page 1 1 Thursday, 18th June 2009 2 (10.15 am) 3 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we were on the shoe boxes and the 4 return of them; is that right? 5 JAMES HILL KERR (continued) 6 Examined by MISS CARMICHAEL (continued) 7 Q. Thank you, sir. 8 Yes, Mr Kerr, you started to tell us about 11th 9 January and I would like to try to go through the events 10 of that day with you in a little detail now. 11 Do you have your statement in front of you at the 12 moment? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. I would like to take you first to paragraph 32 of your 15 statement. You tell us there that you attended at the 16 scene on Saturday 11th January and that it was yourself 17 rather than Constable Mr McIntyre as you had agreed that 18 each of you would have one of the weekend days off? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Now, moving on to paragraph 34 of your statement, you 21 tell us that during the morning of 11th January you had 22 gone to Kilmarnock Police Station to discuss issues that 23 had arisen with the seizure of the door handles. I 24 think you had maybe started to tell us a little bit 25 about that yesterday. page 2 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. What were the issues about the door handles, just to be 3 clear about that? 4 A. Well, obviously it's the days prior to extensive DNA 5 examination so the Scene Examiners, in consultation with 6 myself, had decided to take the door handles off the 7 doors and submit them to the fingerprint lab for 8 examination under laboratory conditions. So it was 9 through discussions we decided that each door handle, in 10 order to prevent it being contaminated or damaged in any 11 way, would be put in a box, an individual box for each 12 handle. In those days we didn't have access to boxes so 13 we had to come up with some form of ingenuity to get a 14 box. 15 So I decided to go to Kilmarnock Police Station and 16 discussed it with Jim Kirkland, who was the production 17 officer for the inquiry, and we started to go up the 18 High Street in Kilmarnock, go round about the shoe shops 19 and sport shops and get shoe boxes. 20 Q. What I am quite interested to clarify with you, Mr Kerr, 21 is at what stage in the day you say the discussion at 22 Kilmarnock Police Station about the door handles took 23 place? 24 A. My recollection, it was late morning. 25 Q. Was that before you had been to the house at Irvine Road page 3 1 at all that day? 2 A. No, I think -- there'd been a briefing as usual in the 3 morning and I was able to -- one of my duties was to 4 attend the briefing, update the inquiry team as how 5 events were developing at the house or at the scene, and 6 go back and brief the Scene Examiners with what was 7 happening in the inquiry itself, if there was anything 8 of particular interest which related to the house. So 9 we'd do that and then we'd start to discuss about the 10 door handles, which was a topic would be raised that 11 morning, about taking them off and submitting them for 12 examination. 13 Q. Is what you're saying that you had been to a briefing 14 and then went to the house and then gone back to 15 Kilmarnock Police Office? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. This may or may not help us with the timings but I 18 wonder if you could look, please, for me at SG0537 at 19 page 8. Can we look back to page 7 as well, first of 20 all, please. 21 What we should be looking at here is the log of 22 attendance for 11th, certainly once we get about a third 23 of the way down the page, for 11th January 1997. You 24 are recorded at 10.16, I think, towards the bottom of 25 the page as arriving at the locus. page 4 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. If we move on to the next page, I think we see at 12.50 3 you are recorded as removing productions to vehicles. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And then at 13.15 you are recorded, along with Mr Wilson 6 and Mr Moffat, as leaving the locus? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. How do those times recorded there fit with your 9 recollection of events of the morning? 10 A. Timing-wise I couldn't recollect actual specific times 11 but I do remember attending the briefing, going to the 12 house, working away in the house, having a discussion 13 with the Scene Examiners, a decision was made about the 14 door handles and then leaving the house, going back to 15 Kilmarnock Police Station, discussing it with the 16 production officer and sourcing the boxes. 17 Q. So if the timing on this log would be correct, would we 18 take it that your discussion at Kilmarnock would have 19 had to be at some point after 1.15 in the afternoon? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You see, I am quite keen to be as clear as we can about 22 this because in paragraph 34 of your statement to this 23 Inquiry you say that it is during the morning of 11th 24 January that you went to Kilmarnock Police Station to 25 discuss the issues about the door handles in the house? page 5 1 A. I thought it was, but I can't argue with what's on the 2 log. 3 Q. In paragraph 41 of your statement, you tell us about a 4 discussion that you say took place with Shirley McKie 5 while you were at Kilmarnock Police Station discussing 6 the question of boxes? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Tell us, please, what happened. 9 A. Invariably, I would travel two or three times a day from 10 the scene to the office. We had a dedicated room at the 11 office, a sterile area to take items from the house and 12 put in a room before we passed them on to the production 13 officer as and when required. 14 So I would have my protective clothing on travelling 15 between the house and the office, which is about a 16 10-minute journey in a car and I'd obviously walked down 17 to the office, I had my white suit on and Shirley had 18 made some comments about me -- my attire. 19 Q. You are smiling. I take it it was a jocular 20 conversation perhaps? 21 A. It was light-hearted. She said something about me going 22 decorating or something. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that usual? I would have assumed that the 24 protective clothing you didn't wear it away from the 25 scene in case you introduced something to the scene when page 6 1 you went back again. 2 A. Yes. Well, in that -- it became -- as I say, DNA wasn't 3 a particular principle at that point in time, it was 4 more the fingerprints and fibres and by that time the 5 forensic examination of the house was complete, unless 6 we came across something else. So, you know, the 7 protective clothing would be remained on. I wouldn't 8 have taken it off departing from the house. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: I see. Sorry, I interrupted you. 10 MISS CARMICHAEL: So there was a bit of light-hearted 11 conversation about you going decorating. 12 What else was said? 13 A. She asked me if the Scene Examiners, the Scene of Crime 14 examination had been finished at the house and she asked 15 me if there was a chance of going to the house to get 16 her head round about the layout of the house because she 17 had specific actions, specific tasks, in relation to 18 interviewing Marion's family and it was particularly 19 difficult to get your head round about the layout of the 20 house. 21 Q. What did you say to her? 22 A. I told her to speak to DCI Heath and that the scene 23 examination was not complete. 24 Q. So you told her that day that scene examination was not 25 complete? page 7 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. I would like to ask you, please, about some other 3 accounts that you have given of events. I would like 4 you to look in the first place at a document CO2594. We 5 will see here that this is a statement that appears to 6 be a self-dictated by you, dated 10th April 1997. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. It is really page 2 I am interested in if we could go to 9 that, please. If we read through the top there, if I 10 can read to get it into the record: 11 "At no time during my tours of duty at the locus, do 12 I recall Detective Constable Cardwell within the locus, 13 however, I do recall that on Friday 10th or Saturday 14 11th January 1997, whilst wearing regulation clothing 15 supplied by Identification Bureau about lunchtime, I 16 returned to Kilmarnock Police Office and on entering the 17 main Detective Constables' room I was approached by 18 Detective Constable Cardwell." 19 You then go on to give an account of her asking you 20 if she could go to the locus. 21 You say in the statement Friday 10th or Saturday 22 11th January 1997 and you tell us today 11th January, 23 the Saturday. Clearly this was a statement that you 24 prepared initially nearer the time of the original 25 events. page 8 1 How can we be certain that it was on the 11th rather 2 than the 10th that Ms McKie made this request of you? 3 A. Well, when I was asked to provide this statement in 4 relation to Shirley's denial that her print had been in 5 the house, I didn't make any reference. At that point 6 in time the logs I had taken about items seized from the 7 house were with the Procurator Fiscal or certainly had 8 been lodged for the case of David Asbury. So I didn't 9 have reference to those logs when I made that statement. 10 However, in July of that year, I had reference to 11 the logs and I submitted another statement. In fact, it 12 was a statement that was taken off me by the Discipline 13 Branch in which I clarified that it was certainly 11th 14 January 1997 as the radio had been on in the house, the 15 football was on and I have every single door handle, 16 interior door handle from the house, logged as being 17 taken/seized from the house on that day. 18 Q. So would it be fair to say that your point of reference 19 is really the taking of the door handles and you 20 remember this being on the same day as the taking of the 21 door handles? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. You have mentioned another statement and I will take you 24 to that. It is CO2593. I think we see that this is a 25 statement given on 12th July 1997 to Chief Inspector page 9 1 Wilson. 2 This is the statement that you are referring to? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. If we go to page 4 of that document, please, you record 5 that, if I can read again to get it into the record: 6 "On Saturday 11th January 1997, at about 0800 hours 7 I attended a long briefing at Kilmarnock Police Office, 8 then, again into the house at 43 Irvine Road Kilmarnock 9 with Scenes of Crime Officer Stuart Wilson and Michael 10 Moffat. I commenced work there about [I think that's 11 10.30 the print is poor] hours and about midday or 12 lunchtime I removed productions to Kilmarnock Police 13 Office with the intention of discussing some problems we 14 were having with Detective Constable Kirkland or 15 Constable Stevens. I can't remember which officer I 16 intended to speak to. On my arrival at Kilmarnock 17 Police Office I was still wearing my protective suit and 18 I went into the Detective Constables' room at the office 19 to look for Detective Constable Kirkland or Constable 20 Stevens." 21 If we have the full page up again and we see that 22 again you carry on to give an account of a conversation 23 with Detective Constable Cardwell, as she was at the 24 time. 25 Can we be quite clear about what the document that page 10 1 you were able to look by the time you had given this 2 statement, that you had not been able to look at when 3 you gave the first statement. 4 Could you tell us just exactly what that was, sorry? 5 A. Well, as I said yesterday, you know, the house and the 6 locus wasn't dealt with in a haphazard fashion. Every 7 single object or production taken from that house was 8 recorded by myself and my colleague DC McIntyre. That 9 includes jewellery owned by Marion Ross as an example. 10 So each log that we made up is in day order so at 11 the end of every tour of duty we would log every item we 12 had seized from the house and subsequently pass it to 13 Mr Kirkland or Mr Stevens as production officers as and 14 when they required them. 15 The logs were obviously lodged as a production 16 themselves in the David Asbury case and I referred to 17 them in giving evidence at the David Asbury trial and 18 that's, you know, in the process of being asked in April 19 to get that, write that statement, I didn't have access 20 to the logs. 21 Q. Perhaps leaving the question of whether it was 10th or 22 11th January and returning to the question of timing, 23 there are some other items that I would like you to look 24 at, please. I would like you to look at item CO2592. 25 I should say, in fairness to you, Mr Kerr, that this page 11 1 is, I think, not a document that you will ever have been 2 asked to correct or read over. It bears to be a 3 precognition taken from you by Mrs Greaves in the 4 Procurator Fiscal's office and it will be in her words 5 rather than yours. But I would like you to look, 6 please, at page 4 of this document. What is recorded at 7 the top of this page, if I can read it, it says: 8 "DC Shirley Cardwell spoke to me on Saturday 11th 9 January 1997 just before lunch at Kilmarnock Police 10 Office." 11 Now, today by reference to the log, I think we have 12 been placing this conversation after 1.15 and I simply 13 want to give you the opportunity to comment upon what 14 appears to be something slightly different recorded 15 here. 16 A. Well, I've noticed now in three statements you have 17 shown me or two statements and the precognition that 18 I've said lunchtime when interviewed in 1997 so my 19 recollection of the timings 12 years later are no 20 brilliant so I would have to go with what I said in 1997 21 and what Mrs Greaves has noted in 1997 in that it was 22 lunchtime and not late morning. 23 Q. Just, again, for completeness and perhaps fairness to 24 yourself, Mr Kerr, if you look at CO1116, this is a 25 statement taken from you by Tayside police officers on page 12 1 23rd August 2000. I think you would have to go to the 2 last page to get the date. 3 Do you see the date there? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. This matter is dealt with on page 2 of this document and 6 what we see if we move about four paragraphs from the 7 bottom we see you are noted as saying: 8 "I also recall that some time after 10.30 hours on 9 Saturday 11th January 1997 ..." you were at Kilmarnock 10 Police Office when you were approached by Shirley 11 Cardwell who you knew was a member of the inquiry team 12 and that she asked you if the Identification Branch were 13 finished with the house. 14 Again, looking through these various accounts, can 15 the Inquiry be confident that you are referring to 16 something that happened after 1.15 when the log records 17 you going back to Kilmarnock Police Office after your 18 attendance at the house that day? 19 A. Yes, I mean, you know, interviewed in 2000 some time 20 after 10.30 hours is the time when obviously the log is 21 showing me going into the house. So at some point 22 during the course of that day I've been back to 23 Kilmarnock Police Office and she had a conversation with 24 me. 25 Timing: I don't know. I've said lunchtime, round page 13 1 about lunchtime, in 1997; so I have to go with the 2 lunchtime. I would say I would be relatively confident 3 in that, that it would be lunchtime, having taken 4 productions out the house in the morning. 5 Q. Just to be quite clear you are not disputing the log's 6 accuracy at least in so far as it records you leaving 7 the locus at 1.15 after your first attendance at the 8 house that day? 9 A. No, I've no reason to question the time. 10 Q. You have told us about getting the shoe boxes. How was 11 it you went to get the shoe boxes, Mr Kerr? 12 A. I went to Kilmarnock, spoke to Shirley, spoke with Jim 13 Kirkland or Allan Stevens, one of the two, one of them 14 was on, one of them was off, I can't remember which one 15 it was, I think it was Jim Kirkland. We then went down 16 the street, the High Street in Kilmarnock, into various 17 shops and collected shoe boxes. We put them into a van 18 and we drove back to 43 Irvine Road with the boxes and 19 unloaded them. 20 For the sake of access, I would say, more than 21 anything else, we had a sterile bedroom area at the back 22 of the house which had the patio doors and we took them 23 round the back of the house and put them in the back of 24 the door, or we certainly put some of them that way 25 through the back of the door because I think the Scene page 14 1 of Crime Officers were working in the house and we 2 didn't want to go past them with the boxes and disturb 3 their work. So I think we went round the back. 4 Q. So you went into the house through the back door rather 5 than the front door when you went back with the shoe 6 boxes? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. I wonder if you could look again at SGO537.8, please. 9 You indicated yesterday that you had become aware of 10 something wrong with the log as far as your attendance 11 was concerned. We have already looked at the entry for 12 13.15 recording you leaving the locus after you moved 13 productions to vehicles. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. I think we can look through the remainder of the entries 16 for that day, 11th January, and not see your name 17 mentioned again. 18 A. No. 19 Q. I am wondering is it possible that perhaps the log 20 keeper has not seen you coming in because you had gone 21 through the back door. 22 A. Well, it's possible. I can't remember, you know, 23 actually specifically saying to the log keeper I was 24 back at the house. I made an assumption that the log 25 keeper saw me arriving back at the house. I have a page 15 1 feeling that ... I think in that log we have Mike Moffat 2 and Stuart Wilson there arriving at the locus about 3 14.15. Mike Moffat -- and then they are there to about 4 20.00, 8.00 pm. I feel that Stuart Wilson and Mike 5 Moffat arrived back at the house round about the same 6 time as me and I put the boxes into the house and worked 7 away with a screwdriver taking the door handles off the 8 interior doors. 9 Q. Just to be clear about this, when you went down 10 Kilmarnock High Street to get the shoe boxes, who was it 11 you went with? 12 A. I have a feeling it was -- if my memory serves me 13 correctly Jim Kirkland assisted me going down the 14 street, in getting shoe boxes and putting them into a 15 van. 16 Q. Did he come with you to help you with the boxes at the 17 other end, the Irvine Road end? 18 A. I think he may have been in the van and he may have 19 handed the boxes out the van to me and I put them in the 20 house. I think Jim was fairly conscious that, as a 21 production officer dealing with items that were being 22 seized from various individuals and from various places, 23 he was very conscious of the fact that he wasn't going 24 to be going into the house for that very reason of 25 cross-contamination. So I'm fairly certain Jim didn't page 16 1 go into the house with me. 2 Q. When I hear you talk of cross-contamination you will 3 correct me if I am wrong but was that a concern in 4 relation to DNA evidence? 5 A. Not so much DNA at that time. It was mainly fibres or 6 blood or whatever in that respect. So Jim would be 7 handling productions and items that were related to 8 individuals' clothing, et cetera, and from various other 9 scenes if indeed they existed so he wouldn't want to be 10 going into the house in any event. Hence the reason we 11 were allocated a separate room at the office as well. 12 Q. In paragraph 45 of your statement to the Inquiry, you 13 say that later that afternoon you saw Shirley McKie at 14 the scene. 15 Where was she when you saw her? 16 A. In the porch. 17 Q. I wonder if you would look at ST0003, page 3. Are you 18 able to tell us by reference to this photograph 19 whereabouts she was? 20 A. Well, as I say, the chair was obviously moved to the 21 side after the initial photographs were taken. However, 22 to the right of the chair is the entrance into the main 23 house. it's just -- 24 Q. It may help you to look -- sorry, I interrupted you. 25 Please carry on. page 17 1 A. So where the chair is, to the right of that, she was 2 standing there and the log keeper would be as well. 3 Q. It might help you to look at the next photo in the 4 sequence. 5 Does that assist you more to tell us where you saw 6 Ms McKie? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. I am not sure you've been given instructions how to mark 9 anything you see. I think there are arrows you can use, 10 Mr Kerr, if you could use that tool, please. 11 (Indicated) 12 The arrow seems to be pointing just above the metal 13 foot plate that we see? 14 A. Towards the edge of it, yes. 15 Q. So should we infer from that that you saw Ms McKie 16 standing on the metal foot plate? 17 A. No, I can't remember by that time -- I think it's 18 reasonable to suggest that by that time the metal plate 19 had been removed. The examination, the forensic 20 examination of the floor had been looked at certainly. 21 I'm not aware of a metal foot plate being there by that 22 time. 23 Q. I wonder if we could capture this image, please. 24 Where were you when you saw her? 25 A. I was crossing between the living room heading towards page 18 1 the bathroom -- heading towards the bathroom or the 2 front bedroom, yes. 3 Q. So you were in the hallway of the property? 4 A. In the hallway. 5 Q. The Inquiry has heard that the bathroom was down the 6 hall and off to the right. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Were you as far down the hall as the bathroom? 9 A. Well, the living room I was in had a -- the bedroom 10 where we kept our equipment was off the living room. So 11 you'd come through the bedroom into the living room and 12 out and the bathroom faced you when you come out into 13 the hall and the bannister and the stairway was just to 14 your left. 15 Q. So you're talking about a bedroom and a living room at 16 the rear of the property? 17 A. Yes. It's quite a -- Marion had obviously built on a 18 few extensions and from the outside of the house you 19 would think it was like a two bedroom or three bedroom 20 semi-detached house but in point of fact it had three 21 living rooms, four bedrooms, three of which were down 22 the stair, a kitchen, a fairly large expanse of ground 23 floor area. So it's fairly difficult to imagine the 24 layout of the house without actually viewing it on a 25 video or being there. page 19 1 Q. The Inquiry has had the benefit of the video but what I 2 want to be clear is that you were at the bathroom end of 3 the hall rather than nearer to the front door? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Who else was in the porch when Shirley McKie was there? 6 A. A log keeper. 7 Q. Did you hear any conversation between them? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Again, Mr Kerr, I need to try to clarify with you the 10 time at which you say you saw Ms McKie at the property 11 and in your statement to the Inquiry you say that you 12 believe that it was between 14.30 hours and 15.00 hours. 13 This is at paragraph 46 of your statement on page 11. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And I think you say also at paragraph 48 that you 16 believe you left the property yourself at about 17 18.00 hours that day? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Again, Mr Kerr, I would like to ask you about some other 20 accounts that you have given about the timing of this 21 matter. I would like you to look please again at the 22 12th July 1997 statement which is CO2593 at page 5. 23 What is recorded at the top of that page, Mr Kerr, 24 if I can read it to get it into the record is that: 25 "Some time in the afternoon [you] were working in page 20 1 the rear bedroom and [you] were going from there to the 2 middle living room to get some bags for productions 3 when, as [you] crossed the hall, [you] saw Detective 4 Constable Cardwell standing in the porch. She was 5 speaking to the uniformed officer on the door who was 6 logging the visitors." 7 Do you recall whether you were asked for a timing 8 when you gave this statement? 9 A. I think I was actually asked for a time. My problem has 10 always been that January it gets dark fairly early and 11 timing was really important in the examination of the 12 scene and seizing articles from the scene. 13 Q. I am going to have to ask you to speak a little bit more 14 in the microphone. I think we are losing you, Mr Kerr. 15 A. Timing was of primary importance to us when seizing 16 items at the scene. So they asked about timing. I 17 didn't know. I didn't time when we, say, we took a door 18 handle off, you know, a front living room door what time 19 we actually took the door handle at. We recorded the 20 dates and sequential order the items we had taken during 21 the course of that day but we didn't record the actual 22 times of when we'd actually -- so it was very difficult 23 for me to pinpoint times during the course of the day. 24 One minute you'd be working away it would be daylight, 25 the next it was dark and time just flowed past. page 21 1 Q. So, from what you have said, we should take it you were 2 asked about a timing when Mr Wilson spoke to you for 3 this statement but what you were able to tell him that's 4 noted here as some time in the afternoon? