tin and the money which 8 were taken from Mr Asbury's house were simply two items 9 in a very long list. 10 Q. On the picture that you are giving us, I suspect it may 11 not be altogether easy, even if you wish to prevent some 12 of that information passing from the scene, from people 13 who recovered the item to the people who come to examine 14 it but, leaving that out of account if we can, is there 15 any reason why the people who come to examine these 16 items would need to know in order to do their jobs 17 properly, for example, in the case of the tin that it 18 had been recovered from the house of an accused person 19 and that there was some thought that it may have derived 20 from the house where the murder took place? 21 A. It would be, I think, relevant for them to know the fact 22 that the tin -- if I speak specifically about the tin -- 23 had been taken from the house of the man who had been 24 arrested for the murder. So it was particularly 25 important amongst other items removed from the house. page 121 1 So all these items removed from the house were of 2 particular relevance to examination for potential 3 evidence. 4 Q. But again you will correct me if I am wrong in speaking 5 from a position of ignorance here, Mr McAllister, but 6 one might have a vision of the gentleman working away in 7 the lab with the powders, with the chemicals, with the 8 superglue, doing their level best to find marks. 9 In order to do that to the best of their ability, is 10 there any reason why they need to know any more than 11 that this is related to a serious crime and that it is 12 important to the police to have fingerprints looked for? 13 A. I think in one aspect these experts, no, they don't need 14 to know anything other than what the investigators wish 15 them to do. For example, if we refer to the tin, the 16 information they would require was that the tin would be 17 subjected to latent fingerprint development and for that 18 matter would it be all areas of the tin or only, for 19 example, the exterior of the tin. 20 On a wider sense, though in an investigation of that 21 sort we work as a team, the reality is that these sorts 22 of crimes are solved by teamwork and in a wide sense 23 everybody working on that is viewed as part of the team 24 and unless there is good reason not to give some 25 specific information (for example, such as rather page 122 1 sensitive intelligence), then the practice would be to 2 share as much information as possible, to motivate 3 individuals who were all giving or being asked to give 4 more than they would normally and hopefully so that we 5 get the maximum results from all the enquiries that were 6 ongoing. 7 Those could be forensic enquiries, it could be 8 officers trailing around trapping(?) on doors in 9 January; whatever it might be, teamwork, we know, is 10 what solves murders. 11 Q. I suppose taking that line of thought on a little bit 12 further, you described teamwork and motivating people by 13 making them feel part of a team, "We're all working 14 together to solve a crime". 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. How did that apply in practice to relations and 17 communications with the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau? 18 A. Well, on a normal case -- if I use an example, an 19 everyday domestic house break-in where fingerprints have 20 occurred there would be no communication whatsoever with 21 the SCRO fingerprint section. Any marks that were 22 developed would be simply be submitted to SCRO, the role 23 of the police is to try and identify legitimate donors 24 of those marks, obtain elimination forms and submit them 25 to SCRO and beyond that there would probably be no page 123 1 contact whatsoever. 2 In a case of this nature, which involved in excess of 3 400 identifications for elimination, in excess of 400 4 marks, we were very conscious that we were asking a lot 5 of SCRO. There was effectively a whole team dedicated 6 to this one investigation, notwithstanding all the other 7 work that was ongoing. 8 Q. So in this these sort of big investigations what would 9 be the positive contact with the SCRO? What sort of 10 things would you tell them? 11 A. The normal contacts that took place in this 12 investigation, by and large, away from the debrief that 13 I've referred to, the normal contact was simply 14 telephone updates from the SCRO fingerprint team to the 15 investigation team, generally to myself directly if 16 available but if not someone else would take information 17 on my behalf. That was the normal course of events. 18 On a number of occasions there were specific 19 priorities. For example, in relation to the money that 20 was taken from Mr Asbury's house, I took steps to supply 21 SCRO fingerprints with the elimination forms of a number 22 of Mr Asbury's associates for checking against prints on 23 the money specifically. So there would also be that 24 type of contact to try and progress/assist SCRO in their 25 work in trying to eliminate all 400 plus marks. page 124 1 Q. I appreciate you telling us in general terms how 2 communications took place and you told us about taking, 3 yourself, steps to supply SCRO with particular 4 elimination forms relating to particular individuals. