page   1
 1                                      Tuesday 20th October 2009
 2   (10.05 am)
 3   THE CHAIRMAN:  I gather we've some technical problems this
 4       morning and that the LiveNote will not come up on the
 5       screen at this stage, but the proceedings are being
 6       recorded in the normal way and I think we are hoping it
 7       will maybe come right shortly.
 8           What I propose is that Mr Holmes has some issues to
 9       raise with me and it would seem to me there's no reason
10       why we couldn't move on with that, though it won't
11       appear on our screens as we go along.
12   MR SMITH:  Sir, I wonder if I might say something before
13       Mr Holmes commences.  Mr Moynihan was kind enough to
14       explain to me what the application is that Mr Holmes
15       intends to make and, as I understand it, it relates to
16       questions he wishes to put to Mr Wertheim.
17           Sir, I am sure you recall that I was appointed as
18       Mr Wertheim's representative.  I may say that I
19       personally haven't any notice that either the
20       application was to be made or, indeed, what questions it
21       is proposed to ask.  Obviously, Mr Holmes' submissions
22       will make public certain --
23   THE CHAIRMAN:  Would you like to see them and I will
24       postpone that until you have seen them?
25   MR SMITH:  I would indeed, sir, thank you.
page   2
 1   THE CHAIRMAN:  There can be no reason why -- it is obviously
 2       in the interests of everyone that Mr Wertheim's
 3       representative should know what is proposed to be asked
 4       of him.
 5   MR HOLMES:  I do not have any difficulty with that, sir.
 6   MR SMITH:  May I suggest I would also like to be in touch
 7       with Mr Wertheim later today regarding what the
 8       questions may be.  If I suggest that we perhaps deal
 9       with this first thing tomorrow and that will give me
10       time to consider the position.
11   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, I am keen tomorrow -- we have obviously
12       two days, we have quite a lot to get through but we will
13       deal with it as soon as possible, as soon as you are in
14       a position to do so and we can furnish you with a copy.
15           I should say that some questions I was asked that I
16       have indicated that I would be prepared to permit and it
17       would be marked.  I will see that the copy you get shows
18       you which ones I have reached a decision about and the
19       ones that I declined but giving Mr Holmes an opportunity
20       to persuade me otherwise.  Then you will see those as
21       well.  I am sure that can be arranged.
22           I take it there's no reason why we cannot proceed
23       with Mr Luckraft's evidence, even though we can't follow
24       it on the screen as he says it, as his words are
25       recorded.  It seems to me sensible just to proceed with
page   3
 1       what we've got.
 2                     RICHARD LUCKRAFT, sworn
 3   THE CHAIRMAN:  Your full names are ...?
 4   A.  Richard Luckraft.
 5   THE CHAIRMAN:  Take a seat, please, Mr Luckraft.
 6                   Examined by MISS CARMICHAEL
 7   Q.  I think you prepared a statement for the Inquiry which
 8       you signed.  Do you have a copy of that with you?
 9   A.  I have, yes, that's correct.
10   Q.  Subject to anything else that you may say about it,
11       today are you happy to adopt that as your evidence?
12   A.  Yes, I am.
13   Q.  Before we turn to your statement, Mr Luckraft, I would
14       like you to look at what I understand to be a letter you
15       wrote back in August 2001 which is DB0629?
16   A.  Yes.  I just wonder if I could make one correction to my
17       first paragraph of my statement, please?
18   Q.  Yes, of course.
19   A.  Yes, I would just like to correct where it says who I
20       work for.  I now work for Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire
21       Scientific Support Services Department.
22   THE CHAIRMAN:  Is that just a change of the identification
23       of Bedfordshire Police Identification Bureau.
24   A.  That's right.  It's a corroboration now.  The two forces
25       are working together in the scientific services.
page   4
 1   THE CHAIRMAN:  And with a new name?
 2   A.  Yes.
 3   MISS CARMICHAEL:  What we have on the screen here -- and I
 4       have to apologise that it is not on Trial Director but
 5       people should have hard copies to look on with as
 6       well -- this is a letter you wrote to Jim Wallace who
 7       was then the Justice Minister; is that correct.
 8   A.  That's correct.
 9   Q.  What was it that prompted you to write the letter,
10       Mr Luckraft?
11   A.  What prompted me to write the letter was just to portray
12       my experience of working at the SCRO between
13       January 2000 and March 2001 and some of the procedures
14       or malpractice that was going on at the time.
15   Q.  Was there anything particular that prompted you to write
16       it when you did in August 2001?
17   A.  In particular, there was in regard to a case I
18       challenged of a wrong identification that an SCRO expert
19       made.
20   Q.  We will come to that in a little more detail but that
21       was something that had happened in about April 2000, if
22       I understand rightly?
23   A.  That's correct, yes.
24   Q.  You had been away from SCRO for, what, three or four
25       months when you wrote this letter?
page   5
 1   A.  That's correct.
 2   Q.  I suppose what I am trying to get at is whether there
 3       was anything in particular that made you write the
 4       letter when you did in August 2001?
 5   A.  Well, when I left SCRO the director, Harry Bell, asked
 6       me if there were any issues I would like to raise.  When
 7       I saw him, I didn't want to raise those issues; I just
 8       wanted to leave SCRO as quickly as I could.  I felt it
 9       was my duty to raise these issues about procedures and
10       especially that case because it was the first time that
11       that had happened to me in my career.
12   Q.  Mr Luckraft, you might find it easier to move the
13       microphone closer to yourself so you don't have to lean
14       forward.  You should be able to get it a little more
15       comfortable for you.
16   A.  Thank you.
17   Q.  I would like to look, please, first of all, at the
18       fourth paragraph of the letter here which starts, "A few
19       days prior ..."
20           You have written a few days prior to commencing work
21       at SCRO you were contacted by the then Head of Bureau.
22           Was that Mr Bell at that time?
23   A.  No, that was Chief Inspector Christopher Griffiths who
24       was the Head of Bureau of SCRO.
25   Q.  How did he contact you?  Was it telephone contact?
page   6
 1   A.  It was a telephone contact, yes.
 2   Q.  What, to the best of your recollection, did he say to
 3       you?