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. I would like you to look again, please, at the 7 precognition that was noted from you -- that was 8 CO2592 -- and if we could look at page 5 -- in 9 fairness maybe we should start at the bottom of the 10 previous page. My apologies. Again, I will read this 11 to get it into the record from the bottom paragraph 12 here: 13 "I saw Shirley Cardwell at the house of Marion Ross 14 on the Saturday just after lunch (11th January 1997). I 15 was coming from the middle bedroom towards the middle 16 living room. I saw Shirley Cardwell in the porch 17 talking to the male police officer who was the log 18 officer. I did not acknowledge Shirley Cardwell as I 19 was doing something. I think I had a production in my 20 hand and I was going to seal it in a bag. There was a 21 table and a chair in the porch which measured about 8 by 22 6. The porch had a side entry which faced the table and 23 chair. Shirley Cardwell was standing between the table 24 and the outside door. I only saw her for about two or 25 three seconds but she adopted a leisurely stance and page 22 1 didn't appear to be having an overbearing type of 2 conversation with the young officer. Where she was 3 standing, Shirley Cardwell would have been able to see 4 into the hall. In my opinion, it would have looked to 5 her as if the examination of the hall had been 6 completed. That examination would include the bathroom 7 door. I think Shirley Cardwell was there about 1.30 pm. 8 I left the locus about 3.00 pm-ish because of the 9 backlog of productions. My reason for thinking that was 10 the time was that the production room at Kilmarnock was 11 along from the TV room and I recall that there was a 12 rugby match on during the afternoon. I did not see 13 Shirley Cardwell or speak to her after that." 14 Now, as far as you can recall, does this record what 15 you said to the Procurator Fiscal when the Procurator 16 Fiscal interviewed you? 17 A. No. I didn't go to Kilmarnock Police Office at 3.00, 18 rugby ... a rugby match on, there might well have been 19 but I wouldn't know. The radio was on in the house and 20 there was football on in the house on the radio -- 21 Q. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. I didn't mean to 22 interrupt you, sorry, I think I missed the last thing 23 you said there. 24 A. Sorry, the radio was on in the house and there was 25 football on on the radio but I don't recall saying I page 23 1 went away at 3.00 or it was 1.30 that I saw her in the 2 house. I don't know how I would be able to be specific 3 and say it was 1.30 that I saw her at the house. 4 Q. Do you remember if the Procurator Fiscal asked you about 5 the timing? 6 A. No, I don't actually. I don't actually remember much 7 about the precognition to be fair. 8 Q. In fairness to you, I think we all recognise that this 9 is not something that is recorded in your own words but 10 in the words of somebody else, Mr Kerr. 11 As a matter of interest are you interested in rugby? 12 A. No. 13 Q. But you are interested in football? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. So is your position that the Procurator Fiscal has 16 simply noted this down wrongly from you? 17 A. I can't really recall the conversation I had with the 18 Procurator Fiscal. I do recall the Procurator Fiscal 19 asking me about if fingerprints could be planted or not 20 but I don't see that in the statement. That's the only 21 thing I can remember about the Procurator Fiscal asking 22 me, was it physically possible to take a fingerprint 23 from an object and put it somewhere else, in my opinion. 24 Q. Now, if we can perhaps leave that document for the 25 moment, thinking back to the log, Mr Kerr, if it is page 24 1 correct that you went to Kilmarnock Police Station at 2 1.15, can you tell us how long you stayed at Kilmarnock 3 Police Station discussing the problem about the boxes 4 and having the conversation with Ms McKie? 5 A. The whole process took about an hour. 6 Q. So adding an hour to 1.15 takes us to 2.15 when you 7 leave Kilmarnock Police Station again? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. How long did it take you to collect the shoe boxes? 10 A. Well, I think, you know, the discussion with Shirley 11 would be a passing conversation. I didn't take anything 12 from it. The discussion with Mr Kirkland would be -- it 13 wouldn't take that long to decide where you're going to 14 get the boxes from on a Saturday afternoon, which was 15 another issue because we had a company called Kilmarnock 16 Removals, who obviously removed people, you know, for 17 their houses and flitted them, et cetera, and they had 18 sold various sizes of boxes but they were shut. So the 19 only option we were left with was to go to the sports 20 shops and shoe shops in Kilmarnock. So that's what we 21 did and that would take us 40 minutes. 22 So, you know, my recollection is that speaking with 23 Shirley, going to the scene, speaking with her, going to 24 the office, speaking with other officers, speaking with 25 Jim, going out, going up the street, getting the boxes, page 25 1 putting them in a van, back to the -- would take no more 2 than an hour. 3 Q. Can I ask you this: did you have lunch at Kilmarnock 4 Police Office that day? 5 A. No, I never had lunch at Kilmarnock Police Office. I 6 had my lunch in the house. 7 Q. So do we understand your evidence to be not that you 8 took an hour at Kilmarnock Police Station but that the 9 whole process of getting away from the locus, back to 10 Kilmarnock Police Station, having your discussions, 11 getting boxes and going back to the locus takes an hour? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. How many shoe shops did you have to go round? 14 A. About four or five. I went to some, Jim went to others 15 and we actually got too many but, you know, we split up. 16 We didn't go together. We split up, showed 17 identification and asked the shop manager if they had 18 any spare shoe boxes. 19 Q. On the timing you have just given us, that takes you 20 back to Irvine Road Kilmarnock around 2.15 in the 21 afternoon? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you recall a time during Ms McKie's trial but before 24 you gave evidence when a Fiscal came to speak to you? 25 A. Yes. page 26 1 Q. Can you remember who it was came to speak to you? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Was it a man or a woman? 4 A. I think it was a woman. I'm not 100 per cent certain. 5 It was about ten minutes before I gave evidence. I 6 remember that. 7 Q. What did the Fiscal say to you? 8 A. He or she asked about my recollection of timings and how 9 did I know it was the Saturday afternoon and I'd said 10 that I had the radio on and the football was on and I 11 had, at that point in time, I did fixed odds football 12 coupons so I was particularly interested in the scores 13 and how the games were developing during the course of 14 the day. 15 Q. I suspect you have more expertise in this than I do, 16 Mr Kerr, but I think I am right in saying that the bulk 17 of Scottish football matches start at 3.00 on a 18 Saturday? 19 A. They do. 20 Q. So could we take it then if you were listening to the 21 football and hearing how matches were going on we would 22 be talking about a time after 3.00 in the afternoon? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Did the Fiscal who came to speak to you, did they ask 25 you about the log that we have looked at today, the page 27 1 document with the timing on it of you going away at 2 1.15? 3 A. I can't remember. Might have. I was certainly aware 4 that I wasn't on the log by the time of David Asbury's 5 trial. I seem to remember that I was aware that I 6 wasn't on the log for Saturday afternoon. 7 Q. I am sorry, you were aware of that at the time of David 8 Asbury's trial? 9 A. Yes, I think I was. I don't think I was asked about it, 10 right enough, but I think I was aware of it. 11 Q. Why did you think the Fiscal was asking you about the 12 timing? 13 A. I thought the Fiscal was asking because Shirley had 14 denied being at the porch. That's what I thought, that 15 she'd denied being at the porch, speaking to the log 16 keeper and, therefore, I was being re-examined -- what 17 in effect was in a precognition to establish what the 18 time was and how was I sure of the timings and the day. 19 Q. What's noted in your precognition and what I think it 20 might be fair to assume the Fiscal thought your evidence 21 might be going to be was that you had seen Ms McKie 22 there at 1.30. 23 Were you asked about that? 24 A. I can't remember. I can't remember asking me about the 25 actual 1.30 time but had she asked me about it I would page 28 1 have told her it wouldn't be 1.30 anyway because it was 2 still daylight at 1.30. It was dusk in my memory, if 3 not dark it was dusk, and the football was on or about 4 to start, you know, the Radio Clyde football show or the 5 Radio Scotland one, one of the two. So they start about 6 2.00 in the afternoon. 7 Q. The Inquiry may hear that the prosecutors thought 8 because of what we see in the log that you were only 9 there up until 1.15. 10 Can you recall being asked about that? 11 A. At some point in time I was asked if I had concluded 12 duties at 1.15 on the Saturday. Given it was the third 13 day of what was then a murder inquiry and considering 14 I'd been at the house for almost four weeks, there's no 15 way I'd have finished duty at 1.15 on the third day of a 16 murder inquiry or I wouldn't be sitting here. 17 Q. You say at some point you were asked about that. I 18 would like to be quite clear. I am simply asking you 19 about what the Fiscal who spoke to you before you gave 20 evidence asked you about rather than perhaps what the 21 Advocate Depute in court asked you about. 22 A. Asking me if I'd finished duty at 1.15? 23 Q. Yes. 24 A. No, I can't remember if he or she asked me about that. 25 Q. Did whoever it was show you the log when they were page 29 1 asking you questions, show you the log that we've looked 2 at today? 3 A. I can't remember. I saw the log in the court on a, what 4 was a slide projector -- there was no Powerpoint 5 obviously but the same idea -- I saw the log in the 6 court giving evidence. I can't remember if I saw the 7 log at that precognition. 8 Q. Do you remember anything of the sort of perhaps thinking 9 again about the timing after the Fiscal had spoken to 10 you but before you actually came to give evidence in 11 court? 12 A. I think the Fiscal tried to reinforce the fact that how 13 was I sure it could have been 1.30 in the afternoon. I 14 told the Fiscal it couldn't have been 1.30 in the 15 afternoon because the football wasn't on. So I was 16 reasonably comfortable in the fact that it was later on 17 in the afternoon, the time of which -- you know, the 18 specific time I don't know and I've never said a time 19 when I thought she was at the house. 20 Q. Were you aware that there was a time late in that 21 afternoon between 5.30 and 6.00 when Shirley McKie was 22 quite legitimately at the house in relation to the 23 picking up and dropping off the log from the door there? 24 A. Not until about four weeks ago. 25 Q. So the Inquiry may hear that it was of some significance page 30 1 to the prosecutors to place Shirley McKie at the house 2 at a time before 5.40 or so when she was entitled to be 3 there. 4 Is that something that you just didn't know about at 5 all when the Fiscal was speaking to you? 6 A. I didn't know Shirley had been at the house that day 7 when I gave my statements and even when I was 8 precognosced by the Fiscal, I didn't know that she had 9 legitimately been tasked to go to the house. 10 Q. So it would follow perhaps that you didn't understand 11 that any particular timing was important to the Fiscal 12 who was speaking to you? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Can you remember what evidence you actually gave at 15 Ms McKie's trial as to the time that she was there? 16 A. I think I just said it was some time in the afternoon. 17 Q. In fairness to you, Mr Kerr, I think we have perhaps two 18 items that I should put to you. I would like you to 19 look, please, at CO0214.53. 20 I should tell you what this is. This is a note 21 written by an officer Mr Carle who was present observing 22 the trial of Shirley McKie and it's simply his note of 23 the evidence, it's not a transcript of a shorthand note 24 or anything of that sort. 25 If we look at paragraph 31.10, first of all, it page 31 1 records: 2 "The Advocate Depute asked if DC Kerr had seen any 3 other police officer at or near the house on that day 4 with the exception of the logging officer. The response 5 is noted as 'I saw Shirley McKie'. When asked where, he 6 explained he had seen her in the porch and that he had 7 been standing at the foot of the hallway prior to 8 entering the doorway into the kitchen." 9 We then have a note of some sketches and photographs 10 which I won't trouble you with and then: 11 "DC Kerr confirmed that at that time the logging 12 officer would have been sitting in the porch area on a 13 chair at a table. DC Kerr could not be specific about 14 the time but knew it to be some time in the afternoon 15 and that he knew it was not a weekday." 16 How does that accord with your own recollection of 17 what you said? 18 A. That's what I said, yes: some time in the afternoon and 19 I knew it was a Saturday. 20 Q. I would like you also to look, please, at FI0070, 21 page 10. 22 Now, this is part of a statement given by the 23 gentleman who was the Advocate Depute in the trial. 24 That means that the prosecutor in the High Court in that 25 trial was then Sean Murphy who is now Sheriff Murphy. page 32 1 What he records here in his statement to the Inquiry is 2 that: 3 "The trial commenced on 21st April 1999. At the 4 trial, James Kerr's evidence, having given the matter 5 more thought following the enquiries I had made of him 6 during the trial but prior to his evidence, was that he 7 had seen Shirley McKie at the house on Saturday 8 11th January 1997 at around 5.00 pm -- the time when she 9 had legitimate access to change the logs at the front 10 door to the house." 11 Then: 12 "He explained that the log inaccurately recorded his 13 presence at the house that day due to a number of 14 difficulties which the police had been having that day." 15 Now, do you recall giving evidence to the effect 16 that Ms McKie was at the house at around 5.00 pm that 17 day, because that is what the Advocate Depute seems to 18 remember? 19 A. I don't remember giving a specific time. I keep relying 20 on, and did then as well, relying on the seizing of the 21 door handles, obtaining the shoe boxes and the radio 22 being on in the house with the football on. So times, 23 as I say, I couldn't say the time to anybody, the 24 Procurator Fiscal at a precognition or in the High 25 Court, you know. He might have said something like, page 33 1 "Could it have been round about 5.00?" 2 "Aye, it could have been because the football was 3 on." Other than that, I don't know. 4 Q. I think we would probably have been into the after match 5 commentary by then? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. I think we can take that down. 8 You have told us that it was, I think, in your mind 9 dusky at the time you saw Ms McKie, if not dark? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Is it possible that the time she was there was indeed at 12 some point between 5.30 and 6.00 that day? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. I'm moving on to some slightly different topics now, 15 Mr Kerr. 16 Did you ever have any experience of officers being 17 called together for something like a team meeting prior 18 to a trial with a senior officer for a sort of pep talk? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Can we take it that as far as you were concerned nothing 21 of that sort happened in this case? 22 A. No, not that I'm aware of, no. 23 Q. Now, I would like to ask you, please, about a date after 24 11th January, rather a little later in the 25 investigation, 14th January 1997. I think you start to page 34 1 tell us about that at paragraphs 50 onwards of your 2 statement. 3 You say at paragraph 52 you remember a discussion 4 about a carpet and that you saw what you thought was a 5 blood-smear on skirting in the property? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. You record also that people started to use black powder. 8 Do you recall how the use of black powder came about 9 that day? 10 A. I seem to remember that Mr Thurley had decided to use 11 aluminium flake when they initially attended the scene 12 and subsequently they completed the examination with 13 aluminium flake and now decided to go on to use black 14 magna, carbon. 15 Q. Did you hear any of the discussion about why they were 16 doing that? 17 A. No. The only recollection I have is Michael Moffat 18 being particularly concerned that we're using aluminium 19 flake and it was decided by that time to use black 20 carbon and go over the wooden material again, the 21 gloss-painted wooden material in particular, again with 22 black carbon. 23 Q. If we can jump back but on the same topic to 24 paragraph 20 of your statement. You say that you 25 understand that aluminium powder is ideal for glass page 35 1 surfaces. You had seen it used on glossed surfaces 2 before but not in major incidents and you would have 3 expected black powder to have been used. 4 Do you have any expertise yourself in the use of 5 these powders, Mr Kerr? 6 A. Been trained in, you know, scene of crime examination, 7 not at Durham but locally when I joined the CID, but I'm 8 not an expert by any stretch of the imagination. 9 Q. Do you have training in what powders to use? Was that 10 part of your training? 11 A. Well, the training was in the CID at that time you would 12 attend and do scene of crime on house-break-ins, 13 break-ins to cars, recover stolen cars, that type of 14 thing. 15 Q. So perhaps in more volume crime, routine crime, an 16 officer such as yourself might have been doing the 17 powdering rather than a specialist Scenes of Crime 18 Officer? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. So why were you surprised that they had been using 21 aluminium powder? 22 A. I thought given the fact that it was initially a 23 suspicious death, then there was a lot of gloss-painted 24 wood, particularly in the hall and round about where 25 Marion had been found that they would have used black page 36 1 powder but that was just my thoughts on the matter. 2 Q. It would have been your personal preference on the basis 3 of your own perhaps less specialist experience? 4 A. Well, I think the objective is to find fingerprints on 5 items and the best way of getting it out of gloss paint, 6 I would have thought, would have been black carbon. 7 Q. In any event, you tell us that Stuart Wilson -- this is 8 at paragraph 53 -- was black powdering the doorframe and 9 can we take that to be the bathroom doorframe? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. When he came across a print and you say he questioned 12 how did he miss that with aluminium powder. 13 Did you hear him say that? 14 A. I think it was myself and my colleague, Graeme McIntyre, 15 Michael Moffat, Ian Wils... -- Stuart Wilson. I 16 feel -- 17 Q. Was it perhaps Graham Hunter rather than Graham Martin? 18 A. Sorry? 19 Q. I think -- well, certainly what's come up on the record 20 is that you mentioned a Graham Martin and I think we've 21 heard that Graham Hunter was there? 22 A. Graham Hunter, yes -- that the print was found and one 23 of them made mention of the fact that they questioned 24 how it had been missed on aluminium powder because he 25 could see -- I noticed that you could see when they were page 37 1 black powdering the surfaces you could see where the 2 vinyl slide tape lifts had been taken of fingerprints 3 because you could see the tape marks, you know, the 4 disturbance in the aluminium the black was picking up. 5 So you could see where the prints had originally been 6 found. 7 Q. Where they had already found items and they had been 8 taken away by way of lift from the aluminium? 9 A. Yes, and the big question with that print was there was 10 no obvious signs of tape marks so, therefore, you could 11 easily infer it hadn't been lifted using tape with 12 aluminium flake. So the question was if you were 13 working with torches and working with aluminium powder 14 on white paint it is difficult to see prints anyway with 15 aluminium on white I would have thought but they are 16 dusting away with white -- with aluminium, they've 17 obviously missed that print. And the question was, you 18 know, a general comment at the time was, you know, how 19 could it have been missed using aluminium flake. 20 Q. Did anyone say anything about who they thought might 21 have put the mark there? 22 A. My recollection of events was that Stuart Wilson had 23 said he thought it looked quite a small print, as in it 24 might be a child's or a lady's print. That was my 25 recollection of events. That was a general comment but page 38 1 no any individual names were mentioned as to, oh, it 2 could be this person or that person. It was a print 3 that was found and it was marked and photographed. 4 Q. Mr Moffat didn't say anything along the lines of saying, 5 "Oh, that might be Gary Gray's print"? 6 A. No, I don't recall him saying that. 7 I thought it may have been my print because there 8 had been an issue with the latex gloves. You know, the 9 particular batch we'd been issued with appeared to be 10 quite thin so we subsequently get supplied with cotton 11 gloves, then we can put the latex gloves on on top of 12 the cotton because I think the Scene Examiners had 13 learned that prints were coming through the latex glove 14 or had a risk of coming through the latex glove. 15 So I thought by this time we had been in the house 16 for five days and I thought, well, I was only using, you 17 know, one set of latex gloves. So I think, well, you 18 know, I assisted in taking the bathroom door off, taking 19 the bannister off, you know, working round about that 20 area. I thought it may have been my print. I take it 21 because it had been missed with aluminium powder was my 22 theory behind that. 23 Q. What was the logic of that particular -- 24 A. You know, taking away human error, facts, if that side 25 of that doorframe had been dusted with aluminium flake page 39 1 and that print wasn't there because it hadn't been 2 lifted and you would have expected if it had have been 3 there then the tape marks would have been up against 4 that print. So I assumed then, well, that print must 5 be -- have been put there after the aluminium flake so, 6 therefore, it's going to be one of us that were working 7 in the house. 8 Q. I think you have told us a little in your statement 9 about the gloves issue that you mentioned just now. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. You say that you realised the gloves you were using were 12 substandard. Some of the witnesses have told us that 13 even at that time they always would have used cotton 14 under a latex glove. How was it that there was a 15 particular realisation about a problem with these gloves 16 two days into this particular investigation? 17 A. I think it emanated from headquarters that all of a 18 sudden a certain -- these gloves weren't as reliable as 19 first thought and, therefore, you'd either have to 20 double glove up, you know, put two gloves on because 21 it's particularly with latex, or get a set of cotton 22 gloves which we didn't have access to cotton gloves 23 anyway. Get set of cotton gloves which would go for the 24 Scene Examiners and then put a set of latex on top of 25 the cotton. page 40 1 Q. Now, I would like to ask you have you ever spoken about 2 this case to a man called Les Brown? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Never? 5 A. Not that I can remember, no. 6 Q. I am not sure we have this to put on the screen for 7 various reasons -- 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry? 9 MISS CARMICHAEL: I am not sure that we have what I am about 10 to read out available to put on the screen, sir. So 11 what I am going to read from ... 12 I am being corrected on that point. I believe it is 13 possible to put on the screen now. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a passage you want to read? 15 MISS CARMICHAEL: Paragraph 46 from the statement of Les 16 Brown to the Inquiry, sir. I am going to read out to 17 you evidence that Les Brown has provided to the Inquiry. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you do it fairly slowly so that the 19 stenographer can -- 20 MISS CARMICHAEL: In fact, it has appeared as FI0017.10 on 21 the screen now, sir, which should make matters a little 22 easier. 