page 1 1 Wednesday, 17th June 2009 2 (10.15 am) 3 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, the next witness is Mr Ian Hogg. 4 ARCHIBALD IAN HOGG (sworn) 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Could we have your full name for the record, 6 please. 7 A. Archibald Ian Hogg. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Take a seat, please. 9 Examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 10 Q. Thank you, sir. 11 Mr Hogg, we found it can be quite difficult to hear 12 people if they are not close to the microphone so you 13 might find it helpful to move that. Thank you. 14 Mr Hogg, you have given a statement to the Inquiry 15 which you signed? 16 A. I have. 17 Q. Are you content that that records your position 18 accurately in relation to the matters you were asked 19 about? 20 A. There is one issue on paragraph 65. The date at the end 21 of the paragraph, 17th August, should be 21st August. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, paragraph number? 23 A. 65, page 17. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: The 21st. Thank you. 25 MISS CARMICHAEL: Subject to that amendment you are content page 2 1 that that is an accurate record of your position. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about what 4 your job was back in 1997. 5 A. I was Chief Inspector in charge of the Scene Examination 6 Unit or the IB as it was known in those days -- 7 Identification Bureau, that's what IB stands for. 8 I ran the department with three main elements and 9 that was Scene Examiners or SOCOs, Scene of Crime 10 Officers, as they were known in those days; an 11 examination unit which was a mark enhancement laboratory 12 which items would come in from scenes and, using 13 chemicals mainly, fingerprints would be developed on 14 those articles; and also an imaging unit, photographic 15 unit, which would process and print photographs mainly 16 from scenes of crime. 17 Q. You told us in your statement that you worked yourself 18 within the Strathclyde Police Identification Bureau at 19 some earlier stage between 1979 and 1984 and that you 20 worked there from 1991 onwards until 2007? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Did you yourself have any expertise as a Scene of Crime 23 Examiner? 24 A. Between 1997(sic) and 1984 I was a constable, more or 25 less a SOCO, a Scene of Crime Officer, within the page 3 1 department, going to scenes, going to murders, 2 et cetera, as a Scene of Crime Officer. When I returned 3 in 1991, I was promoted back into the department as an 4 Inspector and worked for four years within the 5 department as one of the two Inspectors under a Chief 6 Inspector, again, going to scenes -- mainly serious 7 crime, not so much the volume-type crime. 8 Then in 1996 I was promoted to Chief Inspector and 9 ran the unit until 2007, I think it was -- yes, 2007 -- 10 when we had harmonised by that time with the forensic 11 laboratory in 1997 -- sorry, 2007. 12 In 1997 we were an independent unit through the CID 13 rather than harmonised with the forensic laboratory as 14 we then became and then in 2007 with the oncoming of the 15 Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA) I was given a 16 job as co-ordinator, change co-ordinator, to see through 17 the change to the new and then I retired and went back 18 with the SPSA as Service Delivery Co-ordinator within 19 the SPSA, forensic services, in Glasgow. 20 Q. What does that involve? 21 A. Not nearly as much as it di involve before. I liaised 22 with the different units within Forensic Services 23 Glasgow and try and support the senior management team 24 with statistics and trying to pull together the units in 25 the way that we do business. page 4 1 Q. I would like to take you back to the investigation into 2 the murder of Marion Ross in January 1997, Mr Hogg, and 3 to take you, in the first instance, to paragraph 16 of 4 your statement where you tell us that you attended on 5 9th January at the scene for the first time but you 6 record at paragraph 16 that the photography at the scene 7 had been completed overnight and you write that you 8 believe that the forensic examination had likewise been 9 completed. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. I wonder if you could clarify what your knowledge was of 12 the extent of forensic work that had been done by the 13 time you attended on 9th January. 14 A. Well, the normal procedure would be that the 15 photographer and a forensic scientist, normally a 16 biologist, a chemist if requiring but normally 17 biologist, would attend such a scene. They would do all 18 that is required at the scene, forensic recovery would 19 be taken from the body, from the deceased, before it was 20 remove from the locus. They would also examine the 21 immediate surround for any other obvious signs of 22 disturbance of any evidential material that was there. 23 When I left to attend, I can't honestly recall if I 24 contacted the laboratory but normally, unless otherwise 25 informed, the forensic examination the night before page 5 1 would be complete. 2 Q. The Inquiry has seen a record at least of attendance at 3 the scene by Alister Fairley the night before and I 4 suppose what I am getting at there is whether you know 5 yourself what work he had done in the course of -- 6 A. I did not have any direct contact with Mr Fairley but I 7 presumed that all the evidence that would be taken, he 8 would have gathered that on the night before. That was 9 the normal practice. 10 Q. If I can take you to paragraph 22, please, of your 11 statement, you refer to a confirmation coming through on 12 9th January that Miss Ross had been murdered and the 13 Inquiry has heard, I think, that this followed on a 14 post-mortem examination. 15 Does that accord with your recollection? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. You write that you telephoned the forensic lab to 18 satisfy yourself that they had obtained everything from 19 the house that they required. 20 Why did you do that? 21 A. Well, my recollection was that Michael Moffat had put 22 down tread plates, metal plates, in the entrance 23 vestibule into the hall and there was talk of the 24 possibility of footwear impressions being developed in 25 that area. page 6 1 As I recall, we were in the process of changing the 2 responsibility of Scene of Crime Officers over onto 3 doing that kind of recovery in serious crime -- they 4 certainly did it at volume crime -- but I think the gist 5 of my phone call was that the laboratory wished to come 6 to the scene to look at these particular footprints as 7 this now had been confirmed as a murder. 8 Q. There has been some suggestion that perhaps 9 investigations were held back in some way because it was 10 thought initially that Miss Ross might have committed 11 suicide. 12 Can you comment on whether or not that is correct? 13 A. No, that's not correct. It was definitely -- in fact, 14 the fact that -- the fact that I was there, alone, I 15 would not go to a suicide as such at that stage. So it 16 was definitely being seen, by my department certainly, 17 as being a murder. 18 The fact that I had asked for four Scene Examiners 19 to attend and subsequently sent two away was purely 20 because on examination of the locus we found that there 21 was a lot of loose material lying about, both in the 22 hall and in the rooms on the ground floor. I felt that 23 it was not the best use of resources to have some of 24 them -- two of my officers hanging around, basically, 25 while the production officers, together with the Lead page 7 1 Scene Examiner (who would be Mr Thurley), examined the 2 locus, decided on a full policy of what would be taken, 3 what would be taken for our purposes, for further 4 fingerprint enhancement and what other items would just 5 be seized as productions. 6 So rather than speeding things up it actually slowed 7 things down so it could be done properly and that was 8 the reason two were sent away. So it was definitely 9 being treated as a murder when I was there. 10 Q. When you refer to Scenes of Crime Officers being sent 11 away, I think, that was perhaps a reference to a 12 Mr Wilson and a Mr Hunter who attended on 9th January 13 and the Inquiry has heard they were sent away that day? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. The Inquiry has heard some suggestions that there were 16 officers, police officers, stationed within the living 17 room of the property during the evening of 8th January 18 into the morning of 9th January. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Is that something of which you have any personal 21 knowledge? 22 A. None whatsoever. My recollection when I attended was 23 there they were at the door of the porch. I certainly 24 didn't see any police officers within the locus. 25 Q. From the point view of your expertise within the page 8 1 Identification Bureau, do you have any comment to make 2 on whether it was appropriate or not that officers be 3 stationed there? 4 A. No, they should not have been in the house. 5 Q. Do you know yourself who would have instructed the 6 measures to maintain the locus in an appropriate 7 condition for forensic examination? 8 A. Ultimately, I suppose, it would be the senior 9 investigating officer, who would be Mr Heath, but 10 generally speaking that would be devolved down to 11 someone -- nowadays it would be a Crime Scene Manager 12 and I think the Inquiry have heard about crime scene 13 managers. Mr McAllister possibly could have taken on 14 that role but it could have been Mr Heath himself. 15 Normally, that would be devolved to a uniformed 16 supervisor. Obviously the SIO or the Deputy SIO are not 17 going to be there all night. It would be maybe a late 18 shift and then a night shift and then an early shift of 19 uniformed officers that would be responsible for that. 20 So a uniformed supervisor would be normally instructed 21 on the parameters and what exactly to protect, 22 et cetera, and where that would be done. Whether this 23 done on this occasion, I don't know. 24 Q. During the time that you attended at the crime scene, 25 did you see anything that gave you any concern about page 9 1 whether the integrity of the locus was being properly 2 protected? 3 A. No, it seemed reasonable to myself, yes. 4 Q. I would like to ask you a little bit about what you tell 5 us at paragraphs 26 onwards of your statement about the 6 use of fingerprinting powders. The Inquiry has heard 7 that the doorframe which became of importance in this 8 case was powdered initially with aluminium powder and 9 later with black powder. 10 Do you have a view as to whether that was the 11 correct course? 12 A. Yes. I was perfectly happy with either powder. A scene 13 examiner is given -- is trained extensively and there 14 would not be a policy, when I certainly was there, 15 normally not a policy for a supervisor either to 16 determine which exact powder they had to use. It's very 17 much a touchy-feelie thing. You get a feel for what 18 you're getting prints with. If you try aluminium powder 19 which is normally the first powder to try because black 20 powder can be applied after aluminium but aluminium 21 can't be applied after black. So if in doubt start with 22 aluminium. If you are getting results with aluminium, 23 that's normally what you would continue with. 24 Some SOCOs have a preference for black, some have a 25 preference for -- but it's very much a 50/50 what brings page 10 1 up. There are certain surfaces such as glass which it 2 is particularly good to use aluminium powder but -- and 3 certain rougher surfaces black powder tends to be better 4 with but on a reasonably painted surface it's very much 5 a 50/50 usually. 6 Q. So I take it from that we are talking about painted 7 wood. If the Inquiry has heard that one would always 8 use aluminium first that's not necessarily a view that 9 you would agree with? 10 A. Sorry? 11 Q. If the Inquiry has heard that for painted wood you would 12 always use aluminium powder first that would not be a 13 view you would agree with? 14 A. No. If in doubt I would certainly start with aluminium 15 powder but if you feel the surface is such that black 16 powder would be a better powder to use, then Scene 17 Examiners will use black powder prior to aluminium. 18 Q. The Inquiry has heard also that sometimes aluminium 19 powder doesn't take to a surface. Is that something 20 that is within your experience? 21 A. It can be, if you find that it's not taking, then the 22 obvious recourse would be to move over to black. 23 Q. How would you be able to tell it wasn't taking? 24 A. It's the general appearance of the aluminium powder. 25 Also if you're not bringing up fingerprints most page 11 1 surfaces have some fingerprints or finger-marks or other 2 scuffs, et cetera, and as you're fingerprinting you 3 see -- if you are bringing up fingerprints with 4 aluminium and they are coming up well then I would 5 probably continue with aluminium. 6 Q. In the situation you have seen marks coming up you might 7 be able to observe it not taking. What would you see 8 that would tell you that? 9 A. As I say, if you have a white doorframe and you paint 10 the whole doorframe and you're not getting anything at 11 all you would think there was something strange and you 12 would perhaps try another powder after. 13 Q. Would there ever be a situation where it didn't appear 14 to be adhering, for example? 15 A. If it didn't ...? 16 Q. If it didn't appear to be adhering to the surface? 17 A. Certainly if it wasn't adhering to the surface you would 18 try something else, yes. 19 Q. I think we may return to the powders again, but if I can 20 take you at this stage, please, to paragraph 55 of your 21 statement, you describe a reconstruction experiment. 22 You start by saying that you're unable to say whether 23 fingerprint mark Y7 was left after the aluminium powder 24 had been applied. 25 Can you tell us why that is your view? page 12 1 A. Well, as I say, we carried out some experiments to see 2 if there was any way of telling whether -- if the 3 surface had been covered in aluminium powder, if a print 4 had then been left, would it basically sit on top of the 5 aluminium powder and then be brought up by the black 6 powder. 7 Q. Please describe the experiment that you undertook. 8 A. Well, as I recall, it wasn't myself that carried out 9 that but members of the forensic laboratory. But as far 10 as I'm aware it was a case of laying down some aluminium 11 powder, placing a fingerprint on top of the aluminium 12 powder then trying to bring that up with black powder 13 and what they found and what we found was that when you 14 apply the black powder, the aluminium and black powder 15 mix. They don't sit in layers as such they used a high 16 density microscope to see if they could detect some 17 layering but there was no such layering. 18 Q. So on the basis of that you certainly don't feel able to 19 help us with whether we can tell from the fact that Y7 20 only appeared with the black powder whether or not it 21 was present before the aluminium powder was applied? 22 A. No, I can't say, no. 23 Q. Moving on to paragraph 56, the next paragraph of your 24 statement, you say you found the fact that apparently no 25 prints had been developed using aluminium powder and page 13 1 subsequently developed by black powder to be unusual. 2 Why do you say that? 3 A. Well, it's not something that I'd personal knowledge of. 4 Normally in a complete area such as that you can get a 5 circumstance where you see something being brought up by 6 aluminium powder and if it's not developing by 7 application of more aluminium powder then you may go 8 over to black powder. 9 I think what I'm more or less saying in that 10 paragraph is that it was unusual for aluminium powder 11 not to bring up anything, any sign of a finger-mark, and 12 then to be brought up with black powder. 13 Q. You say in the final sentence of paragraph 56 the paint 14 on the doorframe was heavily stained and it appeared to 15 be nicotine staining and this may have had an effect. 16 Can you explain why that is? 17 A. Well, both -- again, not on a scientific basis. I'm not 18 aware of any studies that have been done with nicotine 19 staining but certainly the doorframe did appear to be 20 stained, maybe not heavily stained, with a brown 21 substance (possibly nicotine), and also in the vicinity 22 of the bathroom and the kitchen the subsequent analysis 23 of the situation was that that was possibly why the 24 black powder had brought up more prints than the 25 aluminium had originally picked up. page 14 1 Q. You record at paragraph 57 that your first thought had 2 been that the mark Y7 had been developed with black 3 powder because it had been left after the application of 4 the aluminium powder. 5 A. Yes, that was my first impression. 6 Q. But as you explained to us today, that's not your view 7 any more and I think you record there also that a factor 8 in your reasoning is some of Miss Ross' fingerprints 9 were disclosed with the black powder but not the 10 aluminium? 11 A. Yes, they were. 12 Q. If I can move on to the next part of your statement, 13 paragraph 58 onwards, you have given a view in the past, 14 Mr Hogg, as to the relative likelihoods of mark Y7 being 15 deposited when the door was in place and after it had 16 been removed. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. I wonder if you could explain to us first what your view 19 is? 20 A. The door check on a doorframe is not an area that, 21 generally speaking, reveals fingerprints. It's, if you 22 like, tucked in at the back of the door. It's not 23 something that you touch going through the door, 24 et cetera. 25 My initial thoughts -- and still to a certain page 15 1 extent -- to place a left thumb mark into that area 2 would certainly be easier to do if the door was removed 3 than it would be if the door was actually there. The 4 door actually gets, if my recollection is correct, the 5 door actually gets in the road of the rest of your hand 6 for the thumb to get into the door check. 7 Q. I think your position was recorded at one stage in a 8 document CO2608.3. If we go to the last paragraph on 9 that page if I can perhaps just read this out so it gets 10 into the record easily, first of all, I should say that 11 this is this bears to be a precognition, that's not a 12 document you prepared yourself, a document that a 13 Mrs Greaveseaves from the Fiscal's Office prepared after 14 speaking to you. 15 What is recorded here is that: 16 "David Thurley also decided to remove the carpet 17 from the locus for examination at the lab. The next 18 day, the fingerprint examination of the locus 19 recommenced after a debriefing. David Thurley was left 20 as the Scene Manager. A variety of people went down 21 although it is preferred to keep the same team. This is 22 sometimes impossible because of court commitments." 23 Then it is noted that: 24 "On 14th January 1997 the print Y7 was found. Most 25 of the examination had been completed when they decided page 16 1 to dust round the door with black powder. I was aware 2 that the print found has been attributed to Shirley 3 Cardwell, I am aware that it is a right thumb print." 4 Now if you can just pause there, I think the Inquiry 5 has heard that in fact the SCRO examiners who considered 6 the matter identified that the print is a left thumb 7 print. 8 Does what we see here record your understanding as 9 it was before Ms McKie's trial? 10 A. My recollection has always been a left print. I can't 11 give an explanation why that's a right thumb print. I 12 don't ever recall being aware of thinking that it was 13 anything other than a left thumb. 14 Q. So can we take it from that that informing your view as 15 to the likelihood of the mark being deposited with the 16 door on or the door off, that wasn't something that you 17 reached on the basis of thinking that it was a right 18 thumb print? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Thank you for clarifying that. 21 We can read on and go on to the next sheet as 22 well -- 23 THE CHAIRMAN: May I just interrupt for a moment. It says: 24 "I took from the position of the marks the doorframe 25 would have already been removed", and to me the page 17 1 doorframe is the area round the door rather than the 2 door itself. 3 A. Yes. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: But you were intending to refer to the door 5 itself? 6 A. No, the door as I recall had been taken off on 7 9th January, removed by Mr Thurley. The doorframe was 8 still in situ. The doorframe was subsequently removed 9 some time later but it was the doorframe, I think I was 10 referring to. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: So you did mean the doorframe would have been 12 removed in your view when the print was placed on it? 13 A. After the door had been removed it was easier to place 14 the thumb print on to the doorframe. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: That is why I am trying to get clear. You 16 see it says: 17 "I took the view that the doorframe would already 18 have been removed when the mark Y7 was left", and maybe 19 I am misunderstanding it. 20 A. Perhaps could we possibly -- 21 MISS CARMICHAEL: If I might assist, I think Mr Hogg is 22 still looking at what is on the screen rather than at 23 his signed statement for the Inquiry and it might be 24 helpful to Mr Hogg to look at paragraph 58, again, of 25 his signed statement to the Inquiry. page 18 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 2 MISS CARMICHAEL: Mr Hogg, I think what the Chairman is 3 referring to is in the first line of paragraph 58 the 4 word used towards the end of the line is "doorframe". 5 A. Sorry. Again, I should have noticed that. I apologise. 6 That's the door. I took the view that from the position 7 of the marks the door would have already been removed 8 when mark Y7 was left. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: That is all right. As long as I -- I hoped I 10 wasn't misunderstanding your evidence. 11 MISS CARMICHAEL: I am obliged, sir. 12 Return to what is on the screen, please. We were 13 looking at page 3 of the document and I think we had got 14 down to "thumb print" on the third last line. What is 15 recorded here is: 16 "There was also a portion of palm below it but there 17 are no identifying features on this palm according to 18 SCRO. The thumb print was on the hinge side of the 19 doorframe ..." 20 Go on to the next page: 21 "... and is in a position where it would be very 22 awkward to place a hand there if the door had been 23 closed." 24 It goes on: 25 "If the door had been closed there would have been page 19 1 nothing to gain by placing a hand there." 2 In the first place, does that record your view? 3 A. Well, if the door had been closed it would have been 4 impossible to do it because the door actually sits over 5 the check when a door is shut, where the hinge side of 6 the door is it would not be visible so you could not 7 leave a print if the door is closed. 8 Q. I may have some questions for you about that but if we 9 just carry on with the note of what is recorded it says: 10 "If the door had been opened, ie when the body was 11 in place, then it is not a natural position to place the 12 outside of your thumb against the doorframe and I would 13 expect that one would have to grip the other side with 14 fingers." 15 Can you tell us what you mean in the first place by 16 the "outside of your thumb"? 17 A. The doorframe -- when the door is closed in the 18 bathroom, you cannot get access to where the hinges are, 19 if you like, on the door. When the door is open, the 20 door as I recall opened to the right in front of the 21 bath on the right. To place your hand on, your left 22 hand thumb in that area, the door gets in the way and 23 you've actually got to scrunch your fingers up and push 24 your thumb into the check area. With the door off 25 there's no restriction of where you can put your hand. page 20 1 Q. I think we can take that off the screen for now. I 2 would like you to look, please, at ST0003, number 17, 3 please. If you take it perhaps from me that what we see 4 to the left-hand of this shot is the entrance to the 5 bathroom is that something -- would that accord with 6 your recollection? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. I think you may have been shown how to use the mouse or 9 the pointer here. Under reference to this photograph, 10 can you show us where it is according to your 11 understanding that the mark was found? 