 4   A.  He was aware that I'd shortly be starting at SCRO and he
 5       just wanted to reassure me that there were no problems
 6       there with SCRO regarding the McKie case.  Around about
 7       that time, there was a television programme on the McKie
 8       case and Mr Griffiths just said to me that he wanted to
 9       reassure me that there was no problems at SCRO and that
10       the experts who were challenging SCRO had looked at a
11       different image, a different fingerprint.
12           I had no reason to doubt this and at the time I was
13       sure that all this would be sorted out pretty quickly
14       and I could commence employment with SCRO.
15   Q.  You used two different expressions there a different
16       fingerprint, which was in your letter, but you also said
17       a different image.
18           Can you recall just what it was that Mr Griffiths
19       said to you?
20   A.  I can't recall, no.  Sorry.  It was either a different
21       image or a different fingerprint.
22   Q.  But the tone of the conversation, we should take it, was
23       a friendly reassuring one from what you said?
24   A.  It was, yes, and he reassured me there was nothing to
25       worry about, everything was fine with SCRO.
page   7
 1   Q.  I would like to turn now to your statement, Mr Luckraft.
 2       That is FI0113.  You mentioned a particular incident
 3       with a disputed identification and we will turn to that
 4       in more detail, but I would like to look first at
 5       paragraph 2 which is on the next page, page 2 of 12.
 6       What you write there is that you experienced a degree of
 7       peer pressure when you were working at SCRO.
 8           Leaving aside the particular case which we will come
 9       on to, the April 2000 one, I would like to explore with
10       you just how it was that peer pressure was exerted on
11       you during your time at SCRO.
12   A.  Yes.  My experience was that there was peer pressure.  I
13       felt that the trainees were downtrodden a little bit and
14       their views weren't allowed to be expressed.
15   Q.  If I can stop you there, I will ask you a little more
16       about the trainees but what you say there is that you --
17       if I understand you rightly, you said, "I experienced",
18       which I took to be you personally experienced a degree
19       of peer pressure and I would like to ask about how that
20       was exerted on you as an individual and who exerted it?
21   A.  That was asserted(sic) by my supervisor at the time who
22       said, you know -- I put forward suggestions for changes
23       in procedures, changes in documentation and there were
24       just ignored.  They were just said, "Look, we don't do
25       it that way.  The SCRO way is the best way".  In
page   8
 1       particular in relation to 10 and 10 identifications she
 2       said I had experience of using the 10 and 10
 3       identification process in other bureaux and my
 4       supervisor said we don't do that here.  So there was
 5       peer pressure there.
 6   Q.  I think you have explained in more detail elsewhere in
 7       your statement what the 10 and 10 procedure is but would
 8       I be right in thinking that when you have two marks
 9       apparently left by the same digit if there were ten
10       characteristics in each of those and not less than 16
11       between the two then you would be able to make an
12       identification.  Would that express what that means?
13   A.  That's right.  That's roughly right and also if there
14       were two separate fingers with 10 and 10 in each from
15       the same person.
16   Q.  Who was your supervisor at the time?
17   A.  My supervisor at the time was Cathy Deany.
18   Q.  Other than this rejected suggestion about 10 and 10, can
19       you provide any other examples of peer pressure being
20       exerted on you personally?
21   A.  Yes.  Shortly after starting on that Volume Crime Team
22       under Cathy Deany, I took it upon myself to phone other
23       bureaux in relation to procedures.  I wanted to
24       establish facts around the 16-point procedure and I was
25       reported to Chief Inspector Griffiths for talking to
page   9
 1       other bureaux.  He called me into his office at one
 2       point and told me that he'd heard that I'd been speaking
 3       to other fingerprint bureaux on the phone and that, you
 4       know, this was a breach of the Official Secrets Act, you
 5       shouldn't be talking to other bureaux about procedures,
 6       about the McKie case.  I replied to him, well, that's
 7       absolutely ridiculous.  There's no way that I had
 8       breached the Official Secrets Act.
 9   Q.  You said that it had been put to you that you shouldn't
10       have been speaking about procedures or about the McKie
11       case.  What was it you had been discussing with the
12       other bureaux?  Was it simply matters of internal
13       procedure or had there been discussion about the McKie
14       case also?
15   A.  Obviously the McKie was prevalent at the time and there
16       was lots of discussion about the McKie case but I was
17       mainly concerned with the procedures in SCRO.  I think
18       the environment in SCRO was definitely one where new
19       ideas didn't flourish.  I believe that, you know, SCRO
20       fingerprints showed a tunnel vision.  They weren't open
21       to other suggestions and, of course, I was the first
22       fingerprint expert to come into SCRO from another bureau
23       and really I saw it at its worst.  It did get better,
24       eventually.  Steadily it did get better and there were
25       big improvements and other fingerprint experts from
page  10
 1       other bureaux did come in and that makes for a healthy
 2       working environment where new ideas can flourish and
 3       improvements made.
 4   Q.  I will ask you a little bit later about your
 5       understanding of how things may have improved but if we
 6       can turn back for the moment to paragraph 2 of your
 7       statement, you have mentioned that you believed that the
 8       Trainee Fingerprint Officers felt uncomfortable.
 9           How did you become aware that they felt
10       uncomfortable?
11   A.  Just through discussion at tea breaks, at lunch breaks
12       and just through the trainees recalling their experience
13       at SCRO and feeling that they didn't have a voice to
14       sort of ask can we do this another way?  Can we make
15       efficiency savings in little bits of the procedure, you
16       know.  I must stress that all my time at SCRO I never
17       saw any procedures, written procedures, so I don't know
18       what it would have been like for a trainee who starts
19       there, never mind an expert.
20   Q.  When the trainees were talking over lunch or over coffee
21       or whatever, was it simply about procedural matters or
22       was there discussion, for example, about any difficulty
23       with challenging identifications or anything of that
24       sort?
25   A.  I felt that the trainees were expressing that -- they
page  11
 1       were told by experts that SCRO Fingerprint Bureau is the
 2       best bureau in the world and, you know, we are the best,
 3       we look at the worst marks, we've got the best
 4       experience.  So this information was being told and
 5       instilled into the trainees and really this was false.
 6       This was sort of an arrogance that was portrayed.
 7   Q.  Did you get the impression that the trainees were
 8       unhappy with that view of SCRO being given to them?