23 What is recorded here as Mr Brown's evidence is: 24 "I did speak to a SOCO officer, Officer Kerr, who 25 confirmed that he heard PC Lees and Shirley McKie having page 41 1 a heated discussion in the porch of the locus. The SOCO 2 said that Shirley McKie used the word 'contamination'. 3 The SOCO was dismantling door handles at the time and 4 this was around 13th January 1997." 5 A. When was this? 6 Q. I don't think we have been told that, in fairness to 7 you, Mr Kerr. 8 A. Well, I thought if he'd spoken to me he would at least 9 have got my rank right. I'm not a Scene of Crime 10 Officer and never have been. I've not spoken to Les 11 Brown. I remember getting a phone call once from 12 someone purporting to be Les Brown wanting to speak to 13 me about the McKie case and I referred him to our Legal 14 Services Department. 15 Q. Just to be quite clear about it, did you say any of the 16 things to Mr Brown that he records you here as having 17 said about hearing Constable Lees and Ms McKie in a 18 discussion? 19 A. Absolutely not. I couldn't even have told you that 20 Constable Lees was in the porch. You know, I knew 21 Constable Lees was a log keeper but I couldn't have told 22 you Constable Lees was in the porch at the same time 23 Shirley McKie was in the porch. The 13th of January's 24 the wrong date as well and contamination is utterly 25 absurd. page 42 1 Q. Why do you say that? 2 A. Nobody would use the word "contamination". In what 3 context? 4 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you, Mr Kerr. If I may just have a 5 moment, sir. (Pause) 6 Thank you. I don't have any further questions at 7 this point. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: I assume there will be applications to 9 question the witness and I think the right way to do 10 that would be to take the applications and the 11 questions, if I allow them, after the break. So I will 12 rise now until -- I think it is working better at 11.50, 13 is it? 14 MISS CARMICHAEL: I haven't heard anybody say otherwise, 15 sir. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry? 17 MISS CARMICHAEL: I haven't heard any suggestion that it's 18 not, sir. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: We want to keep moving as best we can but I 20 think we will make it 11.50. 21 (11.30 am) 22 (A short break) 23 (11.50 am) 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Had you completed? 25 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, there is another matter I have been page 43 1 asked to raise with this witness and I will do that at 2 this stage. 3 I wonder if we could have up, again, CO2592. This 4 is your precognition we discussed earlier but the points 5 I want to ask you about are a little different just now. 6 CO2592, at page 5. 7 What I would like to ask you about are the third and 8 fourth paragraphs on this page and if I can read out 9 again to get this into the record: 10 "I am asked about the log officers at the locus. 11 They didn't really have much of a clue of what they were 12 doing. I remember that at one time I saw 'Hello' 13 magazines which had been removed from the lounge of the 14 house of Marion Ross and taken into the porch for the 15 log officers to read. Some of these log officers did 16 not appreciate the seriousness of their task, in my 17 opinion. Sometimes when I went up, and I know Graham 18 McIntyre did not notice this as much as me, log officers 19 asked to nip over to the garage for crisps or a drink or 20 to use the toilet. In those circumstances, I would just 21 hang around until they got back." 22 I think yesterday you told us that you didn't seem 23 to have any particular concerns about the log keeping 24 other than what you told us in your statement and so I'm 25 curious to know how what we see here accords with your page 44 1 recollection. 2 A. Well, as I said yesterday, I remember them asking to go 3 over to the garage for refreshments or to use the 4 toilet. I do remember the occasion that's spoken about 5 there when magazines seemed to have walked from the 6 lounge to the porch because on one of the occasions I 7 went into the porch there I remember there being two 8 magazines sitting on the table in the porch and the next 9 thing I realised there was about 15 magazines sitting on 10 the table in the porch. 11 So Marion -- contrary to what other people had said 12 Marion Ross, in my opinion, was not an individual who 13 was messy. She did collect things and, ultimately, 14 collected receipts that were of particular interest to 15 the inquiry. She had a place for everything and one of 16 those things was magazines and she had a significant 17 number of magazines in the front lounge. You would take 18 the first top two and the bottom two for fingerprinting 19 and seize them; so there were still some remaining in 20 the lounge but they seem to have taken legs and went 21 into the porch. 22 Q. Did you ever yourself hang around to allow officers to 23 go over to the garage? 24 A. No, I wouldn't have used the term "hang around". As I 25 said yesterday, I would have the assumption that I was page 45 1 in the house myself because I would have said to them, 2 "Well, look, needs must, particularly if you need the 3 toilet. Lock the porch and go over to the garage", so 4 hanging around is not a term I would have used because 5 the house, as far as I'm concerned, would have been 6 secured when they'd left the scene. 7 Q. That is really the other thing I would like to ask you 8 about, Mr Kerr, because if we look at the next paragraph 9 down here it is recorded that you said: 10 "I know that the question of keys and uplifting of 11 keys by Shirley Cardwell was an issue at the trial of 12 David Asbury but in my opinion, keys did not matter in 13 this case. The house was not locked because there was 14 always a log officer on the door." 15 I am just wondering -- well, in the first instance 16 do you recall saying that to the Fiscal when she was 17 noting your precognition? 18 A. Yes, I remember saying it to somebody that keys were not 19 an issue, given the dates of course but, you know, the 20 prints found on the Tuesday, the 14th, and at that time 21 there was always a loggist on the door and the front 22 porch would either be, in my opinion, unlocked with an 23 officer there or locked with the officer, you know, 24 using the facilities at the garage. 25 So I'm not saying that's right but that had page 46 1 happened. But so, therefore, Shirley Cardwell uplifting 2 the keys between those two specific dates from the 3 discovery of Marion Ross on the Wednesday night to the 4 Tuesday when the print was found, uplifting the keys, I 5 couldn't see what the issue was with uplifting keys. 6 Q. What I am slightly confused about now, Mr Kerr, is that 7 you have told us that -- well, you don't know whether 8 the house was ever locked but you think that it's 9 possible that it may have been when log keepers went 10 over to the garage to use the lavatory? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. But what you are recorded as saying here to the Fiscal 13 is that the house was not locked because there was 14 always a log officer on the door and I'm just wondering 15 how you square those two. 16 A. I think I'm saying the same thing there. I'm not saying 17 to the Fiscal that the loggists go over to the garage 18 because I don't think she asked me about that anyway but 19 I'm saying there was a loggist on the door so the house 20 wasn't locked when the loggist would be there, the front 21 door would be unlocked and the police officer would be 22 in the porch or thereabouts, you know, perhaps outside. 23 So therefore the keys -- what I was trying to get to the 24 fiscal I couldn't work out what the issue with the keys 25 were. page 47 1 The inference was Shirley Cardwell got the keys of 2 the house to go up to the house to let herself into the 3 house and I couldn't get -- I couldn't work out, you 4 know, that type of allegation because she wouldn't have 5 needed the keys to get into the house unless she went 6 round the back and climbed over the garden fence and 7 went in the back door. We had a key to the back door. 8 Do you follow me? 9 Q. I understand that but if a log keeper had gone away and 10 locked the door in the way suggested then that would be 11 a time that somebody would need a key to get in the 12 house, wouldn't it? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. If it's right -- and I accept that you can't say 15 yourself whether the house was ever locked by a log 16 keeper who went away -- if a log keeper went away and 17 locked the house to cover himself while he went off to 18 the loo, that would be a time when the house was locked 19 up. 20 A. I see where you're coming from. 21 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you for clarifying that. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Holmes, do you have an application? 23 MR HOLMES: There are a couple of matters. The first is the 24 movement of any item within the house and the second is 25 the log keeping, sir. page 48 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, very good. 2 Cross-examined by MR HOLMES 3 Q. If I can ask you first, when you said in evidence 4 yesterday that when you went into the house you 5 initially noticed disturbance to any items that were in 6 there, can I ask did you subsequently notice whether any 7 items had been moved or removed from the house? 8 A. I was aware that, obviously, there had been a Christmas 9 present that had been torn and there had been a square 10 area in dust where an object had at one point been. 11 When I mean I didn't see a sign of disturbance, I 12 mean by that a physical disturbance, a fight, a plant 13 pot knocked over, a lamp knocked to the ground and 14 broken, glasses broken. That's the type of thing I 15 mean. I don't mean like a -- I don't mean an ornament, 16 for example, had been slightly moved on a unit. That 17 wasn't what I was looking for. I was looking for had 18 there been an act of physical violence in the front 19 living room or the back bedroom or upstairs. That's 20 what I was looking for. 21 Q. But it appeared to you -- you mentioned a square in 22 dust; is that right, that -- 23 A. We didn't notice that initially. I think I'm right in 24 saying it was maybe two or three days into the inquiry 25 that I think we'd -- we were trying to establish through page 49 1 Marion's family and through the search of the house and 2 from receipts she'd retained if there was anything 3 missing from the house at all. I think at that point in 4 time we then started to pay attention to -- obviously 5 the scene of crime expanded if there was any kind of 6 appearance that something was missing from the house, an 7 ornament or, you know, tins or where she kept her money, 8 where she kept her bags, that type of thing. 9 Q. The second thing I would like to ask you about relates 10 to the log keeping. You spoke to my learned friend, 11 Miss Carmichael, about a part of your precognition to 12 the Procurator Fiscal. I wonder if we could have that 13 back up on the screen, please. It's CO2592, page 5. 14 The paragraph that you have spoken about: 15 "I am asked about the log officers at the locus ... 16 they didn't really have much of a clue what they were 17 doing." 18 Do you recall saying that to the Fiscal? 19 A. No, not in those words, no. In those days there was, as 20 I said yesterday, an assumed knowledge. You get initial 21 training when you join the police about what you should 22 do at a crime scene and what tasks you may be assigned 23 at a crime scene. You know, one of the times you're 24 expected to put your hands in your pockets as part of a 25 disciplined organisation and when to do that but that's page 50 1 the one occasion you should be doing that. So you 2 assume that police officers know what to do when they're 3 assigned the job of log keeper at the scene is logging 4 in and out individuals and the reason why that 5 individual was there. It's one of the few occasions 6 over the years and it has happened where a constable 7 could challenge a Chief Superintendent and order the 8 Chief Superintendent not to enter the crime scene and it 9 happens fairly regularly these days. Then I'm not so 10 sure about, but now it does happen. So that's the 11 benefit of the additional training. 12 So with the subsequent -- when I subsequently got to 13 see the logs and listening to rumours of individuals 14 doodling on logs and urinating at the side of the house 15 and stories like that, I formed the opinion that they 16 didn't really know what they were doing because on other 17 occasions I would have expected them to patrol the 18 grounds of 43 Irvine Road, and perhaps even engage with 19 the community at 43 Irvine Road with people laying 20 flowers and tributes to Marion Ross at the front, but I 21 was not aware of any of that happening. 22 Q. So would you accept that that's not exactly the approach 23 that was taken at the time? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Because you have already spoken about the issue with page 51 1 magazines making their way from the house into the 2 porch. 3 A. And individuals being cold as well and going in and 4 switching the heating on was another example. 5 Q. So there were errors in the log keeping at the house? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. The Procurator Fiscal involved in the indictment of 8 Shirley McKie for perjury has described the log keeping 9 in this case as an absolute shambles. 10 Would you say that's a fair description? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. You mention at some stage in your evidence that you had 13 been in the house for a number of days and became 14 concerned that the gloves that you and other officers 15 had been using were substandard. Is that right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. How long, again, did you say that you were in the house 18 for? 19 A. From recollection almost four weeks. 20 Q. To your knowledge are there any other officers who were 21 using those gloves whose fingerprints were lifted from 22 the house? 23 A. No. 24 Q. You mentioned earlier on that initially when the 25 controversy surfaced over Y7 you thought it might be page 52 1 yours because of the substandard gloves? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Did you ever mention that to anyone at that stage? 4 A. No, because I was confident in the system and when you 5 join the police you get your fingerprints taken. If you 6 join today you get your fingerprints and your DNA taken 7 for elimination purposes. So I was confident if it was 8 my print it would be identified. Nobody had taken 9 elimination prints from me but by examining the prints 10 taken from me when I joined the police. 11 Q. You have mentioned also at one stage you accessed the 12 house through the back. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did you require keys in order to do that? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Are you aware of any other officers who accessed the 17 house through the back? 18 A. No. We had a sterile area in the back bedroom which was 19 part of the extension and this was the one we used and 20 the patio doors gave an access to it so I'm not aware 21 of -- you would have to have got permission from the 22 production keeper to get the keys in the first place, 23 you know, to get keys to get in back door. So I'm not 24 aware of any officer accessing via the rear. 25 Q. How easy was it to access the rear of the house? page 53 1 A. Well, there's two ways. You could go down the driveway 2 of the house, towards the garage and then turn to your 3 left and that gives you access to the back garden and, 4 therefore, the back doors. There was a back door and I 5 think two patio doors, one onto a rear living room, one 6 onto a rear bedroom, or you would have to either -- 7 well, you would have to climb into neighbours' gardens 8 either at the rear or either side and climb the fence 9 and get into the garden. 10 Q. You wouldn't necessarily have to do that though to get 11 to the back of the property? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Just one final thing: you are certain although you are 14 not certain of the time, that at some stage during the 15 day, despite the fact that she does not make an 16 appearance in the log that Ms McKie was at the house? 17 A. Yes, in the porch, yes. 18 MR HOLMES: Thank you. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Macpherson? 20 MR MACPHERSON: I wonder if I may seek to clarify or raise 21 two minor issues: one is the attitude of the police to 22 an officer's print being found at the locus and the 23 other is simply in relation to the location of the 24 garage that has been referred to. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, you may ask both topics. page 54 1 Cross-examined by MR MACPHERSON 2 Q. Mr Kerr, if I can just to raise these two points with 3 you, please. As you have explained, you had a 4 suspicion, if I can put it that way, that the mark was 5 found might have been your own. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. If that had been the case, what would the consequences 8 have been? 9 A. Nothing. 10 Q. For you personally? 11 A. No. 12 Q. What was the attitude of the police to an officer's 13 print being found at the locus in those circumstances if 14 that had happened? 15 A. It is one of these things that happen, particularly when 16 you're told that there's an issue with wearing one set 17 of latex gloves and it's not the first time. In fact, 18 invariably, if you were doing volume crime scene 19 examinations you would actually put your registered 20 number down on the form submitting the fingerprints 21 because you would make an assumption that your prints 22 may be there, therefore, you would look to eliminate 23 yourself from the crime scene, so you would put down 24 your registered number for the SCRO to be aware that you 25 were at the scene legitimately. page 55 1 Q. Thank you. 2 Then turning briefly to the question of the garage 3 that you referred to, you explained that log keepers 4 might leave premises, locking them and go to the garage 5 to go to the toilet or buy refreshments. 6 How far away was the garage from the locus? 7 A. 30 yards -- almost across the road and maybe three or 8 four houses up. You could see it from the house. Well, 9 you could see actually from the garden, front garden, of 10 the house. 11 MR MACPHERSON: Thank you. I have no further questions. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Miss Grahame? 13 MISS GRAHAME: Yes, I would like to ask some questions if I 14 may. In relation to the timings, I would like to 15 clarify some ambiguities in relation to some of the 16 answers given to my learned friend, Miss Carmichael. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 18 MISS GRAHAME: And to clarify something in relation to his 19 evidence at the trial. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I agree. 21 Cross-examined by MISS GRAHAME 22 Q. I am obliged. 23 You have given evidence earlier today about the 24 Fiscal speaking to you during the McKie trial prior to 25 you actually giving evidence and you've indicated or you page 56 1 have been asked about the Fiscal asking you about 2 Saturday, 11th January 1997 and the timings of when you 3 saw Ms McKie in the locus. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. I would like to ask you about one of the answers you 6 gave and for those of us who have the LiveNote 7 transcript, this starts at page 26, line 22 and you were 8 asked a question by my learned friend, Miss Carmichael: 9 "What's noted in the precognition and what I think 10 it might be fair to assume the Fiscal thought your 11 evidence might be going to be was that you had seen 12 Ms McKie there at 1.30. 13 "Were you asked about that?" 14 Your answer, which then is at the top of page 27 is 15 noted as: 16 "I cannot remember. I can't remember asking me 17 about the actual 1.30 time but she -- had she asked me 18 about it I would have told her it wouldn't be 1.30 19 anyway. It was dusk in my memory, not dark, it was 20 dusk, and the football was on or about to start. The 21 radio played football show or the radio Scotland one -- 22 one of the two. So they started at 2 in the afternoon." 23 Do you recollect that answer? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Is it fair to say that from the answer you gave to that page 57 1 question that you cannot remember who the Fiscal was? 2 A. No, I can't remember who the Fiscal was. 3 Q. You can't remember whether the Fiscal was male or 4 female? 5 A. No. 6 Q. You can't remember what the Fiscal actually said to you? 7 A. I can only remember the Fiscal trying to tie me down to 8 a specific time which I couldn't do. But the only thing 9 I can refer to was the fact that the football was on on 10 the radio. 11 Q. Is it possible that the person you spoke to was a Mr Ian 12 Bradley, the Sitting Manager? 13 A. It could have been; it could have been. 14 Q. Do you know Mr Bradley? 15 A. No. 16 Q. You were later asked about this issue again and, again, 17 for those of us with the transcript it's at page 28, 18 line 10. 19 You were asked the question: 20 "Do you remember anything of the sort or perhaps 21 thinking again about the timing after the Fiscal had 22 spoken to you but before you actually came to give 23 evidence in court?" 24 Your answer was: 25 "I think the Fiscal tried to reinforce the fact that page 58 1 how was I sure it could have been 1.30 in the afternoon. 2 I told the Fiscal it couldn't have been 1.30 in the 3 afternoon because the football was on. So I was 4 reasonably comfortable in the fact it was later on in 5 the afternoon, the time of which, the specific time I 6 don't know and I've never said a time when I thought she 7 was at the house." 8 That's the answer that you gave. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Is it possible that what you said to the Fiscal was that 11 you saw Shirley McKie at the house when you were there 12 on Saturday, 11th January 1997? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. You did say that? 15 A. To the Fiscal? 16 Q. To the Fiscal. 17 A. That I'd saw ...? 18 Q. You saw Shirley McKie at the house on Saturday, 11th 19 January 1997? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. When you were there? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. But you did not mention to the Fiscal that you couldn't 24 have seen her at the house at 1.30 pm? 25 A. Yes, that's possible. I'm not -- I can't remember the page 59 1 Fiscal suggesting times to me. I can remember the 2 Fiscal trying to tie me down to a time when -- bearing 3 in mind this about ten minutes before going into the 4 High Court. I remember the Fiscal trying to tie me down 5 to a time to clarify a point but I couldn't tell the 6 Fiscal there was a time. 7 Q. So you couldn't give the Fiscal specific timings? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Is it possible that you did not say to the Fiscal it 10 couldn't have been -- you couldn't have seen Shirley 11 McKie at the house at that specific time, 1.30, because 12 you were listening to the football on the radio and that 13 started after 3.00 pm? Is it possible you didn't say 14 that? 15 A. Yes, it's possible. It all depends on the Fiscal's line 16 of questions to me in trying to pin me down to a time. 17 Q. But it's possible you weren't specific about the timings 18 with the Fiscal? 19 A. Yes, it is because, as far as I can recollect, any 20 statement I've given I've not referred to a time on 21 Saturday afternoon, other than that -- 22 Q. I will come on to that. 23 A. Sorry. 24 Q. I will come on to that in a moment. 25 In relation to this I would like to clarify another page 60 1 specific part of that answer which you just gave again 2 just to repeat it. For those with LiveNote it is 3 page 28, line 20. You said as part of that answer: 4 "I've never said a time when I thought she was at 5 the house." 6 If we hear evidence during this Inquiry at a later 7 stage from the Advocate Depute who prosecuted Ms McKie 8 that during your evidence at the trial you said you saw 9 her at the house at 5.00 pm or about 5.00 pm, would you 10 disagree with that evidence? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Would you accept if the Advocate Depute says that in 13 evidence that that is true? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. That is what you said? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Just turning your previous statements, if I may, do you 18 accept that in the first statement -- and you have been 19 referred this in some detail by my learned friend, 20 Miss Carmichael -- that was a statement from 21 10th April 1997, that there's no reference in that 22 statement to you seeing Ms McKie on 11th January 1997? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Turning to the second statement you were referred to, 25 dated 12th July 1997, and perhaps we could have this on page 61 1 the screen if I may, CO2593 at page 5, if you just give 2 me a moment I will find the section. 