page 1 1 Friday, 19th June 2009 2 (10.15 am) 3 LESLIE BROWN (continued) 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning Mr Brown. If you would like to 5 continue your evidence now. 6 Examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 7 Q. Thank you, Mr Brown, please do sit down. 8 Mr Brown, you started to tell us yesterday that you 9 had amended paragraph 46 of your statement and I would 10 just like to ask you how you would like that to read 11 now, please. 12 A. You would be aware that having heard Mr Kerr giving his 13 evidence there was something I wasn't happy about. 14 Q. Indeed so and I simply want to find out what that is and 15 to give you the chance to change anything you need to in 16 your statement? 17 A. What I did last night when I went home, every police 18 officer I have interviewed I've sought permission from 19 the Legal Department of Strathclyde Police. In some 20 cases I was required to pay a fee of to conduct a 21 precognition which I objected to very strongly and I was 22 told by Strathclyde Police what I was investigating was 23 not a criminal matter. Well, you could have fooled me. 24 What I did then was I would contact them and 25 particularly a lady called Miss Arbuckle(?). I told her page 2 1 who I was and I wished to interview, for example, Mr 2 McAllister. She would have said, "Yes, send us a cheque 3 for ", which I did, made out to the Chief Constable. 4 She would then okay it at their end and eventually she 5 would phone me back and say, "You can now approach 6 Mr McAllister". We know what happened there. 7 I've checked. I never made any such contact in 8 respect of Kerr. So I thought why would I not do that? 9 I would even doing that if I was going to telephone. I 10 do not telephone witnesses; I only telephone them to 11 make an arrangement to meet them. 12 Then having had a look at the statement I don't want 13 to stretch beyond what I'm supposed to be talking about, 14 but the last statement I sent to Edinburgh two weeks 15 later there was no sign of it and I telephoned and asked 16 if there was a problem and I was told there was. If you 17 want me to tell you what the problem was I'll tell you 18 but I was told there was a problem. 19 But anyway when it came back to me and I discovered 20 last night. I submitted a statement with chapters 45, 21 46 and 47. When I looked at it last night, comparing it 22 with the other chapters, I've got an additional chapter. 23 I've now got 46A. Whereas before 46 was to do with Sean 24 Murphy, Advocate Depute, he now becomes 46A and 25 evidence -- I've never referred to anyone as SOCO Kerr page 3 1 if he's a detective -- I know the difference between 2 them -- which gives me the distinct impression that that 3 chapter's been inserted not by me and that's confirmed 4 by the fact I made no effort to contact Strathclyde 5 Police and certainly when I saw Officer Kerr in here 6 yesterday that's the first time I've ever seen the chap. 7 So I never interviewed him, what he said was correct and 8 I would never phone him. I don't do that. I only phone 9 the Legal Services Department first to get the okay. 10 I'm quite happy to proceed the way it is and just 11 accept -- I would accept the fact that I made a mistake 12 when that was returned to me, albeit I had to wait two 13 weeks for it and remember the first two statements I 14 submitted I had quite severe problems with them. They 15 bore no resemblance to what I submitted. In fact, I 16 sent an e-mail to your office complaining about the 17 standard of the statements and I said if this is the 18 standard that's going to be reached in the fingerprint 19 inquiry I don't hold out much hope for it. 20 Q. Mr Brown, if I could just stop you there, I think you 21 were sent a draft statement and you were given the 22 opportunity to make changes to that and you made some 23 changes to it. Is that correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And you have signed the statement with paragraph 46 in page 4 1 it about Officer Kerr. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. I'm just wondering how you can just sign that if that 4 was something you weren't happy with when you read over 5 it? 6 A. When it came back to me with the evidence of SOCO Kerr 7 it was already signed from a previous statement. I 8 accept that I made a mistake. I should never have 9 signed that knowing that this additional chapter was in 10 there. That was my mistake. But if I send a statement 11 back to Edinburgh and it's to be corrected, for example, 12 in connection with the watch, when I get it back I look 13 at the watch and see it's okay. It never entered my 14 head to read the whole statement again. It's quite 15 clever that it's not been a statement added on by 16 numbers, 46 now becomes 46 and 46A. 17 Q. Is it your position that the section headed "Evidence of 18 SOCO Kerr" was not in the draft statement sent back to 19 you initially for revision? 20 A. The very first statement it would not be in it. I don't 21 have it unfortunately but it wouldn't be in it but I 22 have -- 23 Q. Mr Brown, I expect that those behind me will be able to 24 obtain the drafts from our system and I think we can 25 probably check that. I will leave this for a moment page 5 1 while that is being checked but certainly from what I am 2 looking at here it looks very much as if that was 3 something that was in your initial draft, Mr Brown. 4 What I would like to be clear about from your 5 evidence today is whether there is any part of 6 paragraph 46 that you would like to leave in your 7 statement at all. 8 A. You're talking 46 as opposed to 46A. 9 Q. That's right. 10 A. Yes, just give me a second. (Pause) 11 If I was altering that now, if I was given the 12 opportunity to alter that -- 13 Q. This is that opportunity Mr Brown, yes. 14 A. I would start off saying, "I a aware that an officer", I 15 wouldn't use the term SOCO, "I am aware that a police 16 officer stated that he heard PC Lees and Shirley McKie 17 having a heated discussion in the porch of the locus", 18 and, again, the word "SOCO" comes in. I don't use that. 19 He said that Shirley McKie used the word 20 "contamination". 21 We heard him giving his evidence and he said he 22 never heard that word but lo and behold when Mark Lees 23 gives evidence Mark Lees says he heard Shirley saying 24 cross-contamination. So the truth's in there somewhere. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but when you say, "I'm aware that a page 6 1 police officer stated", you don't identify the police 2 officer; is that right? 3 A. Well, I understood that that was in the transcript of 4 the trial, the Shirley McKie trial. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: No, m asking really of your statement at the 6 moment. The way you want paragraph 46 to read is: 7 "I'm aware that a police officer stated ..." without 8 saying who the police officer is? 9 A. No, I'm saying I am aware that Detective Constable Kerr 10 heard -- stated that he heard Lees -- that came from the 11 transcript -- and Shirley McKie. 12 I do apologise for the fact that I've possibly 13 signing this when I should have checked but the thing 14 that threw me was there was not a chapter added on at 15 the end to make it -- which I might have spotted. 62, 16 it would have finished up as 63. What's been inserted 17 is 46 becomes 46 and 46A. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: At the moment what I want really is your 19 evidence, never mind about the statement, but your 20 evidence is, "I'm aware that a police officer, Detective 21 Constable Kerr, stated that he heard PC Lees and Shirley 22 McKie", and the rest of that is all right; is that 23 right? 24 A. Yes, my Lord, yes. I should have arranged for that to 25 be done before this hearing started here. That's my page 7 1 fault. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Don't worry about that. I just want to make 3 sure that I have your evidence. 4 MISS CARMICHAEL: There is something I would like to clarify 5 with you, Mr Brown, just on that point. I think you 6 forwarded two e-mails to the Inquiry back in 7 September 2008. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. I don't think this is a document that is necessarily 10 otherwise available and I have one copy in front of me. 11 I think what I would like to do in the 12 circumstances, sir, is in the first instance pass this 13 to Mr Brown so he can satisfy himself that it is an 14 e-mail he sent to the Inquiry and then put it on the 15 screen perhaps so that others could see. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: He should have the opportunity to see the 17 document. 18 MISS CARMICHAEL: Yes. (Handed) 19 A. Thank you. Yes, this is a copy of an e-mail from me to 20 Fi McB (that's Fiona McBride) the lady who first asked 21 for my assistance in this case to Alex Salmond, MSP in 22 the Scottish Parliament, to Kenny MacAskill(?) , to 23 Crown Office and to Liz Weir, the boss at Kilmarnock 24 Police Office. 25 Q. I don't need you to read at all out, Mr Brown, I just page 8 1 need you to be satisfied, as you look through it, that 2 it's the email you forwarded to the Inquiry. 3 A. You want me to read through it and check it's okay? 4 Q. Yes, yes, not necessarily to read it out, simply to read 5 it yourself to satisfy yourself that it is what you sent 6 us. (Pause) 7 A. It's quite lengthy if you want to tell me which 8 particular bit you wish -- 9 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we want to be sure is that that is 10 the e-mail that you sent. (Pause) 11 A. Yes, this has been copied from the e-mail I sent. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 13 MISS CARMICHAEL: I wonder if we could have it back to put 14 on the screens so that other people can see part of it, 15 Mr Brown; thank you. 16 A. Yes. (Handed) 17 Q. If I could perhaps read part of this so simply to get it 18 into the record, reading from the end of the second line 19 at the top of the page you have written: 20 " ... I am also in no doubt that Lees was on door 21 duty when she gained entry but she didn't allow her 22 entry. She simply walked past him while he was seated 23 desk and wasn't able to prevent her entry. This is 24 borne out by a SOCO officer who overheard Lees and McKie 25 in discussion, within the porch area. He heard the word page 9 1 'contamination', so why was that word used if she was 2 simply handing in logging sheets (according to her)." 3 That is part of what you said us, Mr Brown? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. So the suggestion that a SOCO was involved at that stage 6 is a suggest that comes from you to the Inquiry; you 7 would accept that? 8 A. Yes, this is a copy of what I sent, yes. 9 Q. I think I will be corrected if I am wrong but a few 10 minutes ago you did tell us that you were somewhat 11 confused by the use of the expression "SOCO" in your 12 statement as a reference to Mr Kerr. 13 I would just like to be quite clear about what your 14 position is on this matter, Mr Brown? 15 A. My recollection of this is that perhaps at that stage I 16 didn't know that it was Kerr. All I knew it was an 17 officer who overheard Lees and McKie and that 18 information would come to me from someone, maybe even 19 one of the fingerprint officers, but someone who's 20 attempted to assist me and give me that information and 21 it's their reference to SOCO officer. 22 Q. I see. 23 A. Within my recollection, I know the difference between a 24 SOCO officer and a detective and a detective would not 25 be enamoured by the fact that I would refer to him as a page 10 1 SOCO and the same in the other direction. They like to 2 retain their title for good reason. 3 Q. I am sure are right about that, Mr Brown. Perhaps we 4 could take that off the screen. 5 So just to be quite clear about this, where did your 6 information about this matter come from? 7 A. My recollection is that it came from the transcript of 8 the trial which I got access to. 9 Q. I see. That's where you think you got this piece of 10 information from? 11 A. Almost certainly, yes. 12 Q. And your position is that, while you didn't speak to 13 Mr Kerr yourself, your information which you think came 14 from a transcript was that Mr Kerr overheard a 15 conversation in the terms you set out in your statement. 16 A. Yes. You have to understand my difficulty here. I'm 17 doing this on my own. I'm only investigating this on 18 behalf of the SCRO officers and the remit was to 19 investigate the murder of Marion Ross, nothing to do 20 with fingerprints and I don't have access to documents 21 apart from the ones that I get for whatever reason, like 22 the transcript of both the trials and work from that. 23 But everything I knew -- if I speak to an officer like, 24 a classic example is Kerr Reid, you heard him giving his 25 evidence about what was said to him at the High Court in page 11 1 Paisley, it's between him and I. If he gives a 2 different version from me I don't have any 3 corroboration. I just record it as he tells me. 4 Q. Well, we will come to Kerr Reid, Mr Brown. I would like 5 to give you an opportunity to speak and let the Chairman 6 hear your position on a number of matters in your 7 statement and this is your opportunity to tell what you 8 have to say in your own words so that the Chairman can 9 hear that and reach a view about it. 10 I took paragraph 46 out of order because you had 11 mentioned at the outset that you weren't happy with what 12 was in it. I'd like to go back now really to the 13 beginning of your statement and certainly to paragraph 3 14 where you tell us how you first became involved in 15 looking into this matter. 16 Given that you have indicated that there was a 17 problem with one part of your statement I would like to 18 go through this quite carefully and just be clear that 19 you are happy with the rest of it so forgive me if I 20 take a little time with it. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. You write in paragraph 3 that on 5th March 2006 you were 23 contacted by a Marion Scott who was at that time a crime 24 reporter for the Sunday Mail. 25 Was that a lady you had known before or was that the page 12 1 first time you had heard from her? 2 A. No, she -- I have to go back a wee bit it's part of the 3 explanation. In the year 2002 I was approached by a 4 chap called Brian Davis who was unhappy about the way 5 the police were treating the murder of his mother and 6 the police at Paisley and elsewhere classified Annie 7 Davis' death as accidental and the DCI at Paisley at 8 that time was a Mr McAllister. 9 I then spoke to Marion Scott and she had arranged -- 10 I do all this free. I don't charge anyone any money for 11 what I'm doing. I just give my services -- I travelled 12 down to Erskine and interviewed the Davies family and in 13 the first day on the first visit I came to the 14 conclusion she'd been murdered. This is despite the 15 fact that very many senior police officers said it was 16 an accidental death and at the very end I finished up 17 being interviewed by the Assistant Chief Constable 18 (Crime). This lady was found dead at the back of the 19 front door of her house. The door -- the main door of 20 the house was held open two inches by her spectacles 21 jamming it preventing the door shutting and I insisted 22 that this lady had been murdered, so much so that I 23 finished, as I say, in front of the Assistant Chief 24 Constable (Crime) Graham Pearson and I said to him, in 25 the presence of Brian Davis, "If you answer one question page 13 1 I'm out of here", and he said, "What's your question?" 2 I said, "Where are the house keys?" The house keys were 3 never found nor were her hand bag. So that was the 4 outcome of it all was the family applied for criminal 5 injuries compensation. They had been refused on the 6 grounds the Procurator Fiscal at Paisley had declared it 7 to be an accidental death. 8 I wrote to the criminal injuries compensation people 9 and they were awarded quite a large sum of money and the 10 Chairman of that committee said it was quite obvious she 11 had suffered a violent death and to finish that little 12 anecdote about that, the Procurator Fiscal at Paisley 13 who wrote to them saying it was accidental death. I 14 complained to Crown Office to say that I'm very angry at 15 the Procurator Fiscal for doing that and I'm very 16 disappointed he thought he would get away with it. 17 I met that Procurator Fiscal a month later and he 18 was walking his dog in and I say, "Why are you not at 19 your work", and he said, "If you don't know, I can't 20 tell you". 21 So Marion Ross -- sorry, Marion Scott -- 22 Q. I am keen just to find out if you had known Marion Scott 23 before she contacted you about the SCRO officers. I am 24 not sure that we need to -- 25 A. That's why she contacted me again because she knew what page 14 1 happened in the Annie Davies case and she approached me 2 and asked me if I would help the SCRO. 3 Q. I see. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. So the contact came from her because she knew of 6 something that you had done before? 7 A. Sorry. 8 Q. The contact came from her because of something she knew 9 you had done before? 10 A. On several cases, yes, and she knew how successful they 11 had been and she, I think, had spoken to SCRO and said 12 to them "Why don't you contact Les Brown". I've a 13 feeling while I'm saying this that Fiona McBride phoned 14 me about 27th February to see if it would be all right, 15 would I be prepared to assist them and I said yes. What 16 impressed me is the very fact from the very beginning 17 they never, ever asked me to assist them other than to 18 investigate the murder of Marion Ross and that's what I 19 did. 20 Q. What you write and, again, I want to be quite clear that 21 you're happy with all of this, is that you record that 22 Marion asked if you were prepared to help some people 23 from the Scottish Criminal Record Office and you met 24 with her, Fiona McBride, a fingerprint expert from SCRO 25 and another SCRO fingerprint expert Alister Geddes? page 15 1 A. That's correct, yes. 2 Q. That's all correct, and you have written that you agreed 3 to help on the basis that you would investigate the 4 murder of Marion Ross. You could not help with the 5 detailed fingerprint side of things, as whilst you have 6 knowledge of such matters as a layman you weren't an 7 expert. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And that is all correct. 10 You record at paragraph 5 that it struck you that 11 during the course of the discussions in respect of 12 Shirley McKie that no-one had paid attention to the fact 13 that Marion Ross had been murdered and your focus would 14 be on investigating her murder? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And that's all correct. We may come back to paragraph 6 17 of your statement a little later, Mr Brown, but what you 18 write there is since you looked into matters you have 19 been passed information from police officers whose names 20 you can't disclose and that many police officers call 21 you anonymously to pass on information. 22 You are happy with that part of your statement as 23 your evidence? 24 A. Yes, if I can explain a little bit of it, that part, if 25 we go back to Kerr Reid again, I am only using him as an page 16 1 example of someone who has been here, he tells me, he 2 gives me information what he was told at Paisley High 3 Court and I then pass that on without naming him, as you 4 know. I say, "Right, okay". I don't give his name at 5 that stage but when it becomes obvious he's going to 6 have to be required to be a witness I then get back to 7 him and say, "Whether you like it or not, I'm submitting 8 your name because this is too important", and in his 9 case he said, "I've no problem with that", but there are 10 others who say, "I don't want involved". 11 Q. I think we will come back to paragraph 6 for the moment 12 and I may ask you a little more about that but at the 13 moment I just want to be quite clear going through your 14 statement that you are happy with everything that's in 15 it. At paragraph 7 you write: 16 "Attempts have been made to get positive publicity 17 for the SCRO experts. However, this has proven very 18 difficult. Shirley McKie's lawyers Levy & McRae act for 19 many news organisations." 20 You are happy that records your position on that 21 matter? 22 A. Yes. May I just say a few words about that? 23 THE CHAIRMAN: I think at the moment we are just checking -- 24 we may come back to that -- 25 A. Yes, that is correct. That paragraph is correct. page 17 1 THE CHAIRMAN: -- but at the moment it's just to check you 2 are happy with what appears. 3 A. Yes. 4 MISS CARMICHAEL: The next part of your statement tells us a 5 little bit more about your meeting with Marion Scott. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Looking at paragraph 8 what you write is that at that 8 first meeting Marion Scott told you that it was well 9 known in the media that Shirley McKie had a romantic 10 liaison with her boyfriend, a police officer, and that a 11 particular romantic liaison took place in the house 12 where the murder took place. 13 Can you recall just exactly what it was that Marion 14 Scott said to you? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Please tell the Chairman your best recollection -- 17 A. She said this in my house in front of three other 18 witnesses and myself Fiona McBride was there, Alister 19 was there and my wife was there and she said, "It's well 20 known in media circles that Shirley had a romantic 21 liaison with her boyfriend in the house", and my 22 response was, "That's impossible. How could she 23 possibly have a romantic liaison with someone in a house 24 that's full of police officers?" And she repeated the 25 fact that it was well known in the media. page 18 1 Q. At paragraph 9 you say that it's Marion Scott's practice 2 to tape everything. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Did you see her taping that? 5 A. I'd be astonished if she didn't. 6 Q. If you wouldn't mind answering the question, did you see 7 her doing it on that occasion? 8 A. No, it's not done openly. No, no, she carries a tape 9 recorder in her handbag. She tapes everything. I know 10 that for a fact. 11 Q. But when you meet with people do you record your 12 meetings with them? 13 A. Sorry? 14 Q. Do you record your meetings -- 15 A. No, no, I never tape anything, no. 16 Q. Do you take notes of your meetings -- 17 A. Well, it depends. I don't need to take a note about 18 that because it's such an impact that you could recall 19 it quite easily. You learn through life in the CID the 20 last thing you do is produce a notebook. If you are 21 interviewing a suspect and you produce -- or a police 22 officer, you produce a notebook, they then see that this 23 is going down in a permanent fashion. 24 What I tend to do is get a statement from them 25 verbally and then say, "You will have to excuse me, I've page 19 1 got a terrible memory. I'm now going to write this 2 down", and that's the way I've always done that and it 3 works. 4 I did not record this. Four of us heard it. 5 There's no doubt in my mind that's what she said. The 6 content of what she said was a load of rubbish but 7 that's up to others. 8 Q. You have recorded in paragraph 10 that you received a 9 letter from Mr McKie's lawyers saying that they would 10 take action against you unless you retracted the 11 statement, apparently a reference to those particular 12 allegations about Shirley McKie. 13 A. Yes. Strangely enough, about two days after I came on 14 board, an ex-colleague police officer said, "Have you 15 had a warning letter from McKie's lawyers yet", and I 16 said no, and two days later I got one. 17 Q. Had you repeated anything that Marion Scott said to you 18 to anybody? 19 A. No, I haven't repeated that to this day to anyone, apart 20 from informing yourselves. 21 Q. Who was the colleague who spoke to you about getting a 22 warning letter from Mr McKie's lawyers? 23 A. Just some ex-colleague. Wherever I go, at that time 24 people officers would say to me, "Are you doing the 25 Shirley McKie case", and I would say, "No, I'm not. I'm page 20 1 doing the murder of Marion Ross case". 2 Q. Can you remember which colleague spoke to you about that 3 or which ex-colleague spoke to you about that? 4 A. No, I've never even thought or trying to recall who it 5 was. I speak to so many officers but it was just so 6 coincidental that that's what he said and I said, "No, I 7 haven't" and he said, "Well, you'll get one", and two 8 days later I got one. I've got a copy of it in front of 9 me. 10 Q. At paragraph 11 you record a matter that you didn't, in 11 fact, about an individual who you didn't, in fact, come 12 to interview and you excluded from your inquiries? 