12 A. I understand the mark to have been found in that kind of 13 area here (indicated). 14 Q. I may be mistaken, Mr Hogg, but it looks to me rather as 15 if the tip of the arrow is on what I'd understood to be 16 the door here. We see a dark shape towards the bottom 17 of the door jam -- 18 A. Sorry -- 19 Q. Correct me if I am wrong but it appears to me that 20 immediately above that shape there was perhaps what 21 appeared to be a hinge. 22 A. Okay, sorry. Then I've gone just slightly further over. 23 If this edge here, (indicated) if that is the edge of 24 the door, then my understanding -- if that is the edge 25 of the door then my understanding is that the print page 21 1 would be found in that area there (indicated). 2 Q. So to get this into the record you indicated what you 3 understand to be the edge of the door with arrow at the 4 top of photograph and you indicated where you understand 5 the mark to have been found with the arrow second from 6 the top of the photograph? 7 A. It may have been further -- slightly further up than the 8 second arrow but it was in that channel that runs down 9 that part of the doorframe. 10 Q. Did you see mark Y7 in position in the locus yourself? 11 A. (Shook head) I may have done but it wasn't drawn to my 12 attention at the time. My last visit, if my 13 recollection is correct, was the 16th and I just went 14 back to check that the area had been done. I saw all 15 the prints -- well, generally speaking all the prints 16 but not specifically Y7. The only time I've seen Y7 in 17 any detail was actually the doorframe that had been 18 removed at a later date. 19 Q. I wonder if we could capture this image for reference to 20 Mr Hogg's evidence. 21 Mr Hogg, the Inquiry has heard evidence which 22 indicates that you may not have understood correctly 23 where mark Y7 was found and, in fact, that it may have 24 been found on the portion of wood running just to the 25 right of the channel that you have indicated on this page 22 1 photograph. If that were the case, would that affect 2 your view as to the likelihood of the mark being 3 deposited in the way that you describe? 4 A. It would, yes. 5 Q. Your view based on the mark within the channel is that 6 it would have been impossible to put on with the door 7 closed, for perhaps obvious reasons. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And that it would have been not altogether easy with the 10 door in place, with the door open. On the basis, if I 11 am correct, that the mark is deposited on the bit of 12 wood that I have described, which, I suppose, you might 13 call the inner facing of the door channel -- 14 A. It would certainly have been easier, yes. 15 Q. Would it have been possible to place the mark there with 16 a left thumb with the door in place? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. A demonstration we had from another witness was perhaps 19 he was able to indicate to us by reference to a 20 particular doorframe in the Inquiry hearing room where 21 the mark might have been deposited. 22 Is that something you might feel able to do yourself 23 with reference to the understanding of the location of 24 the mark as I have described it to you? 25 A. Possibly, yes. page 23 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Would it be more convenient if the witness 2 goes and looks at it and tells us whether it would 3 assist him and then we can all move to see where it is. 4 MISS CARMICHAEL: Of course, sir. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: In case it is of no assistance. 6 MISS CARMICHAEL: I shall take him. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: If you would just like to go and then we can 8 all move if you confirm that it is of help to you. 9 ( The witness left witness box) 10 (Pause) 11 THE CHAIRMAN: I think if the witness can just confirm, 12 Miss Carmichael, if he can just look at it and say 13 whether it helps or not. I think we have an indication 14 that it would be possible. (Pause) 15 It would be possible. Then anyone who wants to move 16 up ... 17 MISS CARMICHAEL: Is everyone able to see ... 18 Now, Mr Hogg, I wonder if you could please indicate 19 using the doorframe that we're looking at here -- and we 20 will record this photographically -- how a left thumb 21 mark might have been deposited there? 22 A. Certainly. I would think the easiest way is if it was 23 deposited with the person outside placing a hand off, 24 perhaps like that in that situation with the door on 25 does make it a wee bit more awkward. (Photograph taken) page 24 1 Do you want it like that as well? (Photograph 2 taken) 3 Q. While the witness is here is there any other matter that 4 others might wish covered with him that this could 5 usefully be used for rather than coming up later? 6 MR SMITH: I wonder if I could ask Mr Hogg if we could have 7 the door completely open, please. 8 MISS CARMICHAEL: I am not sure it will stay. 9 MR SMITH: I wonder if you could. 10 MISS CARMICHAEL: I think we may need somebody to hold the 11 door open. I don't think the bolt works. 12 MR SMITH: Sir, can I just go ahead and ask a couple of 13 questions if that's acceptable? 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 15 MR SMITH: Mr Hogg, I don't I don't know if you can identify 16 in the photograph at the side there the height that the 17 mark Y7 is. Can you see where it is? 18 A. This is it. (Indicated) 19 Q. If you take it that height is broadly correct as far as 20 the height from the floor here is concerned -- 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. -- so if you bear that in mind, can I ask you with the 23 door in that position if you could try to position your 24 left thumb in approximately the same tight but also the 25 distance away from -- perhaps if I point this out. This page 25 1 is a picture of the part of the door next to the ruler? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And you will see the distance away from the edge, as it 4 were? 5 A. On this edge? 6 Q. No, I was meaning from the edge of the wood? 7 A. So we're talking about there? 8 Q. Yes, and can I ask you to touch the door to try and 9 place it and if we can have a photograph of that, 10 please. (Photograph taken) 11 Thank you, I have no further questions. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Very good, thank you 13 very much. 14 (The witness returned to the witness box) 15 THE CHAIRMAN: The photographs will of course go into the 16 record, Miss Carmichael. 17 MISS CARMICHAEL: They will, yes. 18 Before we leave this topic, just to be quite clear, 19 you have told us today that it was always your 20 understanding that the mark was a left thumb. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. What is recorded in paragraph 59 of your statement is 23 that there may have been a supposition on your part that 24 the mark was a right thumb print and that you had no way 25 of knowing which hand the print came from. page 26 1 I just would like to be quite clear about what the 2 position is, whether you have all along been aware that 3 the SCRO examiners identified the mark as a left thumb 4 print or perhaps whether there has been some unsureness 5 on your part about this at some stage? 6 A. No, my recollection is that I've always been of the 7 understanding that it's a left thumb. 8 Q. If we can move on to another topic, please, and that is 9 the one that you deal with at paragraphs 65 onwards of 10 your statement regarding Mr Michael Moffat. 11 In paragraph 65 you say you remember Michael Moffat 12 raising the question of the possibility of the 13 fingerprint mark Y7 having been left by another 14 individual? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. When did he first discuss that with you? 17 A. The time-line regarding this issue is not -- it's a long 18 time ago, I don't fully recall -- but my recollection 19 was that it would be certainly between Mr Asbury's trial 20 and Ms McKie's trial. 21 Q. Mr Moffat's evidence to the Inquiry has been that he 22 raised it with you shortly before Ms McKie's trial when 23 he became aware that she was disputing the correctness 24 of the identification by SCRO. Would that -- 25 A. That would -- yes, I would not dispute that. page 27 1 Q. What did he say to you? 2 A. Again, my recollection is it was brought up in 3 conversation rather than a specific request to see me or 4 whatever and it was not a large issue. It was something 5 that he mentioned in passing rather than making an issue 6 of. My recollection is that we had some discussion 7 about I think he was also suggesting that the glove that 8 a certain person had been wearing had split. 9 I recall the discussion going along the lines of: 10 we've got basically three options. We've got the first 11 option is that it was touched with a glove in place 12 whereas it smudged the mark, which there's nothing we 13 can do about because it's done and dusted. Secondly, 14 it's through the glove. I'd seen Y7 by that time and, 15 as far as I was concerned, it wasn't a through-the-glove 16 mark. These tend to be -- maybe they would look 17 slightly out of focus, they are not sharp, kind of, 18 marks, and the third would be that it was he had left a 19 mark. 20 Q. When you say "he", who did you understand "he" to be? 21 A. When I gave my statement I couldn't remember his name. 22 I've subsequently understood it was Gary Gray, I think. 23 Q. Michael Moffat's account to the Inquiry is he telephoned 24 you? 25 A. My recollection was there was more than one talk about page 28 1 this. I personally don't remember a phone call but he 2 may have phoned me. I don't recall. 3 Q. Michael Moffat's account to the Inquiry is that you were 4 angry and said something to him along the lines of, 5 "Look here, sunshine, don't you dare start going down 6 that road at this stage". 7 What is your recollection? 8 A. I don't recall using the word "sunshine". It's not 9 something that I would normally do. It's not -- it 10 doesn't ring true to myself, no. 11 Q. Is it possible that Mr Moffat is correct about that and 12 you simply don't remember? 13 A. As I say, I don't ever remember being particularly angry 14 about it. It wasn't an issue. It didn't become an 15 issue until the Mackay Inquiry, as I recall. I don't 16 recall having any reason to be angry with Mr Moffat. 17 Q. Mr Moffat told the Inquiry that you agreed to have the 18 mark looked at and that you phoned him back to say that, 19 in fact, it had been checked by Charlie. 20 Is that something you recall? 21 A. No, I don't recall that, no. 22 Q. Do you know whether -- can you recall whether you did 23 ask anyone at SCRO to look at the question of Gary 24 Gray's mark around that time? 25 A. No, not specifically, no. It was not -- it wouldn't be page 29 1 in the normal order of things. Elimination prints would 2 normally be done through the investigating team rather 3 than ourselves. 4 Q. In a situation where a possibility is being raised with 5 you that a disputed fingerprint might belong to someone 6 other than the person to whom it's been attributed, 7 would it not be natural to take some steps to check that 8 at that time? 9 A. I recall speaking to Detective Chief Inspector Stephen 10 Heath about that. Having said that, as I recall, it was 11 a chance meeting. It wasn't something that I organised. 12 It was a chance meeting and while there I took the 13 opportunity to say that there was the possibility that 14 this mark may have been left and I was reassured that 15 all the elimination prints -- I knew myself that Gary 16 Gray's or anybody that was on the inquiry's prints would 17 have been checked against outstanding marks. 18 Q. Mr Heath was asked when he gave evidence when he first 19 became aware of the question of the possibility of the 20 print being Gary Gray's and his first reaction was that 21 he hadn't heard it before it was put to him in the 22 Inquiry and then I think when he was asked about it 23 later by Mr Smith he said that it was not in his 24 recollection that he had been told about it at an 25 earlier stage. page 30 1 Is it possible that you are incorrect that you 2 mentioned it to Mr Heath at this time? 3 A. I recall in my own mind that I'd spoken to someone about 4 the issue, early doors. Whether Gary Gray's name was 5 mentioned or not I honestly can't recall but I 6 definitely spoke to Mr Heath about the possibility of 7 Michael Moffat's allegation or his comment that someone 8 at the locus had touched the frame and there was a 9 possibility he'd left a mark. As I say, my recollection 10 is that Mr Heath assured me that all the people that had 11 been in the locus, that elimination prints had been 12 checked against outstanding marks. 13 Q. If we just put ourselves back into 1999 in the situation 14 as Ms McKie's trial was coming up, an officer was about 15 to go on trial for perjury, which was obviously a very 16 serious matter, yes, and you had received a possible 17 explanation as to why the mark attributed as hers might 18 be attributed properly to somebody else. 19 Why did you not seek to investigate that further 20 yourself? 21 A. As I say, my recollection is that I raised the issue 22 with Mr Heath and assumed that anything that required to 23 be done would be done. 24 Q. If Mr Moffat recalls a conversation with you where you 25 said that Charlie had checked it, are you saying that he page 31 1 is incorrect in his recollection of that call with you? 2 A. I don't recall specifically -- no, I don't recall going 3 to SCRO to ask if that had been checked. I possibly 4 did. I just -- looking back, I possibly did but I just 5 don't recall actually going through and speaking to -- I 6 take it we're talking about Charlie Stewart, who's the 7 only Charlie that I would know. I have no recollection 8 of doing that but possibly, possibly I did. 9 Q. You became aware yourself, I think, that Ms McKie was 10 disputing the correctness of the identification of mark 11 Y7 as part of her defence to her trial. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. In fact, I think you were aware of the identity of one 14 of the experts involved, Mr Wertheim? 15 A. I was aware Mr Wertheim was involved, yes. 16 Q. It would be fair to say that was fairly unusual 17 situation, that expert evidence from the SCRO 18 Fingerprint Bureau was being challenged by another 19 expert? 20 A. Relatively unusual, yes. 21 Q. So that was a serious matter from the point of view of 22 the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau also, was it not? Again I 23 find myself asking why in that situation you did not 24 take the immediate steps yourself to find out whether 25 Mr Moffat's explanation might be the correct one. page 32 1 A. In hindsight perhaps I should have, yes. 2 Q. Did you take Mr Moffat seriously? 3 A. Relatively. 4 Q. What do you mean by that? 5 A. Well, as I say, it was my initial recollection until 6 after Ms McKie's trial was that it was something he had 7 mentioned, it was, as far as I was concerned, had been 8 passed on to Mr Heath and SCRO were identifying it, were 9 identifying the print as being Ms McKie's and that was 10 the situation. 11 Q. You will be aware that prosecutions in Scotland are 12 carried out in the public interest. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And that there is an obligation on the Crown and was 15 even back in 1997 before we moved to where we are now, 16 an obligation on the Crown to disclose to the defence 17 matters that might be helpful to the defence. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. It is a matter that might have been helpful to Shirley 20 McKie's defence to know that an officer had raised the 21 possibility of the mark belonging to Gary Gray? 22 A. (Nodded) 23 Q. That is correct, isn't it? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Why did you not take any steps to make the Fiscal aware page 33 1 of this? 2 A. As I say, the elimination of people at the scene, 3 although I can accept that it would appear that we 4 gather fingerprints, that is something that the inquiry 5 team do with SCRO between them. It's not something we 6 normally become involved in. 7 As I say, Mr Moffat had mentioned the possibility 8 that -- and as I recall at the time it was more, 9 Mr Moffat's suggestion was more that Mr Gray's 10 fingerprint had been left at the scene and not 11 specifically that it was Y7 and my recollection of 12 speaking to Mr Heath was that it was the elimination of 13 marks that were found at the scene and not specifically, 14 as I recall, Y7. 15 Q. I hope I don't misrepresent Mr Moffat's evidence to you 16 and I will be put right if I do, no doubt, but his 17 evidence to the Inquiry has been that he contacted you 18 specifically because he was worried about the 19 possibility that mark Y7 might be Gary Gray's. 20 Are you saying that that was not what happened? 21 A. I don't recall that pre-Ms McKie's trial. 22 Q. Mr Hogg, at the time you were a Chief Inspector? 23 A. Indeed. 24 Q. Which is a very senior police officer? 25 A. Yes. page 34 1 Q. In fact, senior to Mr Heath at the time, albeit in a 2 different branch? 3 A. No, he was a Detective Chief Inspector. 4 Q. I am sorry. 5 But you, as a Chief Inspector yourself, would have 6 certain responsibilities if information came into your 7 hands which tended or might tend to support the defence 8 of an accused person. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. But your evidence is that in this case you chose not 11 yourself to contact the Crown about the matter? 12 A. I informed Mr Heath. That seemed to me at the time to 13 be the correct course of action. 14 Q. Did you give evidence yourself at Shirley McKie's trial? 15 A. I didn't. 16 Q. But you had been precognosced by Mrs Greavess, the 17 Fiscal in the case? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. I think you said yourself that you think you spoke with 20 Mr Moffat about this matter on more than one occasion. 21 We have been talking about a time before Ms McKie's 22 trial. 23 When were the other occasions that you spoke to 24 Mr Moffat about this matter? 25 A. Again, I don't have a great recollection of exactly what page 35 1 we spoke about but I certainly noted in my notebook that 2 we spoke on 21st August 2000. 3 Q. Can you remember why you were talking to him at that 4 time? 5 A. No, I don't, no. 6 Q. Mr Moffat's evidence to the Inquiry was that in 7 August 2000 you came to him and told him that a 8 statement was going to be taken from him by officers of 9 Tayside Police. I think the officers were acting under 10 Mr Mackay's direction? 11 A. That's possible, yes. 12 Q. Mr Moffat told the Inquiry that you told him that he 13 should stick to his statement. 14 Do you remember saying that to him? 15 A. No, I don't. 16 Q. Is it possible you may have said it? 17 A. It's possible but I certainly don't recall it. 18 Q. Why would you tell an officer to stick to his statement? 19 A. It's not specifically for inquiry but certainly for 20 attending court, Scene Examiners are trained to try and 21 stick to their statement to try and refer to the 22 evidence that they are originally speaking to. 23 Occasionally in court defence counsel can take them 24 slightly off course or off at a tangent and encourage 25 them to give evidence outwith their sphere of expertise. page 36 1 So I've certainly used that phrase possibly in advising 2 people that are attending court to stick to their 3 statement, basically, but I don't specifically recall 4 telling Mr Moffat to do that specifically for the 5 inquiry, no. 6 Q. One can readily understand that nobody should come to 7 court and speak about matters, if they are experts, 8 outwith the area of their expertise. But everyone, 9 whether a police officer or a civilian, who comes to any 10 court in this country to give evidence is put on oath or 11 promises to tell the truth. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And that is about anything they are asked, not just 14 about things that are covered in their statement. 15 Would that be fair? 16 A. Yes, but -- yes. 17 Q. So it may, I think you accept, perhaps, it would be 18 necessary for officers in the course of giving their 19 evidence properly to courts to speak about matters that 20 weren't covered in their statements? 21 A. Sorry? 22 Q. It may be necessary in order to answer all the questions 23 put to them truthfully and accurately to cover matters 24 that aren't covered in the statements that they may have 25 prepared? page 37 1 A. Yes, that's true. 2 Q. There might be, perhaps with that in mind, some risk 3 that saying "stick to your statement" might be 4 misconstrued? 5 A. As I say, the advice to Scene Examiners is not to be 6 tempted down the road of giving evidence or giving their 7 opinion on areas that are outwith their expertise and 8 that would be what -- if I was using perhaps not the 9 right phrase but if I was using the phrase, "stick to 10 your statement" that would be what I would mean, not 11 "don't answer questions that are put to you in court", 12 but some officers can proffer an opinion on areas where 13 they have no expertise. 14 Q. If it be that you said this to Mr Moffat in August 2007, 15 what would the application of the phrase "stick to his 16 statement" be in the context of an investigation by 17 another police force? 18 A. As I say, I don't recall having said that to Mr Moffat 19 on that occasion. 20 Q. Are you aware that Mr McAllister, another senior police 21 officer, made a report to Detective Superintendent 22 Malcolm about the allegations about certain of the 23 matters that Mr Moffat is now on record as having 24 raised? 25 A. I am aware of that report. page 38 1 Q. When did you become aware of it? 2 A. I don't -- I don't recall. It was round about the time 3 of the McKie(sic) Inquiry I understood that the issue of 4 Gary Gray had, shall we say, escalated around that time 5 and I understood -- I have difficulty, my Lord, in 6 separating what I've found out from the inquiry against 7 what I actually recall, but I do have some recollection 8 of being aware that Mr McAllister was refuting what 9 Mr Moffat had said at some point. 10 Q. I think you said at the time of the McKie inquiry -- 11 A. Sorry, Mackay, my apologies. 12 Q. Which I think this Inquiry knows was around 13 August/September 2000. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Were you aware of information otherwise circulating in 16 the Strathclyde Police about what Mr Moffat had said? 17 A. No. The only thing that I was aware of was the 18 information about Gary Gray. I had no other -- I wasn't 19 aware of anything other than that, no. 20 Q. I'm sorry, I probably put the question badly to you. 21 You were aware of Mr McAllister's report. Were you 22 aware of others in Strathclyde Police mentioning or 23 discussing the fact that Michael Moffat had said that 24 the print may have been left by Gary Gray and other 25 things he had said about what Mr McAllister may have page 39 1 said to him? Were you aware of discussion going on in 2 Strathclyde Police at that time? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Have you been aware of that sort of discussion since 5 then? 6 A. Not particularly, no. 7 Q. Have you spoken since August 2000 to Mr Moffat about it 8 yourself? 9 A. As I say, I have noted in my notebook that on 21st 10 August I've spoken to Mr Moffat regarding the Mackay 11 Inquiry but I have no recollection of what we discussed. 12 Q. I would like to take you on to a different topic and see 13 if you can assist us, Mr Hogg. I wonder if you could 14 look for me, please, at a document DB0251 at page 33. 15 The Inquiry has already heard some evidence about 16 this form, Mr Hogg, but from your own knowledge of the 17 processes of the Identification Bureau can you tell us 18 briefly what it's for? 19 A. It's 13B. It's an SCRO form that we used in the 20 Identification Bureau to note finger-marks, et cetera, 21 that we had found, where we'd found them, when they were 22 found, the case they were in, the crime reference number 23 (which is the ten digit number at the top right-hand 24 corner), and that 13B would accompany any lifts or 25 photographs, fingerprint photographs, that had been page 40 1 taken and would follow the process through the 2 department and then on into the Fingerprint Bureau of 3 the Scottish Criminal Records Office. 4 Q. The Inquiry has heard from a Mr MacNeil who completed 5 the form that he wrote on the impressions with which we 6 are concerned here, and the series was QB2 to QL2 and 7 that he had written "Ident required for deceased" on the 8 form. 9 Is that a form of words on a form of this sort which 10 you would be familiar with? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Why do you say that? 13 A. Well, normally we are not requested to find specific 14 prints for a specific person. We are asked to develop 15 marks on items and then pass those through to the 16 Scottish Criminal Record Office. 17 Q. The instruction here, to be clear, is one that would go 18 to the Fingerprint Bureau? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that is 21 not an instruction that you would normally give. 22 A. No. We are assuming, and it may well be the case, but I 23 would think that what we have here is the front copy of 24 the 13B which would be retained within the 25 Identification Bureau. page 41 1 Q. If I can stop you there I think we heard it was the 2 second of three -- 3 A. Right, okay. 4 Q. -- from Mr MacNeil. Again, I will no doubt be corrected 5 if I am wrong but it is a triplicate form and this -- 6 A. It is. It is indeed, yes. 7 Q. I think Mr Heath expressed a degree of disapproval, I 8 think it's fair to say, of this form of words. 9 What's your own view? 10 A. Yes. It's not professional, no. 11 Q. Why do you say it's not professional? 12 A. Well, we would normally not -- we certainly -- the norm 13 would be to pass information to the Scottish Criminal 14 Record Office. We would not normally give them any type 15 of direction and that appears to be what that is. 16 Q. We heard from Mr MacNeil that in his practice in the 17 laboratory the term "ident" was, in practical terms, 18 interchangeable with perhaps what we might more readily 19 understand as a comparison. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. How does that accord with your knowledge of practice in 22 the lab? 23 A. What we're saying is it could be read as "comparison 24 required for deceased". 25 Q. Well, I think, if I'm interpreting his evidence page 42 1 correctly of course, that what he was trying to convey 2 was that by writing "Ident" he meant comparison and that 3 was a way that ident would tend to be used in the 4 laboratory where he worked. 5 Can you comment on whether that would be right or 6 not? 7 A. That would be one of the -- yes, you could take that 8 from that. 9 Q. Do you know whether the expression "ident" was used to 10 mean comparison in the lab at that time in 1997? If you 11 don't know please feel free to say so? 12 A. No, I don't. I don't know. 13 Q. Mr MacNeil also told the Inquiry about -- and I may be 14 using another colloquial expression for it -- about what 15 might be termed a "league table" for the Scenes of Crime 16 Officers who worked in the laboratory and if I can 17 perhaps try to summarise his evidence, as I understand 18 it, for you and then ask for your comment, his evidence 19 was that a system operated whereby only marks which went 20 from the lab to SCRO Fingerprint Bureau and which 21 resulted in an elimination or an identification resulted 22 in a positive statistic for the officer who had found 23 the mark and that marks which did not result in any 24 finding by SCRO Fingerprint Bureau simply didn't reach 25 the record as far as statistics for that officer are page 43 1 concerned. 2 Do you recall a system of that sort? 3 A. No. All marks were recorded. All marks -- statistical, 4 the statistical information that was taken from the 5 department was taken from these 13Bs, as I recall at the 6 time, and all 13s were counted in the statistics, if you 7 like. 8 Identification, the number of identifications, would 9 also be counted but certainly all the prints that would 10 go to the Fingerprint Bureau were statistical data. 11 Q. Picking up on what you just said am I right in 12 understanding that records were kept of how many of the 13 marks that SCRO received they were able to eliminate or 14 identify? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. What was the point of keeping that statistic? 17 A. Well, we wanted to know, and still do, how effective and 18 efficient the department is and how -- I'm trying to 19 recall. Certainly now or latterly insufficient 20 fingerprint marks that were brought in that were 21 insufficient were used more as a dataset to look at 22 training issues rather than identifications because 23 identifications can be -- the Scene of Crime Officer can 24 be recording exactly the right stuff from both scenes 25 and from the laboratory and the fact they don't get an page 44 1 identification could possibly be that the person 2 responsible is not on file. There's a variety of 3 reasons why they wouldn't. 4 But certainly -- and I'm trying to recall if it was 5 in place in 1997, but we certainly moved over to placing 6 more importance on insufficient marks, in other words 7 Scene of Crime Officers bringing in stuff that could not 8 be identified and that was seen as more of an indication 9 where training, et cetera, was required. But certainly 10 I wouldn't have called it a league table, I would have 11 called it statistical data myself but certainly we've 12 always kept a record of what we do. 13 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, I notice it is just after half past 14 and this is the point the Inquiry normally breaks. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. We will stop now until 11.50. 16 (11.30 am) 17 (A short break) 18 (11.52 am) 19 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you, sir. 20 Mr Hogg, just picking up on a couple of points you 21 mentioned in your evidence before we finished, you told 22 us that the statistics about eliminations and 23 identifications by SCRO Fingerprint Bureau were kept to 24 tell you how effective your department was. 25 A. Yes. page 45 1 Q. How did they tell you that? How did a statistic about 2 the marks identified indicate the efficiency of your 3 department? 4 A. Well, obviously if we received or we had attended 100 5 scenes in a week and we were getting no fingerprint 6 identifications then we would have to look at the 7 effectiveness of the department. If we were attending 8 100 a week and getting 100 identifications then we were 9 doing really well. It was just a case of where we sat 10 in that. 11 Likewise, with the laboratory examination room the 12 number of cases they dealt with, the number of marks 13 they had recovered, were they recovering a large number 14 of marks, the people would change in there and we would 15 also have to gauge the effectiveness of the people that 16 were working in there, did they need training, 17 et cetera. So if we changed the personnel and there 18 were marks that they were recovering or the number of 19 identifications we're receiving drops then we would have 20 to look at why that was and address that as training or 21 whatever. 22 Q. Presumably and I think we did touch on this in your 23 evidence, there would be occasions where marks were 24 brought up beautifully and clearly by your officers -- 25 A. Yes. page 46 1 Q. -- and, in fact, they weren't identified. It may simply 2 have been a function of the fact that the people at SCRO 3 did not have any elimination prints that matched the 4 mark you found? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. That would not to be fair reflect badly in any way on 7 anyone in your department? 8 A. No. As I say, I can't recall whether it went back as 9 far as 1997 but certainly there or shortly thereafter we 10 started focussing, if you like, on insufficient marks 11 where they were recovering stuff that was not good 12 enough for identification by or not good enough quality 13 for SCRO to work on. 14 But, having said that, even on identifications I can 15 accept that on a one-by-one basis then it couldn't be 16 but over the piece, over a year, over two years, over 17 five years, you tended to find that the people that were 18 good, if you like, got a larger number of 19 identifications and people maybe not as good didn't get 20 so many. But we took an informed judgment on where 21 these people stand, some people work in areas where 22 there are more crimes that are -- you get more 23 identifications in some areas than others, believe it or 24 not but you do. 25 Q. When you say areas ... ? page 47 1 A. I mean the geographical area. You can get in certain 2 areas more identifications than in others, it depends 3 who's breaking into houses, you know. 4 Q. So it may be down to the criminals how sweaty their 5 palms are? 6 A. I wouldn't necessarily go out in public, if you live in 7 a high quality area there's normally less chance of 8 getting fingerprints because if people are breaking in 9 houses in that area know what they are doing and take 10 precautions, whereas if it's opportunist crimes in other 11 areas sometimes they don't think about leaving 12 fingerprints, et cetera mso ... 13 Q. So there can be a variety of factors that affect your 14 statistics, it would be fair to say? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Passing on to a different topic again, Mr Hogg, the 17 Inquiry heard evidence from Mr Moffat that before the 18 trial of David Asbury you called the Scenes of Crime 19 Officers in for a meeting. 20 Is that something that you recall doing? 21 A. No, I don't. Again, I don't specifically recall it. It 22 has happened. I don't recall -- I don't recall even a 23 reason for the Asbury trial particularly. It was a 24 murder trial which they are used to attending. I don't 25 recall that. Maybe more -- as I say, I don't have page 48 1 specific recollection but I would have thought maybe 2 before the McKie trial would have been more likely than 3 the Asbury trial. But it's possible. I don't recall. 4 Q. What would be your purpose in convening a meeting of 5 that sort? 6 A. Again, exactly as I've said already, that I've done it, 7 if you like, as a team-building exercise to support the 8 people that are going to give evidence in difficult 9 trials. It's just a case of getting them together, 10 supporting them and sticking to their statement, if you 11 like, again but trying to remind them not to be drawn in 12 to give opinions on things that are beyond their 13 expertise. 14 Q. What Mr Moffat says that you said is that you said to 15 the officers, "This trial's coming up. We need to play 16 this, you know, keep to your statements and, you know, 17 don't elaborate, don't get carried away." 18 Is that something you may have said? 19 A. Possibly. As I say, not to get drawn into something 20 that's not within their expertise. 21 Q. Mr Moffat also told the Inquiry that you addressed him 22 directly at the meeting and said, "Especially you, mate, 23 because we all know what you're like in the witness 24 box". 25 Is that something you recall? page 49 1 A. No, I don't even recall ever having seen Mr Moffat in 2 the witness box, to be honest. It's not something that 3 I recall having said to him. 4 Q. Are you saying he is wrong in his evidence to the 5 Inquiry at that point? 6 A. It's possible -- I don't recall saying that. I can see 7 that possibly I might have said along the lines of, 8 "Stick to your statement", but I've already explained 9 why I would go down that kind of line, but I don't 10 recall at all having spoken to Mr Moffat specifically. 11 I would have addressed all the people who were there, if 12 I did do that -- and, as I've already said, just stick 13 to their own expertise and not get drawn into other 14 things that they really can't speak about. 15 Q. Just so I am quite clear what your position is, is it 16 your position that you don't recall addressing Mr Moffat 17 directly in the way that I've described but that you 18 might have done so? 19 A. My recollection is I don't recall drawing the group 20 together and talking to them at all in that specific 21 case. I'm sure you can accept that over the, kind of, 22 18 years I was involved we are talking about maybe 1,300 23 murder cases that I have been involved in and trials, 24 et cetera, et cetera. I certainly have in the past but 25 I don't specifically remember doing it for either the page 50 1 Asbury or the McKie trials. 2 Q. If it is you don't remember then does that mean that it 3 is possible that Mr Moffat is right and that you did say 4 to him, "Especially you, mate, because we all know what 5 you're like in the witness box"? 6 A. No, I don't think I said that to Michael, no. 7 Q. Why do you say that? 8 A. Because, as I say, it's not -- I don't ever recall 9 having seen Mr Moffat in the witness box. 10 Q. Now, the Inquiry also has some evidence that in the 11 run-up to the trial of Shirley McKie when you learned 12 that there was to be a challenge from Pat Wertheim to 13 the SCRO evidence you took steps to speak to some of the 14 SCRO experts. 15 Is that something you recall? 16 A. I may have done. Again, I'm sorry, I feel as if I'm 17 repeating myself but, again, I may well have done. 18 Q. If you did such a thing, what would be your purpose in 19 bringing together or speaking to SCRO experts who are 20 not, I think it's fair to say, on your staff? 21 A. It would just be a case of sharing information. I 22 became aware that Mr Wertheim was going to be giving 23 evidence in Ms McKie's trial. I had no knowledge of 24 Mr Wertheim. 25 I remember wondering if fingerprint experts in SCRO page 51 1 had any knowledge of Mr Wertheim. I think it may have 2 been as part of that. I was asked by Mrs Greaves, as 3 far as I recall, to make some enquiries into who 4 Mr Wertheim was and it could possibly have been part of 5 that that I spoke to SCRO experts to find out if they 6 had any knowledge of Mr Wertheim. 7 Q. To be fair, when you speak about Mrs Greaves, that was 8 the Procurator Fiscal involved in preparing the case 9 against Shirley McKie? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. So your information about Mr Wertheim came to you from 12 Mrs Greaves? 13 A. She asked me -- yes, she informed me that Mr Wertheim 14 was going to be involved in the case and asked me to do 15 some research into who he was and where he was from, 16 et cetera, et cetera. 17 Q. Finally, Mr Hogg, I think you became involved perhaps 18 tangentially again in this case in 2006 when some 19 further fingerprint images were found. 20 I wonder if you could look for me, please, at 21 document ST0066. Sir, Core Participants have this item 22 on their database and it is on Trial Director also. 23 I wonder if you could tell us what the document we 24 are looking at here is, Mr Hogg. 25 A. Yes, the office had an electronic computer system for page 52 1 the recording of fingerprints and the name of that 2 system was Prism. You can see at the top left-hand, 3 "CME Systems" which is the company that make it, Prism 4 version 1.5. 5 All the fingerprints that came into the 6 department -- sorry, all photographs that came into the 7 department were lodged on to the computer system so that 8 we could recall -- the department usually at any one 9 time has something in the region of about 5 million 10 photographs so it's not easy to keep track of them all. 11 This is a printout. It says at the top "File 12 reference number". That's a unique reference number 13 that's generated by the system. File type is 14 operational; the crime number; the accused and the 15 officer in charge of the case; the subdivision; the 16 offence, murder; and notes, M Ross -- that would 17 normally be the complainer or deceased in this case. 18 Q. So the top series of entries that you have been telling 19 us about identify the case that you're involved with and 20 there's also a unique reference number for your own 21 filing system? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. We there see a line "Photography assignment 14" 24 underneath there and we have a date requested and taken 25 on and the identity of the photographer. page 53 1 Those two dates, requested and taken on, are 2 12th February 1997. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. We see the photographer is identified as Stuart Wilson. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. I would like to ask you about the series of dates that 7 we see in the last series of entries on the page 8 underneath "processing and reprint request"? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. We see here "date in" and "reprint request" one as being 11 13th February 1997. On the basis of the way the system 12 normally works, what would be the significance of that? 13 A. Of the date in? 14 Q. Yes, indeed. 15 A. The processing request, it was an immediate job. It 16 came in and was asked for on the same day. 17 Q. Because the Inquiry does have evidence that what 18 happened in relation to these photographs was that they 19 were taken on 12th February, the photographer attended 20 and had the prints in his hand on 12th February 1997. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Is there any possibility, given the way the system 23 works, that the data here may not and the reprint 24 request may not be correct? 25 A. That's possibly an admin that they were done on the 12th page 54 1 but the time that the accompanying documentation was 2 given to the admin staff that it was put on the 3 following day. That's possibly the reason. 4 Q. So it would follow that we wouldn't necessarily have 5 costed out an account that it hold(?) to police on the 6 12th simply by reason of the entries on this form? 7 A. No, that's quite possible. 8 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you for that, Mr Hogg. I don't have 9 any further questions for you at the moment. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there an application? 11 MR SMITH: Yes, sir, I do have some questions I would like 12 to ask and the areas I would like to ask are about, 13 first of all, the training for Scenes of Crime Officers 14 and what they are trained to look for. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 16 MR SMITH: Secondly, the relationship between the Scenes of 17 Crimes Officers and SCRO and how that operated. 18 The third relates to this witness's experience 19 regarding the number of prints found at this particular 20 locus and the number of those that were deemed 21 unsuitable for examination, how that compares generally 22 speaking. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 24 MR SMITH: I have some questions regarding the integrity of 25 the locus, just a few questions regarding that and page 55 1 forensic examination, how long it took. One question 2 relating to the issue of powders. That's to do with 3 this witness's knowledge, if any, of the Home Office 4 Guidance. I don't intend to go to any documents, just 5 to ask what he knows about that. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly on the Home Office Guidance aspect 7 but I will give you leave to ask about the matters you 8 mentioned. 9 MR SMITH: It is limited to that. 10 The final area that I would like to ask about is 11 just a few more questions regarding the conversation 12 with Mr Moffat and what was done about it. It's been 13 covered quite extensively and I won't cover anything 14 that has already been gone through. I am happy to give 15 that undertaking. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Very good. 17 Cross-examined by MR SMITH 18 Q. Thank you, sir. 19 Mr Hogg, I am sure you heard the areas I would like 20 to ask you about. The first of these is the question of 21 the training that Scenes of Crime Officers obtain. 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Can you explain to us dealing with the staff who were 24 present in 1997, can you deal with that time, what kind 25 of training would they have had in particularly page 56 1 fingerprints. That's what we're interested in. 2 A. Certainly, again in 1997 the department have used 3 extensively the National Training Centre at Durham and 4 initial Scene Examiners would attend that on a nine-week 5 course. The people that were at the scene, 6 Mr Thurley -- I think Mr Ferguson may well have been on 7 that course. 8 We then used a two-week course. Normally after five 9 years they would return and do a refresher course, which 10 was a two-week course. When we started introducing that 11 using the National Training Centre the people that were 12 in situ and were experienced, slotted into a retraining 13 programme but obviously didn't go on the initial 9-week 14 course. Whether all or any had been on the refresher 15 course I honestly can't recall. 16 Q. What I am interested in is again dealing with 17 fingerprints. The Scenes of Crime Officer is plainly 18 looking for fingerprints that are capable of examination 19 by SCRO? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And would there ever be a point a Scenes of Crime 22 Officer would find something that looked like a 23 fingerprint but conclude there's no way they are going 24 to get anything out of this and just effectively discard 25 it at that stage? page 57 1 A. Their instruction at all scenes, not just at serious 2 crime but at all scenes, that if they can see one or two 3 points of comparison then they would recover it. If it 4 was a total black mark or a score or anything that they 5 didn't think was suitable, they would not recover it. 6 Q. I take it from that answer that a Scenes of Crime 7 Officer must have some basic knowledge at least of what 8 a point of comparison is? 9 A. Yes. That would be covered at Durham or we 10 had -- again, it's difficult to recall. We certainly 11 had a programme where Scene Examiners would attend at 12 the Fingerprint Bureau and we had a reciprocal agreement 13 that they would attend and be shown fingerprints and 14 some information fingerprints and likewise fingerprint 15 experts would come to us and be given some information 16 about the recovery of fingerprints. 17 Q. Can you just describe for us in general terms what we 18 can imagine a point of comparison could be? How can we 19 imagine what it would be like -- 20 A. On a fingerprint? 21 Q. Yes. 22 A. We're looking for ridge endings, bifurcations, islands, 23 et cetera. 24 Q. So the terminology is something that you no doubt 25 understand and is familiar to a fingerprint examiner as page 58 1 such rather than just a Scenes of Crimes Officer? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. I think in your statement on 9th September 1997 -- 4 CO2608, a Crown Office document -- an indication was 5 given and I will just read out actually ... if you give 6 me a moment, I will find the particular part of it. 7 (Pause) 8 I will try to find the particular part but I will 9 just read out the section I was going to ask you about. 10 You indicate in that that there was also a portion of 11 palm print below it, below Y7, but there were no 12 identifying features in this palm according to SCRO. 13 I take it -- we will try to find the passage in 14 fairness to you but, as far as that is concerned, is 15 that likely to be information from SCRO that was 16 provided to you rather than a view taken by yourself? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Again, I take it you wouldn't feel particularly 19 confident, especially I suppose with a palm-print in 20 that position, to give an opinion as to whether there 21 were any identifying features? 22 A. No, I'm not trained as a fingerprint expert but on a 23 difficult palm-print I certainly wouldn't give an 24 impression -- generally speaking a palm print is bigger 25 than a fingerprint, so you can generally, if there's -- page 59 1 Q. In fairness it is page 3 if we can flip to page 3 and go 2 to the bottom, I think we can see the current text, just 3 the last three lines on the page. Do you see that: 4 "There was also a portion of palm below it but there 5 are no identifying features on this palm according to 6 SCRO. The thumb print was on the hinge side of 7 the ..." and I assume the next word is "door". 8 That is the context but your position is, as I 9 suggested to you, that there should be an SCRO thing. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. As far as any training is concerned would you or any of 12 your officers who worked with you on any occasion or on 13 some occasions or whatever, actually work with SCRO just 14 to see how they operated? 15 A. As I think I said that that -- certainly whether that 16 was in operation in 1997 I can't honestly recall. We've 17 certainly done that over the years, yes. Whether that 18 would happen or had happened or was happening round 19 about '97 I have ... 