 9   A.  Most definitely unhappy, yes.
10   Q.  You have also said that trainees were made to feel
11       inadequate and, again, I would like to explore with you
12       how you became aware of that?
13   A.  I think their confidence was low in that, you know,
14       mistakes were made and everybody makes mistakes and
15       especially trainees and I think it was the way that they
16       were told you must find 16 characteristics, for
17       instance, you know because SCRO, the volume crime
18       section that I worked on, were only making idents with
19       16 characteristics.  So this was being instilled into
20       the trainees as well.  But I think it was a very much
21       from what I heard and what I experienced in the SCRO was
22       it was an environment where you shouldn't question
23       procedures.  This is the way it's done, that's it.
24       You've got to sit down, shut up and get on with your
25       work and, you know, I experienced that.
page  12
 1           I mean, for example, I went to the toilet and when I
 2       came back into the office Cathy Deany told me off for
 3       not telling her I'd gone to the toilet and I'd been away
 4       a few minutes.  So you can see the kind of environment,
 5       unhealthy environment, it was.
 6   Q.  Did trainees complain of being made to feel inadequate
 7       or were you essentially drawing your own conclusions
 8       from things that you saw round you?
 9   A.  I think the trainees, you know, complained to each other
10       but it was very difficult.  You had to be very brave to
11       go against the way they do things because I found it
12       difficult enough myself.
13   Q.  Did you ever hear any trainee complaining of being made
14       to feel inadequate?
15   A.  Yes, I think confidence was a factor, yes.
16   Q.  You have told us a little bit about the feeling that
17       SCRO was putting itself forward as being of some
18       particular quality but you would accept that it was a
19       big bureau, the largest in Scotland, yes?
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  And with a heavy case load, including a heavy case load
22       of serious crime?
23   A.  Yes, that's correct but, you know, I started my career
24       at Manchester, which is one of the biggest bureaux in
25       England and, you know, just because you're a big bureau
page  13
 1       doesn't mean you're the best.
 2   Q.  I think that's what I would like to find out from you,
 3       Mr Luckraft, because on the one hand a large busy
 4       institution may have a proper pride in itself as an
 5       organisation; on the other hand, there may be, I think
 6       you used the word "arrogance" and perhaps thinking to
 7       your experience in Manchester, another large bureau,
 8       where would you say the difference lay between an
 9       organisation with perhaps a proper pride in its
10       procedures and one which you regarded as unsatisfactory
11       in the way you did SCRO?
12   A.  Yes, I've worked in other bureaux, Devon & Cornwall was
13       a new bureau that was set up when I went to work there
14       and there was a lot of ex-Scotland Yard experts that
15       went to Devon & Cornwall and I saw brilliant skill in
16       those people, very, very good at their job.  But they
17       could admit a mistake.  They would hold their hands up
18       if they made a mistake and I think that's the
19       difference.  They weren't arrogant and my experience of
20       SCRO was that's where the difference lay.  It was
21       that -- I've mentioned culture a lot and I think the
22       culture in SCRO was very insular, not willing to listen
23       to other ideas, other bureaux and there's the
24       difference.
25   Q.  Just exploring that a little further, you said SCRO
page  14
 1       weren't open to outside ideas.  Again, perhaps comparing
 2       it with the other bureaux that you have worked in, and
 3       thinking back also to the time of 2000/2001 and the
 4       period before that, in other bureaux you had worked in
 5       was there, for example, external training of Fingerprint
 6       Officers rather than in-house training?
 7   A.  There was, yes, external training, yes.
 8   Q.  In other bureaux in which you had worked before working
 9       at SCRO -- and I am anxious to say before because
10       obviously standards may have changed in a number of
11       bureaux since the time you were at SCRO -- but you
12       mentioned mistakes being made and people holding their
13       hands up.
14           What sort of situations would that happen in within
15       a bureau and how was it handled?
16   A.  Well, I'm really talking by mistakes, sort of, the more
17       clerical errors or something like that or, you know, but
18       I never witnessed a wrong identification in other
19       bureaux.
20   Q.  That's presumably not to say that they wouldn't have
21       taken place and been picked up somewhere else in the
22       system in another bureau though?
23   A.  Of course, of course.
24   Q.  Were you aware of any disputed verifications, for
25       example, in any of the other bureaux in which you worked
page  15
 1       before SCRO?
 2   A.  No, I wasn't, no.
 3   Q.  If we could look at paragraph 3 here and looking to the
 4       last sentence, you have already told us a little bit
 5       about junior Fingerprint Officers suggesting changes to
 6       processes but, again, I wonder if you would be able to
 7       give us an example of a time when you were aware of
 8       somebody junior, other than yourself, making a
 9       suggestion that wasn't taken up?
10   A.  I think it was just with the documentation.  The
11       documentation wasn't very adequate and bearing in mind
12       that I think there was something like a 7,000-case
13       backlog I think trainees would offer little suggestions,
14       "Surely, we don't need to do this or do that", but I
15       can't specifically put my finger on the detail.
16   Q.  Thank you.  We can take paragraph 3 away for now.
17           In paragraph 4, you give an example of a
18       conversation that took place with Mr Charles Stewart.
19   A.  Yes.
20   Q.  What was the context of your conversation with
21       Mr Stewart?  How did it come about that you were having
22       a conversation about this with Mr Stewart?
23   A.  It came about -- I recall it was after, possibly, a late
24       shift and it was walking from the headquarters at Pitt
25       Street to the railway station or something like that and
page  16
 1       it was just general talk about fingerprints.
 2   Q.  What was the tone of the conversation?
 3   A.  Well, I was surprised that -- well, the sort of tone was
 4       slightly arrogant and, you know, "we're the best", and,
 5       you know, that was the tone.
 6   Q.  My understanding from Mr Stewart's representatives is
 7       that his position may be that he does not recollect
 8       having that conversation with you.
 9           Is there any possibility you might be mistaken about
10       it?
11   A.  Not mistaken for one moment.  That was definitely said.
12   Q.  You can take paragraph 4 down.  Could we look, please,
13       at paragraph 5.
14           We have spoken briefly about external training of
15       experts but you mention also here that SCRO was
16       suffering from a lack of investment and poor working
17       conditions.
18           How did that, in terms of the investment and working
19       conditions, compare with other bureaux you had worked
20       at?