13 A. No, I think in fairness to Marion -- to Shirley McKie, 14 every time Mr McKie does a press release or whatever the 15 following day I get three phone calls on average of 16 people protesting at what he is saying and one of them 17 said to me that constable -- "Have you checked Constable 18 Reese", and I said, "Who's he", and they've said, "He's 19 one of Shirley's boyfriends". 20 Q. Who said that to you? 21 A. Well, it was said to me on the basis that I would not 22 repeat, disclose who actually said that. 23 Q. You will appreciate, Mr Brown, that this is an Inquiry. 24 If there is information that might help the Chairman we 25 are very anxious to get it and you have already said page 21 1 that where matters are what seem to you to be 2 sufficiently important -- 3 A. No, with the great -- 4 Q. Please listen to what I'm saying to you, Mr Brown -- you 5 have already told us that in relation to Mr Kerr Reid 6 you thought it was a matter of sufficient importance you 7 would pass the person's name on; yes? 8 A. Yes. I never passed on Kerr Reid's name at all. 9 Q. There are circumstances where things are sufficiently 10 important that you are able to do that. 11 A. Yes. Someone said to me, "Why don't you check Constable 12 Reese", and I made enquiries and spoke to police 13 officers who I can speak to, still in the job, and they 14 said that's a lot of rubbish. In fact, one officer said 15 to me, "Never heard of him". 16 Q. But you will appreciate if you don't tell us who your 17 sources are then we can't get statements from them and 18 can't bring them to the Inquiry and can't ask them 19 questions. 20 A. I am satisfied that Reese is not involved in this. As 21 far as I'm concerned that's the end of it. My mistake 22 was putting it down in writing. There's a lot parts of 23 this inquiry I'm doing that I've decided myself I'm not 24 taking it any further. The mistake I made here was 25 putting it down in writing for you to read. Reese is page 22 1 not involved in this. I mean, I'm sitting here doing my 2 best giving evidence and I'm told by his Lordship that I 3 cannot refer to a watch with blood on it and you're 4 telling me, you're trying to push with for Constable 5 Reese who's got nothing to do with this Inquiry. One 6 exceeds the other. 7 Q. I think we have recorded your position on that, 8 Mr Brown. 9 If we can move on to what you've recorded about the 10 involvement of Peter Swann in the next part of your 11 statement and I would like to be sure that you are 12 happy. It may be that I don't need to read this out 13 word-for-word if you can just look carefully because I 14 don't want to take up time unnecessarily but if you want 15 to look carefully at each of paragraphs 12 to 16 so that 16 you can be quite satisfied that this records what you 17 would want the Chairman to regard as your evidence on 18 this matter. (Pause) 19 A. In chapter 14 there's a slight alteration because the 20 second last line of chapter 14 it's written here that he 21 told me that on a Richter scale of 1 to 10 his certainty 22 was at 11. I never said that. What I said was that I 23 asked him on the Richter scale of 10 how good a match 24 was Y7 with Shirley McKie and he said 11. It's the same 25 thing but it's been reworded. page 23 1 Q. So you put the question to him and his answer was 11? 2 A. He said it was an 11, yes. 3 Q. Is there anything else about paragraphs 12 to 16 that 4 you would want to change? 5 A. No, not change, no. 6 Q. The next section of your statement is headed up, 7 "Allegations of criminal collusion: Gilchrist report" 8 and that runs from paragraphs 17 through to 20 and, 9 again, what I would like you to do is take the 10 opportunity to satisfy yourself that you are happy that 11 the Chairman look at that as an accurate record of what 12 you would like to say? (Pause) 13 A. Yes, this references to William Gilchrist who I know. I 14 knew him as a Procurator Fiscal at Paisley and he 15 finished up at Crown Office and he's now a Sheriff at 16 Perth and I discovered to my astonishment he was not 17 called to give evidence at Scottish Parliament Inquiry 18 and I contacted him through his secretary because she 19 plays a very prominent part in all of this. He never 20 spoke to me but I learned from one of the secretaries at 21 the Scottish Parliament Inquiry that, as a result of my 22 contact with him, he volunteered to go and give evidence 23 to them. He wasn't called. 24 Q. You may be relieved to know, Mr Brown, that the Inquiry 25 has a statement from Sheriff Gilchrist. page 24 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. But you are happy with that part of your statement? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Thank you. 5 Now, in the next section of your statement at 6 paragraphs 21 through to 26 you record certain concerns 7 and things that you found surprising about the murder 8 investigation. Again, I would like you to take the 9 opportunity to read through that and make sure that 10 what's written down here in paragraphs 21 through to 26 11 you are happy with, that you don't feel anything has 12 been put in that you're unhappy with and that you would 13 be content for the Chairman to read that as part of your 14 evidence. (Pause) 15 A. Yes, the information contained in that is correct and it 16 highlights some of the problems that I was facing in 17 this. I have to explain to you that there's a lot of 18 things I don't know about but I do know about 19 investigating a murder and for them to take 20 hours to 20 decide this lady with the horrific injuries that she had 21 was murdered totally beggars belief and I've said that 22 on several occasions and bearing in mind that my remit, 23 your remit is the fingerprints my remit is the brutal 24 murder of this woman. 25 Q. I think you probably recognise that your interest and page 25 1 the Inquiry's remit are not exactly the same, they don't 2 cover exactly -- 3 A. Well, I disagree with that. 4 Q. We may just have to agree to differ on that. 5 A. What we are both interested in is justice and there's no 6 better opportunity than what we are getting today. I 7 agree entire with this Inquiry and I think they're doing 8 a wonderful job and it's not before time that something 9 was done about this case and my responsibility is to 10 make sure -- it was me that insisted with David Russell 11 that some mention should be given to Marion Ross in 12 October at the meeting at the Glasgow Royal Concert Hall 13 and it was me that contacted Marion Ross' cousin down in 14 Wentworth and I trawled through the whole family to try 15 and get someone to ask David Russell to represent the 16 dead woman and that was the first indication that 17 something was being done in respect of her brutal death. 18 I had a phone call yesterday from one of Marion 19 Ross' cousins thanking me for what I'm doing and I do 20 this, as Mr Russell would say, pro bono. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Could I ask you just one thing while I 22 remember: if the police regard something as a suspicious 23 death, would you regard that as adequate to cover both 24 suicide and murder. 25 A. Not in this case, my Lord, no. This was a murder. page 26 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but their approach would be different or 2 would it be the same -- if it's a murder it would be 3 included in the phrase "a suspicious death". 4 A. No, I don't think it would. A murder's a murder. A 5 suspicious death is somebody knocked down by a stolen 6 car and the driver takes off and you think, "Well, is 7 there some connection? Did the driver know the victim?" 8 That would make it a suspicious death, but a murder is a 9 murder is a murder and, I sitting before, you Lord, I'm 10 an expert on that subject. Don't ask me about 11 fingerprints. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, that's why I'm asking you because I got 13 the impression that I was being told, well, it was being 14 treated as a suspicious death and, therefore, that 15 covered it being a murder. 16 A. Yes. I can explain it to a certain extent by the fact 17 that when Shirley McKie arrived for work with William 18 Shields the following morning, I think they arrived 19 about 9.30 in the morning they were told not to leave 20 the office as they might have a murder -- they might 21 have a murder. Now if I had been involved in that I 22 wouldn't have waited until 9.30 in the morning. I would 23 have had them out the previous evening saying, "We have 24 a murder". 25 THE CHAIRMAN: I think I have got the point that you say page 27 1 it's not the same to call it a suspicious death -- 2 A. Thank you. No, not the same title. 3 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you, sir. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Just while I remembered to ask this. 5 MISS CARMICHAEL: If you are happy with paragraphs 21 to 26 6 I would like to move on to the next section which is 7 headed, "The role of DI McAllister", and that runs from 8 27 to 30. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. I will have a particular matter I would like to ask you 11 about when you have had a chance to read over this and 12 be clear that it does record your position, but if you 13 would take a moment to do that just so that we are clear 14 that you are happy with the terms of your statement as 15 it's recorded here. (Pause) 16 A. Yes, and chapter 30 refers to the case I referred to 17 earlier, the murder of Annie Davies. Yes, that page is 18 correct. 19 Q. The bit I would like to ask you about is speaking to a 20 retired officer called McAllister at paragraph 28. The 21 Inquiry has heard there are actually two retired 22 officers called McAllister and there is sometimes some 23 confusion about which one is the father of Mr McAllister 24 who gave evidence to this Inquiry and I would like to 25 give you an opportunity to comment on that. page 28 1 A. Yes. Fortunately or unfortunately I know both 2 McAllisters. My wife and I were in the shopping mall 3 and we were approached by this gentleman who was with a 4 lady. I didn't go into this in much detail because it 5 is rather a sad story. 6 However, this chap approached me and said, "Do you 7 remember me", and I said, "Yes, Sandy McAllister". He 8 said, "Oh, you remember me". I said yes. "How are you 9 getting on with the Shirley McKie case?" This is what I 10 get every day of the week and I said, "I'm not dealing 11 with the Shirley McKie case. I'm investigating the 12 murder of Marion Ross". 13 "Do you think she was in the house?" 14 I said, "Yes." He says, "So does my son. He knows 15 she was in the house". So I looked him straight in the 16 face and said, "Who's your son?" He said, "My son is 17 Detective Chief Superintendent McAllister of the Special 18 Branch". 19 Now I use Sandy McAllister from way back. I didn't 20 even know he had a son in the police. There is no 21 connection between the Mr McAllister who came here and 22 gave evidence with the McAllister -- the other 23 McAllister, Derek McAllister. I've had dealings with 24 him and won't bore you with the detail but it's quite 25 unbelievable. So I know both the McAllisters and page 29 1 there's -- I was here when Mr McAllister was giving his 2 evidence and he seemed to give the impression it wasn't 3 his father I spoke to. 4 Now, it was his father because, unless we've got two 5 McAllisters in the Special Branch and both Detective 6 Chief Superintendents, the one that sat here was the one 7 that Sandy McAllister was referring to. 8 Q. I think you have heard what McAllister's position was 9 when he was asked directly whether Shirley McKie was in 10 the house and you have heard the -- 11 A. Yes, but what he says in the Fingerprint inquiry and 12 what he says to his father could be two different 13 things. And his father, I met him -- now my wife was 14 with me and Sandy McAllister's wife was there. I have 15 to tell you this because I think it's rather sad but at 16 the same time it means we're talking about the same 17 McAllister. 18 We met again two weeks later and Sandy was on his 19 own. I was with my wife and he was carrying a 20 large brown envelope and I said, "Is your good lady 21 here?" He said, "No, I'm just about to register her 22 death". She'd passed away in preceding two weeks and he 23 said to me, adding that to my statement, "How did you 24 get on with my son", and I said, "I haven't spoken to 25 him yet". He said, "Well, if you have any problem let page 30 1 me know". This is a man that's registering his wife's 2 death saying that to me. 3 You meet people who you go way, way back, a long way 4 back in the police and have respect for each other and 5 that's what happens. There's hardly a day goes by that 6 I'm not out somewhere that someone approaches me and 7 introduces the conversation. But, as I say, my 8 difficulty is I'm doing this investigation with one arm 9 tied behind my back. I can't go to police records -- 10 I've been involved -- yes? 11 Q. We have an example there of somebody again, like Kerr 12 Reid, you've told us this name, you have drawn our 13 attention to DI McAllister, you have drawn our attention 14 to his father and, with that in mind, I am very keen 15 that if you can give us indications of any other people 16 who should come to give evidence here, that you should 17 do that and when you tell us that you have information 18 from people who have asked you not to tell us who they 19 are, I am wondering why it is that you want to tell us 20 about Kerr Reid and you want to tell us about 21 Mr McAllister but you don't want to tell us about the 22 other people. 23 A. Well, that's up to them. Their approached me -- many 24 police officers, as I say, every time Mr McKie appears 25 on television or gives a statement to the press, the page 31 1 following day I can expect three or four phone calls. 2 For example, Mr McKie said on television, "I know how 3 difficult this is. I was a detective". I get five 4 phone calls, "When was he a detective?" That's got 5 nothing to do with this but that's what happens and they 6 approach me and give me this -- but if you want me to 7 bring you up-to-date with the Kerr Reid, which is quite 8 important ... 9 Q. We will come to that. I'm going through your statement 10 in order at the moment, Mr Brown. 11 We move on in the next section of your statement to 12 Constable Mark Lees. I would like to ask you 13 particularly -- well, for completeness, paragraph 31, 14 are you happy with the terms of that? You began to 15 get information about PC Mark Lees -- 16 A. Yes. Several police officers -- 17 Q. -- serving and retired. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: I think he wanted to complete his answer. 19 MISS CARMICHAEL: I am sorry. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Please complete your answer. 21 A. Yes. If I'm speaking to police officers, I have a lot 22 of contact with police officers through charity work 23 that I do. I'm supposed to be playing against 24 Strathclyde Police next week and this is subject gets 25 raised all the time and I say -- one of the questions I page 32 1 ask, and this is from years of experience, who should I 2 be looking at? And most of them say Mark Lees. So 3 eventually you get to the stage it dawns on you that 4 Mark Lees should be interviewed. 5 Q. As I said, as I said to you earlier, if there are 6 witnesses or potential witnesses who may have 7 information that is relevant to the Inquiry, it would be 8 very helpful if you could tell us who they are, if they 9 are individuals who have, personally, information 10 themselves that suggests, for example, that Mr Lees did 11 something he shouldn't, then it may be very important to 12 be able to bring them to the Inquiry and have them give 13 evidence on oath just as you are doing just now. 14 A. I agree entirely that these officers should come forward 15 and volunteer to give evidence here but if they say to 16 me, "Why don't you question Mark Lees", and initially 17 I'll say, "Who's he", and they tell me. They're not 18 going to come forward and say, "I told Mr Brown that I 19 think" -- it's common knowledge apparently at Kilmarnock 20 that he's the man I should be interviewing. 21 Everybody asks me about Constable Morgan who you had 22 here as a witness. I said, "I've been told Mark Lees 23 such and such, am I right on the right track?" 24 "Yes." 25 So eventually it dawns on you that you have to page 33 1 interview Mark Lees and that's what I did -- or 2 attempted to do. 3 Q. Do you know who the officers were who gave you the 4 information about Mark Lees? 5 A. Well, I could write a list of police officers I've 6 interviewed. I think Willy shields is to give evidence 7 yet. I don't know if he has been or he's still to come 8 but Shirley McKie's partner. 9 Q. So you say Willy Shields is one of the people who gave 10 you information about Mark Lees? 11 A. Yes, during my interview with him, for which I paid 12 , under great protest, I said I've been told that 13 Mark Lees -- I should interview Mark Lees and he said 14 yes and if he's still to come here you can ask him the 15 same question. 16 My difficulty is these people say that to me and, 17 again, getting back to Kerr Reid as an example, what 18 they say here is entirely different but that's up to 19 them. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: If they say to you -- I want to get it clear 21 in my own mind -- if they say to you you should 22 interview X or Y that doesn't mean that they know of 23 their own knowledge that X or Y -- 24 A. Quite correct. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: -- was involved in some particular incident, page 34 1 they are merely pointing you in that direction; is that 2 what you're saying? 3 A. Yes, continually. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: But if there was anyone who said, "I know of 5 my own knowledge", so to speak, I take it that you would 6 approach that person and ask them to become available to 7 the Inquiry. 8 A. Yes, exactly, or I would pass his name over to whoever 9 and say, for example, Mark Lees is refusing to be 10 interviewed. They say, well, that's up to him. 11 MISS CARMICHAEL: Very well so should we take it then when 12 you are talking about getting information about PC Mark 13 Lees you are talking about rumour being passed to you 14 rather than anybody saying, "I know that Mark Lees let 15 her in"? 16 A. Yes. It's more than rumour but, as his Lordship says, 17 the name Mark Lees keeps cropping up. If I was told 18 that constable X, as I have been told, knows the answer 19 to your questions, I then follow up to try and identify 20 the officer who knows, as we did in Mark Lees case, as 21 we did in the golf professional chap from Troon, I think 22 he's a witness in the case, I then follow it up. I get 23 into my car and drive down to Troon and you know what 24 happened there. 25 Q. Very well. page 35 1 Now you say -- I am going to move on to 2 paragraph 32. You say you were told that during the 3 perjury trial HMA v Shirley McKie, PC Lees and Shirley 4 McKie were seen arguing ferociously in the car park. 5 Who told you that? 6 A. A strange thing that word "ferociously", I've never used 7 that in my life. PC Lees and Shirley McKie were seen 8 arguing ferociously. That's not my terminology. I 9 would say arguing heatedly. 10 Q. Heatedly? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. So we should read ferociously for heatedly. Well, who 13 told you -- 14 A. I cannot put a name to the person who told me. Somebody 15 told me. It could be one of a group. It could be one 16 of the SCRO officers. It was someone who was at the 17 trial but I've spoken to a lot of police officers who 18 were at the trial, quite a few. I can't put a name to 19 the person that told me that. But it's information that 20 might help the Inquiry: why would they be arguing in the 21 car park? 22 Q. We can't investigate whether they were arguing in the 23 car park unless we can speak to the person who saw that 24 happening, Mr Brown. So it would be very helpful if you 25 could try your best to remember who told you? page 36 1 A. I'm trying my best but it's very difficult. You're 2 saying to me that -- what you're inferring is that Mark 3 Lees when asked in the witness box about arguing in the 4 car park and he denied it. Well, I sat and listened to 5 Mark Lees and if that's the standard of police officer 6 we've got now, we're in a whole lot of trouble. 7 Q. Mr Brown, what I'm saying to you is that if there's 8 somebody who can come along and say and give an account 9 that PC Lees was arguing with Shirley McKie, then the 10 Inquiry might be interested to hear that. 11 A. I do understand that, yes. 12 Q. Mr Brown, I appreciate that you said when you were in 13 the CID you would write things down after people had 14 told you them rather than doing it when they were there 15 and you gave a reason why that's your practice at the 16 time. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. But when you are investigating matters in the way that 19 you do, in the way that you have told us for people for 20 free, is it not still perhaps good practice to keep a 21 note of important things that happen, important things 22 that people tell you and who's told you it? 23 A. I would not bring out a notebook and write down so and 24 so told me that he saw Mark Lees and Shirley McKie 25 arguing in the car park. I'd just accept it as page 37 1 information that should be passed on, why would they be 2 arguing, and I would pass it on to whoever. My first 3 instance would be to the SCRO officers and tell them. 4 I can't give you the name of an officer who said to 5 me, "I saw them arguing in the car park". I picked it 6 up by bits and pieces and speaking to officers, some of 7 whom have given evidence here. If you are asking me to 8 put a name on a particular person that actually 9 physically said that to me -- and I might be wrong -- I 10 would say Stewart Carle. 11 Q. I think Stewart Carle -- 12 A. Would have said to me. My recollection is that Stewart 13 Carle said to me they were seen arguing in the car park 14 and I do know that he was at the trial because he took 15 notes for Strathclyde Police. 16 Q. Thank you for that. 17 A. I would nominate him as the person that said that. But 18 if you get him here and he says, "I didn't say that", I 19 would accept I've got it wrong but that's my 20 recollection. 21 As far as I'm concerned, someone saying that to me 22 that's to be developed. It's not a case of saying to 23 him, "I'm going to take a statement off you to say that 24 you said that". Whether they were arguing or not really 25 is not all that important. They could have been arguing page 38 1 about anything. 2 Q. Just staying on paragraph 32 for a moment and, again, 3 whether you are happy with how it expresses your 4 position, apart from changing the word "ferociously" to 5 "heatedly" is there anything else there that you are 6 unhappy with? 7 A. Up to what chapter? 8 Q. Sorry, just to the end of paragraph 32, the one that we 9 were looking at, Mr Brown? 10 A. Yes. In that last three lines of chapter 32, when I 11 heard that I thought to myself why would they be arguing 12 in the car park. My assumption -- it's only an 13 assumption -- my assumption was they were arguing in the 14 car park because she had said to him prior to the trial, 15 "Remember, I was never in the house", and he took it 16 literally and he said she wasn't even in the porch and 17 as we heard Constable Lees saying in the witness box 18 here he wasn't too sure whether she was in the porch or 19 not. 20 Q. I think his evidence to this Inquiry is a matter of 21 record now. As we know, we have a transcript going on 22 the whole time, Mr Brown. 23 But in any event what you are recording there is 24 your speculation as to why an argument might have 25 occurred, if an argument indeed did occur? page 39 1 A. Yes. If it turned out that they never had an argument 2 in the car park and my information was incorrect, so 3 what? 4 Q. Very well. 5 You have been anxious to tell us about Mr Reid and 6 we do now come to that bit of your statement, Mr Brown. 7 You record here that you spoke to Kerr Reid in 2006? 8 A. Yes. He approached me. And just said, I might be of 9 help". 10 Q. How did he approach you? Was it a phone call? Did you 11 meet socially? How did it -- 12 A. Both he and I and other officers who's name's are 13 mentioned occasionally do charity work for the 14 Children's Hospice Association of Scotland and we meet 15 regularly and I used to be Kerr Reid's boss and he was 16 aware that I was part of an organisation, a co-founder 17 of an organisation called the Search for Justice and he 18 during a conversation about whatever to do with charity 19 said to me, "I might be able to help you", and that's 20 how it came out. 21 Now I heard Kerr Reid giving his evidence and his 22 evidence to me differs from what he told me but that 23 does not bother me in the least. 