20 Q. I think you also indicated when you were asked questions 21 earlier on in dealing with this question of the 22 relationship between your department and SCRO that prior 23 to the McKie trial a conversation took place between you 24 and some people within SCRO -- this is at page 50 at 25 line 8 of the evidence so far if anyone wishes to look page 60 1 to it -- I think you indicated that you contacted them 2 for "sharing information" is the phrase that you used 3 prior to the McKie trial. 4 Do you recall who you spoke to in SCRO? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Was it one person, was it a group of people? 7 A. I don't recall. 8 Q. Is this something that you had done on previous 9 occasions prior to trials, contact SCRO to, as you 10 describe it, share information? 11 A. No -- SCRO at the time 1997 were across the corridor 12 from us. We all deal in fingerprints and although the 13 general working arrangement was that we gathered, 14 printed and gave through to SCRO the prints and 15 thereafter, normally, had no great involvement with it, 16 occasionally if there was difficult prints, if they 17 needed to know the context of prints, et cetera, 18 et cetera, there would be some contact. But, generally 19 speaking, it was a different science. They worked 20 independently to us. We were in a different management 21 structure, et cetera. 22 Q. They may have been formally independent in terms of 23 structure but I think you described a course of conduct 24 and I think the import of what you are saying is there 25 would be regular discussions. Is that not right? page 61 1 A. There would be, yes, yes. 2 Q. They can't really, Mr Hogg, be said to be independent in 3 the sense they could have been on the other side of the 4 country or anything, can they? 5 A. No. They were certainly through the wall from us, yes. 6 Q. You see, at the stage you spoke to them were you aware 7 that it was Shirley McKie's position coming up to her 8 trial that the fingerprint had been misidentified? Was 9 that the state of your knowledge when you had this 10 conversation with SCRO? 11 A. I'm finding it difficult to recall when I had 12 this ... was this ... 13 Q. I think you accepted that it was prior to the Shirley 14 McKie trial that you were in touch. If it helps you, I 15 think you also indicated that -- 16 A. Was this -- my recollection was that the contact I had 17 with SCRO was in relation to Mr Wertheim. 18 Q. Yes, and did you understand what Mr Wertheim's position 19 actually was? 20 A. At some stage I did but I can't fully recall if it 21 was -- if I was fully aware of what Mr Wertheim was 22 going to say in court. 23 Q. You see, if you were unaware of Shirley McKie's position 24 being "It's not my fingerprint" then what possible 25 reason would you have had to contact SCRO, because their page 62 1 position was it's her fingerprint, she's going to trial 2 and let's see what happens? 3 Do you agree with me that it must have been that if 4 you were aware of any contact with SCRO prior to her 5 trial, you must have been aware that she was challenging 6 the identity of her fingerprint. Is that not fair? 7 A. Probably fair, yes. 8 Q. And SCRO people examine fingerprints and give an opinion 9 as to whether or not it is a correct identification, 10 right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. That's not your patch, is it? 13 A. Sorry? 14 Q. That's your patch? It's not your expertise -- 15 A. No, not at all. 16 Q. So what possible reason could there be, Mr Hogg, for you 17 contacting SCRO to exchange information? 18 A. I don't recall having said exchange information 19 regarding the case. My recollection was that it was to 20 do with Mr Wertheim and who he was and where he came 21 from, et cetera. 22 Q. "Sharing information" was the phrase you used. I stand 23 corrected. I don't think it's much different to 24 "exchange of information" but sharing information. 25 What possible information was it you wanted to share page 63 1 with SCRO and share with them that related to 2 Mr Wertheim? What were you trying to achieve? 3 A. As I said, I think I mentioned that I was asked by 4 Mrs Grieves to research Mr Wertheim to find out who he 5 was and where he came from, et cetera. I had no 6 knowledge of him at all. 7 My recollection was that I started off perhaps with 8 SCRO experts and asked them if they knew who he was, 9 et cetera. I don't recall any deep discussion. In 10 fact, I don't even recall if they were aware of who he 11 was. But my recollection of my answer was that it was 12 in relation to Mr Wertheim, not in relation to the 13 fingerprints, et cetera, involved in the case. 14 Q. So we can understand that when you're asked what it was 15 you were discussing with SCRO prior to Shirley McKie's 16 trial the answer to that question is, "I went to ask 17 them if they knew anything about Mr Wertheim"; that's 18 it, isn't it? 19 A. I think that's what the answer to my question was, yes. 20 Q. Not sharing information but sharing information about 21 Mr Wertheim; that's what we should understand, is it? 22 A. Well, I don't think at the time that I approached SCRO I 23 had a lot of information to share. My question to SCRO 24 was did they know who he was. I certainly didn't, so at 25 that stage, other than the fact that I possibly informed page 64 1 them that Mr Wertheim was going to be involved in the 2 case, other than that I didn't have a lot of information 3 to share. 4 Q. What did they tell you about Mr Wertheim? 5 A. I don't honestly recall if they knew who he was at all. 6 Q. Do you recall if they gave you any positive information 7 or the response was, "We don't know anything about this 8 fellow"? 9 A. I can't be specific about that. I certainly did 10 other -- gleaned information from elsewhere. I don't 11 recall if anyone I spoke to in SCRO knew Mr Wertheim or 12 had any knowledge of him. 13 Q. We might have an impression or some people might have 14 the impression there was a bit of concern within the 15 offices, your colleagues across the corridor from you, a 16 bit of concern that Mr Wertheim was coming across with 17 something to say. 18 Is that fair, a fair assessment? 19 A. At the time, as I say, I didn't meet with members of the 20 Fingerprint Bureau to discuss anything along those 21 lines. I met with them on the -- well, not I didn't 22 meet with them but I was acting on behalf of Mrs Greaves 23 who had asked me to find out who Mr Wertheim was and 24 whether members of the Fingerprint Bureau had some 25 concerns about Mr Wertheim's involvement in the case was page 65 1 not something they shared with me. 2 Q. But we can imagine that you had never -- you and no-one 3 to your knowledge -- had ever been asked by a senior 4 Procurator Fiscal before to investigate a defence expert 5 in a fingerprint case? That's never happened, has it? 6 A. I certainly haven't been asked before, no. 7 Q. You would have heard about it if anyone else had been 8 involved in that, wouldn't you? 9 A. There are a limited number of defence fingerprint 10 experts in the country and, generally speaking, if one 11 is involved in a case there is some knowledge about that 12 fingerprint expert. Mr Wertheim came from left field. 13 Q. I would like to ask you, if I can, about the number of 14 fingerprints that were found within the particular 15 locus. I think we know and the exact numbers may be 16 unknown to you but I think we understand there were 17 probably 428 fingerprints recovered, of which SCRO 18 considered 235 to be fragmentary and insufficient for 19 comparison purposes. 20 Do these figures sound broadly in the right ballpark 21 for you? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Of the 193 remaining prints, 136 were eliminated as 24 belonging to the late Marion Ross. We understand from 25 written evidence, and no doubt this will feature later, page 66 1 that in evidence to the Justice 1 Inquiry it was 2 suggested by certain SCRO experts that they had 3 eliminated every one of the 136 prints said to relate to 4 Marion Ross to a 16-point standard. 5 Can I ask you, first of all, do you understand 6 broadly speaking what a 16-point standard is? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. You may not be able to help us with this but, insofar as 9 you can, of the remaining 136, 136 fingerprints 10 eliminated to a 16-point standard, is that something 11 that you understand or these ratios is par for the 12 course, is about right? 13 A. Yes. At a major crime scene such as the locus I would 14 expect my Scene of Crime Officers to lift everything 15 they saw basically and give SCRO an opportunity. So I 16 would perhaps expect more of an insufficient rate at 17 such a locus maybe rather than a less serious crime. 18 Q. I am really interested in the matter that, according to 19 that evidence, if it is correct, 136 fingerprints from a 20 murder locus were eliminated to the 16-point standard. 21 Now, just dealing with the 16-point standard for 22 elimination purposes, is it your understanding for 23 elimination purposes a 16-point standard would have been 24 looked for? 25 A. I would understand that they would eliminate page 67 1 fingerprints that had reached the 16-point standard, 2 yes. 3 Q. The second point from that is to manage to get 136 4 fingerprints eliminated to a 16-point standard is it 5 your understanding that having regard to the overall 438 6 prints in the house that I put to you, that proportion 7 is about what you would expect? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. It is. 10 I would like to ask you now a bit about the 11 integrity of the forensic examination of the particular 12 house. If we could have, please, production CO2608 up 13 on the screen. Again, I will try to track the 14 particular passage I have noted down. But give me just 15 one moment. (Pause) 16 There is within this, we will call it up in a few 17 minutes for you, it is appears to be stated in this 18 statement which is dated 9th September 1997 -- so again 19 this would be prepared for the purpose of the Asbury 20 trial -- the indication within the statement is in this 21 case no fingerprints were taken during the night (this 22 is 8th/19th January) and a full forensic examination was 23 carried out that night. 24 While we are trying to find the passage, can I ask 25 you this: is it usual to carry a brief forensic page 68 1 examination, excluding fingerprints, before the 2 fingerprint examination takes place -- 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. It's usual in the events? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. As far as that is concerned -- I think in fact the 7 passage is on page 1. It is maybe eight or nine lines 8 up from the bottom. You see it says: 9 "In that case no fingerprints were taken during the 10 night and a full forensic examination was carried out 11 that night by a forensic scientist", who will probably 12 be identified for you. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. So I take it from that statement it certainly implies 15 that it was in that night that the forensic examination 16 was carried out? 17 A. Yes, that would be the normal course of events. 18 Q. If it is recorded in the log perhaps we can have 19 that -- I keep forgetting the number ... SG0537. 20 Looking for an entry at 20.31 do you see "Martin 21 Fairley, forensic lab"? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. "And others, DCI Heath and Dr Cassidy who is the 24 pathologist, they arrive at locus into the house." Then 25 at 23.00 hours you see "Detective Superintendent Malcolm page 69 1 and DCI Heath, Dr Cassidy and Martin Fairley depart the 2 locus"? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. Can we take it that the forensic examination, the full 5 forensic examination, was carried during that period or 6 are you suggesting your understanding is it was carried 7 out at a different time? 8 A. My understanding would be that forensic examination 9 would be carried out by Martin Fairley during the time 10 he was there. 11 Q. So we can just imagine then, can we, that a full 12 forensic examination was carried out during that period 13 between the hours of 20.31 and 23.00 hours which is some 14 two and a half hours? 15 A. Yes. The normal process would be that the forensic 16 scientist would attend and deal initially with the 17 deceased. There would be an examination or taping of 18 the body to remove any hairs and fibres, DNA, et cetera. 19 The immediate surrounds where the deceased was found, 20 together with any obvious location within the premises, 21 perhaps the attack had happened, not necessarily just 22 where the body or the deceased had ended up. 23 That would be carried out and then any other areas 24 that either the CID that were there or the photographer 25 and Mr Fairley, I presume, normally the case would be page 70 1 would have a general look around. 2 The understanding thereafter would be that the Scene 3 of Crime Officers, when they come to do a detailed 4 examination, if anything further was found or any 5 further location, if something had been missed, they are 6 doing a detailed search for fingerprints, if they found 7 blood or any other indication that something had 8 happened elsewhere, then the forensic laboratory would 9 be recalled and they would undertake a further 10 examination or a further examination. 11 Q. We see, I think, only Mr Fairley, one gentleman -- if 12 this log is accurate -- who comes in for 2 hours and 29 13 minutes, who carries out a full examination, which is 14 he the first man in looking for fibres, for blood? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. For any items that may have been dropped? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Hairs, all these kind of things effectively throughout 19 the house; is that right? 20 A. As I said, he would initially focus on areas that had 21 been identified on the evening and the Scene Examiners 22 would thereafter, when we attended -- and I think we 23 were there for a week -- during that examination, if 24 they came across any, as I say, blood or anything 25 obvious of a forensic nature, any forensic material, page 71 1 then they would have recalled the forensic scientist in 2 1997. We are now at a stage where they'd probably have 3 lifted that themselves now but not, I believe, in 1997. 4 Q. Can I ask you if you have any comment on what one may 5 think the speed by which this examination took place by 6 one man, 2 hours and 29 minutes. Do you think is that 7 average? 8 A. It depends very much on the location. As I say, 9 focussing mainly at the time I would have imagined -- 10 and this is perhaps something you can ask Mr Fairley -- 11 but in my experience two or three hours on the night is 12 about average, yes. 13 Q. I think we've heard some information that up to six 14 police officers, at the time the examinations were 15 taking place or between the various examinations, had 16 been in the living room. They had made themselves 17 comfortable there, as I understand? 18 A. This is overnight we're talking about? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You were aware of that, were you? 22 A. No, I wasn't. I have already been asked that. 23 Q. Do you have any comment just briefly about it? 24 A. They shouldn't have been there. 25 Q. They shouldn't have been there. page 72 1 Now in your Inquiry statement at paragraph 22 you 2 explain that you were first advised of confirmation that 3 Marion Ross had been murdered in the afternoon of 4 9th January 1997. You go on to say: 5 "I telephoned the forensic lab to satisfy myself 6 that we had obtained everything from the house they 7 required. At that time the forensic scientists might 8 have had the idea that the death had been a suicide." 9 Then you go on to say: 10 "I recall there was a possibility of obtaining 11 footwear impressions from the house." 12 The feeling by the forensic scientists that the 13 death may have been a suicide, who in particular were 14 you referring to when you say "forensic scientist"? Who 15 is that? 16 A. Well, I certainly recall -- whether I had that 17 impression before I left headquarters or whether that 18 was something that was imparted to me at the scene -- 19 the fact that there was a possibility that it had been a 20 suicide but the person -- the only person that had been 21 at the scene was Martin Fairley. Now, whether he was 22 aware of that, I'm not in a position to comment. 23 Q. I would like to ask you a question about the various 24 powders that are used and we have heard quite a lot of 25 evidence about that and my impression was that it was page 73 1 very much a question of preference and depending upon 2 the item that was being examined. 3 Is that a fair way of looking at it? 4 A. Each individual Scene of Crime Officer, you can't go 5 into, generally speaking, you can't go into a premises 6 and say, "We'll use aluminium powder on all of this 7 location". The whole of the house has been done. In 8 the circumstances, the different parts of the house may 9 react differently to different powders. So it's not 10 something you can be definitive about. It's left to the 11 individual scene examiner in consultation usually with 12 the senior scene examiner as to which powder they're 13 going to use. 14 Q. You heard me explain to the Chairman that the only thing 15 I wanted to ask was whether you are aware of Home Office 16 Guidance on the question of which powders to use under 17 which circumstances. Are you aware of that? 18 A. Yes and, as I recall, it's not my bedtime reading, but 19 as I recall aluminium powder is certainly the powder 20 that would be first used. If in doubt, start with 21 aluminium. 22 Q. That is your understanding -- 23 A. That's my understanding. 24 Q. -- you had of the Home Office position. 25 You say it's not your bedtime reading. When did you page 74 1 last look at it? 2 A. A number of years ago. 3 Q. Can I ask why you haven't kept up-to-date with what the 4 current Home Office Guidance is? 5 A. Well, I haven't had responsibility for scene examination 6 for, what, three years now. 7 Q. How often did you consult it when you did have 8 responsibility for scene examination? 9 A. I kept up-to-date with, as far as I recall, with new 10 parts of the book as it came out. There's amendments 11 come out occasionally. 12 Q. I would like to ask you some more questions about 13 Mr Moffat just to be clear about what the position is. 14 You told us in your evidence under questioning from 15 Miss Carmichael about your recollection of the 16 conversation with Mr Moffat and I am sorry, I didn't 17 quite understand what you meant. You said something 18 about there were three options discussed. 19 Can I ask you were these suggested by Mr Moffat or 20 suggested by you? 21 A. I can't recall whether these were Mr Moffat or myself. 22 Q. But can you tell us again what the three options were? 23 A. Well, my recollection was that if Mr Gray had placed his 24 hand on any part of the locus he may have disturbed a 25 print. He had gloves on. He may have disturbed the page 75 1 print and if that was the case there was not a lot we 2 could do about it. 3 The second option was, as I recall, a print being 4 left through a glove. I had seen Y7 and reasonably 5 closely examined it and it didn't strike me that -- I've 6 also seen prints that had been left through gloves, 7 although that's rare at a scene, and it didn't appear to 8 me that was the case. 9 The other option was that Mr Gray had left his print 10 at the locus and my understanding was that all 11 elimination prints had been carried out and Mr Gray's 12 was not amongst them. 13 Q. Before coming to that, it is clear at least that you 14 have a recollection of Mr Moffat drawing to your 15 attention the possibility that Gary Gray had left a 16 fingerprint approximate to or exactly where Y7 was found 17 and you were aware of that, as I understand it, in the 18 run-up, was it the run-up to Shirley McKie's trial was 19 your position? 20 A. Some time around there, yes. 21 Q. As I understand your evidence, you understood that Gary 22 Gray's fingerprints would have been eliminated in the 23 inquiry? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Did you check to see that Gary Gray's fingerprint had page 76 1 been eliminated in the SCRO inquiry? 2 A. No, I raised the issue with Mr Heath. 3 Q. With Mr Heath? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Immediately after you spoke with Mr Moffat or very soon 6 afterwards you raised it with Mr Heath? 7 A. Yes, within maybe a few weeks, yes. 8 Q. Because Shirley McKie's trial was coming up and 9 certainly Mr Moffat was aware that there was going to be 10 a challenge to the identity of the fingerprint. That's 11 why he called you, wasn't it? 12 A. Yes, yes. 13 Q. He had no other reason to call you if he didn't think 14 there was an issue over identity of the print; that's 15 fair, isn't it? So you were then aware when Mr Moffat 16 spoke to you that there was an issue over the identity 17 of the fingerprint, right? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. You presumed Gary Gray had been excluded from the 20 investigation but you did not check? 21 A. As I say, I raised it with Mr Heath. 22 Q. You see, I may be getting this wrong -- and I will be 23 corrected if I am wrong about it -- but I think that 24 what Mr Heath's position was he had no idea about the 25 Gary Gray question until just a few weeks back in time. page 77 1 Are you able to explain whether you might be wrong 2 about raising it with Mr Heath or Mr Heath must be wrong 3 when he says he has no recollection of it? 4 A. Well, I can definitely recall speaking to Mr Heath about 5 the possibility of Gary Gray's fingerprint having been 6 left at the locus and was assured that all steps had 7 been taken to eliminate everybody and all eliminations 8 had been looked at. 9 Q. First of all, did you record this in writing? 10 A. No, I didn't. 11 Q. Why not? 12 A. In hindsight I wish I had but I didn't, so ... 13 Q. We will move on from that point. Your understanding was 14 that Gary Gray's fingerprint had been eliminated and you 15 were then, like most of the people involved in this and 16 the general public were aware that Shirley McKie was 17 acquitted in the criminal trial and I guess that was a 18 bit of a talking point in the offices of SCRO and in 19 your office. 20 A. It was. 21 Q. At that stage you were still in possession of some 22 information that you say you had been (inaudible) to 23 Mr Heath that it was possible that Gary Gray might have 24 left a fingerprint there; that's right, isn't it? 25 A. By the time that there was a definite possibility of page 78 1 that being -- that the Mackay Inquiry had kicked in. 2 Q. Did you at any stage go back to Mr Heath and say, "I'm 3 worried about this. Are you sure Gary Gray was checked 4 against this"? 5 A. No, I didn't, no. 6 Q. Can I ask why not? 7 A. It was not -- it was not seen as -- as I say, Mr Heath 8 and the inquiry team dealt with all eliminations and 9 that side. I had raised it with him and I assumed, 10 maybe wrongly, that all the eliminations, et cetera, had 11 been done. But, no, I didn't raise it again with 12 Mr Heath, no. 13 Q. You see, Mr Hogg, after the trial, knowing that Shirley 14 McKie was acquitted, you must have been aware that there 15 was a possibility that that fingerprint was not hers. 16 You must have at least accepted that much; is that 17 right? 18 A. Possibly, yes. 19 Q. That fingerprint, on any view, belongs to someone; 20 correct? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. If we have a position where elimination -- you are 23 understanding is eliminations have been carried out and 24 excluded everyone who should have been included in the 25 elimination process but has left over unidentified and page 79 1 one might think there is a possibility it's not Shirley 2 McKie's at least then there's a bit of a conundrum 3 there, isn't there? 4 A. My understanding was that, from Mr Heath, that Gary 5 Gray's fingerprint had been checked. SCRO had, in my 6 understanding, said that it was not. Therefore, by 7 eliminating Gary Gray I assumed that it was not 8 Mr Gray's. 9 Q. Yes, but you must have realised there was a possibility 10 either that Gary Gray's fingerprint was not checked or 11 the identification or the elimination exercise was 12 erroneous. You must have realised that. 13 A. It was not something that struck me at the time, no -- 14 or if it had struck me I would have progressed it. 15 Q. So we get round to the point where the Mackay Robertson 16 Inquiry is getting interested in this. You are in 17 possession, at that stage, of some potentially 18 significant information; that's right, isn't it? 19 A. (Nodded) 20 Q. Which is that Mr Moffat's position is fairly clear about 21 what he is suggesting, isn't he? 22 A. He seems to be, yes. 23 Q. The fact that Mr Moffat was concerned about it of itself 24 is a matter of importance, isn't it? 25 A. The reason I raised it with Mr Heath, yes. page 80 1 Q. Well, with respect, Mr Hogg, there is a degree of 2 individual responsibility here, isn't there? You just 3 can't say, "I told Mr Heath and I was not really 4 interested in it after that". 