21   A.  At the headquarters at that time it was certainly very
22       cramped on working conditions.  Everybody was on top of
23       each other.  Probably the worst working conditions I've
24       seen in a Fingerprint Bureau.
25   Q.  How did the lack of investment manifest itself, other
page  17
 1       than in terms of the cramped conditions at the time?
 2   A.  They were drastically short of staff.  There was a
 3       massive backlog and it was really, really poor
 4       management.  I think this had happened for years and I
 5       think that was the management's fault.  You've got to
 6       remember also that the SCRO management had always been
 7       police management and I think, I do believe, that they'd
 8       always been Strathclyde Police officers into those
 9       posts.  Now I'm sure I'm correct in saying that Chief
10       Inspector Christopher Griffiths was the first
11       non-Strathclyde Police Officer to fill a management post
12       in SCRO, fingerprints that is.
13   Q.  Can we take down paragraph 5, please, and if we move on
14       to the next page.
15           Again, we have talked a little about the difference
16       as you see it between proper pride in an organisation
17       and undue arrogance.  In paragraph 6 you refer to
18       particular individuals being regarded as of very high
19       quality.  Again, it might be thought that people who are
20       very experienced in a bureau are the proper subjects of
21       a degree of respect and I would like to ask you about
22       why, in view of your view, that shouldn't have been the
23       case in SCRO.
24   A.  What I was seeing was the talking-up of these people and
25       these people weren't capable of making a mistake.  Of
page  18
 1       course, when you put yourself up that -- build yourself
 2       up so high ... I found that that was the culture, the
 3       building-up in SCRO.  I mean, I do admit that I've seen
 4       in other bureaux this happen as well but there hasn't
 5       been the arrogance that was attached with it with SCRO.
 6       You know, you do get very good Fingerprint Officers who
 7       are exceptional at their job but, you know, I feel there
 8       was a slight arrogance about it as well at SCRO.
 9   Q.  It might be thought as well that the very fact that one
10       has a procedure like verification is a recognition that
11       somebody might make a mistake at some point, otherwise
12       there wouldn't be any point in having anybody to check
13       it afterwards.
14           In SCRO might it not be thought that the fact that
15       they had these procedures, as properly they did, was a
16       reflection of the fact that there was a recognition that
17       there might be a mistake at some stage?
18   A.  Well, that's always the case in any bureau, yes.  There
19       could be a mistake at some stage.  Verification is there
20       to hopefully stop it.
21   Q.  You can take that down, please.
22           Now, at paragraph 7 you talk about an incident where
23       you heard the McKie case being referred to in particular
24       terms which I will not repeat, but can you tell us what
25       the context was for hearing this, what was going on as
page  19
 1       this was being said?
 2   A.  I think there was a moment in the office where somebody
 3       mentioned the McKie case and then somebody came out with
 4       that comment and I witnessed that.
 5   Q.  Do you recall who was involved?
 6   A.  I do recall who said it, yes.
 7   Q.  Who said it?
 8   A.  Steven Begg.
 9   Q.  You say you also witnessed a general feeling within the
10       SCRO Fingerprint Bureau that Shirley McKie had previous
11       for this sort of thing.  How did that manifest itself?
12   A.  Again, there was just talk in the Bureau stating that a
13       previous case she had left her fingerprints and they'd
14       been eliminated where perhaps they shouldn't have been
15       found, but this happens a lot with police officers
16       anyway, wherever you are.
17   Q.  What impression generally did you have during your time
18       at SCRO about the feeling in the organisation about the
19       rights and wrongs of the McKie case?
20   A.  If there is one sort of overriding factor that kind of
21       surprised me it would be that, if you like, the blind
22       faith or blind support for SCRO from within and I just
23       couldn't agree with that.  You know, it doesn't matter
24       where I worked, whatever bureau, if three people had
25       made an identification and this was being challenged,
page  20
 1       then I would not blindly support the three people
 2       involved, even though I was friendly with them or a
 3       colleague of them.  I would like to see them demonstrate
 4       to me how they come to their conclusion.  I just don't
 5       agree with blindly supporting or blind faith.
 6           In fact, I recall one briefing in the SCRO where --
 7       and this was after the Tulliallan presentation -- it was
 8       a briefing to the whole office by Chief Inspector
 9       Griffiths and I asked if the rest of the Bureau could
10       see the Tulliallan presentation by Robert Mackenzie and
11       the Chief Inspector, yes, certainly but not at the
12       moment.  We never saw that presentation.
13           I also asked him about the images on the Internet
14       and Chief Inspector Griffiths said, well, they
15       are different to the original.  There is a brush stroke
16       through the -- I asked how they were different and he
17       said there was a brush stroke through the Internet
18       image.
19   Q.  Can you take down paragraph 7, please.
20           I would like to ask you now about paragraph 9 and
21       also if we could somehow put up beside them
22       paragraphs 51 and 52, which you should find on page 10.
23           These are parts of your statement where you deal
24       with procedures in the volume crime cases and you have
25       already alluded to not using the 10 plus 10 procedure.
page  21
 1           In the later part of your statement here at
 2       paragraph 52 you say that you reported the failure to
 3       the Quality Assurance Officer and the Deputy Head of
 4       Bureau.
 5           Is that Mr Dunbar and Mr Mackenzie at the time?
 6   A.  That's correct.
 7   Q.  You also said that that resulted in your supervisor
 8       being spoken to.  So should we take it that Mr Dunbar
 9       and Mr Mackenzie took some action in response to what
10       you had said?
11   A.  They did take action, yes.  They also took major action
12       in this, in that they issued a procedure, although --
13       no, if I recall correctly, in conjunction with the Chief
14       Inspector, the Chief Inspector issued a procedure and
15       that was that the national standard of 1953 and 1983
16       would be appended on to any idents that were going out
17       so that the Procurator Fiscal could see which other
18       marks were ident in the case.  But of course this only
19       happened once I'd pointed this out to them.
20   Q.  I think perhaps, in fairness to the gentleman concerned,
21       your statement gives a picture of an organisation that
22       wasn't responsive to suggestions from yourself and from
23       others about how things might be changed but do we not
24       here perhaps have an example of you going to Mr Dunbar
25       and Mr Mackenzie and, in fact, their responding and
page  22
 1       something being done differently as a result?