24 Q. I would like you just to tell the Chairman -- I realise 25 it's written down here but, because this is a matter page 40 1 that you have made it clear you regard of particular 2 importance, I would like you to tell the Chairman in 3 your own words just exactly what it was that Kerr Reid 4 said to you. 5 A. Yes, I'm just looking at this just to refresh my memory. 6 He told me he had been on dock duty at the High Court in 7 Paisley That raises other questions, but he did dock 8 duty at the High Court in Paisley. I didn't know they 9 had a High Court in Paisley, but I checked and found out 10 Glasgow High Court was being renovated so they were 11 using Paisley and Kerr Reid was one of the officers. 12 By doing dock duty, if you don't know, is that he 13 and another officer on sit either side of the person in 14 the dock being tried and this other officer and him were 15 on a coffee break, because I think the jury were out. 16 During this coffee break, he said -- this is what he 17 told me at the time and I wrote it down at the time -- 18 I'm sure Mr McKie will excuse me for using this 19 expression but this is what he said to me: "That bitch 20 will get us done, it was me that let her into the 21 house." 22 Kerr Reid then asked this officer, "Why did you let 23 her in?" and he said, "Because I fancied her." Now, 24 that's been bandied about over some considerable time 25 but whether that was said or was not said, that's what page 41 1 he told me. 2 Now, when he sat and gave evidence here, that's not 3 what he said. But I appreciate that. If he -- I mean, 4 there may be different reasons for why he's altered it 5 slightly. I have not altered my version of what he 6 said, and there's a postscript to this which I think 7 you'll find is quite amazing if I'm allowed to give it. 8 Having given his evidence, we met again on a charity -- 9 this is Kerr Reid and I -- and this is what he asked me 10 and I find it absolutely totally incredible. He said, 11 "Have you seen the list of the witnesses for the 12 Inquiry?" and I said yes. He said, "You know the man I 13 told you about that talked to me at Paisley High Court". 14 I said yes. He said, "Is he on the list", and said, 15 "How the hell would I know? You never gave me a name". 16 It was a great opportunity for me. I should have said 17 to him -- I'm not a fly as I think I am -- I should have 18 said to him, "Remind me who it was". He is then 19 approaching me to tell me indirectly it's quite obvious 20 he knows the name of the chap he spoke to in court. 21 There are different reasons that I can think of why 22 he's changed his version, that "That bitch", I've never 23 used that expression against a woman in my life, but at 24 court at Kilmarnock, it was quite interesting he says, 25 "will get us done", meaning plural. page 42 1 Q. Would it not be fair to say sometimes people in this bit 2 of the world say us when we mean me? 3 A. Yes, especially in Glasgow, yes. 4 Q. So it might not necessarily mean more than one person? 5 A. I don't think it's an expression that Kerr Reid -- I 6 believed him at the time when he said it and I sat here 7 and listened to him giving evidence. It does not bother 8 me in the least that what he's saying is slightly 9 different. 10 Q. There's two things I would like to ask you about just 11 following on from what you have just said, Mr Brown. 12 You said that you wrote it down at the time that 13 Mr Reid spoke to you. 14 Do you have your notes? 15 A. Sorry? 16 Q. You said that when Mr Reid spoke to you and told you 17 about the officer at Paisley you said that you wrote it 18 down at the time. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Do you have your notes? 21 A. No, I don't keep a notebook per se, I just made a note 22 of it because of this phrase, "That bitch". 23 Q. What have you done with your note of that? 24 A. Well, I transferred that to a document of some kind and 25 put it on the computer. He said it. Whether I took a page 43 1 note of it or not he said that to me. 2 Q. Mr Brown, you will recall from your days in the police 3 that often in trials police officers will pull out their 4 notebook and say, "Can I look at my notebook, please, to 5 refresh my memory". That happens in the courts up and 6 down the land every day. 7 A. Yes, I did that for 27 years. I don't do that any 8 longer. 9 Q. There's a reason for taking those kind of notes. It's 10 so you can pull them out and say, "That's what I wrote 11 down at the time". 12 A. You take a note to refresh your memory. There's certain 13 things I don't need a note to refresh my memory. That's 14 what happened; that's what he said. If he wishes to 15 come here and give evidence which is -- the good thing 16 about this, the good part about all of this, is we made 17 contact with each other many times between when he told 18 me that and his coming here to give evidence. We don't 19 sit down and say we'd better get this together and say 20 the same thing. I've never done that in my entire life. 21 If I say it's a red car he says it's a yellow car, I 22 say, well, you think it's a yellow car you say so. Lord 23 Wheatley took me in front of him in a murder trial and 24 said, "Mr Brown ..." I had to step in front of 25 Lord Wheatley at the High Court in Glasgow and he said, page 44 1 "What I like about this case is the police did not 2 rehearse their evidence". That's the way I operated. 3 Kerr Reid and I could have -- on many occasions, we 4 never even discussed it. 5 Q. That's the other thing I'd like to ask you about, Mr 6 Brown. When is it you say that Kerr Reid spoke to you 7 about the witness list for this Inquiry? When did he do 8 that? 9 A. When did he speak to me, sorry? 10 Q. You gave evidence a moment ago that Mr Reid spoke to you 11 about the witness list for this Inquiry and asked you if 12 the man from Paisley High Court was on the list. When 13 did that happen? 14 A. When did he tell me about what the man in the High Court 15 in Paisley said to him. 16 Q. No, you gave evidence a moment ago there was a post 17 script, as you described it, when Mr Reid had spoken to 18 you and said, "Have you seen the witness list for this 19 Inquiry". 20 A. That was 28th May at Cameron Bowling Club in a 21 children's hospice bowling match. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: On 28th May? 23 A. 28th May, yes. I think that was before -- yes, that was 24 before he actually gave evidence here. I know it was 25 definitely for people like yourselves to understand that page 45 1 police officers, we don't -- Kerr Reid in particular, 2 we've met maybe 20 times or more since he gave this 3 information to me, the original information about what 4 had happened at Paisley High Court. We don't -- when 5 you meet Kerr Reid he doesn't say to you how are we 6 getting on with this and how are we getting on with 7 that. We don't discuss the case at all. 8 MISS CARMICHAEL: I understand that. I do have a further 9 question for you, Mr Brown, on that point. You say this 10 happened on 28th May. You didn't tell anybody involved 11 in this Inquiry about that until today. 12 A. No. 13 Q. If you had done I would have been able to ask Mr Reid 14 questions about that? 15 A. I quite appreciate that, yes. 16 Q. You sat there and you heard him give his evidence and 17 you didn't approach anybody on the Inquiry team so that 18 Mr Reid could be asked questions about that. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Why not, Mr Brown? 21 A. Because I knew we were going to have an inquiry and if I 22 was asked I would broach the subject here. 23 Q. But it would have been fair to Mr Reid, wouldn't it, to 24 have the opportunity to answer back as to what you are 25 saying about 28th May. You were sitting right across page 46 1 there. You could have passed information along so that 2 I could have asked him a question about that and you may 3 be assured if you had done I would have done. 4 I really am quite concerned as to why you didn't do 5 that. 6 A. Yes, in hindsight probably I should have but it puts him 7 behind the 8-ball to a certain extent. He's telling me 8 this and I don't think he realised the significance of 9 it and we were actually -- it wasn't on the phone. We 10 were standing looking at each other when he said that. 11 "Is he on the list", and I said "who?" 12 "The man I spoke to at Paisley High Court", and I 13 said, "How the hell would I know, you never told me his 14 name", and that was an opportunity -- that was it. I 15 knew I was coming here to give evidence and I would say 16 so and if you're so concerned about Kerr Reid it 17 wouldn't be too difficult to recall him and ask him, 18 bearing in mind this is a man who's given a different 19 version to what he told me originally. 20 Q. Leaving paragraph 33, I think you have two further 21 paragraphs 34 and 35 that deal with Mr Reid before we 22 come back to him a little later. 23 Can you satisfy yourself that that reflects your 24 position. 25 A. Yes, chapter 34 is Kerr Reid -- allowing for the fact page 47 1 that Kerr Reid is Kerr Reid, he couldn't remember the 2 trial, the offence, the accused or the date. I worked 3 it out that it was the year 2000 and if he was able to 4 tell us even the name of the person they were guarding 5 in the dock I could have then sussed out who this other 6 cop was. I was convinced the other cop was the cop that 7 said about -- I won't repeat the word. 8 Q. We don't need to go over that again. I'm simply asking 9 you if you are happy with paragraphs 34 and 35 -- 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. -- and that the Chairman should treat that as your 12 evidence? 13 I would like to look at paragraphs 36 to 39 next. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Again I would like to give you the opportunity to read 16 that over and make sure that you are happy in the first 17 instance with those four paragraphs, that there's 18 nothing in there that you feel doesn't express your 19 recollection of the position. 20 A. I would like to add to chapter 36 the sergeant who I 21 spoke to. The Section Sergeant who apparently knew me 22 was a Sergeant Stewart, and that's based at Stewarton. 23 Q. Sergeant Stewart? 24 A. Stewart with a W, yes. This was me having applied to 25 the Legal Services Department of Strathclyde Police to page 48 1 interview Mark Lees. I got the okay and paid the fee of 2 under protest and telephoned to speak to -- I 3 always do it through a senior officer and, as I say, the 4 Section Sergeant came on and I spoke to him and he said, 5 "He's here. You can speak to him", and I spoke to Mark 6 Lees on the phone and he said he had no objection to 7 being interviewed. This was on a Thursday and he said, 8 "I'm night shift tonight. I'm night shift tomorrow 9 night. I'm off Saturday, Sunday. I'll be back in 10 Monday. Why don't you phone in Monday and I'll arrange 11 for an interview on the Tuesday", and I said, "Now, this 12 is very important to you and it is very important to me 13 and it is very important to Marion Ross. If you wish, 14 you can have a solicitor present or a Federation 15 officer. I've got no objection or even a colleague". 16 He said, "No, that will be all right". I said, "Right, 17 I'll phone you on the Monday and we'll arrange Tuesday", 18 and he said yes. 19 You'll notice I'm not reading this. This is from 20 memory because it's so important. And I phoned on the 21 Monday and the same sergeant, Section Sergeant Stewart 22 said, "What did you say to him on Thursday because after 23 he spoke to you he put the phone down, went out the door 24 and I haven't seen him since. He's reported sick. What 25 did he tell you?" I said, "He told me he was night page 49 1 shift Thursday/Friday". He said, "Les, he doesn't do 2 night shift". 3 Having seen Mr Lees giving evidence in this court I 4 can understand. It all comes together about his 5 attitude. 6 Q. I would like to be just quite clear what your evidence 7 on this is because what you say at paragraph 38 of your 8 statement is that you phoned the following Monday to 9 make final arrangements and spoke to the Section 10 Sergeant again and that he asked you what you had said 11 as PC Lees had walked out, reported sick and not been 12 seen since. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. I think what you just said to the Inquiry was that the 15 Section Sergeant asked what he'd said to you. Now have 16 I got that wrong? Oh, yes, "What did he tell you", and 17 you said to the Section Sergeant, "He told me he was 18 night shift Friday and the Section Sergeant said back to 19 you, he said, "Les, he doesn't do night shift". 20 A. He doesn't do night shift, yes. 21 Q. Now that's not what's in your statement about your 22 conversation with the Sergeant and I'd just like to be 23 quite clear what the position is. 24 A. Which part are your referring to? 25 Q. This is paragraph 38 of your statement. You give an page 50 1 account at paragraph 38 of your statement of your 2 conversation with the Section Sergeant? 3 A. Yes. No, that's correct. I stand by that chapter, yes. 4 Q. But you told us something additional that the Section 5 Sergeant asked you what PC Lees had told you? 6 A. No, he'd asked me what I said to PC -- he said, "What 7 did you say to him", and what was his response. It 8 might not be written down here in black and white but 9 that's what happened. 10 Q. I just want to be quite clear about this because you 11 have also told the Inquiry that the Section Sergeant 12 asked you what PC Lees told you. 13 A. Yes. He said to me, "What did you say to him", and I 14 told him. 15 Q. Do you stand by the bit of your evidence about telling 16 the Section Sergeant that Mr Lees told you he was on 17 night shift and the Section Sergeant saying that he 18 didn't do night shift? 19 A. Yeas. He added a few adjectives but that's what he 20 said. 21 Q. So that's in addition to what you say in paragraph 38 of 22 your statement, that's something extra that you're -- 23 A. Paragraph 38 is a general summarisation of what happened 24 and then the basis of me sitting here giving you verbal 25 evidence, I'm entitled to add a word or detract a word page 51 1 without -- 2 Q. That is what I am trying to make clear, that that is 3 something -- 4 A. Yes. The gist of it is exactly the same. 5 Q. Paragraph 39 I don't need you to read it out but are you 6 happy it records your position? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Does paragraph 40, if we go to the next page, also 9 reflect your position? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. In paragraph 41 you record that you got in touch with 12 the office of the Assistant Chief Constable of 13 Strathclyde to complain -- 14 A. Yes. Can I just go back to chapter 40 for a second 15 before we leave it for the benefit of his Lordship. I 16 always understood as I sit there that if you applied -- 17 see, my difficulty is I'm an ex-policeman, I'm not a 18 policeman, I'm an ex, retired policeman, and I always 19 understood and in all my entire Police Service and I've 20 been on hundreds of precognitions, if I was told, 21 "There's a precognition for you for Friday at 3.00", I 22 never, ever queried it. I just presented myself for a 23 precognition and I could not understand why I was not 24 being allowed to precognosce those officers and I 25 thought, "Who do I turn to for assistance". There's no page 52 1 use phoning the Fiscal in Kilmarnock. I phoned the 2 Procurator Fiscal at Dumfries, a man called John 3 Service, and asked his advice, has he ever heard of a 4 police officer declining to give a precognition and he 5 said, "No, I haven't. What's the problem?" 6 I then phoned Joe Beltrami's office. He wasn't in 7 but I think it was a QC that works with Joe Beltrami and 8 he said, "I've never heard of it". So I then 9 established to myself to my own satisfaction that these 10 officers had no legal justification, for declining. 11 In fact, when I spoke to Beltrami's partner I said, 12 "What do you suggest I do", and he said, "Get a Sheriff 13 to grant a warrant to get him in front of a Sheriff and 14 then you can ..." I said, "I'm not doing that". 15 That's the problems I was facing. Now instead of 16 Mark Lees saying he wasn't going to be precognosced, 17 Strathclyde Police were saying he's not going to get 18 precognosced either and I thought it was wrong. 19 Q. So in any event what you decided to do was to contact 20 the Assistant Chief Constable's office? 21 A. Yes, and I did it through MSP. 22 Q. That resulted in a visit to you by some senior police 23 officers? 24 A. Yes. Within a couple of days I got a visit from a Chief 25 Superintendent Nicolson and a Detective page 53 1 Superintendent Mitchell. So my complaint was obviously 2 being addressed and I was quite impressed. 3 Q. At paragraph 42, if you could look at that, please, 4 Mr Brown, you record that you spoke to the officers 5 Nicolson and Mitchell in September 2007. 6 You write that you explained to them what Kerr Reid 7 had said to you and that you actually phoned Mr Reid 8 while you were with them. 9 A. This was me complaining about the fact that I was being 10 thwarted by Strathclyde Police in my efforts to 11 interview people, et cetera, serving police officers, 12 and they assured me that they would take some action and 13 they asked me -- at that point they did not have the 14 name Kerr Reid and they said, "Would you be prepared to 15 tell us the name of the officer who told you about 16 Paisley High Court", and I said, "Yes, but I would 17 request I be allowed to speak to him first". 18 They were in my house and I telephoned him from my 19 house and said, "Have you any objection to me giving 20 your name". This is the way I operated. I thought it 21 was very fair and he said, "No, I've no objection". He 22 said on the phone, this is about me speaking to the 23 officer at Paisley who told me that a pal of his had let 24 her in. This is him changing his story. I said -- I 25 repeated that in front of these two officers. So they page 54 1 are well aware -- I don't know if they are witnesses or 2 not -- they are well aware that the expression on my 3 face was that Kerr Reid had just told me something that 4 didn't match what he'd said before and they said -- and 5 I said, "Have you any objection to speak to these two 6 officers?" I gave him the opportunity of saying it was 7 okay and he said. 8 I met Kerr Reid the following day, again, at a 9 bowling match and I said, "You're going to get a visit 10 from two seniors officers". He said, "They've already 11 been". They arrived at his house 20 minutes after they 12 left mine. 13 Q. There's one bit of paragraph 42 I would like to ask you 14 about -- 15 THE CHAIRMAN: I was wondering if we could finish this 16 section, but obviously not, before the break so we will 17 rise now until 11.55. 18 (11.35 am) 19 (A short break) 20 (11.55 am) 21 MISS CARMICHAEL: Mr Brown, we were looking at 22 paragraph 42 your statement. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. There was a particular sentence I wanted to ask you 25 about and it starts four line from the bottom of page 55 1 paragraph 42 and what is recorded here is: 2 "I felt that he had altered his story, although I 3 may have picked him up wrongly." 4 I would just like to be quite clear about what you 5 meant by that, Mr Brown. Do you mean that you may have 6 picked him up wrongly when you spoke to him on the phone 7 with the officers there or do you mean you may have 8 picked him up wrongly when he first spoke to you? 9 A. My recollection is that I thought -- a possibility I may 10 have picked him up wrongly when he first spoke to me. I 11 was really being sympathetic and giving him the benefit 12 of the doubt. I know what he said to me at the time and 13 what my response was at the time. That's what he said 14 and got the distinct impression the chap he shared the 15 dock with was the chap who let Shirley into the house. 16 Q. As you said yourself, this is quite important because 17 Mr Reid's given evidence on oath to the Chairman about 18 this matter. So it is an important matter. 19 If there is a possibility, as you seem to be 20 indicating there in your statement, that you might have 21 picked up Mr Reid wrongly the first time you spoke to 22 him it's very important that you clarify that for the 23 Chairman. 24 A. Yes, I would say that I picked him up correctly. If you 25 said to me it means he might be in trouble, I would page 56 1 change that and say maybe I got it wrong. But I'm only 2 doing that to protect him. What he said and what I have 3 written down is what he said to me at the time. 4 Q. I'm not suggesting for a moment you should change 5 anything you say to protect anybody, Mr Brown -- far 6 from it -- but you have here in your signed statement 7 written: 8 "I may have picked him up wrongly", and I think it 9 is very important that we are clear as to whether you 10 think there is a possibility that you might have picked 11 Mr Kerr Reid up wrongly as to what you are saying he 12 said on the first occasion you spoke to him about this? 13 A. Yes, well, I'm saying to you now that I did not pick him 14 up wrongly. I probably read through that before I 15 completed it and thought I'd been a bit rough on him but 16 what I've said is what he said to me. But when I spoke 17 to him on the phone in the presence of these two 18 officers and they know and they knew from my expression 19 that what he was saying on the phone wasn't what he said 20 to me originally, so you would have to ask yourself did 21 he change the story and, if he did, why did he? 22 Q. So your position today is that you did not pick him up 23 wrongly? 24 A. Correct. I think that's borne out by the fact that when 25 I speak to him, as I said, there's a postscript and he's page 57 1 asking me on 28th May if I had seen the list and was the 2 man he told me about on the list and I said, "How the 3 hell do I know? You never told me his name". 4 Q. Had you seen a list of witnesses for the Inquiry on 28th 5 May? 6 A. Sorry? 7 Q. When Mr Reid spoke to you on 28th May, had you seen a 8 list of witnesses for the Inquiry? 9 A. That's a good question. He said, "have you seen the 10 list of witnesses", and I said yes. So the presumption 11 would be I must have seen the list of witnesses. If you 12 say to me that a list of witnesses didn't come out until 13 after 28th May then obviously it wasn't 28 May that he 14 told me. 15 Q. Well, in fact, that is what I am going to tell you, 16 Mr Brown. I understand that as at 28th May there was 17 nothing on the website of the Inquiry about the list of 18 witnesses and at 3.30 that day an e-mail went only to 19 the Core Participants in this Inquiry with a schedule of 20 witnesses. 21 A. Well, I'll correct that then and say that he never said 22 it at Cameron Bowling Club but he said to me have I seen 23 the list of witnesses. If you are telling me the list 24 of witnesses wasn't out on 28th May then it was after 25 28th May he said that. I don't think it's a big deal. page 58 1 Q. Again, I would stress this is an important matter, 2 Mr Brown. We are talking about what you are saying 3 about a gentleman who has given evidence on oath and if 4 he has not told the truth that would be a very serious 5 matter. 6 Now, when is it that you say that he told you this 7 and mentioned the list of witnesses for the Inquiry? 8 A. When you posed the question to me that when exactly did 9 he say this to you and I, while sitting here, thought 10 back when was the last time I saw him apart from here 11 and it was at a bowling match on 28th May. If you say 12 to me the list wasn't available on 28th May I'll amend 13 what I said and say it was after 28th May. But he said 14 it and he said it to me to my face. So we met somewhere 15 between 28th May -- it may even have been the day he 16 came here to give evidence. 17 Q. Well, that's at one point in either -- well, in fact 18 that was the very first day we heard evidence. That was 19 9th June this year. 20 Are you saying that that occurred on 9th June this 21 year in Maryhill Community Central Hall that you had 22 this conversation with him? 23 A. I'm sorry, I only got half of what you said. 24 Q. I'm sorry, it is probably my fault for not speaking 25 close enough into the microphone. page 59 1 Are you saying that Mr Reid spoke to you about the 2 list of witnesses on 9th June at Maryhill Community 3 Central Hall? 4 A. There was an occasion when we were together. The only 5 time we were together was 28th May and the day he gave 6 evidence was 9th June, wasn't it? 7 Q. That was 9th June, yes. So it must be one or the other? 8 A. Well, it can't be 28th May if the list wasn't available. 