3 Yes, it's the first paragraph and it states: 4 "Some time in the afternoon I was working in the 5 rear bedroom and was going from there to the middle 6 living room to get some bags for productions when, as I 7 crossed the hall, I saw Detective Constable Cardwell 8 standing in the porch. She was speaking to the 9 uniformed officer on the door who was logging the 10 visitors. I cannot recall who he was." 11 Then later on page 5 in paragraph 2 at line 3 it 12 says: 13 "I only glanced at Detective Constable Cardwell, 14 then entered the middle living room and went through it 15 into bedroom number 3 where we kept the bags. I never 16 thought anything about it. Then I returned to the 17 bedroom to continue my work. I did not see Detective 18 Constable Cardwell enter the house and I did not see her 19 in the porch when I came back from collecting the bags." 20 That's what is stated in that statement of 21 12th July; is that correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. So, again, there's no specific timings given in that 24 statement? 25 A. No. page 62 1 Q. Then finally may I look at the precognition taken by 2 Denise Greaves which is CO2592 and if we may look at 3 page 5 and, again, paragraph 1, line 1: 4 "In my opinion, it would have looked to her as if 5 the examination of the hall had been completed. That 6 examination would include the bathroom door. I think 7 Shirley Cardwell was there about 1.30 pm. I left the 8 locus about 3.00 pm-ish because of the backlog of 9 productions. My reason for thinking that was the time 10 was that the production room at Kilmarnock was along 11 from the TV room and I recall that there was a rugby 12 match on during the afternoon. I did not see Shirley 13 Cardwell or speak to her after that." 14 So, again, can I ask you to confirm there's no 15 reference in this precognition to you seeing Shirley 16 McKie at the house at 5.00 pm on 11th January 1997? 17 A. No. 18 Q. According to the precognition, your version, at the time 19 of giving this precognition, was that you left the locus 20 at 3.00 pm-ish; that would appear to be correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And you then went to the production room at Kilmarnock? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Does it not say: 25 "My reason for thinking that was the time was that page 63 1 the production room at Kilmarnock was along from the TV 2 room ..."? 3 A. Yes, the production room at Kilmarnock was used Jim 4 Kirkland and Allan Stevens. 5 Q. Is the -- 6 A. I wouldn't have went to the production room at 7 Kilmarnock with items from the house. 8 Q. It may be my wrong interpretation but is the production 9 room along from the TV room in Kilmarnock? 10 A. It is indeed or it was then. 11 Q. But it doesn't say there that you went to the production 12 room. That was maybe my mistake. It simply says the 13 production room was along from the TV room. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And that you saw a match. 16 A. Well, it infers I was at the production room, does it 17 not, when I'm speaking about a rugby match being in the 18 TV room. 19 Q. I would not wish to make any suggestion or inferences to 20 you at this stage. We may be hearing evidence about 21 this precognition in due course. But it also states in 22 the final sentence of this paragraph in the precognition 23 that you did not see Shirley Cardwell or speak to her 24 after that. 25 Do you see that line? page 64 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. That would appear to be after leaving the locus about 3 3.00 pm-ish? 4 A. Yes. 5 MISS GRAHAME: Thank you very much. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Smith? 7 MR SMITH: Yes, sir, I have a few questions if I may, a few 8 questions regarding the management of the scene. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 10 MR SMITH: Secondly, some questions that relate to documents 11 available to the public and this witness's attitude 12 towards Shirley McKie and I think it's quite important. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 14 MR SMITH: I've one question relating to what is supposed to 15 have been said by this witness to Mr Les Brown. Those 16 are the elements I would like to deal with if I may. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Very good. I will give you leave to deal 18 with those matters. 19 MR SMITH: Thank you, sir. 20 Cross-examined by MR SMITH 21 Q. Mr Kerr, you have answered a number of questions earlier 22 about what may or may not have been said by you to 23 Mr Brown. I understand your position is that you think 24 you didn't say anything to Mr Brown. 25 A. No. page 65 1 Q. I would just like to clarify one matter. I don't think 2 we need to call this up but in the paragraph that we 3 were looking at earlier, I will just read it out, this 4 is Mr Brown's statement, not your statement, Mr Brown 5 says: 6 "I did speak to a SOCO officer, Officer Kerr, who 7 confirmed that he heard PC Lees and Shirley McKie having 8 a heated discussion in the porch of the locus." 9 I know you say that you didn't say anything to 10 Mr Brown but can I ask you when you say you did see 11 Shirley McKie you told us you saw her at the locus, was 12 there any heated discussion going on between her and the 13 officer at the door? 14 A. No. 15 Q. So that is not only not said but was wrong factually? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Thank you. 18 I would like to ask you if I can just a few 19 questions about the management of the scene. I think 20 you explained to us that we can see in various documents 21 it was about 4.00 pm on Thursday 8th January 1997 that 22 you say you were delegated responsibility as officer in 23 charge of the locus at about that time-frame. Is that 24 right. 25 A. Yes, it started on the 9th. page 66 1 Q. Well, perhaps in fairness we can call up document 2 CO2592, page 1, please. 3 We can see bears to be a statement, precognition, so 4 again we have seen bits of this before and I am just 5 asking for your comment, if you agree the timing's about 6 right. 7 Do you see the paragraph in the middle of the page 8 commencing, "At lunchtime ..."; do you see that? 9 A. "At lunchtime", yes. 10 Q. "... I was told that the death of Marion Ross was a 11 murder inquiry. DI McAllister and DCI Heath were 12 responsible for delegating duties. I was told to seal 13 the house and tape up the outside and carry out a 14 systematic search of the house in conjunction with the 15 IB." 16 Now again, I think this precognition is one that you 17 have only some recollection of the detail of this, this 18 is a precognition which I'm assuming was given to the 19 Crown in connection with criminal proceedings. 20 Can I ask you first of all in that paragraph I just 21 read do you agree that that's about right? Does that 22 seem to be factually correct? 23 A. No. 24 Q. What's wrong with it? 25 A. My recollection of events are that it's obviously page 67 1 Thursday 9th January. I don't know whether that's a 2 typing error or not but Thursday 9th January I commenced 3 duties about 8.00 in the morning, which was about 4 12 hours after Marion Ross' body had been discovered and 5 I was immediately directed to Kilmarnock Police 6 Office -- 7 Q. Can I ask you to lean closer to the microphone? 8 A. Sorry. I was directed to Kilmarnock Police Office in 9 the morning and I received a briefing in the morning 10 that there was a suspicious death at 43 Irvine Road and 11 I was then assigned to duties at 43 Irvine Road, not at 12 4.00 on Thursday afternoon. 13 Q. Very well and you are quite right. I think we see in 14 the next paragraph there was a reference to Thursday as 15 8th January, not Thursday 9th at the top of the page. 16 I am actually interested in the question of who was 17 delegating responsibilities. You say DI McAllister and 18 DCI Heath were responsible for delegating duties. That 19 much is right, I take it, is it? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You explain or it is said in the next paragraph -- I am 22 sorry, you explained -- there seem to be one or two 23 obvious errors in this precognition -- but it says here 24 that you recall: 25 "... there was a briefing meeting about 4.00 pm on page 68 1 Thursday 8th January and tasks were delegated at this 2 meeting. I was delegated responsibility as officer in 3 charge of the locus and when I had been at the locus 4 earlier there had already been a log officer on the 5 door. I was in charge of the search of the house 6 finding clues as to the identification of the killer." 7 Can I ask this: you clearly were delegated by 8 someone the task, as you explained to us earlier, of 9 being in charge of the locus. 10 Who was it that delegated that to you? 11 A. DCI Heath. 12 Q. It was definitely DCI Heath himself? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Do you know who, if anyone, had preceded you, who was 15 just before you, as it were, in charge of the locus? 16 Was anyone in charge of the locus? 17 A. My recollection of that is that Marion Ross had been 18 found, there'd been obviously officers attended 19 initially for assessment and she had been taken from the 20 house for post-mortem examination and the police had 21 cordoned off that specific area and I would be the first 22 person to actually be put in charge of the house in that 23 area. 24 Q. So your understanding at least was prior to you being 25 delegated and taking up the task of what we now call a page 69 1 Crime Scene Manager, I think, is the phrase that's used 2 there really wasn't anyone except a police officer who 3 was at the door guarding it, for want of a better 4 phrase. Is that fair? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. You have explained in your evidence that certain aspects 7 of the management of the scene, I am not directing 8 criticism at you but certain things that were going on 9 were causing you some concerns. We've looked at some 10 statements, some of which you have agreed are correct, 11 for example, the Hello magazines being used, the heating 12 being put on, that kind of thing. 13 I take it that you were less than pleased with the 14 circumstances in many respects which may have been 15 interfering with possible investigation; is that right? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Did you report that to anyone officially? 18 A. Well, I didn't know about the heating until after the 19 inquiry. It came out at a discipline inquiry or a 20 subsequent trial. I can't remember which but I didn't 21 know about the heating or the doodling, that type of 22 thing, until after my duties were finished at 43 Irvine 23 Road. 24 I knew about the magazines, obviously, and I'd 25 raised that with, I believe -- at a briefing which would page 70 1 be taken by DCI Heath or DI McAllister of the movement 2 of the articles and I believe they raised the issues 3 with the supervisory officers who ultimately had line 4 management responsibility for the log keepers. 5 Q. You see, I think we have heard some information that has 6 been presented to this Inquiry suggesting that some 7 police officers overnight had been in what was described 8 as the living room within the premises. 9 I am not sure exactly how this would affect the time 10 you were in charge of it but as far as something like 11 that is concerned, were you unaware of that at that 12 time? 13 A. I was unaware of that, yes. 14 Q. I think you also mention some Serious Crime officers who 15 arrived? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Did they get into the house? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. How far into the house? 20 A. Right down the hall to the bottom of the stairs. 21 Q. And they were not dressed appropriately? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Just in ordinary clothes? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. I think you told us that they told you at least they had page 71 1 been directed to go and uplift the motor vehicle, the 2 car that belonged to Miss Ross; is that right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Did you understand what on earth they required to come 5 into the house for in order to remove a motor vehicle? 6 A. No. 7 Q. The vehicle was in the garage, I take it, was it? 8 A. Correct. They would have to locate the keys which 9 ultimately would have been in the house but they should 10 have waited at the gate to the grounds of 43 Irvine Road 11 and indicated to the officer that they were there to 12 uplift the vehicle. 13 Q. And as far as that is concerned, were you a bit short 14 with them, were you? 15 A. You could say that, yes. 16 Q. What was the response? 17 A. Their response were that they'd been directed from 18 Glasgow down to uplift the vehicle and that they were 19 merely -- it was a chain of custody issue that they 20 would escort the vehicle back up for scene examination 21 at Paisley, I believe. 22 Q. I am more interested in your position. I presume you 23 told them they had to leave the house immediately 24 because they weren't appropriately dressed and shouldn't 25 be in it? page 72 1 A. I didn't have any discussions with them in the house. I 2 told them to leave the house and I'd discuss why they 3 were there, why they were actually in the house, 4 outside. 5 Q. Is this something that you consider one understands to 6 be difficult but the log keeper, the door keeper, 7 perhaps should have said, "You're not coming in. You 8 need to wait here until I find out whether you're 9 allowed in"? Do you consider it was really the man at 10 the door who was the first line to stop this happening? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did you happen to raise it with the door keeper at the 13 time saying, "Listen, you can't let anyone in"; is that 14 fair? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Do you recall at that stage when the Serious Crime Squad 17 officers came along, do you recall who the door keeper 18 was who was responsible for that? 19 A. No, I don't, unfortunately. I can't remember at the 20 time. We dealt with the issue, spoke to the Scene of 21 Crime(sic) officers, we raised it -- I raised it at the 22 briefing that night, I took the car out and put it onto 23 a low loader because they came down with, you know, 24 accompanied by a contractor to take the vehicle away, 25 put it onto a low loader and they went away and then I page 73 1 addressed the issue with the log keeper. 2 Q. So undoubtedly, as you have explained to us, something 3 that was raised at a higher level and you say at the 4 briefing? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. I take it Mr Heath was at the briefing, was he? 7 A. Well, it's so long ago that the briefing would either be 8 taken by Mr McAllister or Mr Heath. What one was there 9 I'm not sure about now, but one of them would be there, 10 as well as the office manager. 11 Q. I think you have readily accepted that the log itself is 12 substandard; there are things that should have been on 13 it that are not? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You mentioned something about suggestions of doodling on 16 it or something. 17 Is that something you have actually seen on the log? 18 Are you saying that, having seen the log, it's not 19 there? 20 A. I recall seeing pats of the logs that were used in 21 Shirley McKie's trial. One was of a doodle of a 22 matchstick man or a motor vehicle of some kind on the 23 log. That is when, you know, again, the issues of 24 urinating, putting the heating on, moving magazines was 25 again raised during that trial. page 74 1 Q. You said something about maybe some disciplinary thing 2 took place. 3 Are you talking about some disciplinary action taken 4 after Shirley McKie's trial? 5 A. Well, I think it was fair to state there were various 6 log keepers, in my opinion, during the subsequent McKie 7 trial had issues with Discipline investigating them for 8 instances of neglect of duty or conduct unbecoming of a 9 police officer or some other disciplinary action. 10 Q. Are you saying you know that took place after the McKie 11 trial? 12 A. No, I knew that there was a threat to them. I don't 13 know if it actually took place once -- the investigation 14 took place once the trial had finished but I know it was 15 a threat to them. 16 Q. You were asked a good deal of questions about your 17 movements at various times and whether you were at 18 Kilmarnock Police Station or whether you had your lunch, 19 wherever you had it and so on. 20 I take it that's something that would be in your 21 notebook, would it, where you were at various times on 22 that day? 23 A. No, it's mainly in the logs that I kept, which were 24 major incident log manuals. Again, coming on and off 25 duty you'd be signed on and off at the incident room page 75 1 when you would attend in the morning for the briefing 2 and then go about your duties in Irvine Road you 3 expected the log keeper, obviously, to keep a record of 4 when you come in and out, and you kept a log in the 5 house of all the items you seized during the course of 6 that day which were appropriately labelled and bagged 7 and sealed in the, then, the appropriate manner. 8 Q. Thank you. You have reminded me there is something I 9 needed to ask you about, this question of the area of 10 dust. Remember you were asked about an area that became 11 of interest. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. I think you said it was a few days into the inquiry that 14 that was focused in of as being, perhaps, of importance? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. I take it that it wasn't just someone passing and 17 thinking, "Goodness me, that might be interesting", it 18 was fully investigated, was it? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. No doubt they tried to work out what item may have come 21 from there? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. I am sure you know that there's a suggestion of a tin in 24 this case? 25 A. Yes. page 76 1 Q. And as far as that's concerned, I take it you would 2 ordinarily have expected someone to check that the tin 3 fitted the dist, if I put it that way; is that right? 4 A. Yes, I think that would have happened at some point in 5 time. 6 Q. The last thing I want to ask you about is your position 7 of generally how you got on with Shirley McKie. 8 Can you explain to us, up until this point when the 9 investigation was ongoing within the house, is she 10 someone you had known before? 11 A. Yes, I knew Shirley for a number of years. I hadn't 12 worked with her directly -- I think once, in fact, I 13 worked with her directly on a murder inquiry but she was 14 based at Kilmarnock and I was based mainly on the coast, 15 at Irvine or Saltcoats. So I knew her and I always 16 found her pleasant. 17 Q. I think you say in your statement -- I don't need to 18 show you this, it's in paragraph 42 -- that you got on 19 all right with the Detective Constable McKie you worked 20 with her before and so on and just generally everything 21 seemed to be fine. 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. The reason I ask you this, Mr Kerr, is I would like your 24 comments on the note to something that may end up in the 25 public arena at some stage just to see whether you have page 77 1 any comment on it. 2 Can I ask you to look at a document that is CO2592 3 which I think we have looked at already. This is a 4 statement, precognition, that you have some issues with 5 but can you go to the end of it, please. It is actually 6 page 6 -- sorry, it's the next one. 7 We can see after the word "truth" in the middle, do 8 you see just about the middle of the page at the start 9 of that we have a note -- I will just read it out for 10 the record: 11 "This officer discussed matters off the record 12 although he didn't say that they required to be kept off 13 the record. It was his opinion that Shirley 14 Cardwell had possibly visited the premises for whatever 15 reason and had relieved one of the log officers to allow 16 that officer to visit the garage to purchase goods or to 17 go to the toilet. His impression was that Shirley 18 Cardwell would have thought the examination of the hall 19 had been completed as it looked that way and that she 20 would just simply enter the hall when the log officer 21 wasn't present. It is his opinion that no log officer 22 will compromise his position to admit that he deserted 23 his post." 24 It goes on to say that: 25 "This officer was a very down to earth character and page 78 1 was clearly not impressed by Shirley Cardwell. The 2 precognoscer gained the impression this officer felt 3 that Shirley Cardwell thought she was better than him 4 and she thought it was only a matter of time before she 5 was promoted high in the police ranks." 6 Obviously, that's someone else's impression in many 7 respects of what they say they felt about you. I am 8 sure wouldn't quarrel with the officer being a very down 9 to earth character but as far as the rest of it is 10 concerned I take it you agree with me that there is a 11 suggestion that you might have been speculating as to 12 her entering the premises without permission. You see 13 that that is suggested that you were prepared to 14 speculate to that effect. 15 A. I was asked to elaborate on rumours and gossip. I can 16 recall that. I was also asked about fingerprints and 17 movement of them, which I notice is not recorded as off 18 the record or otherwise. I would have said, Shirley, I 19 always found very pleasant. I would have said Shirley 20 was ambitious because I believe she would have wanted to 21 emulate her father in the Police Service. Certainly if 22 my father had been a Superintendant in the police I 23 would have wanted to emulate him as well. 24 I would not have said that I thought she was better 25 than me or anybody else. She'd sat her police exams and page 79 1 went and did her HNC Police Studies so, you know, she 2 expected to get promoted but, you know, there's a few in 3 the same boat. 4 Q. I think all I'm asking you is that if this person had 5 the impression you didn't really like Shirley McKie or 6 Shirley Cardwell then that person was wrong. You had no 7 animosity towards her whatever? 8 A. No. 9 Q. And the comment on rumours and so on that were going on, 10 you've no doubt heard some discussion already that 11 people were trying to come up with an idea as to when 12 she could have gone in to leave the fingerprint. You 13 understand that that's what was the chat. 14 Is that the kind of rumours you were referring to? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And you were almost being invited by the person taking 17 the statement to join in with that, I suppose, and say, 18 well, how could it have been done? Is that -- 19 A. Yes. It was speculation about motives and opportunity 20 to get into the house, yes. 21 MR SMITH: Thank you very much. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Anything further you want to ask? 23 Re-examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 24 Q. Mr Kerr, just as a matter of interest, can you remember 25 where the square in the dust was? page 80 1 A. Bedside cabinet, I think. 2 Q. Just to clarify another matter, you have mentioned two 3 patio doors and a back door. Which of these doors were 4 you using? 5 A. The new one. It was a PVC. The other one was 6 aluminium-framed. So the PVC, the new extension at the 7 back, as you look at the rear of the house to the right, 8 there's a new extension which had a bedroom in it and I 9 was using that. 10 Q. So you were using a UPVC door that went directly into a 11 bedroom? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. I would like to clarify with you further something that 14 was raised with you by Miss Grahame and I think I need 15 to take you back, first of all, to something that I 16 asked you and I will just put the exact passage to you 17 which is, for those with LiveNote, at page 32.1. 18 Now, I'd asked you, Mr Kerr -- I think I'd drawn 19 your attention to part of the Advocate Depute's 20 statement to this Inquiry and I asked you: 21 "Do you recall giving evidence to the effect that 22 Ms McKie was at the house at around 5.00 pm that day, 23 because that is what the Advocate Depute seems to 24 remember." 25 Your answer was: page 81 1 "I don't remember giving a specific time. I keep 2 relying on, and did then as well, relying on the seizing 3 of the door handles, obtaining the shoe boxes and the 4 radio being on in the house with the football on. So 5 times, as I say, I couldn't say the time to anybody, the 6 Procurator Fiscal at a precognition or in the High 7 Court, you know. He might have said something like, 8 'Could it have been round about 5.00?' Aye, it could 9 have been because the football was on. Other than that, 10 I don't know." 11 Miss Grahame asked you some further questions about 12 this which, again for those with LiveNote, are at 13 page 58.10 and the question that Miss Grahame asked you 14 was: 15 "If we hear evidence during this Inquiry at a later 16 stage from the Advocate Depute who prosecuted Ms McKie 17 that during your evidence at the trial you said you saw 18 her at the house at 5.00 pm or about 5.00 pm, would you 19 disagree with that evidence?" 