 2   A.  Yes, definitely.  As I've said, once I was in SCRO,
 3       although some issues weren't addressed, there were
 4       issues that were addressed and improvements made.
 5   Q.  We can take those paragraphs down just now.
 6           If we look at paragraph 11 on page 3, you mention
 7       the introduction of competency testing.  You say that
 8       you were the second or third person to be required to
 9       complete the test.  My understanding is that it may be
10       Mr Mackenzie's position that there had been some
11       competency testing being piloted from as early as 1995,
12       which is obviously a little earlier than you came to the
13       Bureau.
14           Are you quite confident that you were only the
15       second or third to undergo competency testing in SCRO?
16   A.  If I might clarify, what I mean here is that I was the
17       second or third person to take that particular
18       competency test in that year.
19   Q.  Ah, that is perhaps a little different in yours from
20       what we see in your statement?
21   A.  Sorry, I accept competency tests were taken on a yearly
22       basis, years before that, yes.
23   Q.  At this stage this would still be the internally
24       prepared competency tests rather than ones from an
25       external provider?
page  23
 1   A.  That's correct, yes.
 2   Q.  You said you recall that experts were made to resit the
 3       test until they could pass on a mark of 100 per cent.
 4           How did you become aware of that?
 5   A.  Just in the office.  People were saying that they were
 6       failing the test so it was a particularly difficult
 7       competency test.
 8   Q.  You have said that you didn't support that approach to
 9       failing a test.  I wonder if you could tell us why you
10       say that was wrong and how you thought things should
11       have been dealt with?
12   A.  That's because the factors that come into a competency
13       test, such as tiredness or how you're feeling on the
14       day, nerves, et cetera.  You could keep failing and
15       failing that competency test.  I wasn't in support of
16       that.  I felt you should just learn from your mistake
17       and that's it.  We all make mistakes.
18   Q.  Had you experienced competency testing anywhere you had
19       worked before SCRO?
20   A.  Yes, I had, in Aberdeen.
21   Q.  How was it done there?  Was it an in-house system there
22       as well?
23   A.  I can't recall whether it was in-house or our Head of
24       the Aberdeen Bureau obtained a test from SCRO.  It was
25       either one of those two.
page  24
 1   Q.  How was a failed test dealt with in Aberdeen?
 2   A.  I can't recall.
 3   Q.  Take away paragraph 11, please.  I would like to put up
 4       paragraph 12 on page 4 and alongside it paragraph 56 on
 5       page 11, 55 and 56.
 6           These are passages in your statement where you deal
 7       with the use of comparators during your time at SCRO.
 8       In paragraph 12 you mention the bad practice of leaving
 9       points for the next checker marked with a pen and then
10       in paragraph 56 you say you did not witness a case in
11       which an officer left marker points for yourself.
12           How often did you witness points being left for the
13       next checker on a comparator screen?  Was this a one-off
14       or was it something that happened more than once?
15   A.  Myself, I witnessed it once but I was aware from other
16       people that it did happen previously.  It was a previous
17       practice, if you like.  It wasn't done so much when I
18       was there but I did witness it once where I asked the
19       person just to wipe the comparator clean of the points.
20   Q.  When you talk about a previous practice, you mean a
21       practice that was prevalent in the time before you
22       joined SCRO?
23   A.  Yes, yes.
24   Q.  Just while we are still on the comparators here, you
25       say:
page  25
 1           "In general terms, there appeared to be a culture in
 2       which using the comparators was deemed to be a
 3       weakness."
 4           Could you explain what you mean by that, please?
 5   A.  I believe that there was a slight bravado from what I
 6       was told in the Bureau that, you know, it was looked at
 7       as a weakness to go on to the comparator.  "Why can't
 8       you see the identification at your desk?"  That's all.
 9   Q.  What is your own view about using comparators to help
10       with making a comparison or an identification?
11   A.  My own view is that any aid and any help we can have is
12       a good thing.
13   Q.  Were people told not to use comparators?  How did this
14       manifest itself, the idea that comparators shouldn't be
15       used or it was weakness to use them?
16   A.  I'm not too sure on that.  I sort of heard this was the
17       case.
18   Q.  Again, when you say you heard this was the case, was
19       this people talking to you about things that were going
20       on at the time you were at SCRO or people talking about
21       things that had happened in the period before you joined
22       SCRO?
23   A.  It was both, really, yes.
24   Q.  If we can take those paragraphs down, please, and turn
25       to page 4 and you start at paragraph 13 to tell us about
page  26
 1       the challenged identification from April 2000?
 2   A.  Yes.
 3   Q.  I think there had been some suggestion at some stage,
 4       which has turned out to be an erroneous one, that you
 5       had had a written warning in connection with that matter
 6       and in paragraph 13 you are setting the record straight
 7       that you did not receive one.  Is that right?
 8   A.  That's correct.  I didn't receive a written warning.
 9   Q.  You say that you did, however, receive verbal threats
10       from Chief Inspector Griffiths.  To be clear about that,
11       is that the evidence to the Official Secrets Act that
12       you have already told us about or is this some other
13       incident involving Chief Inspector Griffiths?
14   A.  It was another incident as well.
15   Q.  So is what you are saying here that Chief Inspector
16       Griffiths spoke to you about not only your contact with
17       bureaux regarding procedures generally but about this
18       particular queried identification from April 2000?
19   A.  Sorry, could you repeat the question?
20   Q.  I am sorry, it is my fault.
21           You have told us already about Chief Inspector
22       Griffiths suggesting to you that you might have breached
23       the Official Secrets Act by speaking to other bureaux
24       about matters of procedure.
25   A.  Yes.
page  27
 1   Q.  In the first place, is that the same conversation that
 2       you are referring to here in paragraph 13?
 3   A.  No, it's something else.
 4   Q.  It is something else.
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  So what are you referring to in paragraph 13?
 7   THE CHAIRMAN:  You say it's a non-related fingerprint
 8       matter.
 9   A.  That's right, yes.  It was to do with an incident where
10       I was unfortunately late for work and the Chief
11       Inspector didn't believe my reasoning for being late and
12       this was the non-related fingerprint matter.  He put a
13       report in against me to Superintendent Brian Gorman and
14       I said to him that I would counteract that report and
15       put my stance forward and that's when he threatened me.