9 If you're trying to catch me out here you are not going 10 to succeed. We are discussing a list -- 11 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think anyone is trying to catch you 12 out. We are just trying to establish when it was. 13 A. It seems to me it's more important when he said it than 14 what he said. I'm saying to the Inquiry that he asked 15 me if I had seen the list of witnesses and I said I had 16 because I had so it was after 28th May. 17 MISS CARMICHAEL: You had seen a list of witnesses? 18 A. I had seen the list; I had the list at home -- not on 19 28th May I hasten to add. 20 Q. When did you get a list of witnesses, Mr Brown? And 21 from whom? 22 A. I think I got them off the computer. I think it was on 23 the Internet. 24 Q. I see. If I may have a moment, sir. (Pause) 25 Mr Brown, which website did you go to for a list of page 60 1 witnesses? 2 A. Sorry? 3 Q. Which website did you go to for the list of witnesses? 4 A. The Fingerprint Inquiry. I actually get it through the 5 McKie website. 6 Q. Right, so you went to Mr McKie's website which is 7 shirleymckie.com and you, what, got a link to this 8 Inquiry? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Is there a link -- 11 A. Yes. 12 Are you telling me the list of witnesses did not 13 appear on the Internet? 14 Q. I want to find out how you found the list of witnesses, 15 Mr Brown. 16 A. I'm just looking to see if I've got it with me but I do 17 have a list of witnesses. 18 Q. I would like to take a moment, please. (Pause) 19 A. I get the distinct impression that you're telling me I 20 shouldn't have a list of witnesses. 21 Q. I'd just like to know what list of witnesses you are 22 referring to, Mr Brown. You told us you looked at one 23 and I'd like to know what it is? 24 A. I think -- my recollection is I downloaded it from the 25 Internet. If you are telling me it wasn't on the page 61 1 Internet then I didn't. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: You see, if this witness is to be brought 3 back to be confronted with what he is supposed to have 4 said we need to know when exactly he said it and in what 5 circumstances. I think that is what counsel is 6 exploring. In fairness to him, he is entitled to know 7 where and when he's supposed to have said what you 8 attribute to him. 9 MISS CARMICHAEL: Do you have the list of witnesses -- 10 A. I don't have it with me. I seeded out quite a bit of 11 the paperwork to make it easier for coming here and I 12 left it on my desk at home. I have a list of witnesses 13 and I'm not on it. 14 Q. You say you're not on it? 15 A. I'm not on that list, no. So that was some time ago. 16 Q. Because what I can say is on the Inquiry website is 17 Senior Counsel's opening statement which I think 18 contains a table of witnesses with various references 19 but you are name is on that, Mr Brown. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe it would shorten matters if Mr Brown 21 would be good enough to forward to us the list that he 22 has. 23 MISS CARMICHAEL: That would be very helpful. 24 A. Yes. I think going back in my memory, I think the first 25 or second witness was Kerr Reid. page 62 1 Q. The second witness was Kerr Reid. You're quite correct 2 about that? 3 A. So when did that come out? 4 Q. I'm sorry, I -- 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Kerr Reid gave evidence on 9th June, 6 according to my note. 7 MISS CARMICHAEL: Yes, that's correct, sir. There were two 8 witnesses on the first day of evidence, Mr Steven Heath 9 and Mr Kerr Reid. 10 A. Can I assist by saying that on 9th June that Kerr Reid, 11 actually, he and I travelled in the same car to here and 12 I did it on the basis he offered me a lift and I said, 13 I'll do it on one condition, you don't discuss what 14 you're going to say", because I knew what he was going 15 to say was different from what I'm going to say and 16 that's the basis on which we did it. Had he said to me 17 prior to 9th June about this list of witnesses I would 18 certainly have mentioned it in the car and didn't. So 19 that tells me it was after 9th June. 20 Q. So it's after 9th June? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. When did you see Mr Reid after 9th June? We're now at 23 19th June. So that's a ten day period. When did you 24 see -- 25 A. Well, we're talking seven or eight days ago when he page 63 1 spoke to me. 2 Q. And where did this take place? 3 A. Well, I meet with him occasionally, as I say, to do with 4 the charity thing but my first recollection was the last 5 time I met him, apart from here, was at Cameron Bowling 6 Club but that was before he came here to give evidence 7 and the Cameron Bowling Club wasn't even mentioned. 8 Q. You are now telling us this conversation must have taken 9 place at some point after -- 10 A. Well, if you are telling me the list come out after the 11 28th then exactly, yes. 12 Q. Mr Brown, I am saying that because you say that you took 13 a lift with Mr Kerr Reid and that if he had said 14 something to you about the list of witnesses before that 15 point you would have mentioned it in the car and didn't. 16 A. Yes, he didn't; so it came after that. 17 Q. So that's why I'm saying that, not because of any list 18 of witnesses being available on 28th May. I'm saying it 19 because of what you just said in evidence. 20 A. You seem to be placing an awful interest in the fact 21 when it was. I'm telling you he said it. A nice easy 22 way to resolve this is to recall him. 23 Q. Mr Brown, if -- and I stress if -- it comes to be that 24 Mr Reid is recalled, in fairness to him he will have to 25 be told what it is he is supposed to have said, when he page 64 1 is supposed to have said it and where he is supposed to 2 have said it? 3 A. Of course, I've no objection to that. 4 Q. I can't do that unless you tell me when he said it and 5 where he said it. Now that is why I'm asking you. 6 A. Right, I'm telling you what he said and if he was 7 recalled he will say that also. 8 Q. And I'm asking you when he said it. 9 A. I would say it's a week ago. 10 Q. Where did he say it? 11 A. Well, while we're discussing this it's coming back to me 12 that perhaps it may have been as a result of a telephone 13 con -- he may have phoned me and said and the more I 14 think about it the more I agree, that he would phone me 15 and say, "Have you got a list of witnesses", and I said 16 yes and he said, "Is the man who I spoke to at Paisley 17 High Court on the list", and I said, "How the hell would 18 I know", and that was it. 19 Q. So that was a phone call about a week ago? 20 A. Yes. It had to be after his first appearance here 21 because being the person I am I would have said to 22 him -- and I missed the opportunity, I should have said 23 to him, even on the phone -- remind me who we're talking 24 about to see if he came up with a name. He certainly 25 said it. If it's as important as all that, I would page 65 1 recommend, respectfully suggest that you recall him, put 2 him in here and ask him and I will guarantee I will not 3 mention it to him between now and then. 4 Q. Mr Brown, the other thing that you can do for us is, as 5 I think the Chairman suggested, is if you let us have 6 the list of witnesses that you have been referring to, 7 perhaps with a note of where you found it, if that could 8 be passed to a member of the Inquiry team just so that 9 we're all clear about exactly what it is you are 10 speaking about. I won't detain you any longer on that 11 point at the moment because I do realise you do not have 12 it with you. 13 A. You know, the list of witnesses changes in appearance, I 14 understand that I can tell you the list I have at home, 15 I think Kerr Reid's at number 2. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: That is the list we would like to see if you 17 could send it to the Inquiry, please. 18 A. Yes. The list -- I can -- I presume we'll be back here 19 on Tuesday? 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 21 A. I'll come in on Tuesday and hand it in. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: The list may, you see, enable those who are 23 better than I am on the Internet to know what date that 24 particular document appeared which could be useful. 25 MISS CARMICHAEL: That might help us. page 66 1 A. If I was asked to put a date on it I would say on or 2 about 12th June. This is coming back to me while I'm 3 speaking to you. I'm not being devious to say that it 4 was as a result of him phoning me and he phoned me 5 specifically to ask me if I had seen a list of witnesses 6 and I said, "Yes, I've got one", and he said, "The man I 7 told you about at Paisley High Court, is he on the 8 list", and I said, "How the hell would I know". To me 9 that's important. 10 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you for that, Mr Brown. 11 A. While we're talking I'll just check. It might be here. 12 Q. Take a moment if you need to but I don't want to detain 13 you unnecessarily on that if you can give it to us 14 later. (Pause) 15 A. No. 16 Q. Thank you for that. We will move on. Just to check 17 paragraph 43, are you happy with the terms of that, in 18 that -- 19 A. Sorry, which one? 20 Q. Paragraph 43, Mr Brown. Are you happy that the Chairman 21 should take that as your evidence? 22 A. Yes, that's okay. 23 Q. Thank you. 24 Now, we move on to a different topic here headed, 25 "Golf professional at Troon", and you write: page 67 1 "I was also informed by an anonymous source that a 2 golf professional at Troon Golf Course, Gordon McKinlay, 3 had been saying that he knew a police officer at 4 Kilmarnock who told him that he had all the answers." 5 Is that correct? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. At paragraph 45 you say that you went to Troon Golf 8 Course to see Gordon McKinlay? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Please tell the Chairman what happened when you did 11 that. 12 A. Yes, this was something tangible that you could get your 13 teeth into, if you like. I've been given the name of 14 someone who might be able to help so I just got into my 15 car and went down to Troon. In case the wrong 16 professional gets libelled here, we're talking about 17 municipal golf courses. Although it's a municipal golf 18 course at Troon it's very, very high standard. There's 19 three golf courses together and Gordon McKinlay is a 20 well known -- was a well known golfer and I arrived at 21 the clubhouse and he was in the professional shop. I 22 recognised him. The shop was busy and he indicated that 23 he'd seen me and said, "Can I help you", and I said, 24 "I'll wait until the shop's empty", and I stood there 25 for about 20 minutes and the customers -- I think it was page 68 1 a foursome -- got what they were after and left and I 2 went forward and spoke to him and I said -- and I didn't 3 write this down, I do remember these things -- I said to 4 him, "My name's Les Brown. I'm assisting the SCRO 5 officers in the investigation. Do you know about it?" 6 He said yes. I said, "Well, I have reason to believe 7 that you are pally with a police officer from Kilmarnock 8 and he plays golf on this golf course. I understand you 9 may have some knowledge or some information about this 10 officer that might help me", and I said to him, as I 11 tend to do, "If you don't know what I'm talking about 12 say so and I'm out of here", and he said, "Give me your 13 phone number". That indicated to me there was some 14 substance in what I had just put to him and I wrote down 15 my home phone number on a piece of paper on his counter 16 and left the premises. 17 Q. Now, I think what you say in your statement here is 18 that, as you say today, Mr McKinlay took your phone 19 number but you also say that he undertook to call the 20 officer. 21 Is that your position today, that Mr McKinlay 22 undertook -- 23 A. No. My idea was if I gave him my phone number he could 24 speak to this person if he existed and give that officer 25 my phone number and that officer would then phone me but page 69 1 of course it never happened. 2 Q. Did Mr McKinlay undertake to call the police officer? 3 A. No, I never said that. I just said, "I'll give you my 4 phone number". 5 Q. I would like you to look carefully, please, at 6 paragraph 45 of your statement, Mr Brown, if you've got 7 that. What it says there is: 8 "He took my phone number and undertook to call the 9 officer." 10 A. Yes, I see that. 11 Q. Is that wrong? 12 A. No, that's not wrong. That's correct. 13 Q. Just a moment ago -- and for those with the transcript, 14 it is at page 65, line 3 -- you were asked: 15 "Did Mr McKinlay undertake to call the police 16 officer?" 17 You said: 18 "No, I never said that. I just said, 'I'll give you 19 my phone number'." 20 Which is correct, Mr Brown? 21 A. I think one of the problems I'm facing here is I'm not 22 catching every word that you're saying. So -- 23 Q. If there's a question you don't hear, tell me when I've 24 asked it and I will make it louder. 25 It's not entirely satisfactory if you say you page 70 1 haven't heard after you've actually answered a question, 2 Mr Brown. 3 A. I probably take the easy way out by doing that, assuming 4 that you have put the words together to say that 5 particular question. 6 What I've said in paragraph 45 is correct. 7 Q. I see. That's your position? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Mr McKinlay will give evidence, I hope. If Mr McKinlay 10 comes here and tells us that he doesn't know any police 11 officers from Kilmarnock, what would your response be to 12 that? 13 A. I wouldn't have given him my phone number. This is the 14 difficulty I'm facing. I speak to these people and some 15 of them by the time -- if they are coming here, appear 16 to have altered their story slightly, albeit the gist is 17 the same. He confirmed to me by his asking for my phone 18 number that he did know of such an officer. In fact, at 19 one stage -- it's not written down -- at one stage he 20 said, "Half of Kilmarnock Police Office plays golf 21 here". So you would follow on that by saying, "To which 22 officer are you referring", but he never said that. 23 I was quite satisfied when I left that he did know 24 of such an officer and, in fact, I telephoned him, I 25 think it was about two weeks later, and I said, "Did you page 71 1 pass on my message", and he said yes. 2 He can come here today and say, "I never said that". 3 That's up to him. I'm giving you the evidence that I 4 have, basically. 5 Q. You're telling us now that you had a phone call with 6 Mr McKinlay a couple of weeks later. 7 A. Uhu. 8 Q. You don't mention that in your statement though. 9 A. No. Well, that was the end of it. As far -- there are 10 inquiries I take that don't reach paper because, like, 11 Constable Reese. There's no point pursuing in Constable 12 Reese if he doesn't exist and I understand that Shirley 13 McKie has intimated elsewhere that she's never heard of 14 him. Well, I would go along with that. 15 Q. Still on the topic of Mr McKinlay, if it were to be that 16 Mr McKinlay came along and told us that he doesn't 17 remember you saying anything like, "If you do not know 18 what I'm talking about, say so and I'm out of here" -- 19 A. Well, if he says that I didn't say that, he's a liar. 20 Q. -- and if he says that he would have told you had you 21 said that, that he didn't know what you were talking 22 about -- 23 A. That's not what happened. I mean, I can remember that 24 quite clearly and it's a way that I tend to do -- if I'm 25 talking to someone seeking assistance from someone else, page 72 1 I do put it in such a way that it leaves a door open. 2 He may well very well never have contacted the officer. 3 My information was that he was friendly with a police 4 officer from Kilmarnock and on that basis I went to see 5 him and the reaction I got from him confirmed to me 6 there was such an officer. If he says that I never said 7 to him, "If you don't know what I'm talking about, I'm 8 out of here" he's telling you a lie on oath. 9 Q. Now, we will leave paragraph 45, Mr Brown. I would like 10 to go back to paragraph 46 because I have a document I 11 would like to show you. It's your witness statement 12 with your own handwritten revisions on it and you have 13 written some things on it and scored some things off it. 14 I would like you to look at that carefully and in 15 particular at paragraph 46 dealing with the evidence of 16 SOCO Kerr, as he is described in that document. 17 I wonder if that could be shown to Mr Brown. Please 18 take a moment just to look at that and satisfy yourself 19 that it is what I'm telling you it is. (Handed) 20 (Pause) 21 A. Is this one you're referring to about Advocate Depute 22 Sean Murphy? 23 Q. No, it isn't. It's paragraph 46 headed "SOCO Kerr". 24 You gave evidence earlier that that was a paragraph that 25 you were saying that somebody else had put into your page 73 1 statement and that it wasn't something that had come 2 from you. What I'm showing you is the statement that 3 you sent back to the Inquiry with your own annotations 4 on it and you have indeed scored out some paragraphs 5 that you weren't happy with. You haven't scored out 6 paragraph 46 relating to SOCO Kerr. 7 A. Yes, I see that, yes. 8 Q. Is it still your position that that is something that 9 somebody put into your statement after you had signed 10 it? 11 A. Well, I don't see 46A in this statement. 12 Q. Forget about 46A. Let's just concentrate, please, for 13 the moment on paragraph 46, Mr Brown. 14 A. Bearing in mind the problems I had with other 15 statements, anything is possible. I've got a statement 16 now in my possession that came back from your office, 17 after a two-week delay, with a 46A. 18 Q. That's absolutely correct. A paragraph was numbered 46A 19 in your statement, Mr Brown. I have no dispute with you 20 about that. The numbering of the paragraph relating to 21 Sean Murphy is 46A and that does not appear as the 22 numbering in the document that is in front of you. 23 But I am asking you about paragraph 46 because you 24 had indicated that -- you seemed to be indicating that 25 you thought that somebody else had put that in. Now, in page 74 1 the document you have got in front of you you have 2 actually scored out some bits that you obviously weren't 3 happy reflected your evidence, haven't you? 4 A. Yes, I have amended it, yes. 5 Q. But you haven't scored out paragraph 46 and you haven't 6 made any, I think, alteration to paragraph 46 in your 7 handwriting. Am I correct? 8 A. The only thing I see is that everything's been altered 9 except 46. I seem to have amended everything but 46 and 10 there's parts of 46 I don't agree with and I do not 11 understand why I haven't amended it. 12 Q. Are you saying that you have altered every paragraph in 13 that document apart from 46? 14 A. No. 15 Q. No, you haven't. 16 A. I get the distinct impression you're trying to catch me 17 out here. I'm doing this to the best of my ability. 18 Q. It is important -- it is very important, Mr Brown -- 19 because if you are suggesting that somebody has put 20 something in your statement that is not your evidence, 21 that is a very serious matter for the Inquiry and I 22 would require to be quite clear that nothing of that 23 sort has been going on. That is why I am asking you 24 this. 25 A. I sent an e-mail to your office complaining about the page 75 1 standard of statements and highlighted the fact that I 2 referred to in one of my statements about the 3 blood-stained watch and by the time it come back from 4 there, it had been amended to two blood-stained watches. 5 How do you explain that? 6 Q. Mr Brown, we're not talking about watches. We're 7 talking about paragraph 46 of your statement. What's 8 your position? Was that in your statement as you sent 9 it back to the Inquiry revised? 10 A. On the basis of what I'm looking at at the moment, I 11 agree with what you're saying that that 46 is what I 12 said, yes. 13 Q. Thank you. Copies of that document will be made 14 available to all around the table in due course so they 15 can satisfy themselves of what's in it. 16 Moving on to paragraph 46A, as it is numbered, what 17 you record here is that the Advocate Depute Sean Murphy 18 has said to some officers that PC Lees committed 19 perjury. You say that you reinvestigated this and you 20 were told that Mr Murphy had told a number of police 21 officers outside the court after Mr Lees had given 22 evidence, "That's two that have committed perjury." 23 Are you content in the first place that this is in a 24 form of words that you're happy for the Chairman to look 25 at? page 76 1 A. Yes. The form of words I recognise as me having said 2 that, yes. 3 Q. Can you tell us who the officers you spoke to were? 4 A. More than one. Don't ask me their names because I can't 5 tell you. More than one person said to me that that 6 happened outside the court. I suspect it was said to 7 SCRO officers. 8 Q. Well, who did you speak to? Why can't you tell us who 9 you spoke to? 10 A. Well, whoever it was that told me is telling me 11 something that I felt could be confirmed somewhere, just 12 ask Mr Sean Murphy did he say that, because I remember 13 saying who are the two he was referring to. 14 Q. I'm simply trying to find out if you can remember who 15 you got your information from, Mr Brown. Can you 16 remember that? 17 A. Well, I'll answer that quite succinctly and say I don't 18 remember. 19 Q. You don't remember? 20 A. No. I put that in for what it's worth. If the 21 Fingerprint Inquiry later it's found to be surplus to 22 requirements and be deleted, it's no big deal. But my 23 information is that Sean Murphy said that and if anyone 24 asked me how do you resolve that then if I can't name 25 who it was, my suggestion would be to put Mr Murphy on page 77 1 the stand and ask him. He either said it or he didn't. 2 I was told that and I've thrown it in for what it's 3 worth. 4 Q. Thank you. We move on to paragraph 47 which is headed 5 "Collette McKay and Constable Morgan". I do have a 6 particular question for you about paragraph 47 but 7 before I ask you that, I'd like to be sure you're happy 8 with the way paragraph 47 is expressed. (Pause) 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. What I'd like to ask you is when you phoned Collette 11 McKay, did she know the name of the officer? 12 A. Collette McKay phoned me, as I recall. 13 Q. I see. Sorry -- 14 A. I think she got my phone number from Fiona McBride. 15 Q. In fact, what you say in your statement here is "I 16 phoned Collette McKay" which is why I put to you that 17 you'd phoned her. Is that not now your recollection? 18 A. As a result of information I had received at that time, 19 I understand from Fiona McBride, I spoke with Collette 20 McKay on the phone. I've never met the lady. 21 Q. Did Collette McKay tell you the name of the officer 22 she'd spoken to? 23 A. The officer she had spoken to? 24 Q. Yes. 25 A. Yes, and my first question was "How can you remember his page 78 1 name?" and she said there was a schedule put up on the 2 wall to say that officers from Kilmarnock were coming to 3 be appraised of how the SCRO worked and she said, "As a 4 matter of fact the names are still here and I was 5 allocated Constable Morgan." 6 Q. Because you'd written that you'd obtained a description 7 of the constable and I wondered why you'd done that if 8 you knew his name at the time. 9 A. Sorry? 10 Q. In your statement you say you phoned Collette McKay and 11 obtained a description of the constable. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. I'm wondering which you obtained a description if she 14 was able to give you his name. 15 A. I said, "Can you describe him?" I just did that 16 automatically and she did. 17 Q. I see. 18 A. But I cleared the point about how did you know -- after 19 that length of time, how do you know what his name was? 20 She said, "It's still up on the wall. I was scheduled 21 to show a Constable Morgan round the office, which I 22 did." 23 Q. Paragraph 48, again, if you could look at it before I 24 ask you about it and check that you are happy with the 25 words that used there. page 79 1 A. Yes, that's correct, yes. 2 Q. Can you tell us just today in your own words just as 3 closely as possible what it was that PC Morgan said to 4 you when you met with him on 6th May 2007? 5 A. Yes. I must tell you that I of course paid to 6 interview him, again to which I protested. 7 I went down to Kilmarnock Police Office and as I 8 entered the front door of Kilmarnock Police Office, I 9 was surrounded by uniformed cops who were leaving the 10 building in a hurry and the sergeant at the head of the 11 posse said, "There's been a major incident in the high 12 street. Everyone's attending, except Constable Morgan. 13 He's waiting for you." 14 So I would have to say for the first time in this 15 inquiry, I was assisted by Strathclyde Police. 