20 Your answer was no. 21 What I would like to clarify with you is this: if I 22 can put it this way, Mr Kerr, one can be asked about 23 timing in different ways. Someone might ask you, "What 24 time did you see Ms McKie?" and you might say, "At about 25 5.00" or someone might, as I think you've suggested, page 82 1 say, "Could it have been about 5.00 that you saw 2 Ms McKie?" and you might say, "Yes." 3 Now, what I would like is your best recollection as 4 to the way you were asked about the timing in the trial 5 by the Advocate Depute. 6 A. Well, it was a closed question rather than an open one 7 as far as I can recollect. "Could it have been about 8 5.00?" Could have been -- could have been. 9 Q. Just to try to be quite clear about who asked you this 10 question, are you quite clear that that would have been 11 the Advocate Depute, the prosecuting counsel, in the 12 High Court rather than the defence counsel who I think 13 you know was Mr Findlay QC? 14 A. Mr Findlay didn't ask me any questions -- as far as I 15 can remember. 16 Q. Can you actually recall being asked a closed question 17 along the lines of, "Could you have seen Shirley McKie 18 at about 5.00?" 19 A. No. 20 Q. Are you speculating? 21 A. Speculating that it was a closed question and I would 22 have answered, "It could have been." 23 Q. I just want to be quite clear what it is you were saying 24 to Miss Grahame, that you would not disagree if the 25 Advocate Depute comes and tells us that you gave page 83 1 evidence that you saw Shirley McKie at 5.00. I don't 2 want you to particularly speculate or to say anything 3 that you don't remember but I'd just like to be clear as 4 to why you wouldn't disagree with that. 5 A. I wouldn't disagree with it because my thought processes 6 in the Advocate Depute saying that is that he's asked me 7 a closed question and I've given my reply as agreeing 8 with that. I do not think I've ever came out and said I 9 saw Shirley at the house at 5.00 because, as I've said 10 consistently throughout the 12 year, I have no -- I 11 cannot pinpoint specific times in relation to specific 12 duties. 13 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you for that. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Just one matter that maybe you could clear up 15 for me. When you come on duty during an incident, you 16 sign on in the incident room; is that right? 17 A. Yes. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: And when you finish duty you sign off again 19 in the same place? 20 A. Yes. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: And is that in some record book that's kept 22 there? 23 A. It's a Force document which is a Major Incident Duty 24 Sheet and there are sections for name, your number, time 25 on duty, time off duty and hours worked, if you like, page 84 1 and there's one for each day that major incident runs. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: I realise it's a long time ago but have you 3 in the interim had an opportunity to look and see what 4 hours you actually worked on that day? That's the 5 Saturday. 6 A. Well, I was off duty on the Sunday and I do recall 7 claiming overtime for at least the first two weeks of 8 the inquiry. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Would that mean that you might have finished 10 at 6.00 or -- 11 A. Yes. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Would that be the usual time to finish if you 13 were -- 14 A. Well, I would think 6.00 on a Saturday night would have 15 been early. It would usually have been the first 7 to 16 14 days of an inquiry of that magnitude would have 17 easily have been 12-hour shifts, if not more than that. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: I am not familiar with the practice in 19 Strathclyde Police but I know in some Forces detectives 20 keep, or the one I'm familiar with, they keep what they 21 call a "journal" in which they record their working 22 hours and where they have been and what they have been 23 doing. 24 A. Yes. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything similar kept by officers page 85 1 in Strathclyde? 2 A. Well, if you were doing normal generic duties, you would 3 have your notebook, assigned specific duties during that 4 MI you would necessarily record everything in your 5 notebook because these are the documents to record your 6 daily duties. So that journal you're referring to is 7 probably going to be that Duty Sheet for that major 8 incident. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: So you wouldn't keep any form of record of 10 your own hours -- 11 A. No, because it's kept in the incident room and it's open 12 and you can refer to it at any point of time you require 13 it within, you know, a six-month period. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: I appreciate you could rely on that but I 15 just want to get it clear. You would not keep a journal 16 or whatever it's called; that wouldn't be the practice 17 in this jurisdiction or in the Strathclyde Force? 18 A. No, with times and dated and date-stamped; that type 19 kind of journal, no. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: No I didn't mean stamped or anything like 21 that, I mean something which you write yourself and keep 22 it as your own personal record of your duties that 23 you've performed. 24 A. It would normally have been a notebook, yes. But on 25 that occasion, because of the specific duties we were page 86 1 assigned, we didn't need to rely on the notebook. So I 2 might have recorded on and off duty on specific days in 3 that notebook, but I'm not 100 per cent sure. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: But are they kept or are they destroyed or 5 what happens? 6 A. They are kept for a certain period of time. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe not 12 years. 8 A. No. I think it's 6 plus 1 for notebooks, I think. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: But I was anxious for us to discover at some 10 time there was doubt of whether it was Friday or 11 Saturday and I was just wondering is that not something 12 you could have checked quite easily? 13 A. Yes, it could have been -- and I did because I had a log 14 of the items I'd taken from the house. In the April, I 15 didn't have access to the log and really, you know, up 16 until then, you know, up until Shirley's alleged print 17 was found, it wasn't really an issue. So, you know, you 18 only really -- your objective in the house was to 19 hopefully identify the culprit of who had murdered 20 Marion Ross and that was it. Nothing else. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Just turning to one other matter, from the 22 way you were able to, if I can use the expression, deal 23 with the officers who came down to seize the car, do I 24 take it that as a detective in your rank at that time 25 that you could say to plain clothes or to uniformed page 87 1 officers whether they were not doing their duty properly 2 or not? 3 A. Well, some detective constables might form that view. 4 We were all in the constable rank; so when I'm saying to 5 a log keeper, "Look, you need to do X, Y, or Z that" 6 it's the way you pitch it at them, I would say, and I 7 did not view myself as being their superior or their 8 supervisor in any way. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: The only reason I ask was because I got the 10 impression that you were prepared to remonstrate with 11 the officers who had come down from Glasgow to seize the 12 car. 13 A. Yes, because I knew they'd done something inherently 14 wrong. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: I see. 16 A. And I didn't know that the log keepers had done 17 anything, you know, inherently wrong. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: I see. Thank you very much. I think that 19 brings us close enough to 1.00 and thank you for your 20 assistance. So we will begin the next witness at 1.50. 21 (1.00 pm) 22 (Luncheon Adjournment) 23 (1.50 pm) 24 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, the next witness is Graeme McIntyre. 25 GRAEME WILLIAM McINTYRE (sworn) page 88 1 THE CHAIRMAN: And your full name? 2 A. Is Graeme William McIntyre. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Take a seat, please. 4 Examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 5 Q. Mr McIntyre, we have found it's quite hard to hear 6 people if they don't speak close into the microphone so 7 you might want to bring it close to you. 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. Mr McIntyre, you have given a signed statement to the 10 Inquiry already? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. You are happy that records your position on the matters 13 you were asked about? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. I would like to start by asking you just briefly about 16 what you say in paragraph 11 of your statement if you 17 can have a look at that, please, for me. It's at 18 page 3. What you say there is that: 19 "The SOCOs [the Scenes of Crimes Officers] DC Kerr 20 and [you] wore protective clothing at all times when 21 [you] were in the locus." 22 You go on to say: 23 "One of the SOCOs had explained to me that it was 24 possible to leave fingerprints even whilst wearing latex 25 gloves. Accordingly I would wear cotton gloves page 89 1 underneath, or two sets of latex gloves to avoid this 2 outcome." 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. What I would like to ask you is whether that is 5 something you did throughout the inquiry? 6 A. Yes, it is and still today. I don't wear the cotton 7 gloves but I always wear two pairs of latex gloves when 8 I'm at a major crime scene. 9 Q. The Inquiry has heard some evidence from your colleague, 10 Detective Constable Kerr, that he had initially been 11 wearing one set of latex gloves in the first day or two 12 of the inquiry into the murder of Marion Ross and at 13 that point some problem had then emerged about the latex 14 gloves and he had then moved to wearing a cloth glove 15 underneath the latex. 16 How does that accord with your recollection? 17 A. Yes, that would be correct, yes. I think initially 18 going in we would have had just the one pair of gloves 19 on and I think it was over time, talking to Scenes of 20 Crime Officers, they explained you can actually -- a 21 fingerprint could be left through the one latex glove 22 and from then on we wore the cotton gloves and double 23 gloves. 24 Q. So it wouldn't be right then to say then you wore double 25 gloves throughout the whole of the inquiry? page 90 1 A. No. 2 Q. Do you recall whether there was any problem with the 3 particular latex gloves you had in that inquiry or 4 whether you were told that there was a general problem 5 with wearing a single latex glove? 6 A. No. Latex gloves tend to -- they can be quite easily 7 ripped. 8 Q. What you write here was that the problem you were aware 9 of was that it might be possible to leave fingerprints 10 when you were wearing them. 11 A. Yes. That was the Scenes of Crime Officer at that time 12 had explained to us that you could leave through the one 13 single glove at that time. But up until the Scenes of 14 Crime Officer explaining that, I wasn't aware of that. 15 Q. I would like to ask you about paragraph 19 of your 16 statement and 11th January because you tell us, I think, 17 that you were at the locus on 11th January. 18 What Mr Kerr has said in his evidence is that as far 19 as the weekend days went you and he had decided to take 20 turn about so that he might be there, say, on a Saturday 21 and you would be there on a Sunday. 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Is what he says correct? 24 A. Yes. We split it. There would always be one of us 25 doing the Scenes of Crime or -- sorry, gathering page 91 1 productions so there was always one of us doing the job 2 but, yes, we had a split. One of us was off and one of 3 us was on so each of us would have a day off. 4 Q. 11th January was a Saturday and Mr Kerr has told us that 5 he was there that day. Now, does that affect what you 6 say about being at the locus on 11th January? 7 A. Yes. I was there the Sunday, I'm sure. 8 Q. Well, we can perhaps check that if we look at SG0537 9 starting at page 7 and I think the date change is not 10 recorded here but the first entry for 11th January is 11 the 02.45 entry and I think if we look certainly down 12 this list we see DC Kerr at 10.16? 13 A. 10.16 yes. 14 Q. And we don't see your name at all. If we move on to the 15 next sheet, again you will correct me if I'm wrong but I 16 think we don't see -- 17 A. DC Kerr, yes. You see, yes, myself and a David Thurley, 18 yes. 19 Q. I am sorry, I think we see the last entry for 11th 20 January at 23.00 a PC Hutchison arriving. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Then once we cross over into the next day I think you 23 appear at 11.20, two lines up from the bottom? 24 A. Yes, that's correct. 25 Q. So that would -- so to that extent your statement to the page 92 1 inquiry is not correct? 2 A. No. 3 Q. And you were there on the 12th -- 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. -- rather than on the 11th? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. So staying on paragraph 19, you say you do not recall 8 ever using shoe boxes and you are sure these were never 9 used. 10 A. Yes, that's correct. 11 Q. Could it be that they might have been used on a day you 12 weren't there? 13 A. That's correct, yes. 14 Q. So, again, in terms of being 100 per cent sure they were 15 never used -- 16 A. I never used them. I'm 100 per cent sure I never used 17 shoe boxes. They could have been used the day when I 18 wasn't on, yes. 19 Q. I think you were on duty on 14th January 1997? 20 A. I could have been. I would have been probably, if it 21 was the 12th, I would have probably been on for the days 22 after that before my next break. 23 Q. Do you remember being there on a day when marks were 24 found with black powder on the bathroom doorframe? 25 A. Yes. page 93 1 Q. Were you there when that happened? 2 A. No, I remember -- I can't say what day it was but I 3 remember that the Scenes of Crime Officers were around 4 the doorframe and they had found something which 5 obviously was a fingerprint but I can't say what day 6 that was. I just remember that there was -- they had 7 went over it and there was a fingerprint found because 8 they had been back over it, but I couldn't tell you what 9 day that was. 10 Q. Just thinking of the occasion when it happened then 11 without perhaps dwelling on the date, do you remember 12 anyone at the time it was found saying anything about 13 who the mark might belong to? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Now, there is one more matter that I'd like to ask you 16 about and that's about an occasion when you were there 17 after the main investigations had been completed and 18 Detective Inspector McAllister also was there? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. In your statement at paragraph 25, you tell us that you 21 can't remember exactly when the SOCOs work and the work 22 on productions was completed. However, it may have been 23 around two weeks after 9th January 1997." 24 You say: 25 "Around this time the locus was visited by DS page 94 1 McAllister"; do you think that should be DI McAllister? 2 A. DI McAllister. 3 Q. You say that you showed DI McAllister mark Y7. Do you 4 remember doing that? 5 A. Yes, I do. 6 Q. You record that you can't now remember if he said 7 anything about mark Y7? 8 A. No, I can't remember what was said. 9 Q. But when you were giving your statement, I think you 10 looked at the statement you had given on an earlier 11 occasion. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. If we could have CO1592 up, please, if you move to 14 page 2 in the first instance, we see this is a statement 15 by you taken by Chief Inspector Wilson on 10th July 1997 16 at 11.52 hours. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. If you can move to the next page, the paragraph, "A few 19 days later ..." Highlight that, please. 20 A. Yes, I see that paragraph. 21 Q. It is recorded: 22 "A few days later, towards the end of the inquiry, 23 probably in February 1997, Detective Inspector 24 McAllister came to look at the unidentified prints 25 found. I was working in the house and showed him them, page 95 1 including the one on the downstairs bathroom door 2 facing. He looked at it and said it looked like a child 3 or a female, but was not more explicit than that." 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Do you have any recollection now of that happening? 6 A. No, I don't. If I said it at the time on that statement 7 it would have happened but now I can't recollect it. 8 Q. The Inquiry's heard evidence that Mr McAllister attended 9 on 23rd January 1997 with a view to reviewing the 10 fingerprints. 11 Is it possible that the visit you're referring to 12 may have occurred on that date? 13 A. It may have. 14 Q. Do you remember Mr Moffat, a scenes of crimes officer, 15 being present on the day you were there with Detective 16 Inspector McAllister? 17 A. No, I can't. I can't remember that. 18 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you, Mr McIntyre. I don't have any 19 further questions. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any applications in respect of this 21 witness? 22 Can I ask you just one question about one thing: 23 finding a finger-mark isn't a matter of great excitement 24 when you are doing this sort of work. There's many of 25 them. Why was there particular interest in Y7 being page 96 1 found in your view? 2 A. I think because when I was there there had been the 3 silver dusting, aluminium dusting, and there had been 4 discussion over should they use another -- I remember 5 there being discussion over should they use another, the 6 carbon dust, because I think there was a discussion over 7 one maybe thought it was better than the aluminium 8 dusting and I think when they've done it in the carbon 9 dusting, I think it was, "See, you can find more 10 fingerprints with the carbon dusting". I think really 11 that was it. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: That was the reason you understood it to be? 13 A. Yes. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Very good. Thank you very much, Mr McIntyre. 15 (The witness withdrew) 16 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, the next witness is Allan Stevens. 17 ALLAN THOMAS STEVENS (sworn) 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Full name, please? 19 A. Allan Thomas Stevens. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Take a seat, please. 21 Examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 22 Q. Mr Stevens, we've found it can be quite hard to hear 23 people in the hall if they don't have the microphone 24 quite close to them. Thank you. 25 I think you have provided a signed statement to the page 97 1 Inquiry, Mr Stevens? 2 A. I did. 3 Q. Are you content, subject to anything that you might say 4 today that altered it, that that records your position 5 about the matters you were asked about? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. I would like to ask you just a little bit about what 8 your duties were in the inquiry into the murder of 9 Marion Ross? 10 A. I attended the post-mortem with DC Kirkland and 11 DC Kirkland informed DCI Heath of the result of the 12 post-mortem and from then on, we were made production 13 officers for the case. 14 Q. So what did your job as productions officer consist of? 15 A. It was mainly logging all the productions taken from 16 house and other sources, arranging for them to be 17 forensically examined and transporting them back and 18 forward to the forensic laboratories. 19 Q. We have heard evidence that a Detective Constable Kerr 20 was involved with the productions at the crime scene? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. Was your involvement at the crime scene or somewhere 23 else? 24 A. We were not allowed near the crime scene. We remained 25 at the office and accepted productions that were page 98 1 properly sealed and signed. 2 Q. So there was a separation of efforts: some officers 3 collected the items and brought them to you? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And you dealt with them back at the Police Office? 6 A. We did, yes. 7 Q. Now, I'd like to ask you about a production that you 8 handed out on a couple of occasions to a DC Cardwell or 9 McKie. 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. I think you have been asked about that in your 12 statement. 13 I would like to show you, please, a document SG0539. 14 Sir, this item although referred to in the witness's 15 statement is available only in hard copy today. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but it will go on the website? 17 MISS CARMICHAEL: There is an electronic version of it 18 available. I think it has simply been a matter of 19 oversight that it has not made it on to the database. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Good, as long as it goes eventually on to the 21 website. (Handed) 22 MISS CARMICHAEL: If I could have just a moment, sir. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. (Pause) 24 MISS CARMICHAEL: Have you got a hard copy yourself, 25 Mr Stevens? I just want to clarify whether this was page 99 1 what you were shown when you gave your statement. 2 A. I don't think it was these pages. 3 MISS CARMICHAEL: It may be there has been a mis-reference, 4 just possibly, in this witness's statement. I will try 5 to proceed without reference to the document, sir, for 6 the moment and we will try to clear up exactly what has 7 gone wrong here. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 9 MISS CARMICHAEL: If we go to paragraph 8 of your statement 10 you say that you recall that Detective Constable Shirley 11 Cardwell asked for the keys to the house on two 12 occasions. 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. You say the first time was at 17.40 on 9th January 1997. 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. What you say in the first instance here at paragraph 9 17 is that: 18 "Ms McKie or Cardwell came to the productions room 19 by herself saying that she could not get her head round 20 the layout of the locus and the boss (DCI Heath) said 21 that she could go and have a look round." 22 A. Yes, that was my recollection at the time. 23 Q. When you say your recollection at the time, is that -- 24 A. When I was giving this statement. 25 Q. When you were giving this statement that's what you page 100 1 recalled. Is the explanation about the boss being 2 DCI Heath yours? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. You go on to say: 5 "I noted details in the log and gave her the keys. 6 About ten minutes later, she came back saying that 7 DCI Heath had changed his mind. She handed the keys 8 back and the time was noted. I had been in the 9 production room the whole time but I assume that she did 10 not go to the locus because of what she said and the 11 short time she had the keys." 12 I think after giving that recollection when your 13 statement's been taken, Mr Stevens, you were shown some 14 statements you had given on previous occasions? 15 A. That's correct, yes. 16 Q. You refer to three here. I will take you to each of 17 these in turn. 18 If we can look at paragraph 10 of your statement, 19 please, we see that you record: 20 "I see that in one of these statements ..." that 21 would be one of 14th March 1997? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. You said that on requesting the keys on that date 24 DC Cardwell told you that she had an inquiry on the 25 instruction of DI McAllister and that you also say that page 101 1 when she returned the keys she told you that 2 DI McAllister had changed her instructions and she did 3 not require to go to the locus? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. I would like look, please, at CO1387 and page 2, please. 6 We see that this is a statement by you with your address 7 given as Police Office Saint Marrock Street, Kilmarnock. 8 If we can go on to page 3 and if we can perhaps read 9 from the entry that starts: 10 "I have been shown production number ... major 11 incident property register." 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. You say: 14 "This relates to a set of three keys which are the 15 keys to the house at 43 Irvine Road, Kilmarnock. These 16 had been taken from the witness Alan Kinnaird during the 17 early stages of the inquiry on Wednesday 18 9th January 1997 by DC Swan. The entries relative to 19 this production up to the column 'where stored' is in 20 DC Kirkland's handwriting. I was present when that was 21 done. Under the column 'movement of property' I 22 recognise my handwriting. The first entry relates to 23 the issue of the set of three keys on Thursday 24 9th January 1997 to DC Cardwell for inquiry purposes. I 25 remember she was alone and told me that she had an page 102 1 inquiry on the instruction of DI McAllister. I handed 2 over the production for which I did not get her 3 signature. DC Cardwell returned the production, a set 4 of three keys, to me at 17.50 hours that day. 5 DC Cardwell returned the production to me and I 6 completed the column headed 'date returned'. She told 7 me that the DCI (Heath) had changed her instructions and 8 she did not require to go to the locus." 