16       But it was a totally non-related fingerprint matter.
17   MISS CARMICHAEL:  I see.  So what we see in the second
18       sentence of paragraph 13 is nothing to do with
19       challenged identification from April 2000.
20   A.  No.
21   Q.  I am not going to ask you to repeat all of the detail of
22       what you have given us in your statement here about the
23       challenged identification, but I would like to ask you
24       when you received the case from Collette Orr, what
25       exactly did you get from her and in what form?
page  28
 1   A.  I received the case envelope and the photograph.  At
 2       that time that is what the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau
 3       received from the Identification Bureau.  So there was
 4       no lifts or negatives, just the photograph and the
 5       documentation.
 6   Q.  You say that on the paperwork Mrs Orr said she had
 7       identified the mark as the named suspect with 16 points.
 8   A.  That's correct.
 9   Q.  Was this marked on an image in any way or was it simply
10       a note on an envelope or a piece of paper saying
11       16 points or something of that sort?
12   A.  It was noted on the documentation, the suspect's name
13       and the 16 points.
14   Q.  Simply the fact of having found 16 points?
15   A.  Yes.
16   Q.  There was no indication of what was points were?
17   A.  No.
18   Q.  What was your understanding of any procedure that there
19       was at the time for dealing with a situation where a
20       verifying examiner such as yourself disagreed with the
21       first examiner?
22   A.  There was no procedure at that time.  My understanding
23       was that I would go back to Collette Orr, which I did,
24       and discuss the comparison.
25   Q.  Mr Dunbar, in his oral evidence to the Inquiry on
page  29
 1       6th October, suggested that you had confronted Mrs Orr
 2       aggressively in an open office.
 3           What is your response to that?
 4   A.  I portrayed no aggression whatsoever.  I'd like to know
 5       what is meant by that "aggressive in an open office".
 6       That just did not happen.
 7   Q.  Can you describe for us your discussion with Mrs Orr
 8       when you went back to her?
 9   A.  Well, I'd just go back to Collette Orr and just say,
10       "Look, I've looked at this comparison at my desk and
11       I've looked at it on the comparator", and I've said to
12       her that I cannot see two characteristics in agreement.
13       "I just don't think it's it", and then what Collette Orr
14       did was we discussed the mark on the comparator.
15   Q.  How did that discussion proceed?
16   A.  Well, Collette Orr sat at the comparator and plotted the
17       points, the 16 points, I watched this and then I took
18       over the seat on the comparator and looked at the
19       characteristics.  I could not find two characteristics
20       in agreement.  I was quite firm in my stance about that
21       but I certainly didn't show any aggression whatsoever.
22   Q.  Were you aware of any procedure for a disputed
23       identification to go to the Head of Bureau at that time?
24   A.  No, I wasn't.
25   Q.  You go on to tell us -- if we can look at the next page,
page  30
 1       please -- that Mr Stewart became involved.
 2           Can you tell us how that happened and how you became
 3       aware of that?
 4   A.  Yes, I recall that it was possibly a Friday that it
 5       happened and it was just before lunch that I took the
 6       comparison on from Collette Orr and after we had had our
 7       discussion and that, lunchtime came and I went off to
 8       lunch.  When I returned, I spoke to Collette Orr and
 9       she -- what I understand from her, she went over to the
10       Identification Bureau, the Strathclyde Identification
11       Bureau, and obtained photographic enlargements of the
12       marks in this case.  Then she told me that she had given
13       this to Charles Stewart and this, bearing in mind that I
14       hadn't had the opportunity to look at the enlargements,
15       and she said that Charles Stewart had looked at it and I
16       said, "Well, where is the case now", and Collette Orr
17       told me that it's now with Alan Dunbar.
18           So I don't believe there was a procedure at that
19       time for a possible erroneous identification because
20       this had gone to Charles Stewart and, of course, when I
21       came back from my lunch I went over to Charles Stewart
22       and asked him had you looked at this comparison and he
23       said yes.  I said why.  He said because Collette Orr had
24       wanted him to give an opinion.  I said, "Well, what did
25       you think?"  He said that, "Yes, it's an identification.
page  31
 1       I've found 14 characteristics in agreement", and I was
 2       just totally -- well, I couldn't believe you could get
 3       14 characteristics in agreement.
 4           So then obviously I'd learnt that it was now with
 5       Alan Dunbar --
 6   Q.  Can I stop you there and just ask you what the tone of
 7       your discussion with Mr Stewart was?
 8   A.  Very calm, very calm, no aggression whatsoever.
 9   Q.  I am sorry I interrupted you because you were going to
10       go on to talk about speaking to Mr Dunbar.
11   A.  Yes.  So I then approached Mr Dunbar and he said he'd
12       got the enlargements to look at and some time
13       afterwards, and whether it was on the Friday or whether
14       it was on the Friday and the Monday the following week,
15       I looked at the enlargements.  I was given the
16       enlargements by Alan Dunbar to look at.  So I looked at
17       the enlargements and looked at the whole case again and
18       I still thought it was not an identification.  I
19       couldn't find two characteristics in agreement.
20           So I said this to Alan Dunbar and, again, I can't
21       recall whether it was on the Friday directly after it or
22       the following Monday but I said to him, "Look, I can't
23       make this identification.  I can't get two
24       characteristics in agreement", and Alan Dunbar said,
25       "Well, I think that -- you know, we're disappointed this
page  32
 1       couldn't have been discussed and we could come to some
 2       sort of conclusion about it".  He said that he thought
 3       Collette Orr was disappointed I hadn't said it was
 4       insufficient for comparison but I turned round to Alan
 5       Dunbar and said, "Well, how could that be the case of
 6       being insufficient for comparison when Collette Orr
 7       found 16 characteristics in agreement and Charles
 8       Stewart found 14 characteristics in agreement and I
 9       couldn't find two characteristics in agreement".
10           I distinctly remember Alan Dunbar saying, whether it
11       was on the Friday or the Monday, he said that, "Look,
12       you know, we can't afford for this information to go out
13       to other bureaux or outside the office at this time
14       because of the sensitive nature of this".
15   Q.  What did you think that Mr Dunbar would have wanted you
16       to do?  You have said that he thought that Mrs Orr was
17       disappointed you had not said it was insufficient.  Did
18       you get any feeling there was anything in particular
19       that he would have wanted you to do?