16 Q. What did Constable Morgan say to you? 17 A. Constable Morgan said that he had spoken to -- he could 18 remember speaking to a lady when he was shown round but 19 he disagreed with what her interpretation of what he had 20 said to her and I said to him at one stage, "It really 21 gets to the point you were really just chatting her up." 22 He said yes. 23 Q. What did he say to you? Did he tell you what he had 24 said to the lady at SCRO? 25 A. He said it was a general conversation. I said, "Well, page 80 1 this lady's now alleging that you said talking about 2 Lees" and he said, "No, I didn't say that." That's what 3 he said to me. 4 And I put the point that the lady had said he had 5 described Lees as a friend of his and he said, "Nothing 6 could be further from the truth. I don't like the guy". 7 Q. Are you saying that Collette McKay told you that the 8 name "Lees" had been mentioned to her? 9 A. No, no. 10 Q. So how does the name "Lees" come into this? 11 A. Because I said to him, "Do you know Constable Lees?" 12 Q. But before we get to Constable Lees -- and I appreciate 13 you have mentioned Constable Lees' name here -- before 14 we get to that, I would just like to be try to be clear 15 what your recollection is that Mr Morgan told you he did 16 say to the lady at SCRO. 17 A. He said it was just general chit-chat and I said, "Did 18 you mention any name to her?" and he said, "No." I 19 said, "Did you mention the fact that a friend of yours 20 was involved in this?" and he said, "No", and I said, 21 "Was the name 'Lees' ever mentioned?" He said, "No." I 22 said, "Do you know Constable Lees?" He said, "Yeah, I 23 don't like the guy." 24 Q. What you said in your statement here is that Mr Morgan 25 told you that he had been trying to impress Collette page 81 1 McKay and that he was making out he knew more than he 2 did. 3 A. Yes, chit-chat. 4 Q. You can put me right if I am wrong, but what I'd taken 5 from your statement was that Mr Morgan had said to you 6 something like, "Well, yes, I did say that I knew the 7 guy that let Shirley McKie in the house but I didn't 8 really. I just said it because I was trying to impress 9 her to chat her up". 10 A. No, that's not the case at all, no. 11 Q. That's not what happened? 12 A. No, he admitted to me that he spoke to the girl and I 13 said to him, "Basically then were you just chatting her 14 up, general conversation?" He said, "Yes." I said, 15 "Did you ever say to her that the man you were talking 16 about was Constable Lees". He said, "No." 17 Q. Why have you written here that Mr Morgan told you he was 18 making out that he knew more than he did? What do you 19 mean by that? 20 A. Who's saying that sorry. 21 Q. Please look at paragraph 48 of your statement, Mr Brown. 22 If we read from the end of the second last line on the 23 page, page 10, what's here is that he said he had been 24 trying to impress Collette McKay and was making out that 25 he knew more than he did? page 82 1 A. Yes, that was the impression I got, yes. 2 Q. Did you get the impression that Mr Morgan had or had not 3 said to Ms Mackay that he knew the chap who let Ms McKie 4 into the house? 5 A. No, I'm saying exactly what it says here, that he was 6 trying to tell her that he knew more than he did. 7 That's what he's telling me. That was the impression he 8 was giving to the girl and, strange as it may seem, I 9 believed him. 10 Q. How did he make her think he knew more than he did. 11 What was your understanding? 12 A. Well, my understanding was just he just said, "I know 13 all about it". That's all. He didn't tell me that but 14 that's my understanding. If he's chatting this lady up, 15 he's trying to give her the impression that he knows all 16 about the Shirley McKie saga. 17 Q. So -- 18 A. But I believe when he said that it was chit-chat and 19 that was the extent of it and when we shook hands at the 20 end, I said, "Well, I believe what you've said and I'll 21 inform your Section Sergeant accordingly". 22 Q. Did he ever say to you that he'd actually mentioned the 23 Shirley McKie case or talked about the Shirley McKie 24 case to the lady at SCRO? 25 A. No. You see, I think that perhaps what is alluding page 83 1 everyone in this case is a lot of these cops are 2 terrified to speak out and there's several reasons. If 3 you want to know the reasons, I'll tell you but you 4 won't like it, but there are certain reasons that police 5 officers when they speak to me say, "Don't mention my 6 name". And to be fair, a lot of them are considering 7 their career and their pension. You've heard some of 8 the police witnesses in here giving their evidence and, 9 to me, it really does leave a lot to be desired. 10 Q. Mr Brown, if there are people that you think have 11 information that's important to the Inquiry, then I 12 would urge you to tell us who they are. I'm not 13 particularly interested in why they might not want us to 14 find out, I'm simply interested in finding out who they 15 are because if there is information that the Chairman 16 should hear, it's important that he hears it. 17 A. There are police officers out there who under no 18 consideration whatsoever would appear here as a witness. 19 There are about five police officers, within my 20 knowledge, who I cannot name, who could solve this by 21 telling us what actually happened and, for different 22 reasons, they are afraid to do so. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: You can't name them. Is that because you 24 don't want to name them or because you don't know their 25 names? page 84 1 A. Because I don't know their names, my Lord, yes. 2 I've been told regularly by officers, senior 3 officers, retired officers, that there are police 4 officers out there who could solve this and I've done my 5 very best to identify them. My wife and I were at a 6 wedding and the couple dancing in the opposite 7 direction, the chap intimated me and he said, "Give me a 8 phone number and I'll give a phone. I can solve this". 9 I don't need to tell you, I haven't heard from him since 10 but what I did do was check with the bridegroom and 11 asked who he was and he named him and I'm not going to 12 name him here. That's not the way this is done. 13 My basic understanding is if anyone's got 14 information for the Inquiry team, it's up to them to 15 come forward. 16 Q. Moving on to paragraph 49, you mentioned Chief Inspector 17 Stewart Carle. Could you read that paragraph and are 18 you content that reflects what you want the Chairman to 19 take as your evidence on this matter? 20 A. That's correct, yes. And, again, that's a name that's 21 given to me that I can speak to and I spoke to him. I 22 think this is the only police officer I've ever spoken 23 to that I didn't pay to do so. I spoke to him and 24 he confirmed and I said, "If it's any consolation to 25 you, I will not put your name forward without your page 85 1 permission" and then of course, when I was contacted by 2 the Inquiry team, I was asked who this inspector was and 3 I said, "I'll need to speak to him first" and spoke to 4 him and he said, "I have no objection to giving 5 evidence." 6 So on one hand we've got officers that are willing 7 to give evidence, like Stewart Carle, and fro him we've 8 got another five that won't appear here for different 9 reasons. 10 Q. I thought they wouldn't appear because you didn't know 11 their names, Mr Brown. I thought that's what you said 12 to the Chairman -- 13 A. Yes. Most of them I don't know. I get phone calls and 14 people stop me and speak to me and I've really got to 15 say, "Who are you?" "I'm not giving you my name" and I 16 say, "What's the reason?" I mean, this has gone on long 17 enough for both sides. 18 Q. Now, for reasons that we canvassed yesterday about the 19 Inquiry's Terms of Reference, I'm not going to ask you 20 anything about the rest of your statement until we get 21 to the paragraph 55 of it. 22 A. I quite agree with what you're saying and I would just 23 like to record that I take exception to the fact we're 24 not referring to chapters 50, 51 and 52. I do 25 understand the reason, but I'd just like to make it page 86 1 clear that under the situation that I find myself in 2 trying to find out who murdered Marion Ross, then that's 3 not being admitted. 4 Q. I think you made your position very clear about that 5 yesterday -- 6 A. I understand that, yes. Yes, I'm just making the point. 7 I understand that, yes. 8 Q. Now, looking at paragraph 55, there is one matter that I 9 would like just to ask you about. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. That is when -- if we look at page 13 -- 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. -- what's recorded here is: 14 "What I discovered is that Charles Stewart, 15 Principal Fingerprint Officer, who attended the scene at 16 the material time has the answer. Apparently in the 17 'Case Papers' there is a note describing the 'tin 18 impression'. During my inquiries, I telephoned the 19 person in charge of the SOCO officers, a Kenneth Baillie 20 and sought his assistance. I am still awaiting his 21 response." 22 What I would like to ask you is when you discovered 23 that there was something in the case papers describing 24 the tin impression? 25 A. I would say about two years ago, shortly after I came on page 87 1 board. Someone told me that there was a dust-free 2 impression on a shelf in a room covered with dust. 3 Q. Well, I understand that information about a dust-free 4 area may have come to you some time ago and you 5 mentioned that, in fairness to you, in an e-mail some 6 time ago which you then sent on to the Inquiry. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. I understand you've known about that for some time and 9 the Inquiry has heard some evidence about that. 10 What I want to know is when you found out that 11 Charles Stewart might know something about it and that 12 there was something in the case papers about it. 13 A. Yes, I pursued this. To me, it was very, very 14 important. We've got a lady who's murdered and there's 15 an impression on a dust-covered shelf free of dust which 16 is the same shape as the tin that was found in Asbury's 17 house. Nobody seemed interested. 18 Q. I understand why you're interested. My question was a 19 simple one: when did you find out that Charles Stewart 20 might know something about it and that there was 21 something in the case papers about it? 22 A. I would say about three months ago. 23 Q. About three months ago? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Where did you get that information from? page 88 1 A. That information came to me from, I think, Robert 2 Mackenzie, who's a witness in this Inquiry. 3 Q. What did Robert Mackenzie tell you? 4 A. He said this -- sorry, I asked him, "Do you know 5 anything about this?" and he said, "I do know and the 6 man who also knows is a colleague called Charles Stewart 7 and he has written a note about this very impression in 8 the dust-covered shelf". It was only when I heard 9 someone giving evidence in this hearing last week I 10 suddenly realised that this information apparently is 11 contained in the HOLMES setup and no-one seemed to 12 pay it -- in fact, if I could just -- 13 Q. Well, no. I would like you to stick to the topic that 14 I'm asking you about please, Mr Brown. 15 Did Robert Mackenzie tell you that he had been shown 16 the case papers with that when his statement being taken 17 for this Inquiry? 18 A. No. I said to him, "Have you heard about this dust-free 19 impression on the shelf?" and he said, "Yes" and I said, 20 "What do I do about that? How do I find out?" He said, 21 "Speak to Charles Stewart." 22 Q. I see. But you are quite clear that is something you 23 found out about recently in the last three months. That 24 was really all I wanted to know about that. 25 A. Yes. page 89 1 Q. Thank you. 2 A. And he mentioned the fact that he thought -- Robert 3 Mackenzie thought that Charles Stewart had written a 4 note about the very same item. 5 Q. We can move on from that and the next section of your 6 statement is headed up "allegations of perjury against 7 Shirley McKie". 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. I would like you to read through from paragraph 56 10 through to 61 and I would like to be sure that you are 11 happy that the words there express what it is you would 12 like the Chairman to take as your position. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And what you are doing here is you are drawing to the 15 Chairman's attention an allegation that Shirley McKie 16 didn't tell the truth in her perjury trial? 17 A. Yes. What prompted me in this angle was the fact that 18 if Shirley McKie was telling the truth about Y7, this is 19 superfluous. This Inquiry's superfluous if she's 20 telling the truth. So I then decided is she a truthful 21 person? 22 Q. I think we can probably follow your line of thought 23 there. Your concern is that if she told an untruth in 24 one place, she might not be a truthful person and you 25 would be concerned for the Chairman to be aware of your page 90 1 concern about that. 2 A. Yes. I'm happy that it's noted that -- I've noticed (I 3 don't know if anyone else has noticed) that Shirley 4 McKie has maintained all along that she's never been in 5 that house. She doesn't always necessarily say it's not 6 her fingerprint and on certain occasions when asked at 7 the trial to explain how her fingerprint's got inside 8 the house, on the basis that she's telling the truth and 9 she was never in the house, she comes up with theories 10 that are so bizarre they are incredulous. 11 For example, when asked how -- this is at her 12 trial -- to explain the hand print, sorry, fingerprint 13 Y7 being on the doorframe, she said that "My father does 14 renovations on old houses and it may well be that I put 15 my print on a doorframe that he has used somewhere else" 16 and that's her explanation. 17 Q. Well, I think so far as Ms McKie's evidence at the trial 18 was concerned, I think the Chairman does have the 19 benefit of a transcript of that and we can no doubt 20 refer to that in due course if we need to. 21 A. You see, I'm very well aware that this lady Shirley 22 McKie -- and I've said this before and I've said it to 23 her father -- throughout all of this has been to hell 24 and back more than once. So have the SCRO officers. 25 The only difference between them is Shirley's are page 91 1 self-inflicted. 2 Q. Well, can we take it that that's your opinion, Mr Brown? 3 That's your opinion. 4 A. It's not my opinion (inaudible) dishonest. She 5 committed perjury at her perjury trial and I've reported 6 to the Crown Office to see what they're going to do 7 about it and, again, in fairness to Shirley McKie, it's 8 quite obvious to anyone reading her evidence at the 9 trial she was acting on the advice of Mr Findlay. 10 Q. I think it would be fair to say, Mr Brown, that you were 11 not yourself present watching Ms McKie give evidence. 12 A. No. I've read the transcript. 13 Q. And you are not privy to what went on between her and 14 her legal adviser? 15 A. Sorry, the last bit? 16 Q. You weren't present, were you, when Ms McKie spoke to 17 her legal advisers? 18 A. Of course not. 19 Q. No. So anything that you say about that is inference 20 that you personally have drawn about why Ms McKie might 21 have said something that she said. 22 A. My impression is the way she answered -- one of the 23 questions she answered, "You would need to ask my lawyer 24 that" -- 25 Q. Well -- page 92 1 A. -- would tend to suggest that her lawyer had said to 2 her, "Don't mention Peter Swann". That's quite obvious 3 to anyone with any intelligence that reads that that's 4 what she's saying. She's under a considerable amount of 5 pressure in that witness box and she committed perjury 6 and I've reported it as such to Crown Office and we're 7 still waiting a reply. 8 I mean, it's straightforward. We're sitting here 9 discussing things about who did you tell it to, what 10 time, what day was it? Here's something that's fact and 11 nothing's been done about it. You're sitting here today 12 discussing the circumstances, what we're trying to get 13 to the truth of the matter and that's what I'm 14 determined to do. 15 Q. Well, the aim of the Inquiry is indeed to find out just 16 as much as we can of the truth, Mr Brown. 17 A. I mean, this Inquiry has ruled that there's certain 18 aspects of the Inquiry they're not prepared to discuss. 19 Q. Mr Brown, there is another matter that I do need to ask 20 you about. I need to look at a note I've being passed 21 before I do that and I am going to need a moment to do 22 that. I am not asking a further question at the moment. 23 If I may just have a moment to check something, sir, 24 before I continue. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. page 93 1 MISS CARMICHAEL: (Pause) 2 I do want to return to the question of Marion Scott 3 briefly before we finish, Mr Brown. We expect that 4 Marion Scott will come and give evidence to the Inquiry. 5 It may be that the Inquiry will hear evidence from her 6 that you contacted her rather than she contacting you? 7 A. Sorry, who's this that you're on about? 8 Q. Marion Scott, the journalist lady that we spoke about 9 earlier today. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. It may be that she will come and tell the Inquiry that 12 you contacted her rather than she contacting you, 13 because you were already involved in the matter before 14 the contact with her. 15 A. That's not my recollection. Whatever Marion Scott says 16 sitting in this seat if she's appearing today I would 17 take with a pinch of salt. 18 Q. And she may say that when you contacted her you said 19 that you picked up some information from someone you'd 20 met in a bowling club and that it was a friend of a 21 police officer who'd let Shirley McKie into the house 22 because she fancied her. Do you remember that? 23 A. No, I never said that. 24 Q. Now, you told us about what was said at the first 25 meeting you had with Marion Scott about an alleged page 94 1 romantic liaison in the house where the murder had taken 2 place. Now, it may be that Miss Scott's position in 3 evidence will be that the matter was mentioned as rumour 4 in the course of that meeting. 5 How does that accord with your recollection? 6 A. Yes, on the basis that she has said in front of four 7 witnesses what she said, I'm the type of fellow that 8 doesn't let it lie. I investigated this myself to find 9 out. Somebody must have said something. You're going 10 to cut me off here, aren't you? 11 Q. Not all. I'm looking down at my note. Please don't 12 infer anything from that. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: I think you wanted to complete your answer, 14 did you? 15 A. Yes. She said in our house in front of these witnesses 16 that it was well known in the media that Shirley McKie 17 had a romantic liaison with a police officer in the 18 house and I said, "Marion, what you talking about? It's 19 impossible". Even allowing for the obvious lack of 20 professionalism regarding this house at the time, it 21 would be impossible for her and him to do anything in 22 the house. It's been impossible to find out if she was 23 actually in the house and anyway ... 24 So I then decided in her saying that after she'd 25 gone and agreed what we were going to do and let me tell page 95 1 you that I was a co-founder of an organisation called 2 The Search for Justice. On that day and the following 3 day The Search for Justice Did not exist as a result of 4 a phone call from Mr Iain McKie to the other chap who 5 formed us. It existed only in name. Up until then, I 6 had investigated about 11 serious crimes, most of which 7 I solved -- again without payment from anyone, a 8 voluntary organisation. If you'd like me to tell you 9 what Mr McKie put in his website in connection with this 10 incident, it was a very interesting postscript to this 11 one. 12 This is an e-mail I sent as a result of a letter -- 13 to me a threatening letter -- from Digby Brown. I've 14 got a copy of it here. They wrote to me to say that 15 this information had come to hand that I was spreading 16 malicious rumours. I don't spread malicious rumours 17 about anyone. They sent me a letter to say that: 18 "... you immediately disclose the name and address 19 of the individual you say told you they had a 20 conversation with dock escort." 21 That of course was Kerr Reid and I didn't reveal it. 22 However, I replied by saying -- and I think this is 23 worth hearing -- this is on Iain McKie's website. I 24 looked it up. I mean, if they are saying that, it must 25 have some from somewhere. Statement from them -- this page 96 1 is what it said. The heading is "A statement from the 2 McKie family": 3 "In 1997 an informal briefing was given to 4 reporters." 5 I never knew there was such a thing. I've never 6 heard of an informal briefing with the reporters. 7 "In 1997 an informal briefing was given to reporters 8 by a senior police officer involved in the Marion Ross 9 investigation." 10 That's in 1997. 11 "At this time he stated that Shirley's fingerprint 12 had been placed in the murder house while she was having 13 sex with her married police lover." 14 The McKie website says: 15 "The descriptions given were graphic and cannot be 16 repeated here ..." and so it goes on. 17 The outcome of it was I replied, as I say, Gorden 18 Dalyell of Digby Brown -- I think he's sitting beside me 19 here -- and, as I say, the day after Mr McKie phoned 20 Brian Davis, who was the co-founder of the Search for 21 Justice with me. As of that day, we've ceased to exist. 22 I've said to Mr Dalyell -- he'll have a copy: 23 "I have mentioned to you earlier that all 24 correspondence I send or receive relative to Shirley 25 McKie, including the e-mail I've sent to you, I forward page 97 1 to Crown Office and have done so from the start, 2 regards." 3 Now, a very interesting thing happened here when a 4 witness was giving evidence. I think it was Stephen 5 Heath and Mr Dalyell asked Stephen Heath if he could 6 recall having a conversation with a newspaper 7 reporter called Marcello -- 8 Q. Well -- 9 A. You're going to interrupt me again and it's important. 10 Q. I am going to interrupt you, Mr Brown. I am going to 11 interrupt you. 12 A. And I think that was a press conference. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: I didn't hear Mr Dalyell ask any questions in 14 this Inquiry. So it could have been Mr Smith maybe. 15 A. Sorry, it was Mr Smith was on the point of asking 16 Mr Heath if he could recall speaking to a reporter and I 17 think you, my Lord, interrupted him and said, "We won't 18 go down that road". I suspect that was the informal 19 press conference and I think Stephen Heath told that 20 reporter what he shouldn't have said. 21 MISS CARMICHAEL: I think we can probably refer to the 22 record of that day to see what was said, but I think 23 Mr Heath was in fact asked and answered some questions 24 on that topic. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. I recollect stopping a witness at one page 98 1 stage and I think a person was actually named, 2 journalist. 3 MISS CARMICHAEL: Returning to Marion Scott, if we may, she 4 may say -- it may be that she says to the Inquiry that 5 you contacted her shortly after the meeting and asked 6 her if she was going to do a story. Is that something 7 you remember happening? 8 A. Sorry, say that bit again. 9 Q. That you contacted her -- that's Marion Scott -- shortly 10 after the meeting and asked her if she was going to do a 11 story. 12 A. Well, I would not disagree with that, no. She -- 13 Mr Smith has referred to me as an investigative 14 journalist. I take it that was meant as a compliment. 15 Marion Scott is an investigative journalist: I am not. 16 Q. Is it right that she told you that she wasn't going to 17 do a story about it? 18 A. About what? 19 Q. About what you told her at the meeting and that you 20 seemed put out by that. 21 A. I mean, it's entirely up to her. The only reason I can 22 think she was there was she was acting as a kind of 23 conduit, if you like, because of our successes as a 24 search of justice in other cases, some going back -- one 25 going back 47 years and she was so impressed that page 99 1 anything to do with a good story she would be interested 2 in. 3 Q. Well -- 4 A. And I felt if the SCRO interest was made known to the 5 public -- however, I discovered at a very early date 6 that there's no publicity in favour of SCRO and I found 7 out the reason why and I've noted there's very little 8 publicity about this Inquiry, which is rather strange. 9 Q. Now, returning to your conversation with Marion Scott -- 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. -- what she may say to the Inquiry is that she told you 12 she wasn't doing a story on the basis of what you had 13 said to her, that you seemed put out by that and that 14 she told you that none of it had been proved and the 15 newspaper weren't willing to act on it. 16 Now, do you remember her saying that to you? 17 A. No. I don't understand why she's saying anything I've 18 said to her. I didn't say anything to her. She said to 19 me about this and I ridiculed it. I said, "That's a 20 load of rubbish. I don't believe that" and I still 21 don't believe it. I do not believe that Shirley McKie 22 was in that house with a police officer for a romantic 23 liaison. 