5 Do you not see that you were in possession of 6 information is quite an important matter that perhaps 7 you yourself could have taken steps to have communicated 8 to the relevant authorities? 9 A. I could have, yes. 10 Q. And you should have, shouldn't you? 11 A. Possibly. 12 Q. Well, you should have -- not possibly -- you should 13 have. Do you not accept that? 14 A. Possibly in hindsight I should have done, yes. 15 Q. Well, if for a start you should have disclosed it in 16 some way to the Procurator Fiscal's department, what 17 Mr Moffat said; is that not right? 18 A. As I say, I'd spoken to Mr Heath and my understanding 19 was that all the processes had been gone through and it 20 was not Mr Gray's print. 21 Q. We get to the Mackay Robertson Inquiry and did you tell 22 them about Mr Moffat's position? 23 A. At some stage I did, yes. 24 Q. Let us look at your statement if we can. 25 MISS CARMICHAEL: If it is of assistance, I think it is page 81 1 CO1231. 2 MR SMITH: I am obliged. 3 You remember I take it that you gave a statement to 4 the Mackay Robertson Inquiry. Look at the last page, 5 please. The pages are not actually numbered but if we 6 go to the last page, you say at the bottom it is a 7 statement taken by DS7634 Dunn and corroborated by Iain 8 Laird at 11.30 hours on 14th July 2000 at Strathclyde 9 house, 8 Elmbank Street, Glasgow. 10 It does say statement signed by Ian Hogg and dated 11 14th July 2000. I don't know if we have a transcript 12 version of it but I'm sure if there is a signed version, 13 we can dig it up from somewhere. 14 Do you remember giving a statement to the Mackay 15 Robertson Inquiry? 16 A. I do. 17 Q. I would like, if you can, if you wish to look through 18 this -- well, perhaps can you just tell me this: do you 19 know if anywhere in this statement there is any 20 indication of, if I put it this way, either Mr Moffat or 21 of Gary Gray or burst gloves or anything of the kind? 22 A. I don't recall, no. 23 Q. If you wish to flick through the pages I am sure you can 24 do so. Would you like us to do so? Perhaps if we can 25 just go to the first page and you can have a look at it. page 82 1 If you just indicate when you have finished scanning the 2 various pages. (Pause) 3 A. Okay. 4 Q. I think we can see there is no mention of Mr Moffat or 5 anything of the kind. 6 A. No. 7 Q. Are you prepared to accept that, assuming these police 8 officers have taken that statement were doing their job 9 properly, which I don't think is a terribly great leap 10 of faith here, but are you prepared to accept that you 11 did not tell them about these matters? 12 A. My recollection was that I gave two statements. 13 Q. Well, Mr Hogg, you realise of course that we can recover 14 documentation. That's not a problem. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Are you saying you think you might have told them about 17 Mr Moffat, et cetera, and there is another statement 18 that contains that. Is that your recollection, is it? 19 A. As I say, it's a long time ago but as far as I recall, 20 that is my recollection. 21 Q. No doubt we can have a check. But are you saying this 22 is the same officers, Dunn and Laird that you gave -- 23 A. I honestly don't recall. 24 Q. Do you remember if it was before or after this 25 statement? page 83 1 A. I think it was after. 2 Q. I take it that there would be -- well, maybe I can ask 3 you that. When you gave the first statement why would 4 you not disclose the matters I have been discussing with 5 you? 6 A. As I recall, I was asked about specific issues and I 7 responded in relation to those issues in this statement. 8 Q. Mr Hogg, this is an inquiry by senior police officers 9 effectively on behalf of the profession -- 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. -- into the circumstances surrounding Shirley McKie's 12 prosecution no less and the evidence that was given? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. You were in possession of very important information and 15 you didn't disclose it when you were first interviewed. 16 That's the fact of the matter, isn't it? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And I am asking you why did you not disclose it to the 19 Mackay Robertson Inquiry? 20 A. In hindsight I perhaps should have. I know that this 21 has now become an issue. My recollection of it at the 22 time is it had been done and dusted and it wasn't 23 Mr Gray's print and on reflection perhaps, yes, I should 24 have mentioned it at the time. 25 Q. You see, Mr Hogg, all you had to say was, "There was a page 84 1 point raised about it being somebody else's but I told 2 Mr Heath about it and I was advised it was all done and 3 dusted". That all you had to say, wasn't it? 4 A. Yes, but I have to say it was not, as I recall, it was 5 not at the front of my mind at the time. There were 6 other things that -- obviously, it's a busy department, 7 et cetera, but I accept now, looking back, that I should 8 have raised it. 9 Q. On the same theme you had some questions being put to 10 you by Miss Carmichael about a number of briefings, I 11 suppose, one before, I think, David Asbury's trial and 12 one before Shirley McKie's trial, if I've got this 13 right -- 14 THE CHAIRMAN: I hope we are not going to go over matters -- 15 the whole purpose of this is not repetition of areas 16 that have been covered. 17 MR SMITH: I accept that, sir. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Some specific aspects, I give you leave. 19 MR SMITH: Thank you, sir. I have no further questions. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Holmes, have you any application? 21 MR HOLMES: There is just one matter I would like to 22 clarify, sir. It relates to Mr Hogg's contact with the 23 Mackay Inquiry. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 25 Cross-examined by MR HOLMES page 85 1 Q. Mr Hogg, from the questions that you were being asked a 2 moment ago by my learned friend Mr Smith it may appear 3 as if you made no mention of the incident involving Gary 4 Gray to the Mackay team. 5 Is that the impression that you were left with? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. I wonder if you could have before you document number 8 CO0005, please. The page number is 78. It is the 9 report rather than the PDF document. 10 Mr Hogg, there's two paragraphs in the middle of 11 that page I am interested in, paragraphs 7.9.137 and 12 138. You will see from 7.9.137 it says that: 13 "It should again be noted that the enquiry team have 14 confirmed that the mark was not made by witness 15 Detective Constable Gray." 16 So does it appear from that that the Mackay team, 17 whether it was from you or from one of the other 18 witnesses that they have spoken to, do in fact know 19 about the allegation that the print could possibly have 20 been that of Gary Gray? 21 A. Yes, that would appear to be the case. 22 Q. In the following paragraph it mentions you by name. It 23 says that: 24 "Although Chief Inspector Hogg does not recall the 25 conversation taking place, he agrees that the events may page 86 1 well have taken place as described by witness Moffat." 2 Is that correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. So it appears from the terms of these paragraphs anyway 5 that you have at least discussed this incident with the 6 Mackay team? 7 A. As I say, it's a long time ago. Thank you. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Russell, I know you said you 9 had no role to play as a Core Participant but you are 10 here if you wish to ask any questions. 11 MR RUSSELL: Sir, thank you for the offer but I have no 12 access to the documentation and it would be a futile 13 exercise for me to question the witness which would be 14 repetition. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: I understand your position. That is your 16 choice. 17 Miss Jones, Mr Macpherson? 18 MR MACPHERSON: No thank you, sir. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Miss Grahame? 20 MISS GRAHAME: No thank you, sir. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: I think just if you have any question to ask 22 now in re-examination. 23 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, there are two matters. The first 24 would be to clarify the position in relation to contact 25 with the Mackay team because I have information that's, page 87 1 I think, not available to others. The other is to ask a 2 question which I would have to say was brought to my 3 mind by a line of questioning from Mr Smith that does 4 not strictly speaking arise from it. It should properly 5 have been put by me earlier. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: If there is something you feel should be 7 cleared up. 8 MISS CARMICHAEL: I am obliged, sir. 9 I am in the position, sir, of being able to identify 10 a document which will now be put on the Core Participant 11 database, number CO1232. Now, rather than have the 12 witness waiting over lunch while a hard copy is printed 13 out, it is relatively brief and it may be that it could 14 be dealt with simply by my reading it out if nobody else 15 has objection to that. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but it will be made available? 17 MISS CARMICHAEL: It will be made available, sir. 18 Re-examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 19 Q. What I am looking at here and about to read out to you, 20 Mr Hogg, is a statement which bears to have been taken 21 from you on 18th August 2000 by Inspector Iain Laird and 22 Chief Inspector Mark Watson at 8 Strathclyde House, 23 Elmbank Street, Glasgow. 24 I think the statement that you have been referred to 25 previously, CO1231, was a statement which would have page 88 1 been taken on 14th July 2000. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Do you remember officers coming back to see you about a 4 month after that statement? 5 A. I think I indicated that I recalled having given another 6 statement. 7 Q. Then for completeness, and in fairness to you, if I may 8 read this out: 9 "I have already provided a statement to officers 10 from Tayside Police ..." 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Do not go too quickly when you are reading 12 out because the stenographer has to get it. 13 MISS CARMICHAEL: "... who asked me if I had any 14 recollection of one of my staff, Michael Moffat, 15 informing me he was concerned the print may have been 16 that of a DC Gary Gray. I have no recollection 17 whatsoever of that conversation. More specifically, I 18 was informed that this allegedly took place a few days 19 before the Shirley McKie trial and that I had asked 20 Charles Stuart to check Gary Gray's prints, which were 21 negative. Again, I do not recall these circumstances 22 and have checked my pocket book and have no written 23 record of this. It is more than possible that these 24 events did take place as I have no reason to doubt 25 Mr Moffat and it sounds like what I would have done if page 89 1 he had contacted me. However, I simply cannot remember 2 this taking place. 3 "I have also been asked about a comment I made to 4 Mr Moffat recently when I told him to stick to his 5 statement and he would be fine. I did indeed say that 6 to him, as he appeared concerned that he was to be 7 interviewed. He did not make any reference to any 8 concerns he may have had about this DC Gray issue; 9 therefore, I was unaware of them. The comment was 10 simply one of reassurance and in no way was designed to 11 suggest he should withhold information not in his 12 statement." 13 There the statement ends. 14 Do you have any recollection as to whether that 15 records your position accurately as at that time? 16 A. I certainly have some recollection of officers 17 re-interviewing me. The content of that I have -- it's 18 a long time ago and I'm sure that was the position or 19 round about the position at the time. 20 Q. But it would at least appear from what I've read out 21 that you didn't mention Mr Heath or contacting Mr Heath 22 when you spoke to the officers back in August 2000. 23 A. That would appear to be the case but I definitely do 24 have a recollection of speaking to Mr Heath. 25 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, the other matter that arises from -- page 90 1 well, perhaps doesn't strictly arise from but is 2 stimulated by what Mr Smith asked about contact and 3 relations with the SCRO officers. 4 Mr Hogg, did you contact the SCRO or anybody in SCRO 5 Fingerprint Bureau after Shirley McKie's trial? 6 A. Regarding ... 7 Q. Well -- 8 A. I certainly would have contact with the SCRO personnel 9 after the Shirley McKie trial but we're talking about in 10 specifically, I have no recollection. 11 Q. Do you remember if you passed any information to anyone 12 there about the involvement of a Mr Swann in Shirley 13 McKie's case? 14 A. That's possible, yes. Yes, I did, yes. 15 Q. When do you recall doing that? 16 A. I don't have a date. It would possibly be in my 17 notebooks. 18 Q. Perhaps importantly on the theme that Mr Smith was on, 19 why did you do so? 20 A. My recollection was that Mr Terry Kent, who was the 21 forensic scientist that I had suggested that -- I don't 22 think we've covered the earlier on in the investigation. 23 I recall that Ms McKie had indicated that the print was 24 planted, must have been. She accepted, I understand, 25 that the print was indeed hers and there was a page 91 1 possibility of the print having been planted. I was 2 asked to comment on that by Mrs Greaves and I think gave 3 a statement to Mrs Greaves regarding the planting of the 4 print, basically saying that I was no expert on planted 5 prints. 6 Q. I think it's probably not controversial that Mrs Greaves 7 did in fact refer eventually to Mr Kent for a view and a 8 production of a piece of wood was sent to Mr Kent; so 9 you perhaps don't need to take us through the detail of 10 that. 11 A. Right. 12 Q. What I am interested in is really the question of how 13 and why you came to be passing information to SCRO about 14 Mr Swann after the trial. 15 A. Well, as far as I recall, it was in relation to a phone 16 call that I'd received from Mr Kent who had been present 17 during Ms McKie giving evidence and Mr Wertheim giving 18 evidence in Ms McKie's trial. 19 As I recall, some time after the trial was 20 completed, Mr Kent had occasion to speak to Mr Swann. 21 Mr Swann mentioned the fact that he had been engaged as 22 a defence expert by Ms McKie. Mr Kent realised that he 23 had been in court when Ms McKie had stated that there 24 was no -- she was not aware of any other expert having 25 looked at the case and he realised that he had some page 92 1 problem with that position. He phoned me regarding that 2 and I suggested that he contact the Fiscal immediately, 3 which I understand he did. 4 I may then have, in conversation with members of 5 SCRO, imparted that information to them. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Who did you suggest he contact? I'm sorry, I 7 missed -- 8 A. Sorry? 9 THE CHAIRMAN: You said that you suggested he contact 10 someone. 11 A. The Procurator Fiscal. 12 MISS CARMICHAEL: I think -- 13 THE CHAIRMAN: If this is going to take some time -- 14 MISS CARMICHAEL: As I say, I am sorry for raising the 15 matter late in the day. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: No, no. If it is going to take some time, I 17 think in fairness to the stenographer, we had better 18 resume at 2.00. 19 (1.10 pm) 20 (Luncheon Adjournment) 21 (2.00 pm) 22 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you, sir. 23 Mr Hogg, just before we broke for lunch you said 24 your main conversation with members SCRO had imparted 25 the information that you had from Terry Kent about Peter page 93 1 Swann? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Mr Smith asked you a series of questions querying why 4 you would engage in information-sharing with SCRO and 5 I'm querying at a point, perhaps, after the trial here 6 why SCRO would need to know about the matter you 7 mentioned when you had already suggested that Mr Kent 8 make a report to another authority? 9 A. It was something that was of interest to them. It was 10 certainly being talked about in general and I felt it 11 was something that SCRO, maybe not should know about but 12 would have an interest in. 13 Q. Did Terry Kent tell you what Peter Swann's opinion on Y7 14 had been? 15 A. I don't think we discussed that. 16 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you, I have no further questions for 17 you on this matter. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: I have no questions. Thank you very much 19 indeed. 20 (The witness withdrew) 21 THE CHAIRMAN: The next witness? 22 MISS CARMICHAEL: The next witness is Stuart Wilson. 23 STUART ANGUS WILSON (sworn) 24 THE CHAIRMAN: And your full name is? 25 A. Stuart Angus Wilson. page 94 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Please take a seat. 2 Examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 3 Q. Mr Wilson, we've found it's quite hard to hear people 4 sometimes if they are not speaking directly into the 5 microphone so it may help you to bring it close to you. 6 A. Thank you. 7 Q. Mr Wilson, I think you have provided a signed statement 8 to the Inquiry. 9 A. Yes, I did. 10 Q. Are you content that that records accurately your 11 position on the matters you were asked we about when 12 your statement was taken? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. I would like to start by asking you a little about what 15 your current job involves? 16 A. I'm a Scenes of Crime Officer with Strathclyde, well, 17 the SPSA, now the Scottish Police Services Authority. 18 Q. Does the job you are doing now differ from the job you 19 were doing back in 1997? 20 A. Not really, no. 21 Q. I would like to ask you, first of all, about what you 22 say at paragraph 5 of your statement. The Inquiry's 23 heard some discussion about how the inquiry into the 24 death of Miss Ross was being treated, whether it was 25 being treated as a suicide or a murder or a suspicious page 95 1 death and I would like you to state your position on 2 that. 3 A. I think initially I was told it was a suspicious death 4 and I was waiting for other information before I could 5 make my mind up whether or not it was to be treated as a 6 murder or, in this case, I believe it's mentioned as a 7 suicide. 8 Q. In the second line of paragraph 5 of your statement you 9 say the SOCO team is usually only put together if there 10 has been a suspicious death? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. Why is that? 13 A. Well, it's so that if there is a locus to be examined we 14 would go in as a team rather than individuals. It's 15 obviously a bigger job and would take more men to put 16 into it so they combine what is termed as a team to go 17 in there and do the Scenes of Crime. 18 Q. I am finding some of what you are saying a little bit 19 heard to hear so others may be as well. 20 You describe in paragraph 8 of your statement that 21 yourself and Graham Hunter weren't required on 22 9th January and, again, there has been some 23 discussion/suggestion in the evidence to the Inquiry 24 that you and he may have been sent away because the 25 inquiry was not being treated as a murder inquiry at page 96 1 that stage. 2 A. That was not my impression at the time. My impression 3 at the time was it was treated as a murder and the 4 reason we were sent away was that productions had to be 5 moved from the house before a Scenes of Crime team would 6 go in there fully in case we disturbed anything or we 7 lost any evidential evidence. 8 Q. I would like to ask you about what you say at 9 paragraph 15 of your statement about your attendance at 10 the house on 11th January 1997. You write that Graham 11 Hunter was not there and you were there with Michael 12 Moffat? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. If I can take you just to the last sentence of that same 15 paragraph you write: 16 "No-one else was present that I can now recall." 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. When you say there was no-one else there that you 19 recall, do you mean Scenes of Crime Officers or anyone 20 at all, any police officers, any others involved? 21 A. The only person I remember was the officer on the door. 22 I cannot remember anybody else being present. Scenes of 23 Crime-wise it was only Michael Moffat and myself that 24 were there representing the Scenes of Crime department. 25 Q. There is a document that may assist you if we look at page 97 1 SG0537.8. 2 In fairness, there may well be indications that this 3 document is not an entirely complete and accurate record 4 of everyone who was present or who may have been 5 present, but if you take it from me that this is a 6 record that relates to 11th January 1997, I think we 7 perhaps see at 12.50 yourself and Mike Moffat and a 8 DC Kerr remove productions to a vehicle. 9 Do you see that entry? 10 A. Yes, I do. 11 Q. Does that assist your recollection at all? 12 A. The only thing I could possibly now mention is the fact 13 that I believe we took the door handles off and put them 14 in shoe boxes to take them away, to keep them separate. 15 We removed the door handles so they would be sent for 16 specialist treatment in Glasgow. 17 Q. The entry I referred you to there mentions a DC Kerr. 18 You said you remember shoe boxes. Do you remember DC 19 Kerr being there? 20 A. Yes. It's coming back to me now that you mentioned it. 21 DC Kerr, if that was on that date, yes, the shoe boxes, 22 because we had to find a way of transporting these 23 handles, door handles without touching them and we found 24 that shoe boxes at that time were available to us so we 25 used them. page 98 1 Q. Was that yourself along with Mr Kerr and Mr Moffat? 2 A. It's the only thing I can think of at the time, yes. 3 Q. What we see on this document is that if you move just 4 down from the entry beneath that is DC Kerr along with 5 yourself and Mr Moffat leave the locus. 6 Is that something you remember, the three of you 7 going away together? 8 A. No, I'm sorry, I don't recall that at all. 9 Q. It may be that you are not able to help me with the next 10 question but I would like to ask it in any event, 11 Mr Wilson. 12 If we go down to 14.15 -- and I think, again, that 13 will be highlighted for you -- there is a reference to 14 yourself and Michael Moffat arriving at the locus. 15 Is that something that helps your recollection of 16 maybe going away and coming back? 17 A. No, I'm sorry, I don't remember that at all. 18 Q. A matter that may come to be of some significance is 19 whether Mr Kerr was present in the afternoon at any 20 point after the entry records him leaving the locus at 21 1.15 that day. 22 Is that something that you can help us with at all 23 as to whether DC Kerr was there in the afternoon? 24 A. No, I'm sorry. I just can't remember. It's so long ago 25 now, I just can't remember. page 99 1 Q. Do you by any chance remember enquiries having to be 2 made in shoe shops to obtain additional shoe boxes for 3 these productions. 4 A. I do actually, yes. I believe shoe shops in the 5 Kilmarnock area were asked to provide shoe boxes. At 6 that time we didn't have any other way of transporting 7 these door handles without touching them and preserving 8 them so they could be sent for specialist exam. It 9 seemed a logical way of boxing them up at that time. 10 Q. Did you yourself go to the shoe shops to help get the 11 shoe boxes? 12 A. No, I did not. 13 Q. I wondered whether you had any recollection, perhaps, of 14 Mr Kerr going away, coming back with shoe boxes or 15 anything of that sort? 16 A. I don't remember it at all. He possibly did. I was 17 busy doing other things at that time. I was working in 18 the kitchen that day. It was a Saturday. I remember it 19 was a Saturday. 