20   A.  I got the feeling from Mr Dunbar that he would have
21       perhaps preferred me not to say that it was an erroneous
22       identification and that, you know, there was less than
23       eight characteristics in the mark.
24   Q.  How did he give you that impression?
25   A.  Just by stating that Collette Orr was disappointed that
page  33
 1       I hadn't said it was insufficient.  But there's just
 2       such a vast area of disagreement between the 16 and 14
 3       characteristics in agreement and me not finding two
 4       characteristics in agreement.
 5   Q.  If we can look, please, at paragraph 23, you say that
 6       you are quoting there from memory.  Are you confident
 7       that those are the words that were said to you?
 8   A.  Most definitely.
 9   Q.  So how was the matter left, as you understood it?
10   A.  Well, over the weekend I did go ahead and write a report
11       and so that following week I did come in with that
12       report and I said to Alan Dunbar that I have a report on
13       what has happened in this case stage by stage.  And it
14       was at a time when Mr Mackenzie and Mr Dunbar worked
15       directly outside the Chief Inspector Griffiths' office
16       and Chief Inspector Griffiths heard that I'd got a
17       report.  He then took over the matter and got the report
18       typed up and it was submitted to the Director, Harry
19       Bell.
20           But after that at some point I was called in to
21       Harry Bell's office with the Chief Inspector there and
22       they said the matter had been dealt with and that's over
23       now and that's all I knew.  I never saw the case
24       envelope again.  It seemed to disappear.
25           I was particularly unhappy and not satisfied with
page  34
 1       the way that had been dealt with because I hoped we
 2       could all come together and learn something from that
 3       case, but that just wasn't the case.  As far as I'm
 4       aware, that case was never issued, passed out to another
 5       bureau.
 6   Q.  If we can move, just on that theme, to paragraph 31, I
 7       think you are reflecting there that when you read
 8       Mr Bell's evidence to this Inquiry you became aware of a
 9       suggestion that the case was passed out to another
10       force.  I take it that that is the first that you had
11       heard of that?
12   A.  That's correct.  During the time that I was at SCRO I
13       never heard of that case being passed out to another
14       bureau.
15   Q.  You ask in paragraph 31 why you were not informed or not
16       allowed to put your side of the argument forward and I
17       wondered what it was you had in mind as to what you
18       might have done in response had you been aware of that?
19   A.  Yes, what I had in mind was we needed to sit round the
20       table and look at the mark, look at it in a presentation
21       way and learn from it, see what exactly had happened
22       with that mark but that opportunity wasn't given to us.
23   Q.  So you are talking there more about, I suppose, a
24       training opportunity than necessarily you putting an
25       argument to Central Scotland Police?
page  35
 1   A.  Most definitely, yes -- most definitely a training
 2       opportunity.
 3   Q.  Again, responding to what you had learned of Mr Bell's
 4       evidence if we can look at paragraph 33, you say you
 5       refuse to accept you had personality clashes with people
 6       in the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau.  You have certainly I
 7       think perhaps not described personality clashes but you
 8       have described a degree of disagreement with Mrs Orr and
 9       perhaps to some extent Mr Stewart and Mr Dunbar in
10       relation to the disputed identification.
11           You would accept that to that extent there were at
12       least professional disagreements with individuals?
13   A.  Oh, yes, but I was disagreeing with bad practice and I
14       was wanting to put my suggestions forward.  For
15       instance, when I started working with Cathy Deany on the
16       volume crime cases, I quickly became aware of
17       malpractice with documentation in that if a comparison
18       did not reach 16 characteristics in agreement, then this
19       comparison was documented on the case envelope as
20       insufficient for comparison, the mark itself
21       insufficient for comparison, and I said this was totally
22       wrong; you're misleading on the documentation saying
23       that it was insufficient for comparison.
24           So suggestions like that I put forward but I was
25       asking questions of procedure and shortly afterwards,
page  36
 1       shortly after my challenge, I was taken away.  I was
 2       moved from under Cathy Deany on the Volume Crime Cases
 3       and moved to non-scene of crime work, which was on the
 4       ten-print LiveScan section; whereas after that
 5       challenge, Collette Orr was moved from the Volume Crime
 6       Case section to the Serious Crime Case section and, of
 7       course, on the Serious Crime section all their
 8       comparisons are second-checked, which is different from
 9       the Volume Crime section.
10   Q.  You are referring in paragraph 33 to Mr Bell's
11       perception of you having personality clashes.  Is it
12       possible that there may have been a basis for his
13       perceiving that these professional disagreements that
14       you had with others became perhaps embedded into
15       something ongoing by way of disagreements with others
16       and with the hierarchy within SCRO?
17   A.  No, I had to be firm and stand by what I was seeing and
18       I had to ask difficult questions and I had to point
19       these things out.  I mean, I think that other experts
20       saw this as well.  I mean, directly after my challenge
21       the Chief Inspector, Chief Inspector Christopher
22       Griffiths, issued a procedure with regard to when a
23       possible erroneous identification.  He issued a flow
24       chart and that was the first time I had seen any sort of
25       procedure in SCRO.
page  37
 1   Q.  At paragraph 36 you described some further incidents.
 2       Again, are these connected with the disputed
 3       identification that you told us about?
 4   A.  No, they are not.
 5   Q.  When you refer to the Head of the SCRO Fingerprint
 6       Bureau there are you referring, again, to Mr Griffiths?
 7   A.  Mr Griffiths and the Deputy Director at SCRO was
 8       Mr Gorman.
 9   Q.  How did these incidents come about?
10   A.  I think I've dealt with the one by Chief Inspector
11       Griffiths in that that was to do with a non-related,
12       non-related fingerprint matter.
13   Q.  The lateness for work issue?
14   A.  That's right, yes.  That's when he swore at me when I
15       said that I would put a counterstatement in, a
16       counter-report in against him.
17           As far as the social function by Mr Gorman, that
18       was -- again, it's a non-fingerprint thing in that it
19       was at the retirement function of Alexander -- Sandy
20       MacLeod, I think it was, who retired from SCRO as a
21       fingerprint expert.  I went along to the function and
22       Mr Gorman made a presentation speech and this was in
23       front of a number of SCRO employees and hierarchy and in
24       the presentation speech he stated that Sandy MacLeod was
25       welcome back to SCRO after his retirement to come and
page  38
 1       work as a fingerprint expert because, "... after all, if
 2       we can employ Richard Luckraft, we can employ anybody",
 3       and he said, "Is Richard Luckraft here tonight", and I
 4       said, "Yes, thank you very much".