24 Can I say to you that if Shirley McKie(sic) alleges 25 that I said something to her in the house or elsewhere page 100 1 prejudicial to Shirley McKie, she will have it on tape. 2 When she comes into this courtroom (if she's not here 3 already) and hears this, she will almost certainly tape 4 record it. She tape records everything. A lot of 5 reporters do tape record. You will notice newspaper 6 reporters now when they're sitting in the court of a 7 hearing, they don't seem to write anything down. They 8 don't need to. They're taping it. 9 MISS CARMICHAEL: Mr Brown, I don't have any further 10 questions for you. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Obviously we have come to the 12 lunch break. I take it there will be applications for 13 leave to cross-examine the witness from you, Mr Smith. 14 I will not take it now but it's just to see so that 15 other witnesses are not kept waiting unduly long. 16 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sir, there's a matter that Senior Counsel 17 has asked me to raise if I may have a moment. I am 18 sorry; I know we are trespassing into the lunch break. 19 (Pause). 20 Senior Counsel has indicated there is a witness he 21 is intending to lead who is available this afternoon and 22 this afternoon only. While I appreciate it is unusual, 23 it would be most helpful if consideration could be given 24 to interposing that witness before this witness is 25 examined. It might be possible to fit the witness in if page 101 1 examination is brief, but I wonder if that will be the 2 case. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: I think you are getting more instructions or 4 advice. 5 MISS CARMICHAEL: It may be that some discussion amongst 6 representatives can take place as to the suitability or 7 not of that happening as well. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 9 MISS CARMICHAEL: I have been asked to raise it at this 10 stage. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: If there was a problem, Mr Brown, I am 12 sure you won't mind if we have to interpose a short 13 witness. 14 A. Not at all. I'm here to help, my Lord. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. We will sit again at 16 1.50. 17 (1.05 pm) 18 (Luncheon Adjournment) 19 (1.50 pm) 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we are able, are we, to continue with 21 Mr Brown. 22 MISS CARMICHAEL: I believe so, sir, yes. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Very good. If you would like to come back 24 Mr Brown, it looks like we can proceed with your 25 evidence. page 102 1 Mr Smith, would you like to go first? 2 MR SMITH: Yes, sir. The areas I want to explore with 3 Mr Brown relate to the credibility and reliability of 4 the information he has provided but in particular what I 5 would like to explore with the witness is precisely the 6 information he had available to him, the quality of that 7 and what he did with it. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 9 MR SMITH: I will do my level best not to cover ground that 10 has been covered already. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: If you can. 12 Cross-examined by MR SMITH 13 Q. Thank you, sir. 14 Mr Brown, I think you made it clear in your evidence 15 that you are here to act for certain members of the 16 Scottish Criminal Records Office; is that right? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And you indicated on a number of occasions that your 19 interest was to investigate the murder of Marion Ross 20 rather than any question in isolation of the fingerprint 21 Y7? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Can I just be clear about this, Mr Brown: what interest 24 do you understand the Scottish Criminal Record Office 25 have in investigating the murder? page 103 1 A. Well, I think justice. 2 Q. Is this something that, as far as you know, Scottish 3 Criminal Record Office took up in respect of every 4 murder inquiry? 5 A. No. 6 Q. So what was particular about this one? 7 A. Well, my answer would be quite delicate because I think 8 they all felt that the man who murdered Marion Ross was 9 walking free. 10 Q. Are you saying it's really nothing to do with Y7 at all; 11 is that right? 12 A. Well, I would expect common sense would suggest that in 13 my efforts to identify who killed Marion Ross 14 information may come to hand that supports whether 15 Shirley McKie's fingerprint was left at the locus or 16 not. 17 Q. Let's be clear about this: your clients, SCRO, 18 identified Y7 as belonging to Shirley McKie, right? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Not a possible murderer, right? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. So, therefore, one assumes that the identity of Y7 as 23 being Shirley McKie's or not is irrelevant to the murder 24 inquiry; that's correct, isn't it, Mr Brown? 25 A. I don't think it's irrelevant. I just think -- there's page 104 1 not much point in them appointing me to investigate Y7 2 because I'm, just like yourself, a layman concerned with 3 fingerprints. 4 Q. The fact is, Mr Brown, isn't it, that your interest in 5 this is only because of the question of Y7 and whether 6 or not your clients misidentified it? That's the truth 7 of it, isn't it? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. So it's not the investigation of the murder of Marion 10 Ross, it's an investigation into the question 11 surrounding Y7, isn't it? 12 A. Not as far as I'm concerned, no. 13 Q. And that is why, Mr Brown, you took the step of 14 reporting Shirley McKie to the Crown Office, didn't you? 15 A. Yes, for the act of committing perjury, yes, because I 16 came across that during my investigation. One of my 17 problems is if I resolve something who do I tell? 18 Q. Mr Brown, if you can please understand that the purpose 19 of this Inquiry, whether you like it or not, is that we 20 can ask questions and you answer them. This is not a 21 forum for you to make statements about all kinds of 22 things; do you understand that? 23 A. I do understand that, yes. 24 Q. So can you just listen to the question and answer the 25 question. page 105 1 Now, you explained that you, I think, the phrase you 2 used was an ex-expert in murder investigations; is that 3 right? 4 A. I would alter that slightly and say I'm still an expert, 5 yes. 6 Q. Still an expert. Within that capacity in the many years 7 you had in the police you would be very well aware of 8 how important it was to keep accurate notes of things 9 that happened that could be important; that's right, 10 isn't it? 11 A. Particularly in the police force, yes. 12 Q. Did it stop the day you left the police, did it? 13 A. Sorry? 14 Q. Did that habit of keeping accurate notes stop when you 15 left the police? 16 A. No, my next job when I left the police was a senior 17 investigator for the Federation Against Corporate Theft 18 and I continued to keep notes. 19 Q. Is there some stage when you stopped keeping meticulous 20 notes of investigations when you were working on a case? 21 A. Sorry? 22 Q. Is there some stage in your career when you stopped 23 keeping meticulous notes when you were working on some 24 kind of case? 25 A. Well, I've worked on 11 cases since the year 2000 and page 106 1 the notes are few and far between. 2 Q. Why is that? 3 A. Well, some of the more horrendous murders that I 4 assisted with, like the murder of Annie Davies, the 5 documentation was a about three feet high and I felt 6 there was enough there to work on and try and solve the 7 thing. I did keep the odd notebook but not for court 8 purposes. 9 Q. And you would appreciate, Mr Brown, that in carrying out 10 investigations, especially when you are looking again at 11 any murder case, would require not just accuracy but 12 precision; that's right, isn't it? 13 A. While I was in the police force, yes. 14 Q. Well, let's deal with the police force then. Clarity? 15 A. Clarity, yes. 16 Q. Truth? 17 A. Always the truth, yes. 18 Q. And, as far as that exercise is concerned, when you were 19 investigating something after you left the police the 20 same principles ought to apply, shouldn't they? 21 A. Certainly the honesty part, yes. 22 Q. There's not much point if it's inaccurate, is there? 23 A. Not much point if it was inaccurate, that's correct. 24 Q. So accuracy and truth are important and would you agree 25 that clarity remains important? page 107 1 A. Yes, they go hand in hand. 2 Q. You remember the oath you took at the start of this 3 evidence which was to tell not just the truth but the 4 whole truth -- 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. -- and nothing but the truth. 7 As far as that is concerned, you were asked some 8 questions about the sources of information that you had. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. I am a little confused about your position as to whether 11 or not you do know who some of those are who can, as you 12 put it, solve this. 13 First of all, can I ask what do you mean by "solve 14 this"? Solve what? 15 A. Solve might be a bad choice of word because, as far as 16 I'm concerned, the murder question has been solved. 17 Q. When you said "solve this", what were you referring to? 18 A. You want me to spell it out? 19 Q. No, I'm asking whether is it, for example, who left Y7? 20 Is it whether Shirley McKie was in the locus? Is it 21 whether Shirley McKie was having sexual intercourse with 22 someone in the locus? What was it that -- 23 A. Well, I've already suggested that I do not believe that 24 Shirley McKie was involved in any sexual activity within 25 that house. page 108 1 Q. Do you believe that she was involved in any 2 activity with another person within the locus? 3 A. I'm saying that in my estimation and as a result of 4 people I have spoken to it's not true. I've spoken to 5 her partner, Willy Shields, at some length and noted it 6 in a notebook. 7 Q. I will come back to that in due course but the people 8 that you say could solve this, what is the "this" that 9 is being referred to? I am not asking what the detail 10 is of what they might or may not say, I am asking what 11 it is you say they maybe able solve and assist in? 12 A. Yes, how Shirley McKie got into the house. 13 Q. How she got into the house? 14 A. Yes. That's assuming that it's her fingerprint. 15 Q. Right. Now I think you indicated -- the page references 16 and line numbers on LiveNote are as follows page 79, 17 line 9 of today -- in response to a question from the 18 Chairman, I think he asked you something like, "Are you 19 saying that you don't know these people or are you 20 saying you know them but you're not prepared to tell 21 us?" Now the answer that seems to have been noted by 22 the stenographer is that you didn't know who they are? 23 A. Sorry, I didn't know? 24 Q. That you didn't know who they are, the five officers? 25 A. As been suggested to me by different sources, including page 109 1 Willy Shields that there are five police officers out 2 there who could solve this and it's not the murder he's 3 talking, he's talking about how Shirley McKie got into 4 the house. 5 Q. Right. I just want to know your position. Are you 6 saying that you don't know any of these five officers, 7 who they are; is that your position? 8 A. That's correct, yes. I couldn't name that just now. 9 Q. The reason I ask is that just less or just over a page 10 later at page 80 at line 18 it's noted that you said, 11 "Most of them, I don't know". 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Well, if we're dealing with five officers who can solve 14 it, which is correct: you don't know any of them or you 15 know some of them? Which is it? 16 A. Well, Mark Lees is number one. 17 Q. I beg your pardon? 18 A. Mark Lees is number one on the list. 19 Q. Right. Are there any that you know the name of that we 20 haven't been given that information of? 21 A. There's one other that I know of that's a very strong 22 suspect who, in this witness box, said the fingerprint 23 on the doorframe might be his. 24 Q. We may be at crossed purposes, Mr Brown. I'm simply 25 asking this: you understand there are maybe five police page 110 1 officers out there who can provide the answers to the 2 questions. 3 A. Yes. If someone said to me, "How many officers do you 4 think know the identity of the officer that allowed her 5 into the house", I would say, from what I've gathered 6 over the two years that I've been doing this, probably 7 five. 8 Q. Now as far as the five are concerned, are you saying it 9 is five, absolutely five or are saying, well, it's about 10 five? 11 A. I'm saying it's about that. People I talk to, some will 12 say five or some would say you're looking at six -- but 13 five. 14 Q. So five or six? 15 A. Five or six, yes. 16 Q. I take it you said to the people who say to you there 17 are five maybe six people out there who know the answer, 18 your response is, "Who are they?"; yes? 19 A. My response is that any person I speak to in connection 20 with this Inquiry that I'm doing, I say to them, "Tell 21 me who you think allowed her into the house". 22 Q. Right. But your response to that, when somebody says 23 there are people out there who know the truth, know the 24 answer, your response would obviously be, "Well, can you 25 tell me who they are". page 111 1 A. Yes, and their response is no. 2 Q. So all the sources seem to dry up, don't they? 3 A. No, they don't dry up. There's different reasons they 4 are not prepared to say so and one of the reasons I've 5 established is that, for example, someone would say the 6 person who allowed her in has intimated that if the 7 truth comes out he'll get ten years in prison, meaning 8 the officer who let her in and I'd say, "Who's that", 9 and they'd say, "If you don't know, I can't tell you". 10 Q. I suppose there's another possibility, isn't there, 11 Mr Brown, and this is all just unfounded, completely 12 unsupported gossip, isn't it? 13 A. Gossip in any other sense but we're talking here about 14 the murder of a lady and the fact that there's a police 15 officer's print found in the house that she denies she 16 was ever in the house. As I said earlier, you get the 17 distinct impression she's not saying it's not her 18 fingerprint. If you read between the lines of what 19 Shirley McKie says at court and in interviews on 20 Panorama, for example. 21 Q. You can take it from me, Mr Brown, and I've been in this 22 case for a long time, that Shirley McKie's position has 23 been resilient. As soon as she obtained evidence that 24 SCRO, according to her information, had got it wrong 25 she's been resilient and her position is it's not her page 112 1 fingerprint. 2 You must be aware of that, are you not, Mr Brown? 3 A. I'm aware she does say it's not her fingerprint but she 4 don't often repeat that phrase as much as she does the 5 other one. She continually says, "I was not in that 6 house", and if she's telling the truth, then it's not 7 her fingerprint. 8 Q. Mr Brown, you said towards the end of your evidence that 9 you didn't believe that she had been in the locus having 10 a romantic liaison? 11 A. I did not believe it when I heard it on that day when 12 Marion Scott told us and I still don't believe it. 13 Q. I'd just like to be clear about what you don't believe. 14 The allegation, I think, at its worst for Shirley McKie, 15 was she was having sexual intercourse in the locus with 16 a married police officer? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. A pretty serious allegation. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. I would like to work out what it is that you don't 21 believe. You obviously don't believe that. 22 Do you believe that she was in the locus with a 23 police officer having sexual intercourse? 24 A. No, I don't believe that at all. 25 Q. Do you believe she was having sexual intercourse in the page 113 1 locus at all? 2 A. I don't believe it. 3 Q. Do you actually believe, for sure, that she was in the 4 locus? 5 A. Yes. My information is that she was inside the house. 6 Q. That's based upon the suggestion her fingerprint was 7 found in the house; that's right, isn't it? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. I would just like to be clear about this: apart from the 10 disputed fingerprint -- we can argue about that no doubt 11 in significant detail -- but apart from that, the 12 position is, Mr Brown, that you have been unable to find 13 a single piece of evidence from someone who saw her in 14 that locus. That is right, isn't it? 15 A. That's correct, yes. That's including the chap who 16 perhaps -- another point in all of this is that this 17 particular -- we'll name him because he's the man, he's 18 Mark Lees -- and he has insisted all along that he did 19 not allow Shirley McKie in the house and I believe him 20 to the extent that I think she just opened the door and 21 said, "I'll have a quick look", and the situation in the 22 porch -- I've been down and had a look at the porch -- 23 if he's sitting at his side of the table in the porch 24 she could quite easily go past him and go into the house 25 and come back out in 20 seconds. page 114 1 I believe, if you're asking me, I believe that Y7 is 2 Shirley McKie's fingerprint and I believe she put it 3 there. That's my belief. 4 Q. All I'm saying to you, Mr Brown, is that if it was to be 5 held by this Inquiry -- if -- that that is not Shirley 6 McKie's fingerprint, would you accept that? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Why not? 9 A. Well, you've got to match up the experts who says it was 10 against the experts who say it wasn't. If I can I just 11 add to that a wee bit because it is quite important. 12 The main person who says it's not her fingerprint -- and 13 he did so in 35 seconds -- is a man called Pat Wertheim. 14 He says it's not her fingerprint. He also said the 15 fingerprint on the tin found in Asbury's house is not 16 the dead woman's fingerprint. He's about the only 17 person I know of who's examined that print who says 18 that, so he says it's not her fingerprint. And I 19 understand, I don't know anything about fingerprints but 20 I understand there's at least 30 characteristics which 21 suggest that Marion Ross' fingerprint was inside that 22 tin so you have to weigh up against that he in 35 or 40 23 seconds looked at Y7 and said it's definitely not 24 Shirley McKie's. 25 Q. So just to be clear, it is your understanding -- I don't page 115 1 want to go down this route particularly but your 2 understanding is there is only one person that says it's 3 not Shirley McKie's fingerprint; is that right? 4 A. Sorry. 5 Q. There's only one person; is that what you are saying? 6 You understand there's only one expert who says it is 7 not Shirley McKie's? 8 A. No, I'm not saying that, not at all. 9 Q. No doubt the Chairman will have to decide which experts, 10 if any, he accepts on this matter. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. All I am saying is that if the Chairman hears evidence 13 from a number of experts, hears evidence from Mr Swan if 14 he wishes and comes to a conclusion that, if he was to 15 do so, that Y7 was not Shirley McKie's, I take it you 16 would accept that, would you? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Why not? 19 A. I've examined and looked at documentation, et cetera. 20 You have to understand that they employed Peter Swann to 21 examine the fingerprints and the minute he identified it 22 as, Y7, as Shirley McKie's he got the heave ho. 23 Q. Very well. I don't wish to pursue that any further but 24 what I do want to ask you is this: you have acknowledged 25 that you do not believe that she was in the locus having page 116 1 sexual intercourse. You have acknowledged that? 2 A. Yes, I definitely do not believe that happened. 3 Q. Can you perhaps confirm to this Inquiry that you gave a 4 written submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. In that submission you made reference to information 7 that you had been passed which suggested she was in the 8 locus having sexual intercourse? 9 A. Aye, only one person said that and I think she's the 10 next witness, Marion Scott; who's a liar. 11 Q. So whatever the next witness, whoever that may be, says 12 or doesn't say, you prepared a submission to the 13 Parliamentary Inquiry knowing it would be published and 14 publicly available repeating what you were told that we 15 understand you didn't believe. 16 A. I made that submission on the understanding I would be 17 called to give evidence. It's not my fault they didn't 18 call me and Mr McKie maintains that I did that 19 deliberately knowing I would not be called to give 20 evidence and that's not true. I submitted it and 21 suggested that I be called to give evidence on that 22 subject. 23 Q. Did you say in that submission to the Parliamentary 24 Inquiry: 25 "I received information that she was having sexual page 117 1 intercourse. However, I do not believe this to be 2 true." 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. That's what you said to the Parliamentary Inquiry? 5 A. Yes and that's true, that's the situation today. 6 Q. Can you explain, please, Mr Brown, why it is that in the 7 course of this Inquiry you put a written submission 8 again repeating those matters? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Why did you do that in this Inquiry? 11 A. It's very difficult to know what to leave out. 12 Q. Give me just one moment. (Pause) 13 You see, Mr Brown, you will understand how hurtful 14 these suggestions are to Shirley McKie and her father. 15 You understand that? 16 A. Yes, I do understand that. Every time I say I don't 17 believe it brings it up to the surface again. 18 Q. I'm just trying to search through your statement whether 19 you say in your statement to this Inquiry "... and I 20 don't believe these allegations". Do you remember if 21 you said that in your written statement to this Inquiry? 22 A. Yes. I still don't believe it. 23 Q. Did you say it in your written statement? 24 A. To this Inquiry? 25 Q. Yes. page 118 1 A. Maybe not in as many words but knowing I would be coming 2 to give evidence I don't see -- there's stuff left out 3 that I can bring forward at this stage. It doesn't 4 matter how you put it, Mr Smith. I don't believe she 5 had sex in the house with anyone. 6 Q. I am much obliged to you for that clarification. All 7 I'm concerned about is that, as far as I can see in your 8 statement to this Inquiry, the rumours are repeated but 9 there's no suggestion that you utterly discount them as 10 having any validity? 11 A. There's only one person ever said to me about that and 12 the suggestion was particularly from Digby Brown's 13 office -- and it must have come from somewhere -- that 14 it was me that started this story off. I have 15 established that, in fact, Mr McKie alleged to it or 16 referred to it in an e-mail years ago and I believe that 17 you almost hit the nail on the head by suggesting to 18 Stephen Heath that it was he who gave an informal press 19 conference to a reporter called Marcello Mega or 20 something like that. 21 Q. Mr Brown, you made reference to a letter from Digby 22 Brown to yourself which was on 18th May 2006 and I don't 23 wish to go into the detail of it but that was largely 24 provoked by the Parliamentary Inquiry statement, wasn't 25 it? page 119 1 A. I don't know. 2 Q. Well, I will just read it out from the second paragraph. 3 I'll read this slowly: 4 "We have today discussed the content of your 5 submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry and have been 6 instructed to write to you." 7 Do you remember the letter saying that? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. "The allegation in your written submission and 10 statements that suggests that you were told third hand 11 certain things by unnamed sources, those allegations 12 carrying the clear implication that our client committed 13 perjury on more than one occasion and acted in breach of 14 an order of a superior." 15 It goes on to make reference to suggestions being 16 made of sexual conduct with a married police officer. 17 Now, you will accept from me, won't you, that this 18 letter appears to be provoked substantially because of 19 the Parliamentary Inquiry submission; that's right, 20 isn't it? 21 A. Well, I would agree with you in Mr McKie keeps repeating 22 this allegation that it was me that started this rumour 23 about his daughter and it's not true. 24 Q. Well, you see, we will no doubt hear from Marion Scott 25 in due course. As I understand her position, as was put page 120 1 to you by Counsel to the Inquiry, her position will 2 probably be along the lines that although there was some 3 gossip going on in the media world about it, you were 4 the person who really was trying to get her to publish 5 these allegations. 