20 Q. There is no criticism of yourself intended. I am simply 21 trying to find out if you can assist us with Mr Kerr's 22 presence. Thank you for that. 23 If I can take you on to 14th January 1997, 24 Mr Wilson, which was the day that I think you were 25 working along with Graham Hunter and Michael Moffat page 100 1 trying to detect fingerprints? 2 A. Yes, that's correct. 3 Q. There came a point where you came to re-dust a surface 4 that had been dusted with aluminium powder -- 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. -- with black powder. 7 The Inquiry has heard there may have been some 8 discussion about the use of powders that day and what 9 powder ought to be used. 10 Is that something you recall? 11 A. Yes. Yes, we discussed that amongst ourselves. 12 Q. What did the discussion consist of, Mr Wilson? 13 A. It consisted of the fact that we had another look at 14 that specific area round about the bathroom doorframe 15 and the kitchen doorframe and also, I believe, from 16 memory there was a cupboard as well in the area where 17 the deceased had been found. We felt that some of the 18 aluminium powder which had been used didn't seem to 19 cover that area, you know, well enough at that time. 20 You know, there was a patchiness in the overall 21 aluminium dusting as such. 22 So because of the area which it is in, we decided to 23 go over it with black powder which, due to experience, 24 tends to show up -- it works better with any grease or 25 condensation and in those areas where it was next to the page 101 1 bathroom where you would expect condensation to come out 2 and grease in the air coming from the kitchen, we 3 decided to give it a dust in that area. 4 Q. Did you have any impression as to what might have cause 5 the patchiness in the aluminium powder? 6 A. Just the aluminium powder sometimes doesn't take to a 7 surface. You know, it's just a hard thing to define but 8 certain substances don't take -- you would try aluminium 9 and if aluminium didn't work then you would go for black 10 powder. 11 Q. You have mentioned grease and condensation. Are those 12 matters relevant to whether the aluminium powder would 13 take to a particular surface? 14 A. It can cause a barrier, you know, for the powder to -- 15 the aluminium powder is a flake. Although we call it a 16 powder, it's actually what we call a flake and it lies 17 on the surface. The granular powder is the black powder 18 and that tends to enter the surface and it's better, you 19 know, sometimes in these surfaces. 20 Q. Do you have any comment to make about the fact that 21 aluminium powder was used first? 22 A. No, I don't. As I say, it was done prior to me getting 23 there at the scene. 24 Q. And it came to be that you, in fact, discovered some 25 further marks, including one that came to be known as Y7 page 102 1 when you applied the black powder? 2 A. Yes. To my knowledge there were another 12 marks in 3 that surface around that area, yes. 4 Q. I think I am right in saying that it was you yourself 5 who applied the powder? 6 A. Yes, I was working along with my colleague Mr Hunter and 7 Mr Moffat, the three of us in that area, yes. 8 Q. The Inquiry has heard that sometimes at least it might 9 be that one will see a mark in aluminium powder if 10 somebody had touched it. 11 A. Yes, you would see a form of disturbance. As I say, you 12 would see a disturbance on the surface if aluminium had 13 been put on and then somebody had, you know, touched 14 over above that. 15 Q. Did you see anything of that nature when you applied the 16 black powder? 17 A. No, I did not, no, and my colleague Mr Hunter had 18 checked it with a torch prior to that. 19 Q. How did it work? Was he holding the torch as you dusted 20 with the black powder? 21 A. Yes, on a surface like that you will use oblique 22 lighting coming from the angle and it would hopefully go 23 along the surface so you would get a better view rather 24 than putting a torch straight on to a white surface, you 25 would take it from the side. page 103 1 Q. Did he look at it with a torch before you applied the 2 powder? 3 A. Yes, from memory I think he did, yes. 4 Q. And the torch would still be on as you were doing the -- 5 A. Yes, the lighting in that area was very poor from 6 recollection -- it was very, very poor. 7 Q. You say in paragraph 29 of your statement that you think 8 that the prints that you found that day using the black 9 powder were on the wood before the aluminium powder had 10 been put on. 11 Can you say today why you've reached that opinion? 12 A. Well, how reached that opinion is the fact I never saw 13 any disturbance on the actual aluminium powder prior to 14 dusting with the black powder. Also information which I 15 have now that the fingerprints which we brought up at 16 the time were belonging to the deceased, logically told 17 me that the fingerprints which I hadn't seen at the time 18 prior to dusting with black powder, obviously anything 19 that was on that surface which we brought up in black 20 powder would have been prior to the aluminium powder 21 being adhered -- you know, put on. 22 Q. The Inquiry has heard evidence from some other officers 23 in a similar position to yours that one really can't 24 draw a conclusion either way as to when markY7 was 25 deposited? page 104 1 A. That's true. I'm just using logic in the sense that 2 something which -- the fact that the fingerprints 3 belonged to the deceased and obviously they hadn't shown 4 up with the aluminium powder after it had been applied. 5 It's just a personal viewpoint. 6 Q. When mark Y7 was discovered, did anybody present provide 7 any view as to who the fingerprint might belong to? 8 A. No, it was just another fingerprint we brought up on 9 that day. There was no significance to it at that time. 10 Q. In particular, did Michael Moffat mention the 11 possibility that it might belong to a man called Gary 12 Gray? 13 A. I don't actually remember that he said at the time but I 14 was informed of that later on when I was being 15 interviewed by the discipline police officers at a later 16 date. 17 Q. I would like to ask you a little about that. At 18 paragraph 40 of your statement if you can have a look at 19 that for me, please, you write that: 20 "At the time we found Y7 and the other finger-marks 21 we had idea of their potential significance. The 22 significance of Y7 only became apparent many months 23 later when it was said that Y7 belonged to a serving 24 police officer. I heard a rumour, I cannot now recall 25 its source, to the effect that Michael Moffat had said page 105 1 he thought it was DC Gary Gray's print." 2 Tell us, please, when you first learned of the 3 suggestion that Michael Moffat thought the mark might be 4 Gary Gray's? 5 A. I'm afraid I can't recall that. It would just be 6 passing comments in conversation. I don't remember who 7 said it to me but I do remember being asked about it as 8 I said earlier at a discipline interview or an external 9 inquiry interview. 10 Q. I think in paragraph 41 you mentioned that you think the 11 rumour may have followed on from the visit from the 12 Disciplinary Unit of Lothian & Borders Police but you 13 cannot be sure. 14 The Inquiry is aware that there was Strathclyde 15 disciplinary inquiry in 1997 and it's aware that there 16 was an external Inquiry by Tayside Police in 2000? 17 A. Yes, I think I've got it wrong. 18 Q. If there has indeed been an inquiry by Lothian & Borders 19 we don't know about we would like to know about it but 20 if the other indications as to what inquiries might have 21 been involved assists you ... 22 A. No, I would like to correct that statement, that part of 23 my statement. It would be -- the force, it wouldn't be 24 Lothian & Borders. I thought it was Lothian & Borders 25 from memory but obviously it was Tayside. page 106 1 Q. So reading paragraph 41 together with what you say, is 2 it your position that it was following a visit from 3 Tayside Police? 4 A. Yes, from my recollection -- it was 12 years ago. I 5 just can't remember. I'm sorry. But at that time it 6 was certainly mentioned to me at the interview if I'd 7 heard anything at the time. 8 Q. Was that a topic, of what Michael Moffat had said about 9 Gary Gray, one that entered into, if I could put it this 10 way, common discussion in Strathclyde Police so far as 11 you're aware after August 2000? 12 A. Not that I remember. I was -- I didn't have a lot of 13 contact with Michael Moffat and also I was working out 14 of Ayre, which is a satellite department; so we weren't 15 really in communication with, if you like, the rumours 16 or the gossip which was going on at that time regarding 17 this. 18 Q. Did you ever speak to Michael Moffat about it after that 19 time, after -- 20 A. I don't believe I have, no. 21 Q. Did you ever mention it to Gary Gray? 22 A. No, I haven't seen Gary Gray for years, no. 23 Q. At paragraph 42, the next paragraph of your statement, 24 you say: 25 "I don't recall a discussion with anyone to the page 107 1 effect that another officer may have been at the scene 2 with a damaged glove. I do remember some office gossip 3 to that effect about the same time as the gossip about 4 DC Gary Gray but I don't recall any of the circumstances 5 and I didn't attach much importance to this sort of 6 rumour." 7 I would like to be quite clear as to whether there 8 was, in fact, talk about the possibility that there was 9 an officer other than Gary Gray who might have been at 10 the scene with a damaged glove? 11 A. Not that I remember, no. I'm sorry, I don't remember 12 too much about this. It was just -- if I did hear about 13 it I can't remember when, you know. 14 Q. What you say in your statement is that you do remember 15 some office gossip to that effect. I would like your 16 best recollection as to what that gossip might have 17 been. 18 A. Well ... it would have been the fact that there was an 19 officer there with a torn glove, you know. 20 Q. Do you remember there being gossip that there was an 21 officer there, other than Gary Gray, with a torn glove? 22 If the answer is you don't remember, please say so. 23 A. I'm sorry, I really don't remember. No, I really don't 24 remember. 25 Q. You visited the locus on 23rd January 1997 and you tell page 108 1 us a little bit about that at paragraph 43 of your 2 statement. You say that you were asked to attend to 3 take photographs of the kitchen and sink unit drawers? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. The Inquiry's heard that Detective Inspector McAllister 6 and Mr Moffat were both there at that day also and the 7 Inquiry's heard various accounts of discussions between 8 them. 9 Did you hear any discussion between them that day? 10 A. No, I did not, no. 11 Q. Do you remember hearing Mr McAllister offering any view 12 as to who may have deposited the mark? 13 A. No, I'm afraid I don't, no. I couldn't even have told 14 you if DI McAllister was there that day. I can't 15 remember. 16 Q. Did you have a view yourself as to who might have put 17 the mark there in terms of it being a woman, a child, 18 speculating in those sorts of terms? 19 A. No, I would never speculate on a thing like that. It's 20 only another mark which -- no, I would not speculate 21 that matter. 22 Q. I think you became involved in this matter again on 23 12th February 1997 when you took some further 24 photographs and you deal with this at paragraph 44 25 onwards of your statement, although, I think, when you page 109 1 gave your statement you were not yourself particularly 2 certain as to the particular date, it was some time 3 between 11th and 14th February? 4 A. Yes, that's correct. 5 Q. I think since your statement was taken, Mr Wilson, the 6 Inquiry does have another document which might assist 7 you to some extent with this if you would look, please, 8 at ST0066. 9 The Inquiry's heard from Mr Hogg that this is a 10 computer record of a photography assignment and I think 11 that's been blown up so you can read it a little more 12 easily. You will see this relates to a particular crime 13 number of the accused, David Asbury, and the offence 14 murder. Then photography assignment 14, you see date 15 requested 12th February and taken on 12th February and 16 the photographer, I think, is yourself. 17 A. Mmm. 18 Q. I take it perhaps you wouldn't disagree with the 19 suggestion that it was 12th February that this occurred? 20 A. No, I'd agree with that, yes. I'm not certain of the 21 date but, yes, I accept that. 22 Q. What I am interested in is just what you did with the 23 photographs when you had taken them, Mr Wilson? 24 A. It was the photographs of Y7 which I was requested to 25 attend at the locus and rephotograph Y7 that day. I page 110 1 then took the film which I had exposed and I took it up 2 to Glasgow for processing. I stood in the photographic 3 department while it was being processed. The film was 4 processed and prints were printed from the film and, 5 along with DI Fraser, we went through to SCRO which was 6 across the corridor. 7 They were looked at by a number of fingerprint 8 officers. I couldn't name who they were and there was 9 an envelope produced and inside the envelope I knew 10 there was what we call a ten-print form, which is 11 somebody's fingerprints, and the photographic prints 12 from the negatives were actually placed inside the 13 envelope and I was requested to return these back to 14 Stephen Heath or DI -- Chief Inspector Heath at 15 Kilmarnock, which I duly did. 16 Q. You say that the photographs were looked at by a number 17 of officers. How do you know that? 18 A. I saw them looking at it. 19 Q. What did you see them doing? 20 A. They were examining the fingerprints from -- examining 21 the photographs with what we would term a linen tester, 22 which is a magnifying glass, up at the rack. 23 Q. Can you remember whether it was a male fingerprint 24 officers or female ones who were involved that day or a 25 mixture? page 111 1 A. It was male officers. 2 Q. How many? 3 A. Three or four. 4 Q. You say they looked at the photographs that you had 5 taken with a linen tester, which I think we may come to 6 hear is a special sort of eye glass? 7 A. Yes, it's an eye glass which fingerprint officers use 8 and also Scenes of Crime Officers. It gives you a very 9 good look at a fingerprint. 10 Q. What else, if anything, were they looking at apart from 11 the photographs you had taken that day? 12 A. Also the ten-print form. That's what we term a 13 ten-print form; which is a person's fingerprints. 14 Q. How long did this take? 15 A. Approximately 20 minutes. 16 Q. Was there any discussion among the officers who were 17 looking at the photographs and ten-print form? 18 A. There was discussion which I never overheard because I 19 was at the other side of the room. But I saw them 20 talking together. 21 Q. I think you said you had gone to SCRO with another 22 officer, a Mr Fraser? 23 A. Yes, that's correct. 24 Q. Was he there when this was being done as well? 25 A. Yes, that's correct, yes. page 112 1 Q. Was he involved in any of the discussions? 2 A. Yes, I think he was in conversation with them. 3 Q. Did you yourself learn what the outcome of the 4 investigations of the officers had been? 5 A. No. I seem to remember that -- I don't know where I got 6 this from, but I seem to remember somebody saying it was 7 a serving officer's fingerprints, that's it. 8 Q. Just so we can be quite clear, did this all happen in 9 one day, Mr Wilson? 10 A. It did, yes. 11 Q. If you go back to -- I think you still have the form 12 ST0066 on the screen beside you -- we've got the date 13 requested and taken on as 12th February but we've got 14 the date, if you go a little bit further down, we have 15 the date in and the reprint request as 13th February, 16 which might indicate that the photos have been processed 17 and printed a day later than the items had been taken? 18 A. No, all I can say is that's possibly clerical error. 19 That's possibly a clerical error. 20 Q. One other question I should perhaps ask you about the 21 SCRO officers who you saw examining the photos and the 22 ten-print form. You said you recall one of them was a 23 small chap with glasses and a beard if we go to 24 paragraph 52 of your statement? 25 A. Yes, that's correct. page 113 1 Q. Can you describe any of the others? 2 A. No, I'm afraid I can't, no. 3 Q. There are a couple of matters I would like to ask you 4 about, Mr Wilson. 5 During the time that you were working at 43 Irvine 6 Road, Kilmarnock, did you have any cause to be concerned 7 about the security or the integrity of the crime scene 8 in terms of who was getting in to the property? 9 A. No. I remember being up the stairs with my colleague 10 Mr Hunter and, I believe, Mr Moffat and we heard other 11 people coming in. That would be on the first day when 12 Mr Hunter and I did our examination. I think that would 13 be on the first day we actually entered the house. But 14 I don't know who they were. 15 Q. What, was it a matter that gave you any concern 16 yourself? 17 A. No, it didn't, no, because Mr Thurley would be at the 18 bottom of the stairs in charge of the scene. 19 Q. During the time you were working there, were there any 20 difficulties, as far as you were aware, with the log 21 keepers being on duty or with the operation of the log? 22 A. I wasn't aware of any, no. Every time I came in and out 23 there was always a police officer on the door. 24 Q. I think when you gave your statement you were asked 25 about a precognition you gave to the Crown or at least, page 114 1 I think, a lady called Mrs Grieves, a Fiscal. 2 A. I remember giving it. I couldn't tell you the name. 3 Q. I wonder if you would look for me, please, at document 4 CO2616.3. If we can focus on the second paragraph there 5 I think you see at the top it does say Stuart Angus 6 Wilson and this certainly bears to be a precognition 7 written by you to Mrs Grieves. 8 If I can just read this through to get it into the 9 record, please, Mr Wilson: 10 "Our reason for re-examining the bathroom door was 11 that we were just trying to be thorough. My own 12 thoughts are that the print Y7 which we found would have 13 shown up with the aluminium powder if had it been there 14 earlier. I've come to this conclusion because of the 15 way the print came up. It is my own opinion that 16 aluminium flake would have been brought up the print if 17 it had been there on white gloss paint earlier. It is 18 just experience that makes me think that." 19 Now, I think that is different from the opinion you 20 have expressed in your statement at the Inquiry and in 21 your evidence today. 22 Do you recall expressing the opinion that we see 23 recorded here to the Fiscal who noted your precognition? 24 A. I remember giving a precognition to the Fiscal at 25 Kilmarnock. I remember we were discussing the various page 115 1 hypothetical ways that that fingerprint could have been 2 placed, you know, Y7, could have been placed on that 3 doorframe. 4 I felt that -- I was trying to explain the processes 5 of fingerprinting to the Fiscal at the time and I felt 6 as though she didn't understand what I was trying to say 7 and that's as much as I remember. I've never seen this 8 statement before. This statement -- I've never had a 9 copy of this statement at any time so I really couldn't 10 refer back to it at all. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: It's not a statement as I would know it. 12 It's a precognition attributed to you rather than signed 13 by you. 14 A. Yes. 15 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, if I might take you back to 16 paragraph 30 of your statement to this Inquiry if you 17 can have a look at that, please, I think just towards 18 the end of that paragraph, paragraph 30, you do record 19 being shown the document that we have just been looking 20 at in the course of your statement being taken for this 21 Inquiry. 22 A. That's right but this was the first time I'd ever seen 23 it. 24 Q. It's just to clarify today is not the first time you've 25 ever seen it? page 116 1 A. No. 2 Q. The first time you've seen it was when your statement 3 for this Inquiry was being taken and what we are looking 4 at here is not a document -- I'm talking about CO2616 -- 5 not a document that ever went back to you for checking 6 or signature or anything like of that sort? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. It's simply a note of what the Procurator Fiscal seems 9 to have understood your evidence to be? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. Is it the position that she misunderstood your view 12 about the fact as to whether aluminium flake would have 13 brought up the print if it had been there on white gloss 14 paint earlier? 15 A. Yes, it is. 16 Q. So at the time that you spoke to the Fiscal can we take 17 it that your view was as you've expressed it to the 18 Inquiry today? 19 A. Yes, as I've described my opinion today is how I feel, 20 yes. 21 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you, Mr Wilson. I don't have any 22 further questions. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Any application for leave? Perhaps I should 24 ask you first, Mr Holmes. 25 MR HOLMES: There is just one matter concerning the use of page 117 1 gloves, sir. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 3 Cross-examined by MR HOLMES 4 Q. Can I ask, Mr Wilson, how long have you been a Scenes of 5 Crime officer? 6 A. Today, 38 years. 7 Q. 38 years? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. When you're examining crime scenes during that 38 years 10 have you always worn latex gloves? 11 A. Yes, I have, yes. I also wear a linen glove, a cotton 12 linen glove, and then I wear two pairs of latex gloves. 13 Q. What's the purpose of wearing latex gloves when you're 14 examining a crime scene? 15 A. Well, obviously you're to stop leaving your own prints 16 at the scene. It's just to protect you leaving your own 17 fingerprint at a crime scene. 18 Q. And we've heard evidence that from time to time officers 19 have left their own fingerprints at crime scenes and 20 that whilst it's an inconvenience it's not that uncommon 21 and it's not that serious a matter for the officer 22 concerned. 23 Would you agree with that? 24 A. I'd agree with that. I have done so myself. My prints 25 have been picked up before. page 118 1 Q. From time to time this kind of thing can happen? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Would you say that latex gloves are effective protection 4 against leaving your fingerprint at a crime scene? 5 A. I would say two pairs are. It's been proven that one 6 pair can actually -- you can leave an impression with 7 one pair of gloves but you always double up and, as I 8 say, in our department we wear a pair of white cotton 9 gloves below them just to give an added protection. 10 Q. Is it a common thing for fingerprints to be left through 11 latex gloves? 12 A. No, I would say not, no. 13 Q. Are there any occasions -- well, how many occasions 14 throughout the 38 years that you have been working can 15 you remember on which that's happened? 16 A. Very rarely. I think once I can remember, possibly 17 twice there was an allegation that, you know, a 18 fingerprint was left through a fingerprint glove -- 19 through one pair of latex gloves. 20 MR HOLMES: Thank you very much. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Macpherson? 22 MR MACPHERSON: No, thank you, sir. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Miss Grahame? 24 MISS GRAHAME: No, thank you. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Smith? page 119 1 MR SMITH: No, thank you, sir. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: I take it your position is the same? 3 MR RUSSELL: Yes, sir. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Very good. 5 Well, I just want to ask you about the gloves, a 6 torn glove. It wouldn't be the rarest thing for a glove 7 to become torn, I imagine. 8 A. No, sir; it's quite easy. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: So it wouldn't be a great issue if that 10 happened? 11 A. It wouldn't, no. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: When there was the gossip or the reference to 13 some talk about a torn glove, was that because a police 14 officer's print or mark had been found at the scene and 15 people were speculating as to what might have happened; 16 in other words, a mark which she said was not hers and 17 people were speculating that it could have been somebody 18 with a torn glove? 19 A. That's correct. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: But otherwise it wouldn't have been a matter, 21 I imagine from what you say, for talk at all the fact 22 that somebody had had a torn glove at a scene. 23 A. No, sir. If somebody had left a fingerprint at the 24 scene and they had a torn glove, it wouldn't have been a 25 big thing in the sense that it would only have been a page 120 1 matter of checking the fingerprint, if they left one, 2 against the files and every officer to my knowledge at 3 that scene and also in Strathclyde is fingerprinted and 4 it's really a matter of eliminating that person's 5 fingerprints from the files. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: So it was only because there was this 7 disputed fingerprint that any question about the torn 8 glove became a topic for discussion? 9 A. Yes, that's correct. It would not normally have been a 10 topic for discussion. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: One last very small thing: I may not have 12 picked you up right but would you normally have referred 13 to Mr Heath as "Stevie" Heath? 14 A. No, sir. I've too much respect for the man. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that. I mean, not to his face 16 but if you were talking about him? It's just when you 17 were giving evidence, I noticed on the transcript it 18 appeared as "Stevie Heath" -- 19 A. Probably. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: -- could you have referred to him this 21 afternoon as "Stevie"? 22 A. I possibly may have, sir. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 24 It is early to be taking a break. 25 MISS CARMICHAEL: It is but if it's convenient to stop for page 121 1 ten minutes at this point. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we will take ten minutes now and 3 start again as near to 2.55 as possible. 4 Thank you very much. 5 (The witness withdrew) 6 (2.47 pm) 7 (A short break) 8 (2.58 pm) 9 MISS CARMICHAEL: The next witness is Collette McKay. 10 COLLETTE McKAY (sworn) 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Your full name is? 12 A. Collette McKay. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Take a seat, please. 14 Examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 15 Q. Miss McKay, we have sometimes had difficulty hearing 16 people if the microphone is not quite close to them so 17 you might want to draw it a little bit closer to 18 yourself. 19 Miss McKay, you have already provided a signed 20 statement to the Inquiry, I think? 21 A. Yes, that's correct, yes. 22 Q. Are you happy that that reflects your position 23 accurately about things you were asked when your 24 statement was taken? 25 A. Yes. page 122 1 Q. In your statement, Miss McKay, you tell us about 2 something that you say, in paragraph 5, happened in 2004 3 or 2005? 4 A. That's correct, yes. 5 Q. Is that your best recollection as to the date? 6 A. Yes. I can't remember exactly when it was but it was 7 round about that time. 8 Q. You mention in paragraph 2 that you had been asked to 9 show a probationary police officer round the Fingerprint 10 Bureau; how did that come about? 11 A. I think it was a request made from our training 12 department, as far as I'm aware part of -- I may be 13 wrong -- part of a probationary officers' training is to 14 come in and have an overview of what we do within the 15 fingerprint department and that includes from the 16 fingerprints, how the fingerprints are filed, how we 17 receive the Scene of Crime marks and also how the 18 comparisons of Scene of Crime marks are done against the 19 fingerprint forms and how we deal with just the overall 20 case load. 21 Q. Who was the probationary officer that you met on this 22 occasion? 23 A. It was Alistair Morgan. 24 Q. You say in your statement you were introduced to this 25 gentleman. page 123 1 Who was it introduced you? 2 A. I can't remember. He may have been within some other 3 part of the office so it could just have been another 4 member of staff who brought me through after he's been 5 shown the different sides of how the other part of the 6 office is run. 7 Q. I think you say that you spent around 20 minutes with 8 the officer? 9 A. That would be right -- round about 20 minutes, yes. 10 Q. Were you on your own with the officer throughout this 11 time or was anybody else with you? 12 A. I was on my own, as far as I can remember, yes, I was on 13 my own. 14 Q. You told us in paragraph 3 of your statement something 15 about what you say the officer came to say. 16 How did the subject of Shirley McKie come up in the 17 conversation between you? 18 A. I think at that time, obviously, there was a lot of 19 negative press with regards to the experts who were 20 involved in the case and that was also reflected on the 21 department as well and me being part of that department 22 doing a job that I'm proud to do and that I love to do I 23 wanted to find out exactly what, you know, hopefully the 24 rest of the Police Service still did have faith in us as 25 a department and, you know, because we're providing a page 124 1 service to, obviously, the wider justice community and 2 to make sure that people did still have faith in us with 3 regards to what was going on in the press and everything 4 else. 5 Q. So from what you said should we take it you brought up 6 the subject -- 7 A. I brought up the subject, yes, I did, aha, yes. 8 Basically, I can't remember my exact words to Constable 9 Morgan but I did mention, you know, it was something 10 along the lines of, "So, how do the Police Service look 11 with regards to the McKie case? Do they still have 12 faith in us?" I can say I can't actually remember the 13 words that I used but it was something along those 14 lines. 15 Q. What did he say? 16 A. It was then that he'd said to me that he works with a 17 guy at Stewarton that left her into the house and he now 18 feels really bad what happened to the four experts, her 19 being, obviously, Shirley McKie. 20 Q. You said that he feels really bad. Was that Constable 21 Morgan or the person that he was saying had -- 22 A. The person that he apparently worked with. 23 Q. What did you say in response to that? 24 A. To be honest, I can't remember what my response was 25 because, at the time, once he'd actually told me this, I page 125 1 was quite taken aback by it because I didn't expect to 2 get that reply from him because, obviously, we had been 3 hearing that Shirley had apparently not been near the 4 house or been near the locus but I had this police 5 officer standing in front of me telling, "Well, actually 6 I work with a guy who let her in and, you know, she was 7 there". So I think I may just have cut the conversation 8 short and not mentioned it again because I just didn't 9 know what to say. 10 Q. Did he tell you who this acquaintance was who had let 11 Ms McKie into the house? 12 A. He may have done but I honestly cannot remember the 13 name. As I say, I think it was social that he'd 14 actually said this to me. Anything else after that was 15 just a blur. 16 Q. Do you think he may have mentioned the name? 17 A. He could possibly have done but I can't remember. 18 Q. Who did you tell about this matter? 19 A. It was either Hugh Macpherson or Tony McKenna. 20 Q. What was the next that you heard of the matter? 21 A. The next I heard, I think I had -- I just left it at 22 that, I left it with him obviously and I think I had a 23 phone call from Les Brown and we discussed the matter 24 and I can't remember what Les said to me on the phone 25 but after that I was then contacted by two senior page 126 1 officers from Strathclyde Police with regards to the 2 matter and gave a statement to them regarding it. 3 Q. How long after the conversation with Mr Morgan did you 4 mention the matter to whichever of your colleagues it 5 was, Mr McKenna or Mr Macpherson? 6 A. It was probably as soon as he went away I went and 7 relayed this information to them. 8 Q. How long after that was it when Mr Brown got in touch 9 with you? 10 A. I'm really -- I'm not sure. I couldn't answer that, 11 honestly. 12 Q. If you think it was terms of weeks or months? 13 A. It could have been weeks but, as I say, I don't have an 14 answer for you because I honestly can't remember. To be 15 honest with you, I thought once I had said that that 16 would be the end of my involvement with the whole 17 matter. 18 Q. If I can give you a date perhaps to work back from would 19 it accord with your recollection if I said to you you 20 had spoken to a senior officer, a John Mitchell, on 21 13th February 2007? 22 A. That may be correct. As I say, I can't remember when it 23 was I spoke to him because it had also been such a time 24 lapse from when this had actually occurred to when I was 25 interviewed by John Mitchell. page 127 1 Q. If we take that date, the February 2007 date, how long 2 before that was it, if you can think, that it was you 3 spoke to Mr Brown? 4 A. Probably months, I would say. 5 Q. I think you told us that it was Mr Brown that telephoned 6 you. 7 A. Yes, yes, it was. 8 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, there is a document that I need to 9 let others have sight of and also let the witness have 10 sight of just on that particular point. (Handed) 11 Miss McKay -- I am not sure if everyone can see this 12 yet and hard copies are being distributed -- this 13 appears to be a statement recorded in handwriting given 14 by you at 13.10 hours on 13th February 2007 to John 15 Mitchell, a detective superintendent. 16 A. Yes, that's correct. 17 Q. If you go to the second page of that, I think we see 18 that the statement's signed by you -- or perhaps you can 19 tell us if it's your signature at the end. 20 A. Sorry, yes, aha, that's my signature at the end, sorry. 21 Q. Just on the point, I think you said that Mr Brown had 22 contacted you in your evidence to the Inquiry today and 23 just on that point of detail, Miss McKay, if we can look 24 at a passage starting with the word "Later", it may be 25 the first full paragraph on this page -- I don't think page 128 1 we can highlight it but it is being pointed to for you 2 to help you, there you say: 3 "Later that same day I told Tony McKenna, a senior 4 fingerprint officer who had been involved with the McKie 5 case about Constable Morgan's remarks. I heard no more 6 about this matter until about three or four months ago 7 when Fiona McBride asked me to telephone a Mr Les Brown 8 about the comment made by PC Morgan as he was looking 9 into matters surrounding the McKie case. I was off work 10 for a period and did not get the chance to phone until 11 about three or four weeks ago after I received a message 12 from Fiona McBride. I telephoned Mr Brown and passed on 13 the information. Mr Brown asked that if PC Morgan 14 denied having made these comments would I be prepared to 15 confront him. I said I would." 16 Now, if I could just ask, having seen that, just 17 what is your best recollection of the sequence of events 18 and the context about this matter. 19 A. I do remember having that conversation with Les Brown. 20 Obviously I've got a bit confused it was myself that 21 phoned Les Brown and he never phoned me but I do 22 remember having the conversation with him. 23 Q. Do you recall the contact that's recorded in this 24 statement with Ms McBride about the matter? 25 A. Yes, aha. page 129 1 Q. So does the statement that we see here record accurately 2 the sequence of events? 3 A. As far as I can remember, yes, aha. 4 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you, Miss McKay. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any applications for leave to 6 cross-examine this witness? 7 MR SMITH: Sir, there is one matter just maybe I would like 8 to ask this witness. It concerns the fact that some of 9 what she recorded in her statement to the Inquiry is 10 very precise. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: I will certainly allow you to ask her because 12 she says the exact words and I just wondered had she 13 recorded them somewhere but if you want to ask -- 14 Cross-examined by MR SMITH 15 Q. I think you have heard, Miss McKay, that the line I 16 would like to take with you is this: in your statement 17 to this Inquiry, I think what you say in paragraph 3 is: 18 "He told me he worked with the police officer at 19 Stewarton who let Shirley McKie into the locus. I was 20 taken aback ..." 21 You say: 22 "His exact words were 'I work with a guy at 23 Stewarton who let her into the house and he now feels 24 really bad for what happened to the four experts'." 25 Do you mean these were his exact words? page 130 1 A. These were his exact words, yes. 2 Q. Why is it that you remember his exact words but you 3 don't remember whether it was 2004 or 2005? 4 A. I think it was -- like I said, I was shocked at the fact 5 that he had actually said this to me and I can't really 6 answer why that has stuck in my brain but that was his 7 exact words and I don't have an answer for the question 8 I'm afraid. 9 Q. You said it was a matter that shocked you when you were 10 told and you remember his exact words. By the same 11 token, would the shock not have galvanised you into 12 remembering what year it happened? 13 A. No, because I was going through -- at that moment in 14 time I was going through a lot of personal stuff in my 15 life which is outwith this, it's got nothing to do with 16 it, but obviously that was happening round about then or 17 just after so I can't give you an exact date as to when 18 this happened. But I'm sure our training department 19 would have a record of when he actually came to the 20 office. 21 Q. They may do but I am interested why you remember some 22 bits with such clarity and other bits you don't but you 23 can't really assist with that, can you? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Did you consider writing down what was said, making a page 131 1 note? 2 A. No, I didn't have to. 3 Q. You might have been able to assist us if you made a note 4 as to when it was said, correct? 5 A. Sorry, can you ...? 6 Q. You say you didn't have to. 7 A. Mm-hm. 8 Q. I'm suggesting to you if you made a note not only of 9 what was said but when it was said it would have been of 10 some assistance perhaps? 11 A. It wasn't normal practice for when we get anyone coming 12 into the office for us to actually take a note of when 13 they come into the office and what they say to us, but 14 the reason I remember that so vividly is because of 15 everything that had been said in the past with regards 16 to the McKie case and the fact that Shirley McKie said 17 she never actually entered the house. I had a police 18 officer standing in front of me telling me that he 19 worked with somebody at Stewarton who let her into the 20 house. 21 Q. This was no ordinary conversation, was it? 22 A. I brought up the conversation. 23 Q. This was no ordinary conversation, was it? 24 A. I wanted to know for my own peace of mind, I suppose, 25 with regards to me doing the job that I loved doing how page 132 1 the wider community actually looked at fingerprints at 2 that moment in time. 3 Q. This was no ordinary conversation was it, Miss McKay? 4 A. Yes, it was -- as far as I was concerned, it was an 5 ordinary conversation. 6 Q. You're asking us to accept that this was the kind of 7 conversation that was in the ordinary course of things 8 in your work. 9 Is that what you're asking us to accept, is it? 10 A. It was -- partly, it was to do with my work for my own 11 personal reasons. It may have been outwith the context 12 of me showing anyone else round the office who may not 13 actually be involved with fingerprints. 14 Q. It was important enough for you to go and explain what 15 had happened according to your recollection, wasn't it? 16 A. Yes, it was. 17 Q. To Tony McKenna, I think; is that right? 18 A. Tony or Hugh Macpherson. 19 Q. And Mr Brown, referred to as Les. Is that right? Is 20 that how you knew him? 21 A. That's how I knew him. Well, I have never actually met 22 the gentleman but whenever I've spoken to him I'd refer 23 to him as Les, yes. 24 Q. Now in your handwritten statement we looked at a few 25 moments ago that was produced, you say towards the page 133 1 end -- and I am looking at the second page, maybe four 2 or five lines up above your signature: 3 "I telephoned Mr Brown and passed on the 4 information. Mr Brown asked if PC Morgan denied having 5 made these comments would I be prepared to confront him. 6 I said I would." 7 Do you know what PC Morgan's position is about this 8 conversation? 9 A. I don't ... sorry, what do you ...? 10 Q. Do you know whether PC Morgan is confirming your version 11 of events or not, do you? 12 A. No. 13 Q. I would like you, if you can, I would like you to look 14 at a document, please. Can you look at the document, 15 please, which is FI0030, please. I would like you, if 16 you can just to proceed on the assumption that this, as 17 it's headed at the top, is the Fingerprint Inquiry 18 Scotland, Statement of Alistair Morgan. Let us assume, 19 from the detail in paragraph 1, it is the officer that 20 you say you spoke to. 21 You see handwritten numbers, paragraph 4, within 22 that it says: 23 "I did not discuss anything connected with the 24 Shirley McKie case with any member of staff, nor do I 25 recall any member of staff raising the subject. The page 134 1 female member of staff and myself did discuss what my 2 occupation was before joining the police and she 3 informed me that it was her wish to make attempts to 4 join the police. It could be that another officer had a 5 discussion with someone at the SCRO about Shirley McKie, 6 but I did not." 7 Before dealing with what is said there have you ever 8 expressed a view that you wish to join the police? 9 A. Not in the past ten years, no. Maybe when I was 10 younger. 11 Q. But you will appreciate that what Alistair Morgan 12 appears to be saying is he is denying what you said. 13 You understand that, don't you? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You still feel that you may wish to confront him about 16 that, do you? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. So if he says that didn't happen, he's lying and you're 19 telling the truth; is that the position? 20 A. He may not recall having that conversation with me but 21 the conversation did happen. 22 MR SMITH: No further questions, thank you. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Holmes? 24 MR HOLMES: I have no application. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: I assume that no-one else wants to. Thank page 135 1 you very much, Miss McKay. 2 (The witness withdrew) 3 MISS CARMICHAEL: The next witness is Alistair Morgan. 4 ALISTAIR MORGAN (sworn) 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Your full name is? 6 A. Alistair Morgan. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Take a seat, please. 8 Examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 9 Q. Constable Morgan, it can be difficult to hear people in 10 this hall if you are not quite close to the microphone. 11 I think you have provided a signed statement to the 12 Inquiry? 13 A. Yes, I have. 14 Q. And that records your position about the matters you 15 were asked about? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. I am aware you have been in the hall for a little while, 18 Mr Morgan, and I think you've heard Miss McKay's account 19 of events? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. In your statement you tell us at paragraph 2 that you 22 were coming towards the end of your probationary period 23 in August or September 2005? 24 A. That's right. 25 Q. And you did make a visit to, I think you described it as page 136 1 SCRO. 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. You mention a discussion with a female member of staff. 4 A. That's right. 5 Q. You have seen Miss McKay today. Do you recognise her? 6 A. My recollection, the female staff had dark hair but 7 that's only my recollection from -- I don't recognise 8 her. As I said in my statement I wouldn't have 9 recognised her again so I don't recognise her. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Hair colour sometimes changes but do you 11 recognise her from her appearance. 12 A. I don't, no. I don't, sorry. 13 MISS CARMICHAEL: You have heard that Miss McKay says that 14 you told her that you've worked with somebody who let 15 Shirley McKie in the house and that you told her that 16 your colleague now felt really bad for what happened to 17 the four SCRO experts. That's her account of to this 18 Inquiry. 19 Did that happen? 20 A. No. Not in my recollection, no. No, my recollection is 21 I spent five to ten minutes with the person I spoke to. 22 But that conversation certainly didn't happen with me. 23 Q. What did you talk about with the lady that you spoke to? 24 A. The recollection I have, certainly the part that I've 25 put, I was asking about fingerprints, that's why I was page 137 1 there, obviously, but we just went on to discuss just 2 what I'd done before I come into the police, where I 3 worked, what I'd been doing since I was in the police, 4 general stuff like that, and the girl said to me she 5 wished to join the police. 6 Q. I'm sorry, I am going to have to ask you to speak a 7 little bit more closely into the microphone, Mr Morgan. 8 Can you think of any reason why Miss McKay would 9 make up a story about you, Alistair Morgan? 10 A. No, I've got no idea. I do find -- the only point I 11 find quite interesting is when I was interviewed by the 12 Complaints and Discipline, much to my surprise and I 13 asked them obviously about it and about, you know, did 14 somebody say it was me. What they said was the person 15 they'd spoken to couldn't identify me and the 16 identification they'd given was that it was a male 17 police constable from U Division and was, I believe, on 18 the small side for being a police officer but they told 19 me that the person couldn't identify me by name. 20 Q. Have you ever worked with a guy at Stewarton that told 21 you he let Shirley McKie into the house? 22 A. No, I haven't. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Is it a separate station? Kilmarnock's not a 24 great distance from Stewarton, is it? 25 A. It's Uniform Charlie, it's called. It's a subdivision page 138 1 and there's the main office in Kilmarnock but there's 2 two sub-offices, one at Stewarton and one at Galston, 3 and you move around, get put to different offices. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Does that mean an officer based in Kilmarnock 5 could one day be working in Stewarton. 6 A. Most officers that work in Kilmarnock do work at 7 Stewarton at some point. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: I wanted to be clear if it was two separate 9 stations, so to speak? 10 A. It's two different offices but it's in the one, what we 11 call, subdivision. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: So Kilmarnock officers could, on days, be in 13 Stewarton? 14 A. Hmm, hmm. You could be there on a day-to-day basis. If 15 obviously at that time, due to our shift work there's 16 rest days but some of the shift may be off, there could 17 be some people put from Kilmarnock to Galston to work -- 18 to Stewarton to work, sorry, or Galston. 19 MISS CARMICHAEL: You mentioned a visit by officers from 20 Complaints and Discipline and I think in your statement 21 at paragraph 7 you say that happened in late 2006. 22 A. I believe so, yes. 23 Q. Those officers were an Iain Gardner and Jillian Laurie? 24 A. I couldn't tell you the names. 25 Q. I think you record they were a male and a female? page 139 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. It is after this that you say in paragraph 8 you were 3 interviewed about the matter by Les Brown? 4 A. That's correct. He contacted me at Kilmarnock office 5 and asked if I would meet him for an interview and 6 provide a statement or certainly answer some questions 7 that he had for me. 8 Q. What happened when you met Mr Brown? What did he ask 9 you? 10 A. He asked me, just regarding this, that there had been a 11 statement received saying that a female member of staff 12 from SCRO had had a conversation with someone from U 13 Division who'd suggested that he knew someone who'd 14 allegedly let Shirley McKie into 43 Irvine Road. 15 Q. What did you say to him? 16 A. I confirmed that I had been there, that I had been to 17 the SCRO but I'd never take part in any conversation 18 like that. 19 Q. Les Brown has given a statement to this Inquiry and I'll 20 read you out a passage from paragraph 48 of that. I am 21 not sure there are copies available on the system. I 22 believe there may be some technical difficulty with 23 having this on the system just at the moment. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 25 MISS CARMICHAEL: I can read this out. page 140 1 THE CHAIRMAN: If you read it at dictation speed. 2 MISS CARMICHAEL: Of course, sir. This is paragraph 48 of 3 Mr Brown's statement to the Inquiry. He says: 4 "I applied to interview PC Morgan. On 6th May 2007 5 I met him. He said that he had been trying to impress 6 Collette McKay and was making out that he knew more than 7 he did. He was not a friend of the person in question. 8 That person was PC Lees. He said that he had obtained 9 the information by rumour and that PC Lees had not said 10 anything to him about the matter." 11 If we can perhaps break that down into parts, 12 Mr Morgan, the first part of Mr Brown's account is that 13 he met you on 6th May 2007. Is that correct? 14 A. That could be correct. I said in my statement it was 15 2007 but I didn't know the exact date. 16 Q. What Mr Brown is reporting here was that you told him 17 that you had been trying to impress Collette McKay when 18 you met her and that you had been letting on that you 19 knew more about Shirley McKie affair than you actually 20 did? 21 A. That's incorrect. 22 Q. Is there any reason why Mr Brown would make this up? 23 A. I've got no idea. Certainly I've never seen any 24 statement from him so ... 25 Q. If that is Mr Brown's position in evidence, can you page 141 1 think of any reason why he might be saying that if you 2 didn't say it to him? 3 A. I've got no idea. I've got absolutely no idea. But 4 that simply wasn't the case. You've obviously spoke to 5 Miss McKay there and she didn't give any indication I 6 was trying to impress anyone. That wouldn't be the 7 case. 8 Q. You wouldn't be trying to impress a young lady that you 9 met at the SPSA offices or the SCRO office? 10 A. I certainly wouldn't, no. 11 Q. Did you mention Constable Lees to Mr Brown? 12 A. As far as I remember, Mr Brown mentioned him to me. 13 Q. What did Mr Brown say to you -- 14 A. He only asked if I knew a Constable Lees and was I a 15 friend of his. 16 Q. What was your response to that? 17 A. I said I knew him but I wasn't -- I knew of him as a 18 police officer but I wasn't a friend of his. 19 Q. You didn't say to him that the person mentioned in the 20 story was PC Lees? 21 A. Person mentioned in the story? 22 Q. I am sorry, that the person who was alleged to have let 23 Ms McKie in was PC Lees? 24 A. I'd never discussed it at all so I wouldn't have said 25 that. page 142 1 Q. So it comes to this: your position is that you didn't 2 discuss the McKie case at all with Miss McKay? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. And you can give no reason as to why she might say that 5 you had? 6 A. No -- unless she was mistaken and spoke to someone else 7 because all probationers go up to SCRO. 8 Q. And if Mr Brown is saying that your account to him was 9 that you did say something to Miss McKay about the McKie 10 case but you were making out you knew more than you did 11 in order to impress her, you say also that was something 12 that didn't happen and you did not say that to Mr Brown? 13 A. I would find that rather strange after giving a 14 statement to Complaints and Discipline saying that I 15 didn't speak about it at all and then saying that to him 16 and then after all he then provides that to yourself and 17 I haven't seen anything to be able to contradict that. 18 Q. Again, you can't think of any reason why Mr Brown would 19 say such a thing? 20 A. No. I don't know him well enough to understand why he'd 21 say such a thing. 22 Q. When you met Mr Brown what was his manner like to you? 23 A. He was okay, he was fine. 24 Q. Can we take it it was a slightly more pleasant 25 experience than when the Complaints and Discipline page 143 1 officers came round? 2 A. Well, just on the night shift when the Complaints and 3 Discipline appeared but I wasn't maybe at my best but he 4 was all right. He was well-spoken. 5 Q. I suppose one might think -- well, if Complaints and 6 Discipline officers turn up at your door when you're not 7 expecting it I take it it's a pretty nasty surprise? 8 A. It depends what they've got to say, not for me. I was 9 tired but I'd nothing to hide. I gave them a statement. 10 If I'd something to hide I would ask for some time 11 before I gave a statement for them, you know. It wasn't 12 a particularly nasty experience, no. I was just more 13 taken aback by the whole scenario of them turning up and 14 the reason for turning up. 15 Q. Was the contact with Mr Brown perhaps rather more of a 16 chat? 17 A. No, it was a discussion. He wanted to discuss the 18 allegation with me. 19 Q. Was it a relatively informal meeting with Mr Brown? 20 A. It wasn't informal. In fact, it was in the police 21 station. I was on duty so it certainly wasn't what I 22 would call informal. 23 Q. Do you recall from your meeting with Mr Brown whether he 24 took any notes at the time, as far as you could see? 25 A. I think he did, I think he did take some notes. page 144 1 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you very much. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Holmes, have you any application? 3 MR HOLMES: No, thank you, sir. 4 MR SMITH: I have no questions. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Macpherson? Miss Grahame? 6 MISS GRAHAME: No, thank you. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: I assume you have no questions, Mr Russell. 8 Thank you very much. 9 (The witness withdrew) 10 MISS CARMICHAEL: The next witness is James Kerr. 11 JAMES HILL KERR (sworn) 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Could we have your full name, please? 13 A. James Hill Kerr. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Take a seat, please, Mr Kerr. 15 Examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 16 Q. Mr Kerr, you have provided a signed witness statement 17 for the Inquiry? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. I think I am going to have to ask you to speak more 20 loudly into the microphone, Mr Kerr. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. You are satisfied that it records your position about 23 the matters you have been asked about? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. What is your current position within the police, page 145 1 Mr Kerr? 2 A. I'm a detective inspector. 3 Q. You tell us in your statement that you work in the 4 Counter Corruption Unit? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. What was your job back in 1997? 7 A. Well, in effect, I was a Crime Scene Manager at 43 8 Irvine Road. 9 Q. We have heard some witnesses tell us that crime scene 10 managers are new creatures, that they didn't exist back 11 in 1997. 12 How could it be that you were a Crime Scene Manager 13 in 1997? 14 A. Well, it was a role that I could best described as being 15 Crime Scene Manager. The actual title didn't come into 16 existence until about 2000. The actual additional 17 training didn't come into effect until that time as 18 well, similar training for scene entry loggists and 19 general attendance at crime scenes come into effect 20 round about that time for probationers as well. So I 21 can't describe it in any different way. 22 I've read with some dismay over the years some 23 people's opinions on what went on at 43 Irvine Road, 24 Kilmarnock, that there was some form of -- it was dealt 25 with on an ad hoc basis or lackadaisically in some way; page 146 1 which was far from the case. 2 Q. Just on that theme, there have been some particular 3 suggestions that things were done, I think as you put 4 it, lackadaisically, to the extent that some officers on 5 the first evening of the inquiry, which I think we have 6 heard was 8th January 1997 until the morning of 7 9th January, there was a total serially of some six 8 officers stationed within the living room of that 9 property. 10 Is that something you personally know anything 11 about? 12 A. No, I didn't attend the scene. I wasn't appointed to 13 carry out tasks at the scene until the morning of the 14 9th. 15 Q. You described your role as being in effect that of a 16 Crime Scene Manager. What would be your reaction had 17 there been police officers stationed within the living 18 room during that time? 19 A. Well, I wouldn't have expected that and if they had been 20 in the living room I would have expected them to be in 21 the log. 22 Q. When you say you would have expected them to be in the 23 log, would you expect their location to be reflected in 24 the log rather than just the fact that they were in the 25 house? page 147 1 A. Well, 12 years on or certainly 9 years on from when you 2 attend the scene and I should point out that there's 3 quite a lot of references over the years to the scene 4 being the house at 43 Irvine Road. The scene is the 5 grounds of 43 Irvine Road, which you will see on 6 photographs that police barrier tape is across the gate 7 and fence at 43 Irvine Road. So the minute you cross 8 the gate you have access to the house, you have access 9 to the locus. You should be on the log, not necessarily 10 going in through the front door and into the porch being 11 entry to the scene. So I would expect their reason for 12 being there and their name and their rank to be on the 13 log. 14 Q. I think we do have to be perhaps a little careful that 15 we don't confuse what would be modern practice, which we 16 have heard from some witnesses is a little different as 17 regards crime scenes with what meant on in fact in 1997, 18 Mr Kerr. 19 I will be corrected if I am wrong but I don't think 20 there's any evidence before the Inquiry of the log 21 keepers having been stationed any further out than the 22 porch of the property. 23 Does that accord with your recollection? 24 A. No, that was where they were posted rather than posting 25 a car in Irvine Road where they would be situated. It page 148 1 was decided that the sterile area would be made the 2 porch and the log keepers would be put into the porch of 3 the house thereby controlling entry in and out of the 4 house, but also controlling any entry out of the 5 entrance through 43 Irvine Road. 6 Q. When you are talking about the entrance in that sense, 7 are you talking about the entrance on to the street from 8 the garden grounds? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Would the officers be able to see out through there? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. I appreciate it's all some time ago, Mr Kerr, but it 13 might help to look at the photographs at ST0003 and if 14 we could just perhaps start with the first photograph in 15 that book. 16 I think we've already heard some evidence, Mr Kerr, 17 that we're looking at the outer door and into the porch 18 at 43 Irvine Road Kilmarnock in this photograph. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Where on this photograph would the officer actually be 21 stationed according to your recollection? 22 A. At the desk. 23 Q. We see in this photograph a chair with its back facing 24 the photographer, with its back facing towards the path. 25 Is that the seat where the officer would be on page 149 1 duty -- 2 A. I think the seat was repositioned. I think these are 3 photographs taken at a fairly early stage in the 4 investigation and I think the seat was repositioned to 5 the right in the photograph which gave a view of 6 360 degrees or 270 degrees of the porch. There's glass 7 on either side of the porch. 8 Q. So your position would be that the officer would be 9 seated in a way that they would be able to see out? 10 A. Looking out -- yes, looking out. 11 Q. If on the log we see entries such as "enters locus", is 12 there any way for us now in 2009 to be able to tell 13 whether it means somebody crossing from the public 14 street into the garden or whether it means somebody 15 crossing the threshold into the porch? 16 A. Well, it's assumed knowledge, I'm afraid. You would 17 expect the log keepers to have been properly briefed as 18 to their duties. It wasn't to sit down for 8 or 19 12 hours a day in a porch. It was to patrol the outside 20 of the house to ensure there was no issues with the 21 press or other members of the community trying to 22 encroach into the grounds of 43 Irvine Road because, 23 ultimately, we did nay know if there was any items of 24 interest in the gardens, either the front or back. So 25 we would expect them to patrol it and to log somebody page 150 1 coming into the area and I've seen a log since and, 2 obviously, they are pretty scant in detail. 3 Q. So it wouldn't necessarily be correct for us to assume 4 that the good practice that you describe was necessarily 5 followed in every entry that we see on the log relating 6 to this crime scene? 7 A. No. 8 Q. I may have some other questions to ask you at a later 9 stage about your own experience of how the integrity of 10 the locus was maintained during your time at the 11 property but I will come to that later, Mr Kerr. 12 I would like to ask you first, please, about matters 13 at paragraph 12 of your statement which you have under 14 the general heading of "The strategy adopted". 15 What you say was that: 16 "The order of operations was agreed. In the first 17 instance the Scene of Crimes Officers would photograph 18 and video the location. The forensic team then go in 19 and seize or swab items for their purposes. The Scene 20 of Crimes Officers would then go back to the 21 fingerprints. This was done on a room-by-room basis. I 22 believe that the forensic examination was completed very 23 quickly." 24 Mr Kerr, there has been various discussion in 25 evidence to the Inquiry about the forensic operations page 151 1 that were carried out. You say that you believe the 2 examination was completed very quickly. 3 What is your knowledge of that matter? 4 A. Well, DNA, if in existence at all, was in its infancy in 5 1997 and, therefore, the amount of forensic work on 6 crime scenes then compared to now was night and day. In 7 1997 the forensic scientist would be looking for blood, 8 traces of blood, blood sprays, fibres in the main and 9 then it would be relied upon from fingerprint experts to 10 find fingerprints at the scene and then obviously there 11 would be conventional issues of items within the house, 12 if they posed -- any form of evidence or not as the case 13 may be. So I was aware that there had been a scientist 14 attend on the night, which would be expected, as there 15 would be a pathologist, and as far as I can recollect 16 there was again some discussions with forensic 17 scientists on the 9th with a view to if they required 18 any further access or assessment of the house. There 19 wasn't a lot of signs of disturbance in the vast 20 majority of the rooms and, obviously, for them to use 21 chemicals to try and identify blood that may have been 22 invisible to the naked eye they would use certain 23 chemicals which may have hampered the fingerprint 24 examination. So these type of discussions, which were 25 normal-day crime management, were ongoing between page 152 1 Identification Bureau, the scientists and ourselves with 2 a view to trying to get a strategy into place to find 3 out what was the best way to approach each individual 4 room at 43 Irvine Road. 5 Q. You have said that in 1997 forensic examinations might 6 not be as extensive as they are nowadays. 7 A. No. 8 Q. The Inquiry has looked today, I think, at log entries 9 indicating that a forensic scientist was there for about 10 two and a half hours on the evening of 8th January. 11 Thinking back to 1997 would that be within, if I can put 12 it this way, a normal range for the way things were done 13 at the time? 14 A. I would have put it that way having assessed the scene 15 on the 9th that Marion Ross had been found in the hall 16 next to the bathroom and there was no signs of forced 17 entry, there was no signs of any items that appeared to 18 have been disturbed initially, so therefore the 19 scientists would be looking about the area where Marion 20 Ross had been found with a view to trying to identify 21 items that maybe were worth forensically examining. 22 Q. Another matter that has been the subject of some 23 evidence to the Inquiry already is just what the status 24 of the inquiry was, whether it was a suspicious death 25 inquiry, a murder inquiry or whether it was thought that page 153 1 the lady had committed suicide. 2 What is your recollection? 3 A. I was aware of rumours on the 9th that it may have been 4 some form of bizarre suicide, but it was treated by the 5 Senior Investigating Officer as a suspicious death. 6 Q. What did that mean in practice? 7 A. There was circumstances surrounding the discovery of a 8 body where there's something not quite right. There 9 could be signs of a disturbance, injuries, insecurities, 10 a body found out in the open, that type of thing; so we 11 treat it as suspicious rather than anything else until 12 the results of the post-mortem are established. 13 Q. What consequences would that have for the way the 14 inquiry was carried out? 15 A. If you think of a sliding scale from 1 to 10, a 16 suspicious death would probably be an eight and a murder 17 would be ten and a sudden death would be a four so, 18 therefore, you would pitch your enquiries fairly high 19 anticipating that you were probably going to get a 20 result that it would be a murder. 21 Q. At paragraphs 14 and 15 of your statement, you mention 22 the log keeper and you say in paragraph 14 that there 23 was always someone on the door when you came and went 24 from house. Is that correct? 25 A. As far as I can recollect. page 154 1 Q. You say at paragraph 15 it was probably one of the worst 2 jobs that a young police officer would be assigned in 3 the course of his or her duties? 4 A. In those days, yes. 5 Q. Why do you say that? 6 A. Sorry? 7 Q. Why do you say that? Why is it such a bad job? 8 A. I think the big advantage today is, in addition to the 9 training, is there's a bit more concerns about welfare 10 than there were in 1997. I think my experiences in 11 those days were if you were assigned the duties of being 12 the log keeper at the scene of a serious crime you 13 invariably were left to get on with those duties during 14 the course of the day and sometimes beyond the normal 15 course of the day, depending what incidents happened 16 elsewhere, so in effect you could get posted at 7.00 in 17 the morning to the door to the scene not expecting to be 18 posted to the scene and being there until 7.00 at night. 19 Q. What you say at paragraph 15 of your statement is that: 20 "One of the difficulties for the log keeper is that 21 there is often no relief cover available." 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. You say: 24 "This means that a log keeper will have to leave his 25 post." page 155 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. You go on to say: 3 "I have little doubt that in this case the log 4 keeper will have had to leave his post at some point." 5 Just so we are quite clear about what your position 6 is on this, do you have any knowledge yourself of a log 7 keeper having left his post unattended in this 8 investigation? 9 A. No. What I remember is that log keepers would ask to go 10 to use the toilet or to get some form of food, 11 refreshment. My advice to them at that time was that 12 the rear of the house was obviously secured anyway under 13 lock and key, we would be in the house, would be to lock 14 the porch door and they would be allowed to go to the -- 15 or they would go to the garage across the road (an Esso 16 garage I think it was) and be able to use the toilet and 17 get suitable refreshments. 18 Q. Did they take your advice? Did that actually happen? 19 A. Well, I don't know. 20 Q. You don't know if that happened? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Were you ever aware of the door being locked on you when 23 you were in the house? 24 A. Well, I assumed on quite a few occasions, bearing in 25 mind we were there for nearly four weeks (bar, I think, page 156 1 maybe three days off in that period of time), that I 2 assumed we had been locked in the house on quite a few 3 occasions when the log keepers were away. 4 Q. But you don't know whether that happened? 5 A. No, I don't. 6 Q. Still on the theme of what's been called the integrity 7 of the locus, I would like to ask you about something 8 you say at paragraph 26 of your statement at page 6. 9 You say that: 10 "During the course of the day on 10th January [you] 11 had an issue with members of the Serious Crime Squad." 12 Can you tell the Inquiry what happened? 13 A. We were carrying out our duties working room from room, 14 I came into the hall and I'd met two or three officers 15 in suits in the hall of the house. They identified 16 themselves as officers for the Serious Crime Squad and I 17 invited them to leave the house at that time. They 18 weren't properly dressed obviously with the protective 19 clothing, gloves, masks and so on and I invited them to 20 leave the house and I questioned why they were there in 21 the first place. 22 Q. What happened? 23 A. Well, they said they'd come down from Glasgow at the 24 request of DCI Heath to uplift Marion Ross' motor 25 vehicle, which was in the garage. I wasn't aware that page 157 1 they would be arriving at the scene and I was quite 2 annoyed that they'd entered the house unannounced. 3 Q. During the time that you were working at 43 Irvine Road, 4 were there any other occasions that gave you cause for 5 concern about the integrity of the locus? 6 A. Well, there is one. On the Saturday, I had been -- one 7 of the agreed strategies was to remove the door handles 8 for the internal doors and the advice we got from the 9 fingerprint team was that we needed to put each handle 10 in an individual box. 11 So, unlike today, we had difficulty locating boxes 12 so I went to the Kilmarnock town centre and went round 13 about to shoe shops and got boxes for the handles. I 14 took them back and took them in to the rear of the house 15 via a patio door, which I had the key for. But since 16 that point in time, I've got interviewed later on in 17 1997, I realised there wasn't any log for that Saturday 18 afternoon. Was there a log keeper there when we arrived 19 back with the boxes? I was there with Stuart Wilson and 20 Michael Moffat. Was there a log keeper on the door? I 21 don't know. Why am I not on the log? I don't know. 22 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, this witness's evidence about this 23 particular strategy is likely to take some time and a 24 little detail. I appreciate he has embarked on it but I 25 think this is might be a convenient point to stop. page 158 1 THE CHAIRMAN: I think it is better not to go too far into 2 that. 3 The dates that we had arranged to sit, or I had 4 arranged to sit, were the week beginning Tuesday 5 23rd June and Tuesday 30th June and then the week 6 beginning 7th July. So that we can reassess just 7 whether we need the week beginning 30th June, counsel to 8 the Inquiry are going to produce a list of the witnesses 9 outstanding and then Core Participants can suggest any 10 witnesses that they would have wished to have called on 11 this phase, I should say, of the Inquiry. Then they can 12 reassess whether we need the week beginning 30th June. 13 We do need the week beginning 7th July because there 14 are witnesses who are only available that week. It 15 would have been quite nice if we could have finished, if 16 we were going, to the week beginning 30th June this 17 phase but it will inevitably go on to 10th July. But 18 the week beginning 30th June I hope tomorrow morning you 19 will get a list of the witnesses, as Counsel to the 20 Inquiry see it, and suggestions for other witnesses can 21 be received then. Then we would have to check their 22 availability and so on. 23 So my aim is that by Friday we should be able to 24 make a definite decision because obviously people will 25 want to know well in advance if we are sitting or not page 159 1 that week. So I hope that is not too inconvenient but 2 if you could -- I am mentioning it now so you can think 3 about witnesses you might want to suggest, then this is 4 the chance to do it. 5 We will sit tomorrow morning at 10.15. 6 (4.00 pm) 7 (Adjourned until 10.15 am the following morning) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25