9 So leaving that document for the moment, where you 10 record in your statement to this Inquiry a reference in 11 that earlier statement to DI McAllister having changed 12 her introductions that's not, in fact, correct? 13 A. No. 14 Q. The reference in your earlier statement is to DCI Heath 15 having changed her instructions. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. But there's certainly nothing in that statement along 18 the lines of Ms Cardwell or McKie saying that she 19 couldn't get her head round the layout and the boss had 20 told her she could have a look around? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. If we look next, please, at CO2601, we see that this is 23 a statement given by you to Chief Inspector Wilson on 24 1st July 1997. If we move through the statement to the 25 next page, please, and in the final paragraph of this page 103 1 page we see -- actually, can wee have it back a page: 2 "One of the productions was a set of three keys to 3 48(sic) Irvine Road, Kilmarnock, which had been seized 4 from a witness, a neighbour, Alan Kinnaird. These were 5 entered in the major incident property register number 6 1. At 17.40 hours on 9th January 1997 Detective 7 Constable Shirley Cardwell called at the production 8 office and asked me for the keys. She was alone and 9 said that Detective Inspector McAllister had asked her 10 to go to the house and did not say why." 11 There is a word missing there but I think we can see 12 "... did not say why". 13 "I issued her the set of keys and entered the 14 [again, there's a word missing] in production register 15 under 'movement of property' [then there's another gap 16 in the copying] and not get her signature." 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. If we move on to the next page, please, you continue: 19 "She returned the keys about ten minutes later at 20 17.50 hours and I again entered the details in the 21 production register under 'date returned'. Again, she 22 was alone. She did not give any reason why she needed 23 to visit the locus. As far as I was aware she had not 24 left Kilmarnock Police Office with the keys that day." 25 Again, it's fair to say you don't see any account of page 104 1 Ms McKie having said that she had been told that she 2 could go and have a look around? 3 A. It was all really part of a casual conversation we were 4 having while I was signing the keys out to her. 5 Q. I think you were shown a third statement which, I think, 6 I don't need to take you to the detail of but, again, I 7 think you accepted when your statement was being taken 8 that it didn't contain the detail that you had recalled 9 when you were first asked for your statement in this 10 Inquiry? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Now, I think you were starting to tell us just a moment 13 ago what you record at paragraph 11 of your statement, 14 which is that you think that the comment was made during 15 a casual conversation. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. What is your best recollection of what you think it is 18 that DC Cardwell said? 19 A. I can't really remember but I do remember I was having 20 problems as well with the layout of the house because I 21 wasn't allowed into the premises at all and we were just 22 going by the way the productions were labelled and 23 location of each production and it was probably just 24 couldn't get my head round it and she was agreeing with 25 me, probably. That's my recollection. page 105 1 Q. I think we may have heard some evidence or may hear some 2 evidence that Ms McKie may have wished to go to the area 3 because she found it difficult to understand the layout. 4 I will be corrected if I am wrong, I don't think we have 5 heard any account or have any evidence other than yours 6 that she had said that DCI Heath was going to permit her 7 to go and visit the locus? 8 A. That was my recollection. 9 Q. Is it possible you might be mistaken about that? 10 A. I may well be but, as I say, that's what I remember. 11 Q. Did it surprise you or would it have surprised you if an 12 officer such as Detective Constable Cardwell had been 13 permitted to visit? 14 A. I had no reason to suspect anything untoward was 15 happening. 16 Q. I am not suggesting that for a moment but you said that 17 you were kept very well apart from the locus yourself. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. It was with that in mind that I wondered if it was 20 something that might have surprised you if an officer 21 like DC Cardwell had been allowed to go in? 22 A. No. DCI Heath was quite strict about myself and 23 DC Kirkland not going near the house to prevent 24 cross-contamination of the productions, so it wouldn't 25 surprise me if another officer was maybe allowed page 106 1 permission to go to the house. 2 Q. The Inquiry has also heard some evidence that DCI Heath 3 was not keen on officers who didn't need to be in the 4 premises being in the premises? 5 A. They must have special permission, which I wouldn't be 6 aware of. 7 Q. Can you remember when Ms McKie made the comments that 8 you record in your statement? 9 A. It would be when she came for the keys, as far as I 10 remember. 11 Q. Because if she made that comment when she came for the 12 keys that might suggest that her reason for coming for 13 the keys was because she had been allowed to look round. 14 A. As I say, that's all I remember about -- it was a casual 15 conversation. I don't really know what exactly was 16 said. I can't remember. 17 Q. What I'm getting at, Mr Stevens, was that if that had 18 been a reason that Ms McKie had given for coming to get 19 the keys, that that was something that you would have 20 been likely to say to one of the people who'd asked you 21 about the matter at a later stage when you were giving 22 statements? 23 A. I'm certainly not aware of being asked anything like 24 that. I know it was an inquiry. She asked for the keys 25 for the inquiry, for an inquiry. I don't remember page 107 1 word-for-word what was said. 2 Q. But do you think what you record her as having said in 3 casual conversation was a casual conversation when she 4 came to get the keys? 5 A. As far as I remember, yes. 6 Q. At paragraph 11 of your statement also you say that, in 7 relation to the casual conversation, if I understand it 8 correctly, it may have been DI McAllister that had 9 instructed her rather than DCI Heath? 10 A. It may have been; I don't remember. 11 Q. Do you have any recollection of her saying that to you 12 or are you really guessing? 13 A. She maybe said the boss -- I don't know -- who I would 14 take to be DCI Heath. I'm not really sure. I would be 15 guessing if I said I knew exactly what was said. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: But it would certainly require a senior 17 officer to give that authority before you would hand 18 over the keys, would it? 19 A. I had no reason to believe that anything untoward was 20 happening so if somebody had said they had permission I 21 would automatically assume that. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: What I am getting is if they had just come 23 along and said, "Would you give me the keys for this 24 house", would that be enough or do they need to say, 25 "I've got permission from Mr McAllister or Mr Heath", as page 108 1 the case may be? 2 A. I would assume that they had permission because nobody 3 would come and ask for something -- 4 THE CHAIRMAN: That's if they just asked, you'd assume -- 5 A. I'd assume. 6 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you, sir. 7 You record that the second time that you gave keys 8 to DC Cardwell was on 12th January 1997 and you say that 9 on that occasion she didn't give a specific reason for 10 the removal of the keys. 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. And then she came back 15 minutes later? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. And you record that she said, "I wish to hell he'd make 15 up his mind". 16 A. It was that or words to that effect, yes. She wasn't 17 happy. 18 Q. You say she was obviously talking about DCI Heath. 19 A. Yes, I would think so. 20 Q. Sorry, I didn't catch what you said, you said, "I would 21 think so"? 22 A. I would think so, yes. 23 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, believe that the correct document has 24 been located for this witness so it may be possible to 25 bring it -- hard copies are being made. There has been page 109 1 a reference I would like to correct with the witness 2 here if at all possible. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 4 MISS CARMICHAEL: But I can move on to just another question 5 for him at the moment. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, shall we see if anyone else wants to 7 ask any questions and come back? 8 MISS CARMICHAEL: It was a different topic actually that I 9 did want to ask the witness about. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: I see. You have another topic. Sorry, I 11 thought you had ... 12 MISS CARMICHAEL: Yes. 13 You had some involvement in this Inquiry a little 14 later, I think, at some point in February 1997. 15 A. In what context was that? 16 Q. Well, you recorded at paragraph 14 of your statement -- 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. -- going to the house with Detective Inspector 19 McAllister? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. And he showed you a fingerprint mark on the doorframe. 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. Why was he doing that? 24 A. He's told me that Scenes of Crime Officer was coming 25 down to photograph it the following day and he wouldn't page 110 1 be available and when the Scenes of Crime Officer 2 arrived I was to take him up and show him the 3 fingerprint. 4 Q. I think you recorded it was a Mr Wilson who, in fact, 5 came and took the photographs? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. So we can be quite clear from what you say that 8 Detective Inspector McAllister was involved in arranging 9 for that to happen? 10 A. Yes. 11 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, we do now have the correct document 12 which I believe has a reference of CO3405. 13 I think the statement you have mentions you being 14 shown a productions looking SG0539 and I think as a 15 matter of record, in fact, what you were shown when you 16 gave your statement was the document that you are now 17 looking at which is properly referenced CO3405. 18 There is an entry number 11 in the middle of the 19 page, "Set of three keys"? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. Can you confirm in the first place that this is, in 22 fact, the document you were referring to in your 23 statement? 24 A. It is, yes. 25 Q. Thank you. page 111 1 If we read across, we see "set of three keys", in 2 the column "Where found", "Taken from Alan Kinnaird 41 3 Irvine Road, Kilmarnock", found by DC Swan, there is a 4 date and time found and then there's a column for 5 "Deposited". Then if we can look at the other sheet 6 here which I think has been photocopied as two sheets 7 but in fact the sheet should be read across as if one, 8 we see a column for "Movement of property" and there's a 9 column "time, date out, purpose, officer, date 10 returned", and we've got an entry 17.40, 9/1/97, "DC 11 Cardwell for inquiry". 12 Do you see that there? 13 A. I see that, yes. 14 Q. Then directly across from that in the date and time 15 17.50 hours, 9/1/97 and there are letters, is it, "TPS"? 16 A. TPS, yes. 17 Q. What does that mean? 18 A. Temporary production store. That's where they were 19 kept. 20 Q. Was that temporary? 21 A. Temporary. 22 Q. Temporary production store. If we go back to the "Time 23 date out" column we see another entry for 10.45 on 24 12th January 1997, again "DC Cardwell for inquiry"? 25 A. That's correct. page 112 1 Q. Again, reading across from that to date returned we have 2 11.00 hours at 12/1/97 and, again, to the temporary 3 production store? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. These are entries that you made? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. I think there is one final matter you might be able to 8 help us with. We have heard some evidence about your 9 colleague, Mr Kirkland, and possibly yourself being 10 involved with Mr Kerr in trying to get shoe boxes for 11 productions? 12 A. I was not working that day. 13 Q. You were not working? 14 A. No. 15 MISS CARMICHAEL: That, I think, is a short ending to that 16 possible line of questions, Mr Stevens. Thank you very 17 much. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any applications to question this 19 witness? 20 MR HOLMES: Just a couple of matters, sir, regarding the 21 security of the locus. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 23 Cross-examined by MR HOLMES 24 Q. Were you aware that a video was made early on in the 25 investigation showing all the rooms in the locus? page 113 1 A. No. 2 Q. Did you become aware at any stage that such a video 3 existed and that a number of officers had seen it? 4 A. I was aware that there was one being made but I haven't 5 seen it. 6 Q. If such a video did exist, do you understand the need 7 for anybody to go and visit the locus? 8 A. I wouldn't know. It probably going to the locus would 9 explain things a bit better but certainly not having 10 seen the video, I wouldn't know. 11 Q. Did you yourself at some point visited the locus, when 12 was that? 13 A. That was with DI McAllister later on in the inquiry. 14 Q. Do you know around what time it was? What date? 15 A. I can't remember. I don't know what time it was. 16 Q. Was there a log keeper present when you went to the 17 house? 18 A. Not that I'm aware of, no. 19 Q. Does that perhaps explain the entry in the log that you 20 have been shown with DI McAllister signing out the keys? 21 A. Possibly explain that, yes. 22 Q. Because you would have needed keys to access the house? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. The attendance log that we have seen filled in by the 25 various log keepers who were guarding the door stretches page 114 1 from 8th January all the way to 22nd January. 2 If there was a log keeper on the door during that 3 time, why would the keys have been required to access 4 the property? 5 A. I don't know. 6 MR HOLMES: Thanks. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 8 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, in light of the questions just asked, 9 we want to just double check our ... 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. (Pause) 11 Re-examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 12 Q. In fact, I don't need to do so. 13 You were being asked about an entry on 18th February 14 issuing keys to DI McAllister. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Do you know whether inquiries had, in practical terms, 17 been completed at the house by that stage? 18 A. I think they had. I think the log keeper was off the 19 door by that time. 20 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr Stevens. 22 (The witness withdrew) 23 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, the next witness is Mark Lees. 24 MARK IAN LEES (sworn) 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Could we have your full name, please. page 115 1 A. I am Mark Ian Lees. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Take a seat, please. 3 Examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 4 Q. Mr Lees, now you probably need to speak quite closely 5 into the microphone to be heard in this room because 6 it's quite a large room. 7 I think you've given a statement to the Inquiry that 8 you've signed? 9 A. Yes, that's correct. 10 Q. Are you content that that records your position 11 accurately, Mr Lees? 12 A. Yes, I am. 13 Q. Now I'd like to ask you a little bit about your duties 14 in the inquiry into the murder of Marion Ross back in 15 January 1997. 16 I think one of the jobs you were given was keeping a 17 log at the property? 18 A. Keeping a log, sorry, what? 19 Q. Keeping a log at 43 Irvine Road, Kilmarnock? 20 A. Yes, that's correct. 21 Q. How did you go about doing that? What did it involve? 22 A. Basically involved sitting in the porch area of the 23 house and noting any person that came in or left the 24 house and maybe the reason for being there. 25 Q. I would like you to look, please, at ST0003, page 3. page 116 1 I think the Inquiry has heard evidence that that 2 shows us the view from the outside into the porch of the 3 property. 4 A. Yes, that's correct. 5 Q. Now, can you tell us by reference to this picture where 6 you would be when you were carrying out your log keeping 7 duties? 8 A. You can see a table and chairs within -- sorry, a table 9 and chair within and that's where we would -- that's 10 where I would have been. 11 Q. The chair that we see in the picture we're looking at 12 has its back to the photographer. 13 Would you have been sitting with your back to the 14 outside world? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Where would you have been sitting? 17 A. From memory, I think the chair would have been facing 18 out on to Irvine Road, so that's to the right-hand side 19 of the table. 20 Q. So would that be directly opposite the way it's facing 21 in the photograph we have here? 22 A. No. The right-hand edge of the table, the chair would 23 have been facing out onto Irvine Road, not out the door, 24 out the main window. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Might it help the witness to see the next page 117 1 photograph as well -- 2 MISS CARMICHAEL: It may do and I will come to it. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: -- to orientate himself. 4 MISS CARMICHAEL: Should we take it then that to the left of 5 this photograph there is a window out? 6 A. (Pause) 7 I think so. I can't 100 per cent recall. 8 Q. I will do as the Chairman suggested and take you to the 9 next photograph at this stage. Here I think we are 10 looking to the left of the photograph back towards the 11 door that we have seen open in the previous shot and we 12 see also a window with vertical slatted blinds on it. 13 Does that help you? 14 A. Yes, that's right. I think from what I recall now the 15 porch had windows on two sides with vertical slatted 16 blinds. 17 Q. If you can tell us by reference to this photograph, 18 which is ST0003.4, where would you have been sitting to 19 do your duties? 20 A. It's not the best of photographs, to be honest. 21 Q. Let's try another one. Let's try the next one. 22 A. I'm assuming that the door ... 23 Q. Would it have helped you more to stay on the previous 24 shot? 25 A. In fact, that's actually not bad. I don't know if page 118 1 somebody can clarify if this, kind of, white glazed door 2 is the front door to the actual house? 3 Q. I think what we've heard -- and I will be corrected if 4 I'm wrong -- is that in order to come into this house 5 the outside door that we have seen on the previous shots 6 would be to the left of this shot -- 7 A. Right okay, well -- 8 Q. -- and then what we see to the left of the shot is the 9 second of three doors into the property. 10 A. Well, in that case, the chair with its back facing the 11 picture, so that's where I would have been sitting. 12 Q. So when we are looking at ST0003.5 you were sitting in 13 the seat that has its back to the photographer? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Should we take it from what you have already told us 16 then that the window we see facing on to the 17 photographer in this shot was a window onto Irvine Road? 18 A. Yes, it would look out onto the front garden of the 19 property and thereafter onto Irvine Road. 20 Q. So what were you able to see of the gateway or entrance 21 into the house from where you were sitting? 22 A. It's limited. I mean, as you can see, the blinds 23 sometimes are just slightly open. So it's really 24 sometimes just what you can see through the slatted 25 vertical blinds. page 119 1 Q. Were the blinds still there when you were doing your 2 duties? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Were they opened or pulled back in any way when you were 5 doing your duties? 6 A. Not as far as I remember they weren't, no. 7 Q. When you were keeping the log and you made an entry 8 showing that somebody had, for example, entered the 9 locus, what would you be meaning by that? 10 A. You would need to go back a couple of photographs to 11 show the picture of the front step. That would assist. 12 Q. Let's go back to photograph 3, please, if that helps 13 you. 14 A. There's a gold and kind of wooden threshold, if you 15 like, that goes -- that forms part of the doorframe. I 16 would consider as soon as somebody stepped over that 17 threshold, then they'd entered the locus. 18 Q. But we can take it that you weren't meaning it was as 19 soon as they'd come into the garden? You wouldn't 20 record that? 21 A. Not in my opinion it wasn't, no. 22 Q. Had anybody told you how to keep a log, Mr Lees? Had 23 anybody given you any training or teaching in it? 24 A. I believe at Tulliallan we were told how to keep logs 25 and possibly maybe a supervisor before we went out to do page 120 1 log keeping duties would maybe have said to us. But, 2 again, it's a long time ago. 3 Q. Do you remember if anybody said anything to you about 4 how you should keep the log in this particular case? 5 A. I don't recall, no. 6 Q. I would like to ask you about your duties particularly 7 on Saturday 11th January 1997. That's something you 8 were asked about when you were giving your statement. I 9 would like to show you, please, page 8 of SG0537. 10 Now, I think we see the first mention of you at 11 55 -- I think we are missing the first part of that 12 timing that we have there -- but we see it is above one 13 for 14.15 and below one for 13 something else. So can 14 we perhaps take it that is 13.55? 15 A. Yes. It certainly looks like that to me, yes. 16 Q. Do you remember -- I think you say in paragraph 14 of 17 your statement -- that you were listening to the 18 football on the radio during the afternoon? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And that you would shout up the scores to the SOCOs? 21 A. Yes, that's right. 22 Q. And the names you mentioned were Michael Moffat and 23 Stuart Wilson? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. Do you remember a Mr Kerr being there as well who might page 121 1 have been interested in the football as well? 2 A. No, I don't. 3 Q. I think if we look down the remainder of the entries 4 there, we see you leaving the locus at 19.50 hours. 5 A. That's correct, yes. 6 Q. Between those two entries of 13.55 and 19.50 hours, I 7 don't think we see any references to DC Kerr. 8 A. No, there's no reference there, no. 9 Q. Do you know DC Kerr? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Do you remember him being there that afternoon? 12 A. No. 13 Q. We have some evidence from DC Kerr that he accessed the 14 house via a patio door at the rear of the property 15 during the course of that afternoon. Does that help 16 your recollection at all? 17 A. I can't see the rear of the property from the porch. 18 Q. Do you know whether any of the officers involved with 19 productions were perhaps coming and going from a patio 20 door at the rear of the property? 21 A. I have no idea, no. 22 Q. Would you have seen them if they had been? 23 A. It would depend whether I was looking out the window and 24 if the blinds allowed me to look out the window at that 25 time. But I couldn't even tell you where -- I mean, page 122 1 obviously the back door's at the back of the property, 2 but I couldn't even tell you where that is in relation 3 to where the porch area is. 4 Q. I am not intending any criticism, Mr Lees; you 5 understand that. I just want to be clear that it may be 6 possible that somebody was coming and going from a door 7 at the rear of the property and you may not have seen 8 them that day? 9 A. Oh it's possible, yes. 10 Q. Do you have any recollection of any officers perhaps 11 coming and going with shoe boxes in the course of the 12 time you were on duty doing log keeping? 13 A. No, sorry. 14 Q. You were asked, I think, particularly about seeing 15 Shirley McKie or Cardwell at the property that day. 16 Again, DC Cardwell's not a name that we see recorded 17 anywhere between 13.55 and 19.50 on the log. 18 A. Correct: she doesn't appear any time when I'm on duty. 19 Q. You have told us in your statement that Ms McKie came to 20 the property that day. 21 Can you tell us, first of all, when she came to the 22 property? 23 A. I'm sorry, I can't recall the exact time at all. 24 Q. We will perhaps look at some other accounts you have 25 given of that in a moment. page 123 1 When she first came to the property, what did she 2 do? 3 A. Opened the porch door was the first thing that she did. 4 Do you want me -- are you going to ask questions or do 5 you want me to expand and tell you what I remember? 