6 A. That's definitely not true and if she says that in here 7 today she's committing perjury. 8 Q. Have you ever spoken to a journalist with any newspaper 9 asking them to publish these allegations? 10 A. Certainly not. 11 Q. Give me just one moment, please. (Pause) 12 Do you know the name Lorna Martin? 13 A. Who? 14 Q. Lorna Martin. 15 A. Never heard of her. 16 Q. A journalist. 17 A. Never heard of her. 18 Q. Now, I would like to just understand who is wrong in all 19 of this and where you are right. I have tried to draw 20 up a list here of the various people who have either 21 given evidence or have given statements to the Inquiry. 22 Can we deal with, first, the non-professional 23 Mr McKinlay. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. I think it may have been put to you what is understood page 121 1 he might be saying. Have you heard what his position 2 might be? 3 A. Not from his angle. I can only give the version that I 4 gave. 5 Q. Well, if he gives an indication that the type of 6 conversation that you say took place with him didn't 7 happen, what he said was there was just a lot of pub 8 talk or just gossip about it, nothing concrete and that 9 was as far as it went, it's different to your evidence, 10 isn't it? 11 A. Yes, and my evidence is the correct version. 12 Q. So if he says something to that effect he will be either 13 grossly mistaken or lying about it; that's right, isn't 14 it? 15 A. Or have other reasons. We were talking here about 16 people who are talking to police officers. It was up to 17 him at that time to say to me, "I don't know what you're 18 talking about" and I would have left the shop there and 19 then. He asked me for my phone number. 20 Q. I understand that but all I'm saying is if he give 21 evidence different to yours he is either grossly 22 mistaken or lying; that's right, isn't it -- according 23 to you? 24 A. He could be mistaken, not lying. 25 Q. Kerr Reid who we heard from, as far as he was concerned, page 122 1 I think your position is, frankly, that the evidence he 2 gave to this Inquiry at least in part was untrue. 3 That's right, isn't it? 4 A. Different from mine, yes. 5 Q. Is Kerr Reid the gentleman you shared the car with? 6 A. Kerr Reid and I were coming here on the first day, I 7 think it was 9th June, and he offered me a lift and I 8 said, understanding the significance of it, I said, 9 "I'll come with you in the car on one condition and that 10 is we don't discuss what we're going to say when we get 11 there". 12 Q. Yes. I heard your evidence to that effect earlier but I 13 just wanted to be clear it's the same gentleman who was 14 being referred to. 15 Did you sit in this Inquiry when he was giving his 16 evidence? 17 A. Sorry? Yes. 18 Q. You heard him actually say it. What we have then, 19 Mr Brown, is -- let's not put too fine a point on it -- 20 your position is that Kerr Reid committed perjury in 21 this Inquiry, didn't he? 22 A. He gave his version of the evidence as he saw it but it 23 differed from mine. 24 Q. Yes. Well, he was pressed pretty hard on it and your 25 version was put to him and he stuck with his version page 123 1 quite clearly, didn't he? 2 A. Yes, and part of his version was he had no idea who the 3 officer was who spoke to him at Paisley and on 4 7th June -- I've corrected the date since I spoke this 5 morning -- 7th June he asked me if I had seen a list of 6 witnesses. 7 Q. But to go back to what I was asking you, Kerr Reid, 8 according to you, committed perjury? 9 A. I'm not going to allege anybody committed perjury. I 10 gave my version and his is different and it's certainly 11 the word "bitch" being used is not a word I would have 12 used and there's certain things, situations that I find 13 myself in, I have done all my life, in big serious cases 14 where it's always being said to you, "Would you be 15 surprised to hear that your colleague said something 16 else" and I say, "I don't care what my colleague said, 17 I'm giving evidence on oath as it is". That's what he 18 said to me. 19 Q. Can you tell me this, please, Mr Brown: why is it you 20 are not prepared to say Kerr Reid committed perjury but 21 you are perfectly prepared to say Shirley McKie 22 committed perjury? 23 A. Well, the evidence against Shirley McKie is 24 overwhelming. 25 Q. You heard the evidence of Kerr Reid, didn't you? page 124 1 A. I heard it, yes. 2 Q. And it was different to what you are telling us? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Can you reconcile that difference? Maybe it's just he's 5 having some kind of memory lapse or something. 6 A. You saw Kerr Reid yourself and you can gauge his 7 performance. He can't remember the name of the accused 8 they were guarding in the High Court at Paisley; he 9 can't remember the date. It was put to him should it 10 not have been the situation that he should have come 11 forward at the time to say that he knew a police officer 12 who knew whatever he was saying. He's just a 13 different -- people are different types. 14 If someone had said to me in the opposite direction, 15 who was the chap -- and incidentally I went to court at 16 Paisley on hearing that information and spoke to a 17 sergeant in charge of the personnel, the court staff -- 18 Q. I don't mean to cut across you, Mr Brown but we know 19 that -- we heard the evidence, but all I am asking 20 you -- 21 A. You want me to say he committed perjury here, do you? 22 Q. I am not. I am interested in why you are not prepared 23 to say so? 24 A. I'm not going to do that, no. There are people I've 25 worked with all my life. I'm not going to call him a page 125 1 perjurer at your request. He gave a different version 2 to me. It's up to the court to decide who to believe. 3 Q. Are you even prepared to say that he lied to this 4 Inquiry? 5 A. I certainly am not. 6 Q. If he didn't lie; is he telling the truth? 7 A. That's not quite the case. There is an in-between. 8 Q. Can you please enlighten us as to what the in-between 9 is -- 10 A. He gave the version -- 11 Q. Hang on until I finish the question, please. 12 If it's not a lie and it's not truth what is in 13 between the two? 14 A. It's his version of what he says he told me. 15 Q. But is it different to your version of what you say -- 16 A. Yes, and I'm giving my -- I'm giving my version of -- as 17 I saw it. He certainly used these words; he's now 18 denying it. I began to think really maybe he'd got a 19 solicitor's letter. 20 Q. Let's move on to Mr McAllister. You heard his evidence 21 as well? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Although we haven't heard from his father, I think you 24 heard him say something to the effect that he spoke to 25 his father who denied having spoken to you about this page 126 1 matter? 2 A. Yes, but he practically denied that he was the 3 McAllister that we were referring to or it might have 4 been somebody else's father. 5 Q. I think in fairness to him, he made that as a suggestion 6 as a possible mis-identification. I don't think he was 7 denying it? 8 A. Well, if the father says to me that his son, Alexander 9 McAllister, is a Detective Chief Superintendent in 10 charge of the Special Branch, as far as I'm aware there 11 is only one of that ilk and it was him. 12 Q. So I take it and I am not sure how reticent you are 13 about the position of Mr McAllister but, according to 14 you, you did speak to his father, according to him his 15 father has denied having spoken to you, so will you take 16 it from me, I would assume, that either the 17 Mr McAllister who gave evidence here is lying about the 18 conversation with his father or his father is lying to 19 him. That's right, isn't it? 20 A. His father is not prepared to admit to him that he spoke 21 to me and he finished off by saying -- which is not on 22 the record so far -- Mr McAllister senior said, "Have 23 you spoken to him yet". This is the second occasion 24 when he's recording the death of his wife and I wasn't 25 prepared to discuss it and he said, "If you have any page 127 1 problem let me know", meaning his son. But I got the 2 distinct impression that Mr McAllister sitting here was 3 trying to pass off the fact that it was a different 4 McAllister and he mentioned Derrick McAllister and I 5 know Derrick McAllister. 6 Q. Yes, I heard you say that earlier, Mr Brown, but the 7 position is, isn't it, that either Mr McAllister here 8 was lying about the conversation with his father -- 9 A. You are determined to get me to call these people liars. 10 These are ex-colleagues. I'm not calling them liars. 11 I'm not here -- I'm here to help the Inquiry and get to 12 the bottom of this and my function was to find out who 13 murdered Marion Ross and I've done that. 14 Q. You seem very quick to be prepared to accuse Shirley 15 McKie of lying, aren't you? 16 A. Because it's provable. She committed perjury at her 17 perjury trial. 18 Q. I'm talking about lying about being in the locus. You 19 seem prepared -- 20 A. Yes. If she said that she wasn't in the house, she's 21 lying because Y7's her fingerprint and she put it there. 22 Q. So why is it you are prepared to call Shirley McKie a 23 liar and not prepared to call Mr McAllister a liar or 24 Kerr Reid a liar? Why is that? 25 A. There is a difference. page 128 1 Q. Well, the difference Mr Brown is you act for SCRO. 2 That's the difference, isn't it? 3 A. Sorry? 4 Q. You act for SCRO. That's the difference, isn't it? 5 A. Once -- I do reiterate I don't get paid for what I do. 6 I do it voluntary because I was a founder of Search for 7 Justice. That's why I do it and I don't get paid for it 8 but my allegiance is to Marion Ross and it's through me 9 that her cousin, Malcolm Ross, attended here as a Core 10 Participant. 11 Q. Let me try to speed this up a bit. You seem very 12 concerned about using the word "liar" or "perjury" and 13 no doubt you can make your own judgment as to what it 14 comes to, but let's just think of the word "wrong". So 15 what Mr McKinlay, if he says what we expect, he will be 16 wrong; we've got Kerr Reid who was wrong; we've got 17 Mr McAllister or his father was wrong; we've got PC 18 Morgan who was wrong; we've got officer Lees who was 19 wrong; Marion Scott who was wrong; and, as far as 20 Mr Kerr is concerned, you have altered paragraph 46 of 21 the statement. You remember that? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. What I am going to suggest to you is can you explain why 24 we've got, by my count, six people who are wrong and you 25 are right? page 129 1 A. Yes. Can I remind you they are all out of step except 2 my son. 3 Q. Except? 4 A. My son -- you don't know that expression, do you? 5 Q. No, I don't. 6 A. They are all out of step except my son. 7 Q. Is that not the position, that they are all out of step 8 with you? 9 A. I've given my version of what they've said to me in 10 relation to incidents or whatever. If they come in and 11 say it's a different story telling someone in the street 12 and sitting in here, telling the same story. Kerr Reid 13 gave a different version to the version he gave me. 14 He's the type of fellow -- and you have to appreciate, 15 Mr Smith, he and I have been together on many occasions 16 before and since. It would be a simple matter -- which 17 I don't do -- a simple matter to sit with Kerr Reid and 18 say, "Let's get this together. Did you say this; did I 19 say that", and agree on a certain down the middle line. 20 We don't do that. I knew full well when I sat and 21 listened to him before he opened his mouth he was going 22 to give a different version and the first indication to 23 me of the different version was when I was visited by a 24 Detective Chief Super and Detective Super and they asked 25 his name and I phoned him to ask his permission to give page 130 1 his name. And during that -- 2 Q. Again -- 3 A. Well, let me finish -- 4 Q. Mr Brown, with respect, you have given us this evidence 5 already and (overspeaking) -- 6 A. It's still true. It was true an hour ago and it's still 7 true. 8 Q. I think we know what your position actually is, 9 Mr Brown, in that regard. 10 You see, Mr Brown, the fact is that you have only, 11 as far as we can see, you've only, as it were, repeated 12 these suggestions of sexual conduct as described either 13 in the privileged setting alleged -- ie you couldn't be 14 sued for it on the Parliamentary Inquiry -- 15 A. Well, I -- 16 Q. Let me finish, please -- or in the statement that was 17 written and submitted to this Inquiry. 18 Have you made these suggestions or passed on that 19 information to anyone other than in these two 20 statements? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Why not? 23 A. In what respect why not? 24 Q. Did you tell -- have you repeated them to anyone other 25 than in the context of a Parliamentary or this Inquiry? page 131 1 A. The fact that she had sexual intercourse in the house? 2 Q. Yes. 3 A. No, I didn't, because I don't believe it. 4 What I don't understand is Marion Scott is insisting 5 I said it to her; she'll have it on tape. 6 Q. You told us that on a number of occasions but whether 7 she did tape it or didn't tape it we have yet to hear. 8 A. If she taped it, we would know about it. 9 Q. You don't know that she taped it, did you? 10 A. Well, she tapes everything else. 11 Q. In your statement, just while we're on this question of 12 the newspaper, you suggest in a paragraph in your 13 statement that somehow, no doubt, the one-sided story is 14 being presented by the press because Levy & McRae 15 Solicitors act for a number of major newspapers. You 16 make that suggestion, don't you? 17 A. Could you repeat that, please? 18 Q. I will just get the part of your statement and ask you 19 to comment on it. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 7. 21 MR SMITH: Thank you, sir. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 7 of your statement. 23 MR SMITH: I think what you say is: 24 "Attempts have been made to get positive publicity 25 for the SCRO experts. However, this is proving very page 132 1 difficult. Shirley McKie's lawyers Levy & McRae act for 2 many major news organisations." 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. You are making a very clear suggestion there that they 5 may have somehow influenced the publication of the 6 story? 7 A. Yes, on hearing that from the SCRO, that they never get 8 any good publicity -- 9 Q. Yes -- 10 A. Let me finish. You've asked me a question. 11 Q. Please carry on. 12 A. I said, well, there's one way to prove it. I'll do a 13 press release to say that the Search for Justice is 14 going to assist the SCRO in their fight for justice. I 15 gave that to a press agency and they put it out over the 16 wire to everyone and the following day the Scotsman 17 published a story and that was the only one and even the 18 chap at the press release agency expressed astonishment. 19 He said, "I would have thought in the current climate 20 that was a good story for them to pick up". The idea is 21 they pick up the story, they print it and then they pay 22 the -- so, having heard that, I thought how on earth 23 could Levy & McRae, who is McKie's solicitor, have any 24 influence on what goes out in the media and this is what 25 I discovered. page 133 1 This is Levy & McRae website. 2 "One of niche areas in the media and clients include 3 such blue chips firms at ITN, Mirror Group Newspapers, 4 Scottish Media Group, Border Television, Channel 4, 5 Reuters, GMTV and Sky News", and I thought, well, that's 6 a really good explanation for why, unless it suits the 7 McKie's, there is absolutely no publicity and I stick by 8 that. 9 Q. You see -- 10 A. There has been very little publicity about this Inquiry, 11 hasn't there? 12 Q. Yes, but you know Levy & McRae ceased to act for Shirley 13 McKie in about 1999; you knew that, didn't you? 14 A. Sorry? 15 Q. They stopped acting for Shirley McKie in about 1999. 16 You know that, don't you? 17 A. Yes, but that's the situation at that time. 18 Q. Yes, and you're not suggesting, are you, that 19 Levy & McRae act for all newspaper and other media 20 organisations, are you? 21 A. No, but it does seem a remarkable coincidence that that 22 was a good story to go into the papers and it never 23 appeared. 24 Q. But a lot of newspapers that they don't act for didn't 25 publish it either. That's right, isn't it? page 134 1 A. That is right. There was only one newspaper published 2 out of the whole lot. 3 Q. I am suggesting something slightly different, that a lot 4 of newspapers that have no connection with Levy & McRae 5 decided not to run the story you have told us about? 6 A. Yes. They never took it off the wire, yes. 7 Q. Correct. I take it you know Levy & McRae also act for 8 the Police Federation and a large number of police 9 officers? 10 A. Yes, I do. I do indeed, yes, and the Police Federation. 11 Q. So any suggestion that you're making that Levy & McRae 12 somehow influenced the publication of newspaper stories 13 is just entirely fantasy, isn't it? 14 A. Well, that's what you're saying, sir. 15 Q. You have no evidence whatsoever to make a serious 16 allegation, not just about Levy & McRae but about the 17 press as well as well. That a serious allegation to 18 make and you have no evidence to support that, do you? 19 A. Except that none of these agencies that I've read out 20 made any publication regarding what they'd been told. I 21 thought it was a good story, so did the press release, 22 the wire service. 23 Q. Very well. There's one more matter I would like to ask 24 you about and it relates to paragraph 46 of your 25 statement and the circumstances under which you page 135 1 undertook the Reid portion of it. 2 I think we provided you with copies of the statement 3 that appears to have been passing between yourself and 4 the Inquiry team. 5 For those who are unaware of the system that 6 operates with the taking of statements, perhaps you can 7 confirm that what happens is a person interviews an 8 individual who may be a witness and prepares a draft of 9 a statement. That's right, isn't it? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Then the draft is sent out to the potential witness for 12 revisal purposes. Am I right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. The witness has the opportunity to make deletions, 15 alterations or additions as are seen fit? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Then once it's finalised it ultimately will be signed 18 and accepted as being the evidence before the Inquiry. 19 A. Yes, that's in a perfect world. It didn't happen here. 20 Q. Well, I am not entirely clear I understand what your 21 position is. 22 A. Well, I'm telling you -- 23 Q. Please let me ask the questions and maybe we'll get to 24 the bottom of this. 25 In your evidence before this Inquiry, I think, page 136 1 yesterday, late afternoon, you explained that 2 paragraph 46 you wished to alter. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. You made a suggestion yesterday, as I understand it, 5 that you had received a document which had a photocopy 6 of your signature. 7 Then it was put to you properly by Miss Carmichael 8 you had, in fact, given a signed statement to the 9 Inquiry. 10 Do you remember making that comment yesterday 11 afternoon that you had received a document bearing a 12 photocopy of your signature? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Can I just be clear about this, Mr Brown: were you 15 suggesting yesterday afternoon that someone had appended 16 your signature to a document you had not prepared? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Why is it you made a comment about the photocopy of your 19 signature? 20 A. Well, the original -- what happens is I sign the 21 statement with amendments, not particularly this one, 22 but in this situation it goes back to Edinburgh and they 23 adjust it to suit the alterations I have made. A 24 classic example as I told you is the police took 25 20 hours to decide it was a murder and when it came back page 137 1 it was 15. So I wasn't prepared to sign that until they 2 amended it back to 20 hours. 3 The mistake I made is when I send it back to 4 Edinburgh and they amend it and it comes back, 15 has 5 become 20 again, I don't read the rest of the statement 6 again, I just sign it and say, yes, that's correct. 7 That's -- I would say I'm possibly at fault there. 8 I've submitted three statements so far and the third one 9 took two weeks to come back to me. 10 Q. Yes, I heard you say that just now. Let's be clear 11 about paragraph 46. What it said, before it was 12 altered, it said: 13 "I did speak to a SOCO officer, Officer Kerr, who 14 confirmed that he heard PC Lees and Shirley McKie having 15 a heated discussion in the porch of the locus." 16 We can read the rest of it, no doubt, for ourselves 17 if we wish to do. I had rather understood your evidence 18 to be that having heard Officer Kerr giving evidence in 19 this Inquiry you were prepared to accept that he was 20 telling the truth, I think, is what you said. 21 A. Yes. I never interviewed Officer Kerr. I never spoke 22 to him on the telephone and I would never refer to him 23 as a SOCO officer but in this document I have. 24 Q. So we should understand that it's not so much he was 25 simply telling the truth but it's something you had page 138 1 never heard before; is that right? You didn't know what 2 his position was? 3 A. No, I had heard before that he and -- Lees and McKie 4 were having a heated discussion in the porch. My 5 information was -- and I'm sure I took it off the trial 6 transcript -- was that Officer Kerr was in the house at 7 the time and heard the word "contamination". 8 This paragraph -- this is a difficult part for me 9 because I'm not suggesting for a minute that someone 10 through Edinburgh actually included or extracted 11 something from my statement but I don't recognise that 12 as having been put together by me. There's too many 13 inaccuracies. 14 Another thing I checked up on was -- I'm sure you're 15 aware of this. I've said it many times -- before I 16 interview a police officer, phone or face-to-face, I 17 apply for permission to do so, I've done it with every 18 one, through the Legal Services Department. I've 19 checked last night when I went home. I have never paid 20 any money to interview Officer Kerr. I've never applied 21 to interview Officer Kerr. I would not do that. 22 Q. You see, Mr Brown, the difficulty that we might be 23 having with this is you were undoubtedly given an 24 opportunity to consider whether paragraph 46 was correct 25 and accurate. page 139 1 A. I'm saying it's not correct. 2 Q. Yes. Are you able to explain to this Inquiry how it 3 came to be that you revised this statement, sent it back 4 but paragraph 46 was in an unamended state. 5 How could that happen? 6 A. I don't know. 7 MR SMITH: Thank you. I have no further questions. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Holmes, have you any application? 9 MR HOLMES: No, thank you, sir. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Miss Grahame? 11 MISS GRAHAME: No, thank you. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I should ask Miss Jones next? 13 MISS JONES: No. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Macpherson? 15 MR MACPHERSON: Sir, I was going to apply to ask for a 16 little more clarification about the last point in 17 relation to the paragraph 46, if I may, sir. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 19 Cross-examined by MR MACPHERSON 20 Q. Mr Brown, Mr Smith was asking you there about 21 paragraph 46 and I wonder if I can ask you to assist me 22 just to be a little bit more clear about what you are 23 saying about the text of what is said in paragraph 26. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. You are saying that what is said in paragraph 46 is not page 140 1 true? 2 A. No, I'm saying I don't recognise that that's the 3 paragraph 46 I submitted. It's incorrect. 4 Q. Did you submit any paragraph about any dealings with an 5 Officer Kerr? 6 A. My recollection is I submitted a paragraph saying that 7 it came to my attention that an officer, a detective 8 officer, Kerr, was in the house and overheard the word 9 "contamination". Now that was ridiculed or whatever by 10 everyone that that didn't happen until Mark Lees came 11 into this chair and said that he was standing at the 12 porch door when she said it will cause contamination. 13 It seems a remarkable coincidence that Mark Lees is 14 corroborating what I said about Kerr. 15 Q. So are you saying it's your evidence about what Officer 16 Kerr had said in your statement came only from what you 17 had heard about it? 18 A. It didn't come from me -- sorry, it didn't come from 19 Kerr. When I saw him giving evidence yesterday I'd 20 never seen him before. 