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. But I am interested, I suppose, in the sort of 7 information that I think we have learned has come to 8 SCRO regarding other content to the inquiry and I wonder 9 if you could look for me in connection with this at 10 paragraph 81 of your statement. 11 I am sorry, I am afraid I have the wrong part for you. 12 Bear with me for a moment, Mr McAllister; my apologies. 13 If you would look, please, at paragraph 65 -- my 14 apologies for confusing you -- you tell us there, as you 15 told us today, that there were many fingerprints 16 involved in this particular investigation? 17 A. Mmm. 18 Q. You tell us also that you would hear perhaps with just a 19 telephone call when a mark was eliminated. You have 20 also indicated that there was at least one meeting when 21 there would be folk present from a number of bodies you 22 have talked about, but also Mr Macpherson from the 23 Scottish Criminal Record Office, going on to page 21 of 24 your statement here. 25 A. Yes. page 125 1 Q. I think when you were being asked questions by the 2 person who came to take your statement, you were shown a 3 particular document that the Inquiry had that had come 4 in a SCRO case envelope and that was DB0253 which is 5 referred at the end of that paragraph and I wonder if we 6 could have that on the screen for you. 7 I am sorry, I do not think this is the document that 8 we actually require. In any event, I think you were 9 referred to a document where there was information noted 10 about the deceased's family and her working connection 11 with the Bank of Scotland, her habits as to where she 12 slept and what she wore and the description of the house 13 itself. 14 You say that those notes contain an example of the 15 sort of matters that would have been discussed at that 16 meeting. I suppose particularly with the SCRO 17 fingerprint officers in mind, I am wondering why their 18 team in particular needed to have information of this 19 sort of contextual nature. 20 A. Yes, I suppose it's similar in a way to the response I 21 gave in relation to examination of items at the 22 examination room. In a sense, a very simplistic sense, 23 the role of SCRO fingerprint section at that time was 24 simply to compare marks from scenes with marks on 25 elimination forms or some other type of fingerprint form page 126 1 and make the connections. 2 The reality is that because of the sheer volume of 3 marks here, there was a need to try and, if you like, 4 narrow down where they had to look to make eliminations. 5 If I give an example, there were a series of marks on 6 the shower surrounds within the bathroom where Miss Ross 7 was found and clearly these were marks of significance, 8 again in close proximity to her body. 9 I instructed and enquiries were carried out to trace 10 the plumbers who had actually fitted the shower screens 11 which turned out to be some years previously and to 12 identify those individuals, obtain eliminations forms 13 and thereafter submit them to the SCRO fingerprint. 14 So in relation to that series of marks, a clear 15 direction would be given to SCRO that, you know, check 16 these particular elimination forms against those marks. 17 That example sticks in my mind because we did in fact 18 manage to eliminate those quite important marks by 19 reference to the fitters of the bathroom screen. 20 Q. So that is an example of trying to narrow the focus so 21 that perhaps those marks aren't compared against all, 22 however many sets of elimination prints you have 23 available in the investigation? 24 A. Yes, the reality is in excess of 400 marks and 25 potentially many, many more elimination forms. If every page 127 1 single potential elimination form was checked against 2 every single mark, the volume of work would be huge. 3 From efficiency and effectiveness point of view, what 4 was done, because of the volume, was to try and -- not 5 direct SCRO but to give them some guidance as to 6 potentially where eliminations might be found. 7 Q. I appreciate this is perhaps a similar sort of question 8 to one that I asked you earlier about the chaps working 9 away trying to find the fingerprints in the laboratory 10 but one might, I suppose, narrow SCRO's focus simply by 11 saying, "Please compare the marks on the shower screen 12 against this particular list of ten people", without 13 necessarily telling them why? 14 A. Yes, yes, that could be done, yes. 15 Q. You could do that? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. You don't have to tell them why you are narrowing it 18 down; you could simply narrow it down? 19 A. Yes. I should say from -- I must qualify that and say 20 from my own perspective not being a fingerprint expert, 21 fingerprint experts themselves might answer that they 22 would find value in being able to contextualise a mark 23 in order to do their task in eliminating that mark but 24 as an investigator without any expertise that would be 25 my answer. page 128 1 Q. Just give me a moment, please, to get the correct 2 reference to what it is I would like to show you. My 3 apologies. 4 I would like to show you another document that has 5 been recovered from SCRO papers and I think you have 6 been shown this before, DB0256. I think perhaps you 7 were shown this note when your statement was taken. 8 A. I believe I may have been, yes. 9 Q. That seems to indicate in relation to the tin: 10 "They are hopeful about the tin the money was in. 11 There is an area the same size as the tin on her bedside 12 table, clearly seen with dust around it. Tin recovered 13 at accused's." 14 In particular, I am interested in why it would be that 15 in order to do their jobs properly the SCRO officers 16 would need to have information of this sort. 17 A. I feel I'm repeating myself. I think in one sense -- I 18 mean, clearly this is contextual information that they 19 wouldn't actually need in order to simply examine the 20 tin, recover any latent impressions and thereafter 21 forward them to SCRO for elimination. 22 It's clearly contextual information and certainly 23 appears to emphasise the potential importance of any 24 marks that were recoverable from the tin itself. 25 Q. Because to take, perhaps, an extreme point of view, one page 129 1 might think if one were carrying out an examination and 2 trying to have to compare marks on complex visual items 3 independently, some people might say it might be better 4 if the people doing that didn't know too much about it. 5 Can you say anything about that from the point of view 6 of police procedure and the provision of information of 7 this sort? 8 A. That's a point of view that some people may hold but all 9 I can say in terms of where we were in 1997 is that, 10 under DCI Heath's direction, we were very much into 11 teamwork, we were sharing fairly significant amounts of 12 information with the various elements of the 13 investigation team, including the forensic examiners 14 and, for that matter, fingerprint examiners. So they 15 would have been picking up information coming from the 16 investigators and I should say it's certainly not in my 17 handwriting -- 18 Q. No, I didn't mean to suggest it was. 19 A. I haven't seen it previously but it seems to me this is 20 an example of that. 21 Q. We can take that off the screen. You say that is how 22 things were done under Mr Heath's direction in that 23 investigation. 24 You are obviously still a senior police officer, 25 Mr McAllister. page 130 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. In terms of how things like that are done nowadays has 3 anything changed about the provision of 4 contextual information to -- well, I know it's not SCRO 5 Fingerprint Bureau any more but the people who do that 6 job nowadays? 7 A. Yes, I must admit my experience as a Senior 8 Investigating Officer myself is not recent. It's some 9 years since I've headed up a major inquiry. 10 My understanding is that I think we would probably be 11 even more now in a system of sharing information with 12 all the elements of a major investigation. I mean, 13 using the note which you had shown there in terms of the 14 tin, I suppose, in one sense that would simply be to 15 emphasise the potential importance of the tin; in other 16 words, be particularly careful with this tin, using that 17 as one example. 18 We are very much now into sharing information. Our 19 crime scene management itself is much more structured 20 than it was in 1997, much more formalised. 21 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, I am probably about to move to a 22 different topic. I wonder if this might be a convenient 23 point at which to break? 24 THE CHAIRMAN: What occurs to me is that Mr McAllister is 25 obviously a very busy person and I do not want to bring page 131 1 him too early on Tuesday because I understand there is a 2 submission -- I have been asked to give leave to one of 3 the Core Participants to make a submission which I 4 simply don't know exactly how long it is going to take. 5 But should we say that it will certainly be 11.00 before 6 we would reach this witness's evidence? 7 MISS CARMICHAEL: On the basis of the limited information 8 that I have about what may happen on Tuesday morning, it 9 certainly wouldn't seem appropriate to ask Mr McAllister 10 to come before 11.00. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: So if by any chance it might be sooner, we 12 will let you know -- certainly no earlier. I am afraid 13 it is possible you might be kept waiting but we cannot 14 tell now. So thank you very much. 15 So 10.15 on Tuesday. 16 MISS CARMICHAEL: Yes, sir. 17 (2.55 pm) 18 (Adjourned until 10.15 am on Tuesday, 16th June 2009) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25