6 Q. You tell us as much as you can remember and I'll ask 7 further questions if I need to, Mr Lees. 8 A. Okay. She opened the porch door and stood on the step 9 below the threshold that I spoke about earlier on and 10 she said something to the effect that she was needing to 11 get the log photocopied. I believe it was HOLMES, which 12 is an inquiry tool that the CID use, had caused an 13 action to be raised for the log to be photocopied. She 14 didn't come into the locus at all so that's why she 15 doesn't appear on the log. 16 Q. Is it possible you might be mistaken about that and she 17 had just stepped into the porch? 18 A. No, absolutely not because that particular day and also 19 the way the porch door faces, the wind was blowing up 20 the street so when you opened the porch door -- you saw 21 the vertical blinds in one of the previous pictures -- 22 the blinds blew everywhere and the log papers would 23 start blowing about and I actually said to her, "Can you 24 come in", because obviously it was causing chaos with 25 the blinds and with the paper and she said, "No", again page 124 1 I can't remember the exact phrase but it was words to 2 the effect of, "because of cross-contamination", so she 3 always stood below the threshold, which is what I 4 considered to be the locus. 5 Q. Is it possible that she may not have said anything about 6 contamination, Mr Lees, and that you may be mistaken 7 about that? 8 A. Oh no, she definitely said that. It seemed a 9 reasonable -- well, reasonable's not the right word, a 10 professional reason for not actually coming into the 11 house. 12 Q. Do you remember yourself whether there were still any 13 metal foot plates in the porch at the time that Ms McKie 14 came along? 15 A. I don't recall, sorry. 16 Q. Was there any other conversation between you and 17 Ms McKie? 18 A. No. 19 Q. How long was she there? 20 A. I don't know. A couple of minutes maximum -- for the 21 length of time it took for that kind of conversation to 22 take place. 23 Q. Did you give her the log? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. I think you have told us that at some point later she page 125 1 came back with the log? 2 A. Yes. It wasn't too much later. Again I can't remember 3 the exact time but a great length of time hadn't passed. 4 Q. What happened when she came back? 5 A. Pretty much the same again apart from there was 6 virtually no conversation. She just opened the door 7 again, didn't come in, everything was blowing 8 everywhere, she gave me the log and left, from what I 9 remember. 10 Q. You don't make any record of her coming to pick up the 11 log. 12 A. No. 13 Q. Or, indeed, when she returned it to you. 14 In terms of keeping a record of everyone who had 15 been there, some people might find it difficult to 16 understand why that's not recorded. 17 Could you just explain that for us? 18 A. Because she never came into the locus, I think. As far 19 as I was aware -- my understanding at that time with 20 less than three years' police service was that it was 21 people entering or leaving the locus that you recorded 22 and since she did neither I didn't feel I should record 23 it at that time. 24 Q. What were you doing for a log while she was away? 25 A. I would have had my notebook to record anybody that came page 126 1 in or left. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we have come to the moment perhaps we 3 should stop for ten minutes and we will sit again -- 4 this is just to give the stenographer a break -- so we 5 will rise now for just ten minutes and sit again a 6 minute or two after 3.00. 7 (2.53 pm) 8 (A short break) 9 (3.0 3 pm) 10 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you, sir. 11 Mr Lees, I would like you to look again for me, 12 please, at ST0003.5. 13 I wonder if you could help me, I suppose, with the 14 mechanics of this. You have told us that you were 15 carrying out your log keeping duties sitting in the 16 chair that has its back to the photographer in this 17 photograph. 18 A. Yes, yes. 19 Q. If I understand your evidence correctly, when 20 DC Cardwell comes to the property, she is standing on a 21 step below the level of the floor of this porch some way 22 off to the left of this shot? 23 A. Yes, some way to the left, yes. 24 Q. How did you get the log out to her, Mr Lees? 25 A. I don't remember. I would imagine I stood up and page 127 1 probably handed it to her, I would think, that's the 2 only way I could get it to her. 3 Q. But you can't remember yourself doing that? 4 A. I can't see by that picture how far the distance is 5 between the chair and the front door so if it was too 6 far for me to reach then it's obvious that I've stood up 7 and given it to her. 8 Q. Shall we see if we can help you with that by going back 9 through the shots to number 4, which I think the -- 10 A. I think the previous picture was better, the one that 11 was the shot in through -- 12 Q. If we can perhaps work through them and go back to 13 number 4, the one we were just looking at, just at the 14 far bottom right of the shot, above where we see the 15 letter B, do we see the back of the chair that you would 16 have been sitting in? 17 A. Yes, I can see that now, yes. 18 Q. I think we can also see towards the bottom of the shot 19 through the glass on the bottom of the door that we see 20 in the picture the metal threshold line that you have 21 mentioned as -- 22 A. Yes, I can see that as well, yes. 23 Q. -- as the threshold of the locus for you. So we can 24 take it that somewhere beyond that is where DC Cardwell 25 is standing? page 128 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. If she hasn't come into the porch. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now I think we can go back to previous shot, number 3, 5 and we see the same brass threshold running across the 6 bottom of the doorway. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. So it would certainly be difficult, if not possible, for 9 somebody standing on the step below the brass threshold 10 to get the log unless somebody physically brought it to 11 them? 12 A. Yes, I agree, I agree. 13 Q. Do you remember getting up and taking it -- 14 A. I'm sorry, I don't, no. 15 Q. Do you remember whether you were still sitting down when 16 you were talking to Ms McKie, as you say, about 17 contamination? 18 A. Honestly, no, no. 19 Q. Very well. 20 Now you have told us that you don't currently have 21 any recollection of the timing of matters and I would 22 like to ask you a little bit about some previous 23 statements you have given about timing. 24 I would like to show you first, please, CO1428. If 25 we can go to the second page of that, please, we see page 129 1 this is a statement dated 14th February 1997, given by 2 you. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. I will read this to get it into the record: 5 "I have two years Police Service. On Saturday 11th 6 January, 1997, I was on uniform duty and I was detailed 7 to do guard duty at 43 Irvine Road, Kilmarnock, the 8 locus of the murder of Marion Ross. I was late shift. 9 I spent my whole shift at the house, that is from about 10 13.45 hours until I was relieved about 23.20 hours that 11 day. I remained in the front porch where I maintained a 12 log of any callers to the house. About 1600 hours 13 Detective Constable Shirley Cardwell came to the front 14 door. I opened it, she stood on the step. She said 15 that she couldn't come in because of 16 cross-contamination. She asked me for the log so that 17 it could be photocopied. I handed it out to her and she 18 left." 19 Now before we come to the particular issue of 20 timing, if we can just go back a page there, I think 21 what you record there is that, in fact, you opened the 22 door whereas, I think, what you've said to the Inquiry 23 today is that it was Ms McKie who opened the door. 24 A. It was a long time ago. 25 Q. Do you know which version is correct? page 130 1 A. To be honest, no. 2 Q. In any event we see that you noted a time, in this 3 statement at least, of 16.00 hours. I would like to 4 take you on, please, to another statement given by you, 5 which is CO1343. 6 If we go to the second page of that, we see that 7 this is a statement again given by yourself and what you 8 record there is: 9 "On 13.45 hours on Saturday 11th January I took up 10 duty at Kilmarnock Police Office. I was detailed to 11 stand by the locus at 43 Irvine Road, Kilmarnock. I 12 arrived there at 13.55 hours and I relieved PC McGeoch. 13 I was alone and I took up my position within the front 14 porch. About 14.15 hours Stuart Wilson and Michael 15 Moffat, Scenes of Crime Officers, arrived at the locus 16 and entered the house." 17 Then you narrate a series of individuals who have 18 come and gone from the house. Then you record about 19 19.50 hours PC Nisbett arrived and relieve me for 20 refreshment. I travelled to Kilmarnock Police Office 21 and returned to the locus about 21.00 hours." 22 If we can move on to the next page, please, you 23 record here on page 4 of the PDF: 24 "There is something which I have not put in the log. 25 About 1600 hours on Saturday 11th January 1997 page 131 1 DC Shirley Cardwell came to the locus. She wanted to 2 collect the log of events to take it away. She did not 3 enter the porch and told me it was to avoid 4 cross-contamination. I gave her the log of events and 5 she took it away. She returned about 20 minutes later, 6 16.20. The reason I am sure about the times is because 7 the radio was on and the second half of the football had 8 not kicked off. If anyone had come to the locus while 9 the log of events was away I would have recorded it in 10 my notebook. Nobody came to the locus during that time. 11 I have been shown page 8 of the log of events and asked 12 to examine time entries which appear to have been 13 overwritten. I am not conscious of having done this but 14 equally I may not have done it. I have been 15 specifically asked if DC Cardwell has visited the locus 16 at any other time while I was there. She did not. I 17 have been shown document 13 (HOLMES) which is a 18 photocopy of the log of events which I handed over to 19 DC Cardwell. I can see that the last entry photocopied 20 is '17.20 Sergeant Ramage leaves locus [and if we move 21 on to the next page] which is in my handwriting. This 22 indicates to me that I am mistaken in my recollection of 23 the time DC Cardwell arrived." 24 Do you recall giving that statement? 25 A. Yes, I do, yes. page 132 1 Q. If you look at the end of the statement it records that 2 it was taken by Detective Superintendent Malcolm on 11th 3 March 1997? 4 A. I've got to assume that's when it was. I don't remember 5 the date. 6 Q. Do you remember being shown the photocopy ending with 7 the entry relating to Mr Ramage? 8 A. Not now I don't. 9 Q. But can we take it from the statement that what you were 10 being shown was the log as it was at the point when you 11 handed it over to DC Cardwell and that the last entry of 12 what was shown to you then was for 17.20? 13 A. Yes, if that's what it says in the statement, that's 14 what it must have been. 15 Q. And that was indicated to you that DC Cardwell has 16 arrived and taken it away at some point after 17.20? 17 A. Some time after, yes. 18 Q. But you don't recollect the detail of giving the 19 statement now? 20 A. Vaguely. I do remember giving a statement. 21 Q. And you would accept that what's recorded there is 22 correct as to what you were shown and what you said at 23 the time? 24 A. Yes, I would say so. 25 Q. Could you look, please, at a third statement, one dated page 133 1 31st July 2003, CO1269. 2 We see if you go to the end of this document, 3 please, that there's a statement taken from you on 31st 4 July by Detective Constable Robb and Detective Constable 5 Ogilvie. 6 I wonder if we could go back a page, a further page, 7 if we go to the very bottom of that page, which is page 8 1 of the document, it is recorded you said: 9 "About 16.35 hours, Sergeant Ramage attended the 10 locus and entered the porch. He remained there with me 11 in the porch until 17.20 hours when he left. His 12 attendance and departure was also recorded through the 13 log." 14 Move on to the next page, please, you say: 15 "Sometime thereafter Detective Constable Shirley 16 Cardwell, now known as McKie, who is known to me arrived 17 as a front seat passenger in an unmarked police car. 18 She came to the porch, stood on the top outside step and 19 opened the porch door." 20 You record there she said she was there to take the 21 log away to be photocopied. 22 "I had asked her to come into the porch as it was 23 very windy outside and everything in the porch was 24 blowing around with the door being open. She said she 25 couldn't come into the porch because she had to avoid page 134 1 any cross-contamination. I then handed her the log 2 which consisted of a clipboard folder holding the sheets 3 of A4 paper ..." 4 So your recollection as to the timing as recorded in 5 2000 is that Ms Cardwell attended after DS Ramage had 6 left? 7 A. Appears to be, yes. 8 Q. And in this instance your recollection is noted that it 9 was she rather than yourself who opened the porch door? 10 A. Yes, again, it appears to be, yes. 11 Q. PC Lees, I think you've said candidly in your statement 12 that you are well aware that there are rumours that you 13 let Shirley McKie or Cardwell into the house? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. What's your response to that? 16 A. I didn't. I'll keep it as brief as that. 17 Q. Have you ever told anyone that you did? 18 A. No. 19 Q. I would like to ask you about something slightly 20 different, Constable Lees. I think you gave evidence at 21 the trial of Shirley McKie? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Is that something you remember? 24 Did you at any point during that trial have an 25 argument or a heated discussion or anything of that sort page 135 1 with Ms McKie in a car park? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Did you talk to her at all during the trial? 4 A. No. 5 Q. There's one further matter I would like to ask you 6 about, Constable Lees. 7 Do you recall a Mr Les Brown trying to get in touch 8 with you and trying to speak with you? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Would that have been in around May 2007? 11 A. (Pause) I would have thought it was further back than 12 that. 13 Q. Do you recall speaking to Mr Brown on the telephone at 14 all? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Who had made the contact? Had he called you? 17 A. I think he phoned -- yes, yes. 18 Q. Can you remember what he said to you? 19 A. Not really, nothing much more from the fact that he 20 wanted to speak to me. I think that's -- nothing more 21 to the conversation than that. 22 Q. The Inquiry have been given a statement by Mr Brown and 23 I'd like to tell you what it is that Mr Brown says and 24 give you your opportunity to comment on whether it's 25 correct or not. page 136 1 I think we probably can have this on the screen, 2 sir, if it is convenient, FI0017 at page 8. This is, if 3 you will take it from me a signed statement by Leslie or 4 Les Brown. At paragraph 36 he says: 5 "I decided to try to speak to PC Lees. Around 6 May 2007, I made an application to interview him. Once 7 that application had been processed, I approached him. 8 I telephoned the Section Sergeant at Stewarton Police 9 Office and told the Section Sergeant that I wanted to 10 speak to PC Lees. This was on 5th May 2007. 11 "I then explained to PC Lees that I wanted to 12 arrange a time to meet. In view of the seriousness of 13 the situation I said to PC Lees that I would have no 14 objection to him bringing a lawyer or someone from the 15 Police Federation." 16 If I can pause there, do you remember that 17 happening? 18 A. To that effect -- maybe not like that but, yes, kind 19 of -- not a million miles away from that, certainly. 20 There was -- I'm sure he said he did want to speak to me 21 and he'd made an application. 22 Q. Do you remember him mentioning lawyers or the 23 Police Federation? 24 A. Not particularly, no. 25 Q. Mr Brown's statement goes on: page 137 1 "We agreed to discuss final arrangements to meet on 2 the following Monday with a view to meeting on the 3 Tuesday." 4 Is that something that you remember? 5 A. No. 6 Q. At paragraph 38 of the statement Mr Brown continues: 7 "I phoned the following Monday to make final 8 arrangements and spoke to the Section Sergeant again. 9 He asked me what I had said as PC Lees had walked out, 10 reported sick and had not been seen since." 11 What is your response to seeing that, PC Lees? 12 A. One, I would think you would have to speak to the 13 Section Sergeant to see if -- sorry, was it Mr Brown -- 14 Mr Brown had actually spoken to him. I certainly did 15 not walk out, report sick and never be seen again. 16 Sorry, that's incorrect. 17 Q. Do you remember if it's right if you had gone off sick 18 round about that time at all? 19 A. No. 20 Q. You hadn't gone off sick -- 21 A. No, sorry, I don't remember. 22 Q. Moving to paragraph 39 of the statement that we are 23 looking at here, Mr Brown's statement, he goes on: 24 "Thereafter I spoke with PC Lees. He told me that 25 he had taken the advice of Superintendent Weir and that page 138 1 he did not wish to be interviewed." 2 Did Mr Brown speak with you afterwards? 3 A. Possibly. 4 Q. Do you remember whether that happened or not? 5 A. No. Probably in relation to the part that 6 Superintendent Weir, I believe I did speak to him 7 about -- a very, very brief conversation about having 8 taken advice from Superintendent Weir. 9 Q. Had you taken advice from Superintendent Weir? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Why had you done that? 12 A. From what I remember, the application for precognition 13 of myself was neither a criminal nor a civil matter, I 14 think, or from what I remember and ... you will have to 15 bear with me here because I'm trying to get this the 16 right way round -- I think if it was a criminal matter I 17 had to get permission, I believe. Something like that. 18 So that's why I took advice. It wasn't something I was 19 sure of. I'm sure there was a form came through the 20 post saying that Mr Brown had applied to speak to me and 21 I had to do something with this, I think, in order that 22 he -- I think he pays a fee to precognosce me so ... so 23 I think that's why I'd taken advice on it. I wasn't 24 sure what to do. It's something I'd never deal with at 25 all before. Usually when it's a precognition it's for a page 139 1 criminal case. 2 Q. Was there any reason why you didn't come to speak to 3 Mr Brown? 4 A. Purely -- well, I think purely on the advice of ... I 5 perhaps even phoned Legal Services and Superintendent 6 Weir, as I say, because it wasn't something I hadn't 7 dealt with before at all and I was told that I didn't 8 have to. 9 Q. Well, I appreciate you may have been told you didn't 10 have to but you weren't told that you shouldn't speak to 11 him? 12 A. No. 13 Q. So why did you decide not to speak to him? 14 A. I think probably based on that advice from the 15 superintendent. He said I didn't have to so I took that 16 as, well, I don't have to speak to him; so I didn't. No 17 particular reason, it was just that was obviously an 18 officer that's several ranks above myself and that was 19 how I took the interpretation of her advice. 20 Q. Did you not want to speak to him? 21 A. To be honest, I was a bit -- I think because I was a bit 22 confused as to whether it was a criminal or civil case, 23 I wasn't sure what exactly I should, you know, what we 24 were going to be talking about, so I think that's why 25 I'd taken the advice initially. It wasn't that I didn't page 140 1 want to speak to him, I think it was just because, as I 2 say, this was a new thing for me in the police I'd never 3 come across and I thought I would take advice on what to 4 do. 5 Q. Mr Lees, I think, at one point you had a supervisor 6 called Mr Carle; is that right? 7 A. Yes, fairly early on in my service, I would think, yes. 8 Q. Do you recall going to Mr Carle for advice at all in 9 connection with your involvement in the trial of Shirley 10 McKie? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Do you recall perhaps explaining to him that you were 13 concerned about gossip that you had let Shirley McKie 14 into the house? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Or that you were nervous in some way about giving your 17 evidence on that matter? 18 A. Sorry, could you repeat that? 19 Q. And that you were nervous about giving evidence in the 20 case against Ms McKie? 21 A. I don't recall having any sort of conversation with 22 Mr -- I think he was -- I think he was an inspector, 23 Inspector Carle. 24 Q. Yes. You don't recall any conversation with him of that 25 sort at all? page 141 1 A. No, not at all. 2 Q. Because the Inquiry does have a statement from William 3 Carle. If you look at FI0014, please. 4 You see this is headed up "Witness statement of 5 Chief Inspector William Stewart Carle", and if we go to 6 the last page, please, page 6, I think we see that is 7 signed by Mr Carle. 8 Can we run back, please, to page 2. What Mr Carle 9 has told us is that, looking at paragraph 11, at some 10 point before the HMA v McKie trial you approached him 11 for some advice and the conversation took place several 12 weeks before the trial. 13 Does that help your memory at all? 14 A. To be honest, no, no. 15 Q. Looking at paragraph 12, the officer records: 16 "PC Lees was an officer in my division in 17 Kilmarnock. He was on duty in uniform. I was on duty 18 in uniform. PC Lees approached me. So far as I recall 19 this was in the patrol sergeant's room at Kilmarnock 20 Police Office. We were alone when the conversation 21 occurred. He stated that he wanted my advice as to 22 concerns he had as a witness in HMA v McKie. The door 23 was closed so that we could speak in private." 24 Again, does that help you? 25 A. I'm sorry, no, no. page 142 1 Q. If you go to paragraph 18, please, at the bottom of 2 page 3, what is recorded is: 3 "PC Lees explaining that the trial was coming up and 4 there was gossip about him letting Shirley McKie into 5 the locus. I asked him why he was concerned about that. 6 I reminded him that he had given evidence in 7 HMA v Asbury that he had not allowed Shirley McKie into 8 Marion Ross' home. He reiterated that he had not let 9 Shirley McKie into the locus. He said he was quite 10 certain that he had not. There was no hint of 11 uncertainty on his part. 12 "I reminded him that he was to give evidence on 13 oath. It was important that he understood the gravity 14 of the charges facing Shirley McKie and also the 15 position of the other police colleagues and himself. 16 Accordingly, I explained that he had to be completely 17 truthful and forthright in giving his evidence. This 18 seemed to reassure him to some extent." 19 Does any of that jog your memory at all? 20 A. I spoke to quite a lot of people. I have friends as 21 well I would have spoken to about concerns at the time. 22 I don't particularly remember speaking to one person in 23 particular, a supervisor. I'm not going to say -- I 24 think he was Inspector Carle at the time -- has made 25 that up. If it happened I don't recall it. There was page 143 1 other people, friends and things, I would have spoken 2 to. 3 Q. But you are not saying he's got this wrong? 4 A. No, not at all. It's just I don't particularly recall 5 speaking to a supervisor about it but I may well have 6 done. 7 Q. You say you might have spoken to quite a number of 8 people? 9 A. Well, not quite a number -- I've got close friends 10 obviously but ... 11 Q. And this was why? 12 A. Because it's not nice to hear untrue gossip about you 13 and sometimes you want to share your concerns with 14 people. 15 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you, Mr Lees. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Any applications as far as this witness is 17 concerned? 18 MR HOLMES: A couple of matters concerning the log, sir. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 20 Cross-examined by MR HOLMES 21 Q. PC Lees, would you accept that there are some 22 irregularities in the log keeping from this locus? 23 A. In respect of my log keeping? 24 Q. In respect of the log keeping in general. 25 A. I think you would have to explain what you mean by page 144 1 "irregularities". 2 Q. Well, evidence has been heard that there were, for 3 example, people present in the house who do not appear 4 on the log. 5 Do you know anything about that? 6 A. Not at all, no. 7 Q. You have spoken about Mr Kerr and the fact that are 8 aware of who he is but you haven't logged his presence 9 in the house and you weren't aware of his presence in 10 the house during your shift on the log; is that correct? 11 A. I'm sorry, I'm having real trouble hearing you here, 12 sir, and I can't see you either, sir. 13 Q. You've spoken about Mr Kerr and you are aware who he is; 14 is that correct? 