21 Q. It didn't come from a conversation you had had with 22 Mr Kerr? 23 A. I've never spoken to Mr Kerr. And to confirm that last 24 night, as I say, I went through my records to find 25 out -- I've got a list of names of all the officers I page 141 1 applied for and was expected to pay money to or, sorry, 2 to Strathclyde Police to allow me to interview. There's 3 absolutely no way I would get anywhere near Detective 4 Officer Kerr. 5 Q. The first time you told anybody that you did not in fact 6 speak to Mr Kerr was when you began your evidence 7 yesterday, which was after you had heard him give 8 evidence saying he hadn't spoken to you. 9 A. Yes. The situation never arose. It was only when I sat 10 and looked at him and referred to my statement 46 and I 11 cannot ever recall -- an interesting thing comes out of 12 this that I think he claimed that someone purporting to 13 be Lesley Brown phoned him and that's a strange thing to 14 say. I never purport to be anyone. If I phone I tell 15 them who I am. It's almost as if he's suggested someone 16 phoned him and said, "I'm Les Brown. What are you going 17 to say in your evidence". 18 If I spoke to Kerr, Detective Constable Kerr, on the 19 phone I would say so but I didn't and I certainly have 20 never spoken to the chap face-to-face and I don't see 21 how I could have compiled that paragraph with the 22 situation as it is. 23 Q. And every time you read that statement before coming to 24 hear Mr Kerr give evidence you read that it is said that 25 you had spoken to him but you didn't think anything of page 142 1 it? 2 A. No, I altered that. As soon as I got that and saw that 3 and there was absolutely no circumstances under which I 4 would send a statement back to Edinburgh, the previous 5 one having taken two weeks, so much so that I phoned and 6 spoke to a member of the staff to find out why the delay 7 and they said, "We've got a problem", and if you want to 8 know what the problem is I'll tell you. 9 Q. But so far we haven't seen a copy of your statement with 10 any deletions in relation to this paragraph. 11 A. No. 12 Q. You say you made such deletions? 13 A. I've altered the one I have got so that if I'm asked a 14 question here today I've got a rough idea what I'm going 15 to say. It's simply to say I was aware of that this 16 Detective Officer Kerr was in the house at the time and 17 he heard Mark Lees and Shirley McKie arguing/discussing 18 and he denied in the witness box he heard the word 19 "contamination". It's only when Mark Lees -- Mark Lees 20 is corroborating me, a strange situation for me to be 21 in. 22 Q. Sorry, I'm not clear. Are you saying you told the 23 Inquiry team some time before giving evidence and some 24 time before hearing Mr Kerr give evidence that 25 paragraph 46 was wrong? page 143 1 A. No. To be honest with you I gave up contacting 2 Edinburgh because of the statements I was getting back 3 and again I repeat how on earth 20 hours became 15. If 4 it had been 20 and it became 30 you could say, "Well, I 5 pressed the wrong button", but 20 hours became 15 and 6 you'll notice when they say 20 hours down to 15 that 7 supports the police to a certain extent -- less time. 8 Q. So when you came to give evidence you knew that you 9 would be shown a copy of your statement -- 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. -- containing paragraph 46 -- 12 A. Yes. My mistake was I should have -- 13 Q. -- which you knew to be wrong? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And you hadn't yet told the Inquiry team it was wrong. 16 A. I hold my hands up I should have approached the 17 Fingerprint Inquiry officials and said "I disagree with 18 that". I didn't do that and that's my fault but you 19 have to understand the position. Three times I had a 20 motorcyclist arrive at my house from Edinburgh with 21 handing a document and waiting a signature and after all 22 the experience I've had with real -- real -- difficult 23 cases, over 200 murders, I wrote a statement, gave it to 24 the Fiscal. He took me in for a precognition, signed 25 it, and that was it. I've gone to court with 15 UDF page 144 1 bombers, never had this problem. It's just a different 2 way of doing things and I do understand from the point 3 of view of the Fingerprint inquiry and the difficult job 4 they are attempting to do but I've spoken to fingerprint 5 officers who shall be nameless who say to me, "How are 6 you getting on with your statements to Edinburgh?", and 7 I said, "I've had my statement back three times", and 8 they say, "Only three?" 9 MR MACPHERSON: I have no further questions. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Any further questions. 11 Re-examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 12 Q. Yes please, briefly, sir. 13 Let's just be quite clear about this Mr Brown: you 14 have never given the Fingerprint Inquiry a version of 15 your statement with paragraph 46 deleted or altered from 16 the way that it appears in the statement that you 17 signed. That's right, isn't it? 18 A. You keep asking me a question and then saying, "That's 19 right, isn't it?" and I'm supposed to say yes. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: You either say yes or no. Is that right? 21 A. It might be as simple from that from your end but it's 22 not from this end. 23 MISS CARMICHAEL: I will try and make it even more simple, 24 Mr Brown, if you need me to. 25 You have never sent the Fingerprint Inquiry a page 145 1 version of your statement where you have altered or 2 deleted paragraph 46 to make it different from the way 3 it was when you signed your statement. 4 A. No, that's correct. 5 Q. Thank you. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, I wonder if -- 7 MISS CARMICHAEL: Urm -- 8 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, is there some other question? 9 MISS CARMICHAEL: I am sorry, sir, yes. 10 It really is I was concerned from a question that 11 Mr Smith put there may have been some misunderstanding 12 about what I put to this witness and I want to make 13 sure this witness understood properly what I was putting 14 to him. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 16 MISS CARMICHAEL: The reference in my original question 17 would be back to, for those who have it, page 88, 18 line 8. 19 What I suggested to you that Marion Scott might say 20 if she came to give evidence was, first, that you made 21 the contact with her but, second, that she may say that 22 when you contacted her you said that you'd picked up 23 information from someone you met in a bowling club and 24 that it was a friend of a police officer who let Shirley 25 McKie into the house because he fancied her. Now, I'm page 146 1 concerned that that may be picked up wrongly. 2 Did you understand that that was what I'd asked you, 3 that -- 4 A. You're quoting from a witness that hasn't appeared yet? 5 Q. What I am doing is I am reading back a question I asked 6 you earlier to make sure that you picked it up 7 correctly. I had been giving you an opportunity to 8 comment on what Miss Scott might say when she comes to 9 give evidence to the Inquiry. 10 A. Well, I find that unacceptable. You're asking me to 11 comment on something she might say sitting here. I can 12 tell you what she said in my house. I don't know what 13 she's going to say when she comes here. She might do a 14 Kerr Reid. 15 Q. My concern was Mr Smith came to ask you a question which 16 seemed to indicate that it had been put to you that 17 Miss Scott would suggest that you had introduced the 18 topic of a romantic liaison taking place in the house. 19 A. I don't know how many times you want me to say this: 20 she -- 21 Q. Well -- 22 A. No, let me have a go. She raised her voice and said to 23 me, "It's well known in the media" -- you'll notice I'm 24 not reading this, "It's well known in media circles that 25 Shirley McKie had a romantic liaison with a police page 147 1 boyfriend in the house", and my response was, "What the 2 hell are you talking about". 3 Q. I just wanted to be quite clear that you understand that 4 I was not suggesting to you that my understanding was 5 that Miss Scott would say you had raised that topic and 6 I think Mr Smith had put that to you, perhaps, on a 7 slight misreading of what I had said to you. I wanted 8 to make sure that you understood the questions that I 9 had asked you. 10 A. I do understand and I don't know how many times I have 11 to tell you that she raised -- I've got four witnesses 12 that heard her say it and I disagreed entirely with her 13 and the people, the witnesses who were there, two of who 14 are sitting in the building today, would say to you, 15 from my reaction, that's the first I've heard of it and 16 I said to her I don't believe it and I don't believe it 17 to this day, having investigated this for two years I 18 don't believe for one minute Shirley McKie had sex with 19 anyone in that house. 20 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you. 21 A. I can't make it any clearer. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Brown, I am sure you appreciate that the 23 endeavour of this Inquiry is to deal with this matter 24 for good and all, that is the question of Y7 and so on. 25 Now, is it right that you believe that Shirley McKie page 148 1 was in this house because, in your view, what was her 2 fingerprint was found in the house? 3 A. I'm quite satisfied that Y7 is Shirley McKie's 4 fingerprint and Shirley McKie put it there on the basis 5 it was her fingerprint, yes. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: So if it is her fingerprint she must have 7 been in the house? 8 A. Yes, I'm satisfied it's her fingerprint. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: The reason I am asking you this is I want you 10 to assist me if you can: is there any person known to 11 you who can say of their own knowledge that she was in 12 that house? 13 A. Not in so many words, no. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, what fewer words then? Is there 15 anybody who says they know somebody who can say for 16 certain that she was in that house? 17 A. Yes, there's several people have said to me that they 18 know the name of the person who allowed her into the 19 house but you can't get any more out of them because, 20 for different reasons and one the main reasons, being an 21 ex-police officer, I can tell you is fear for their 22 jobs. 23 In fact, let me just say it, my Lord, if anyone 24 speaks out against the McKies in any respect, police 25 officers or otherwise, they are in a very dicey page 149 1 position. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I think the McKies, just as much as 3 anybody else want a finality and this clarified and a 4 lot of things have been said about this case or this 5 incident and it is very important to bring it, I think, 6 to a satisfactory conclusion -- 7 A. Yes, and I'm -- 8 THE CHAIRMAN: -- so there can be an end and when the 9 Inquiry is over one doesn't want people saying, "Well, 10 if only they had asked so and so, he would have told 11 them", and that's why I'm pressing you now to know if 12 there is anyone known to you who can directly assist 13 this Inquiry as to whether Ms McKie was in this house or 14 not. 15 A. I can name someone who you could put in this chair and 16 ask that very question and the name's Shirley McKie. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: That's her. 18 A. Yes. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, but other -- and I stand corrected -- 20 other than Shirley McKie herself is there anyone, as a 21 result of your enquiries, that you know can assist the 22 Inquiry on this point? 23 A. If the fingerprint wasn't there I would have to say 24 there is no evidence that she was inside the house, yes. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: That's really what I was -- it's the page 150 1 fingerprint that makes you mind up? 2 A. Yes. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: No evidence that anybody else has given you? 4 A. And would have to say in her favour it's most unusual, 5 of all the inquiries I have made, all the people I've 6 spoken to on and off the record that we haven't reached 7 that situation. The fingerprint to me is the crux of 8 the matter. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt you but I am taking 10 it then that you cannot assist me at all or the Inquiry 11 on who can say she was actually in the house? 12 A. No, and I would hope as a result of what's happening 13 today and later someone might come out of the woodwork 14 and tell me that he knows or it was he himself, I would 15 immediately inform the Inquiry we now have a name and I 16 would say to someone that did that, "If you're prepared 17 to tell me you have to go in front of his Lordship", 18 otherwise it's me coming back to say, "I know of someone 19 but I can't give you his name" and that will not happen 20 again. 21 My whole aim in all of this is to get justice for 22 Marion Ross and to find out who killed her and I've done 23 that. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that and I think that's very 25 understandable and a lot of people would like to know page 151 1 the truth about that but, as I say, that's not something 2 that I'm entitled to enquire into and you appreciate 3 that. 4 A. I do appreciate it. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed for your 6 assistance. 7 (The witness withdrew) 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I think we, perhaps, are not going to 9 embark on another witness or is there another witness 10 you would like to call now? 11 MISS CARMICHAEL: If I may check with Senior Counsel, 12 please. (Pause) 13 Sir, there is a witness here, a Mr Padden. It would 14 represent embarking on a new topic and it is also 15 planned to bring Miss Scott and Mr McKinlay on Tuesday 16 so we very much in your hands, sir. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: I'll take whatever is convenient. If the 18 witness would like to start his evidence ... 19 unfortunately, as I say, I can't go beyond 3.15. 20 MISS CARMICHAEL: Very well then. I think we do indeed 21 halve a further witness, sir. 22 GREG PADDEN (affirmed) 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Could we have your full name for the record, 24 please? 25 A. My name's Greg Padden. page 152 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 2 Examined by MR MOYNIHAN 3 Q. Mr Padden, do you have a copy of your statement with 4 you? 5 A. Yes, I do. 6 Q. Is this a statement that you have had an opportunity to 7 read over? 8 A. Yes, it is. 9 Q. You are content with its contents? 10 A. Yes, I am. 11 Q. I want to ask you about a number of topics and perhaps I 12 will start with the shortest of the topics. 13 I want to ask you about your participation in 14 something that's come to be called a blind test. We now 15 know that the blind test featured a comparison of a 16 print, Y7, and you were one of the fingerprint officers 17 who was involved in this exercise. 18 A. Yes, I was. 19 Q. At the time when you participated in the exercise, were 20 you aware that you were looking at the print that we now 21 know to be Y7? 22 A. No, I wasn't. 23 Q. Was that exercise given any title, as far as you were 24 concerned? 25 A. My recollection of it is that it was described as a page 153 1 quality assurance exercise. 2 Q. Had you participated in quality assurance exercises 3 before that time? 4 A. Of that nature, no. 5 Q. What was unusual about this particular exercise? 6 A. What was unusual was the circumstances around it. There 7 was a certain amount of secrecy, there seemed to be 8 within the office, people being led into what was Chief 9 Superintendent Ferry's office. Nobody was really sure 10 what was going on. I'm not aware of an exercise 11 happening before of that nature and I'm not aware of one 12 happening since. 13 Q. So, as far as you were aware, it was a unique exercise? 14 A. Yes, it was. 15 Q. When was it that you in fact learned that the exercise 16 you had participated in had featured the disputed 17 Shirley McKie fingerprint, Y7? 18 A. There was some office chat that that was indeed what it 19 was but it was never confirmed to me. It was confirmed 20 to me in an interview with, I believe, officers from 21 Tayside Police. 22 I spoke about the blind test -- I can't remember who 23 brought it up, whether or not it was themselves or 24 myself -- but they said that was Y7, so that was the 25 first time it had ever actually been confirmed to me page 154 1 that that was the impression I'd looked at. 2 Q. So if I understand Tayside to have been engaged in 2000 3 to investigate the fingerprints that is the first time 4 you had official confirmation -- 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. -- you had viewed Y7? 7 A. Yes, but/i did -- I had suspected that that was what it 8 was but that was the first time it had been officially 9 confirmed. 10 Q. You indicate that you were told this was a quality 11 assurance exercise and I would understand from your 12 statement that that is something you were told by 13 Mr Dunbar? 14 A. Yes, that's correct. 15 Q. Did he give you any elaboration on what the purpose of 16 the exercise was? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Did he simply then invite you to step into Mr Ferry's 19 room to take part in this exercise? 20 A. He asked me to go into Mr Ferry's room. There was a 21 comparator set up. There was what appeared to be a 22 scene of crime mark on the left and what we call a known 23 impression, which would have come from either a suspect 24 form or elimination form on the right and he asked me to 25 have a look at it, compare it and see what I thought. page 155 1 Q. For reasons which we will come to later, I actually have 2 in the building a comparator machine and I have some of 3 the original photographs and fingerprint forms so we 4 will demonstrate that on Tuesday. I will ask you just 5 to show us how the machine is operated. 6 The specific purpose of looking at these 7 fingerprints, did he tell you whether it was to 8 identify, eliminate or simply give an unspecified 9 opinion on the mark? 10 A. There was no guidance of that nature. 11 Q. And you tell us that you looked at the mark yourself. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And in your statement you say -- this is paragraph 10 of 14 your statement, if we want to just have a look at that, 15 please -- you used the expression that it was close to 16 insufficient? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. I was just wondering if you could in any way elaborate 19 what you mean by "close to being insufficient for 20 comparison". It's at the very foot of the page. 21 A. Okay, yes. When you make a decision as to identity or 22 not, you need a certain amount of information contained 23 within the print to allow you to do that. You have to 24 have information there that says -- that would 25 eventually allow you to come to a conclusion that is or page 156 1 that is not that person. 2 I was looking at that impression and certainly from, 3 in those circumstances which were not ideal to be doing 4 a comparison, I felt that I was not able to get the 5 necessary volume of information that would allow me to 6 make a decision one way or the other, which is hence why 7 I asked if I could look at it -- I thought perhaps by 8 looking at it under my glasses, my magnifying glasses, 9 which is my normal method of carrying out a comparison, 10 I thought under those circumstances I may or may not 11 have been able to reach a decision as to the donor. 12 The circumstances there, looking at that comparator, 13 I felt eventually I could not make a decision on it. 14 But I certainly did feel as if there was very little 15 information for me, to allow me to make that decision. 16 Q. Did you have a conversation with Mr Dunbar on this 17 particular subject? 18 A. Yes, I did. I said to Mr Dunbar that, could I look at 19 it under -- the next day, actually because it was 20 getting on, late in the day, I said could I look at it 21 the next day using my glasses and compare it the way I 22 would normally. 23 Mr Dunbar said, no, he'd really rather have an 24 answer now and I said, well, I can't really -- I'm not 25 in a position to do so and he said that was fine and page 157 1 that was the end of it, really. 2 Q. Two questions, really, to complete this particular 3 chapter. Firstly, trying to look at the bottom line of 4 this, standing as we are now looking back, to understand 5 the result that one would write down on the sheet of 6 paper, had you expressed an opinion on Y7 or not? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Was that because you felt that you had not viewed it in 9 sufficiently reliable circumstances to reach an opinion 10 one way or the other? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. You have indicated that the exercise was carried out in 13 conditions of some secrecy? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Can you just expand on that. What do you mean it was 16 carried out under some secrecy? 17 A. Maybe secrecy is the wrong word. I was aware that 18 Mr Dunbar was leading people into Mr Ferry's office. 19 That's an unusual set of circumstances. Nobody was 20 talking about it either when they came back out, so when 21 it came to my turn I wasn't aware of what was expected 22 of me, what I was supposed to do, so to that degree I 23 would say there was some secrecy about what was going 24 on. 25 Q. The reason for asking about secrecy is, plainly, if it page 158 1 was done openly then the individuals involved would know 2 who else was involved. In the circumstances in which it 3 was carried out, do you have much knowledge of who else 4 was involved in this particular exercise that night? 5 A. No, I don't know. I mentioned in my statement that when 6 I went in the scene itself had characteristics left on 7 it. I mentioned that to Alan quite quickly, that I 8 thought one or two of them perhaps might have been a wee 9 bit off. The explanation for that usually is that the 10 comparator itself are very sensitive and somebody 11 standing up or sitting down can quite often bump a 12 comparator and it moves the impression on the top, so 13 when I sat down I immediately thought the 14 characteristics didn't look quite right. I mentioned to 15 Mr Dunbar that and he said, "Oh, that shouldn't be 16 there", and I think Terry had been in previously, which 17 is Terry Foley, "If you just rub that out and start 18 again", which is what I did and that was me then 19 starting my comparison at that point. 20 Q. As I've indicated we will look at this on Tuesday with 21 one set up but if I understand it correctly the 22 comparator machine projects an image, let's say, of the 23 mark on to a screen -- 24 A. It's a blown up image of both the scene of crime 25 impression and the known impression, which is going to page 159 1 be coming from an elimination or a suspect form. 2 Q. A fingerprint officer will use a felt tip pen to mark 3 points that are in agreement between the mark and the 4 known print? 5 A. That's correct, yes. 6 Q. On the screen? 7 A. On the screen. 8 Q. You indicated that if someone had jolted the comparator 9 machine it may have caused the image to move with the 10 result that the markings on the screen no longer lined 11 up? 12 A. That's why you would always start by wiping the screen 13 and marking it up that way, but the comparator -- I 14 don't know what one you're going to have next week but 15 the ones we used at that time had an arm on top that 16 would hold down the impressions. The more modern ones 17 you slip them in and they are much steadier but those 18 ones had an arm on top and they were much more 19 susceptible to -- 20 Q. The only one I've got is the only one I have ever seen 21 and it has two silver metal prongs like a television 22 areal on top. 23 A. That's right, that's the older style ones, yes. 24 Q. So we've got the right one by coincidence? 25 A. Yes. page 160 1 Q. The individuals I have the names of who participated in 2 this exercise in addition to yourself are Jean McClure, 3 Mr Foley and Mr Bruce. I also have the name of 4 Mr Halliday as having been involved, if not in the test 5 then in that 24-hour period. 6 Do you recollect the names of any others who were 7 involved in the exercise? 8 A. No. 9 MR MOYNIHAN: Sir, I am conscious you want to finish at 10 3.15. That is perhaps as convenient a point as any. I 11 was about to move on to another mark. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: That is a convenient time. 13 Sorry, we will have to ask you to come back on 14 Tuesday at 10.15, which is when we will sit again. 15 (3.10 pm) 16 (Adjourned until 10.15 am on Tuesday, 23rd June 2009) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25