15 A. Yes, that's correct, yes. 16 Q. Your evidence is that you were not aware that he was in 17 the house during your shift on the log; is that correct? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. If Mr Kerr has given evidence here that he was present 20 in the house when you were responsible for the log do 21 you have any reason to doubt that? 22 A. I would have to ask how he got in if he didn't come 23 through the front door because if he come through the 24 front -- well, the front porch I would have logged him 25 as being in. page 145 1 Q. If you take it from me that his evidence is to the 2 effect that he did not come through the front entrance 3 to the house, do you have any reason to doubt that he 4 was there? 5 A. I wouldn't know whether he was in there or not. 6 Q. We have heard evidence from Mr Kerr that he was there 7 and that at some stage on Saturday 11th that he saw 8 Shirley McKie enter the porch of the house. 9 Do have any reason to that? 10 A. Do I have any doubt that Shirley McKie entered the 11 porch? Is that what you're asking me? 12 Q. Do you agree that she entered the porch of the house? 13 Was she ever in the porch? 14 A. Shew didn't, no. She most certainly didn't. She stood 15 on the step outside the whole time. 16 Q. Most certainly didn't. So Mr Kerr, if he was in the 17 house, has that wrong? She was on the step and not in 18 the porch? 19 A. I'm happy with what I've said on that and as far as I'm 20 concerned she stood on below what I have described as 21 the threshold of the door. 22 Q. If we had heard evidence from Mr Kerr that he observed 23 her within the porch during that time, you would have to 24 say that he's wrong; is that correct? 25 A. I would disagree with what has been said, yes. page 146 1 Q. You would disagree. 2 Can we have a look at the photographs on ST0003, 3 please. Go to photograph A which would be page 3. 4 I think you've said that the chair that we can see 5 in that photograph is not the chair that you were 6 sitting at, rather it would to the right of where the 7 door is -- 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. -- in that photograph and the that step we see towards 10 the bottom of that photograph is as far as Ms McKie 11 would have come towards the porch; is that correct? 12 A. Yes, that's correct. 13 Q. I think the reason you have given for not logging her 14 attendance at the house is that you regard the threshold 15 of the porch as being the limit for entry into the log, 16 if you like? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Anyone that didn't step beyond that didn't go into the 19 log? 20 A. Yes -- well, yes, that's right. 21 Q. You see, we've heard evidence from Mr Kerr that he was 22 in the house when Ms McKie came to collect the log from 23 you. 24 If you look at the photograph on page 4, you said 25 that you would be sitting where you can see perhaps just page 147 1 the edge of the back of a chair there. Is that correct? 2 A. Yes, from what I remember, yes, I'd have been sitting in 3 that chair. 4 Q. I wonder if the photograph beyond that shows it any more 5 clearly. Yes. 6 Is that the chair, the back of which is facing the 7 photographer, that you would have been sitting on? 8 A. From what I recall, yes. 9 Q. From what you recall, where the photographer is standing 10 in this photograph, would that be leading to the 11 remainder of the house? 12 A. That would be sort of the front door. Yes, once you 13 cross that you actually get in the house. 14 Q. So if I am correct if you go towards the direction the 15 photographer is facing and to your left you find the 16 front door and if you go towards where the photographer 17 is standing you will find the rest of the house? 18 A. From what I remember. Yes, that's fair enough. 19 Q. From this photograph do you agree you can't see the 20 front door? 21 A. So you're going to have to say what you mean by the 22 "front door", because to me, yes, I can see the front 23 door and the front door's the white door. Do you mean 24 the porch door? 25 Q. The first door -- page 148 1 A. The first door, sorry. I can't see the first door. 2 Q. So what I'm getting at is if Ms McKie was standing on 3 the step you couldn't see her from where the 4 photographer is standing there? 5 A. I would agree with that, yes. 6 Q. If Mr Kerr has given evidence that he was within the 7 house during the time that Ms McKie visited and you have 8 given evidence that she was standing on the front step, 9 where we can't see that area in this picture, how do you 10 reconcile those two? 11 A. You obviously can't. They contradict each other. 12 Q. So Mr Kerr is mistaken then? 13 A. I would have to say that, yes. 14 Q. You are quite certain that Ms McKie never entered the 15 porch? 16 A. A hundred per cent certain. 17 Q. And that's the evidence that you gave on trial, in 18 fairness to you; is that correct? 19 A. Yes, that's correct. 20 Q. What hadn't happened by the time that trial came about 21 though was the Mackay investigation and I have here, if 22 we can see document CO2219, please, page 4, is 23 Ms McKie's statement. It's the paragraph that begins: 24 "The only other occasion." 25 She says: page 149 1 "The only other occasion that I attended at 43 2 Irvine Road, Kilmarnock, was about 17.45 hours on 3 Saturday 11th January 1997. This visit was on the 4 instructions of the office manager, Inspector Thompson, 5 who asked that the visitors log from the locus be 6 photocopied for the incident room." 7 So does that sound like the same visit we have been 8 speaking about? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. "I was again accompanied by Detective Sergeant Shields, 11 however, he remained in our police vehicle at the front 12 of the locus while I went into the house alone. Within 13 the porch of the house was Constable Mark Lees. I asked 14 him for the log, which supplied. I was only in the 15 house a matter of seconds and, again, only as far as the 16 porch." 17 She appears to be saying that she was inside the 18 porch on that occasion. 19 Do you agree with that, PC Lees? 20 A. Even going back to, "... however, he remained in the 21 police vehicle while I went into the house alone ..." I 22 find that even quite confusing because that, to me, even 23 that small section would suggest that she was actually 24 in the house, you know, which is definitely not the case 25 and then when you read further on "... again, only as page 150 1 far as the porch", she's -- within two lines. I don't 2 know if it's the way this has been taken down, but 3 within two lines you have her in the porch and in the 4 house and she was in neither. So, I mean, I find that 5 quite confusing. 6 Q. So you are saying Ms McKie's own account of that visit 7 is incorrect? 8 A. What I would say is it's been taken down very 9 confusingly. As I say, a point -- in two lines, it says 10 she was in the house and then two lines down it says she 11 was in the porch. No you can't possibly -- she couldn't 12 possibly be in two places at the same time so even 13 within the wording of that particular section it's not 14 clear. 15 Q. Are you saying that that account squares with the 16 account that you have given whereby she was only on the 17 front step and no further? 18 A. No, it doesn't look like that, no. It looks as if she 19 was even in the house. 20 Q. So how do you explain the difference between the two? 21 A. I can't at all. 22 Q. She goes on to explain that she came back with the log 23 once it had been photocopied and she says: 24 "I thereafter took the log to Kilmarnock Police 25 Office where I photocopied and gave the copy to the page 151 1 incident room. Myself and DS Shields immediately 2 returned to the locus where I again went into the porch 3 unaccompanied ..." 4 That seems a little bit clearer, does it not? 5 A. Yes, that to me looks clearer that she's saying she was 6 in the porch alone. 7 Q. Again, does that square with your recollection? 8 A. No, it doesn't. No, not at all. 9 Q. How do you account for the difference between the two? 10 A. Is it a verbatim statement from -- is this somebody's -- 11 is this somebody's slant on what's been said? I don't 12 know. My recollection of it is she stood at the step 13 before the threshold and never came into the porch. 14 Q. Well, that's the statement that was given to the Mackay 15 team, PC Lees. 16 Perhaps I can direct you to the statement that was 17 given to this Inquiry which Ms McKie will have had the 18 opportunity to look over and sign. It is document 19 number FI0071 and the relevant section begins at 20 paragraph 32, which is on page 6. Paragraph 32 deals 21 with the statement that you have just been looking at 22 and it says that: 23 "Paragraph 12 of the 2000 statement CO22119 [that's 24 the statement that we have just been looking at] deals 25 with my attendance at the locus to collect the visitors' page 152 1 log. 2 "I attended the locus late in the afternoon around 3 5.45. DS Shields and I had been given instruction to 4 collect the log ..." 5 So, again, that's sounds like the same visit; is 6 that correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. "I collected the log from the locus. I then took the 9 log back to the Police Office, copied it, passed the 10 photocopy to the incident room and returned to the locus 11 to hand the log back." 12 She goes on in the next paragraph to explain that 13 DS Shields and herself went to and from the locus by car 14 and that the log keeper at the locus was you. 15 Paragraph 36 explains how far she went into the 16 house, and she says: 17 "When I collected and returned the log I was at the 18 locus for a very short period of time, literally 19 seconds. On both occasions, DS Shields remained in the 20 car. On both occasions, I opened the porch door and 21 stepped just inside the porch. I did not go further 22 than the porch. I did not enter any other part of the 23 locus." 24 That seems to suggest as well that Ms McKie was 25 inside the porch, does it not? page 153 1 A. Yes, it certainly, yes. 2 Q. Again, how do you reconcile that with the account that 3 you have given? 4 A. As far as I maintain, she didn't come into the porch, 5 she stood on -- she stood on the step. 6 Q. Well, is Mr Kerr and is Ms McKie or are the two of them 7 wrong in stating that she was inside the porch on this 8 occasion or perhaps are you wrong? 9 A. I would say I was correct because I can remember the 10 conversation and I can remember the bit about the 11 cross-contamination and why I thought that was a very 12 professional excu -- reason not to go any further than 13 that threshold. 14 Q. If she was over the threshold, ought you properly to 15 have entered her into the log? 16 A. Sorry, your voice isn't carrying at all. 17 Q. Should you have entered her into the log? 18 A. If she came over the threshold not "should have", I 19 would have entered her into the log. 20 Q. Are you aware of any other irregularities in the log 21 keeping at that house? 22 A. I'm not aware of any irregularities, to be honest with 23 you. 24 Q. Do you know of magazines that were in the porch area? 25 A. I think there was some magazines in the porch area, yes. page 154 1 Q. We've heard evidence that those came from inside the 2 house. Do you have any knowledge of that? 3 A. I don't know where they came from. 4 Q. Do you have any knowledge of anyone entering the house 5 in order to make use of the heating? 6 A. The heating? 7 Q. Yes. 8 A. No. 9 Q. Do you have any knowledge of anyone being in the living 10 room of the house? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Do you have any knowledge of anyone who was responsible 13 for the log leaving the locus in order to go to the 14 garage? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Was there a garage nearby? 17 A. There is a garage in Irvine Road, yes. 18 Q. How near is it to the house? 19 A. Very short walking distance. 20 Q. Do you perhaps know if officers were using that if they 21 needed refreshment or if they needed to go and use the 22 toilet? 23 A. I wouldn't know that. 24 Q. You yourself never did that? 25 A. No. page 155 1 Q. And if we have heard evidence that there were perhaps 2 log keepers who used the garage for that purpose, you 3 wouldn't know anything about that? 4 A. I couldn't comment on that, no. 5 Q. How long did you work on the log for at Irvine Road? 6 A. Well, having had the log to refresh my memory, it was 7 one full day and I think two separate days where I 8 worked for about an hour at a time and that would be 9 covering refreshment breaks for the officer that was on 10 duty the whole day. 11 Q. You would be aware that during that early period there 12 would always have been a log keeper there or there 13 should have been, anyway? 14 A. Any time I went to the house there was a log keeper 15 there. 16 Q. So during the early days of the investigation if anyone 17 had wanted to gain access to the house, there would have 18 been no need to them to bring keys with them? 19 A. I wouldn't have thought so but I wasn't there from 20 day -- I wasn't there from day 1 so ... 21 Q. Had anybody wanted to come into the house while you were 22 on duty, all they would have needed to do is come to 23 you, be entered into the log and then enter the house? 24 A. Or unless like DC Kerr, who he was at the time, was 25 going round the back. That's the only two ways that page 156 1 somebody can get into the house. 2 MR HOLMES: Thank you. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other applications? 4 MISS CARMICHAEL: No thank you, sir. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: I notice that Mr Brown, when he was 6 contacting you, contacted, I understand, the sergeant at 7 Stewarton. Did you serve there? 8 A. I did, yes. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Quite a lot or just occasionally? 10 A. No, no, I was -- I'm actually trying to count back. I 11 think I probably left Stewarton in November of 2007 and 12 I'd served there for about three and a half years 13 previous to that as well. That was my whole time. 14 Three and a half years ago right up to November 2007, 15 I'd been Community Constable in Stewarton. So I worked 16 out of Stewarton office. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: When you are Community Officer, does that 18 when you serve on your own or do you have a colleague 19 serving with you? 20 A. Sometimes we would have a colleague and sometimes on 21 their own. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: But not always the same. We heard the 23 expression "neighbour". 24 A. You tend to have a more permanent neighbour when you're 25 in the community police but then, due to manpower, we page 157 1 actually got split up. So for a while we worked 2 together and then we both worked separately and the 3 Section Sergeant would come out and work with us as 4 well. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there someone you would regard as your 6 neighbour when you were in Stewarton? 7 A. Yes, I probably had two that I would have considered. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Who were they have been? 9 A. Early on -- for the first part, it would have been 10 probably Phil Moir, PC Phil Moir, and then I believe he 11 left to go down to work in Kilmarnock and then I think 12 Stewart Warboys came and worked in Stewarton. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Warboys was his name? 14 A. Yes. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Have you ever discussed with Shirley McKie 16 what happened when she came to the house? 17 A. Do you know, apart from that day, I don't even think 18 I've seen -- well, obviously at the trial -- but I don't 19 think I've ever see Shirley McKie since that day and 20 probably her trial. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: So really the answer is no, you had no 22 discussion. 23 A. No. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr Lees. Thank you. 25 (The witness withdrew) page 158 1 THE CHAIRMAN: The next witness would be Mr Brown. 2 MISS CARMICHAEL: That's right, sir. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: I am not sure if Mr Brown might wish to start 4 his evidence anyhow for first ten minutes and make a 5 beginning. 6 LESLIE BROWN (sworn) 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Could we have your full name for the record. 8 A. Leslie Brown. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Leslie Brown. And you spell it? 10 A. L-E-S-L-I-E -- the male version. 11 Examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 12 Q. Mr Brown, I think you've provided a signed statement for 13 the Inquiry. 14 A. Sorry? 15 Q. You've provided a signed statement for the Inquiry. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Are you happy that that records your position in 18 relation to the matters that are recorded in it? 19 A. No, I'm not happy with the final presentation. As you 20 know, this statement of mine passed backwards and 21 forwards to Edinburgh on three occasions and each time 22 it came back, it had been amended. 23 Q. Well, there are matters on which the Chairman has made a 24 ruling, Mr Brown, as I think you're aware, and I 25 certainly don't intend to ask you about any of those page 159 1 matters. 2 Are you content that what is currently before the 3 Inquiry in relation to the matters that are covered 4 there is an accurate record of your position in relation 5 to those matters? 6 A. Yes, with one notable exception having heard the Officer 7 Kerr giving his evidence. He was telling the truth. I 8 have never interviewed Kerr. 9 Q. Now, that would take us -- we may as well deal that just 10 at this point then, Mr Brown, thank you -- to 11 paragraph 46 of your statement. That is where you refer 12 to -- well, you refer to him as "SOCO Kerr", although I 13 think in fact we heard he's not a SOCO, but a detective. 14 A. Yes. The line I have in front of me, which was returned 15 from your office to me, says I did speak to a SOCO 16 officer, Officer Kerr, who confirmed that he'd heard PC 17 Lees and Shirley McKie. 18 I've amended that to -- 19 Q. In what way would you like to amend that, Mr Brown. 20 A. Well, I have done. I've changed it and altered it 21 because it's to fit in with the evidence I'm giving 22 today, which is an oath. 23 Can I just say for the benefit of his Lordship that 24 some discrepancies in my statements are really quite 25 unbelievable and if I can quote the very first mistake, page 160 1 and I think it's only fair that this should come out -- 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Just before we go further, have we got a 3 signed statement from you? 4 A. I've got what was returned to me with a photocopy of my 5 signature, yes. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Presumably there is one which is a signed -- 7 well, I would imagine that is the photocopy of the 8 original of the one that you'd signed anyhow if it's got 9 a signed -- 10 A. Can I just give an example of the problem I was facing? 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 12 A. Rather than looking it up. The very first statement I 13 sent to Edinburgh, and I went through to Edinburgh and 14 was interviewed by a lady and gentleman -- the gentleman 15 sitting opposite me -- and, describing my uneasy 16 feelings about this whole matter, I said that the first 17 thing I noticed when I was taken on board to investigate 18 the murder of Marion Ross was that the police took 19 20 hours to decide it was a murder and, being an 20 ex-expert murder squad detective (and that was my niche 21 in the police), I find this it unbelievable and I still 22 find it unbelievable and having listened to police 23 officers giving their evidence, I still find it 24 unbelievable that it took 20 hours to decide that this 25 lady had been murdered and the word "suicide" was page 161 1 mentioned occasionally. 2 Now, I sent that statement to Edinburgh and it came 3 back: it was 15 hours. I really could not understand 4 it; it's not a typist's error. And I phoned them and 5 asked them and they said, "Just sign it and return it". 6 I did that. 7 Further on in the same statement, I referred to a 8 blood-stained watch found in the possession of Asbury 9 and I said "referring to a blood-stained watch found in 10 possession of David Asbury" -- 11 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir -- 12 A. When it came back it was "two blood-stained watches". I 13 think this is quite important if you don't mind me 14 saying to. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Just take a moment. 16 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, we may be trespassing on matters 17 where you have made rulings about what is relevant and 18 what is not relevant here and I certainly don't, as 19 Inquiry Counsel, wish to be thought to be asking 20 questions that precipitates evidence of that sort. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I see. 22 A. We're trying to get to the truth here, my Lord. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: The problem -- you see, I've ruled that 24 certain matters are not part of my remit in this 25 Inquiry. page 162 1 A. Yes. Well, the matters that have been -- 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Those have been removed because they aren't 3 relevant. 4 A. Well, the blood-stained watch, if it's not relevant we 5 shouldn't be here. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, it may be relevant to something else, 7 but it's not relevant to the Terms of Reference of my 8 Inquiry. I mean, I have already explained that. It may 9 be of great interest in your work that you have been 10 doing on this, but I am not, as I understand it, and 11 indeed as I have interpreted my Terms of Reference, I am 12 only looking at the fingerprints associated with Y7 13 which are those fingerprints which were in the Asbury 14 case. 15 Now, blood on a watch is not a fingerprint. 16 A. I totally understand that. I'm just trying to point out 17 there's inaccuracies in the statement I submitted and 18 the statement I have before me has been -- is not the 19 original statement that I put forward referring in 20 particular -- I do understand that you yourself deleted 21 some of the passages from the statement and I go along 22 with that and I do understand that we're talking about a 23 fingerprint inquiry, but I think to get at the truth 24 these other matters should be brought forward also. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I can fully understand that but it is a page 163 1 matter of whether I can go -- I can't go beyond my Terms 2 of Reference, whether you think they should be 3 investigated or not. My powers are limited. 4 A. I'm quite happy to make the point that -- 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm not happy to have the point made 6 because, as I say, it's not one that I can deal with. 7 I'm not authorised by my Terms of Reference to examine 8 that issue. 9 A. I do understand that, my Lord, but certain things that 10 not only worry me but worry others in this Inquiry is 11 that the man who's wearing the blood-stained watch is a 12 Core Participant in this Inquiry. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is true and that is for certain 14 reasons I felt it appropriate in the circumstances, 15 because it was his fingerprints that were being 16 investigated in the Inquiry, that he should be 17 represented but not beyond that. 18 A. I am quite happy to continue from now and be guided by 19 the learned lady opposite. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I think if you would be good enough because, 21 as I say, it's not that I don't accept that these are of 22 great importance and would be to those who would like to 23 know who was responsible for this crime, but I just -- 24 it's not in my power to do that. 25 A. I understand, my Lord. My sole concern is the murder of page 164 1 Marion Ross. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I appreciate that but the difficulty is 3 you and I have two different concerns. The one I am 4 concerned with is the issue of the fingerprints. 5 I think it is now 4.00 but I wonder would it be -- 6 are you content that insofar as the matters that I'm 7 dealing with that your statement represents your 8 evidence on that? 9 A. Yes, I'm satisfied and I'm happy that I've cleared the 10 point about that Detective Constable Kerr was telling 11 the truth. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, subject to that. 13 A. Yes. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we will recommence at 10.15 in the 15 morning then. Is there anything? 16 MISS CARMICHAEL: No thank you, sir. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 10.15 tomorrow. It may 18 be that, if it wouldn't be very inconvenient, it may be 19 that tomorrow we could at least go on until 3.15 if that 20 would not inconvenience anyone who has made arrangements 21 on the basis of stopping at 3.00. I think 15 minutes 22 might make a difference. If necessary, we will go on 23 until 3.15. 24 (4.00 pm) 25 (Adjourned until 10.15 am the following morning)