 5           Mr Griffiths then came over to me and said, "Look,
 6       don't take offence at that comment", and I did raise it
 7       later on in the office after this presentation do, I did
 8       raise it with Harry Bell, the Director, and Harry Bell
 9       just said to me, "Have you spoken to Brian Gorman about
10       this", and that it was just a joke and I said, "It was
11       no joke in my eyes and Mr Gorman hasn't apologised to me
12       for that".
13   Q.  What was the tone when Mr Gorman was speaking at the --
14   A.  The tone I think was that I wasn't worthy as a
15       fingerprint expert.  You know, if we can employ myself,
16       we can employ anybody sort of thing and, you know, I
17       think -- but the fact is I was the first fingerprint
18       expert to go to SCRO and what I saw I could only ask
19       questions on and, you know -- I mean, if you say that,
20       oh, what about the new fingerprint experts who went
21       there from Northern Ireland?  I don't see them writing a
22       report or coming forward.  Well, that's because I saw
23       the SCRO at its worst and I had to stand up and ask
24       questions.
25   Q.  At paragraph 38, we come to your final meeting with
page  39
 1       Mr Bell and I think just at the start of your evidence
 2       today you said that he had asked you at the time you
 3       were leaving if you had issues to raise and you had not
 4       done so but you had gone on to write the letter that we
 5       have seen later that year in August.
 6           You say that at that meeting Mr Bell threatened you.
 7       How did that come about?
 8   A.  That was my leaving meeting with Mr Bell and he tried to
 9       persuade me to stay but I said that I'd made my mind up.
10       I had to get away as soon as possible and I said there
11       was a number of difficulties during my period of
12       employment with SCRO and a number of issues I've raised
13       during that term and I said I was committed to leaving.
14       Then he said to me, "If you go bad-mouthing us to
15       anybody I will come after you and get you", and that was
16       most definitely said.
17   Q.  What was the tone of that statement?
18   A.  The tone was in a threatening manner.
19   Q.  There is one particular procedural matter I would like
20       to ask you about that you have raised and that is about
21       the use of photographs rather than lifts in the
22       situation where there were because obviously not every
23       fingerprint is lifted.
24           Were you aware if you wanted to see a lift itself
25       you would have been able to ask to do so?
page  40
 1   A.  I never saw that happening at SCRO.  I think it's most
 2       important you have the lift there so you can carry out a
 3       full analysis using the lift as well and check that the
 4       quality of the photograph correctly portrays what is on
 5       the lift.
 6   Q.  Does it sometimes happen that you observe a
 7       difference --
 8   A.  Sometimes, it does, yes.  It could happen in the
 9       photography of the mark, yes.  It could be slightly
10       blurred.  But this evidence wasn't given on a regular
11       basis to SCRO from the Identification Bureau.
12   Q.  This is simply a function of the fact that even a
13       photograph is a second generation image of something
14       else and the lift itself is a generation away, in some
15       ways, even from the mark itself because something may
16       have been lost or some artefact may have been created at
17       that stage?
18   A.  Yes, that's right.  In all the other bureaux that I've
19       worked in, the fingerprint has always received the lift
20       because that is the best evidence and back then in the
21       days of photographing and producing negatives,
22       negatives, the negatives were received as well.  Of
23       course now it's different because with digital
24       photography you produce the disk.  But ourselves at
25       Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire receive that evidence,
page  41
 1       the lift.
 2   Q.  You said earlier on in your evidence that you were aware
 3       that things had changed in Glasgow as regards the
 4       Fingerprint Officers, now of course its SPSA.  Do you
 5       have any personal knowledge of how things have changed
 6       since your time working for SCRO?
 7   A.  Well, just a simple matter.  While I was there, during
 8       the latter part they obtained more comparators.  They've
 9       moved to new premises, a lot better working conditions.
10       I mean, from that stage that I was there the only way
11       was up.  The only way was to make improvements.
12   Q.  But you have not had any particular personal contact or
13       experience that -- because you have insight into how --
14   A.  I have no personal contact or experience other than I
15       was still at SCRO when they moved to Pacific Quay and
16       the working conditions there were excellent and the
17       equipment was excellent, you know.  So I can only talk
18       of good things at Pacific Quay.
19   MISS CARMICHAEL:  Thank you, Mr Luckraft.  I don't have any
20       more questions for you at the moment.
21   THE CHAIRMAN:  We normally take a break at 11.30.  What I
22       think we might do is just take it five minutes earlier
23       so that those who may want to ask you questions can let
24       me know what those would be and then we will sit again
25       at 11.45.
page  42
 1   (11.25 am)
 2                         (A short break)
 3   (11.48 am)
 4   THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr Holmes, if you would like to raise with me
 5       any issues that you would like to ...?
 6   MR HOLMES:  Thank you, sir.  I would like to ask Mr Luckraft
 7       to clarify a number of parts of his statement.  They
 8       fall broadly into two categories.  The first relates to
 9       the culture at SCRO which he has given some evidence
10       about already and the second relates to this particular
11       discussion that he had involving Mr Dunbar.
12   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  The conversation with Mr Stewart, was
13       that something that I think on the notice you gave that
14       you had raised --
15   MR HOLMES:  It was something in the notice, sir, but it is
16       something that my learned friend has already covered.
17   THE CHAIRMAN:  You are content with the way it has been
18       covered?  Very good.
19   MR HOLMES:  Indeed, sir.  Bearing in mind Mr Stewart, of
20       course, is still to give evidence.
21   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  If you would like to ask those
22       questions and they seem to be new matters in a sense.
23   MR HOLMES:  Thank you, sir.
24                   Cross-examined by MR HOLMES
25   Q.  Mr Luckraft, firstly, if I can cover some of the general
page  43
 1       points that you raise in your statement.  Paragraph 2
 2       says that you experienced a degree of peer pressure --
 3       and you have already spoken to a certain extent about
 4       that this morning -- which was directly related to what
 5       you call the push for 16 points culture that was present
 6       within SCRO.
 7           What evidence can you offer that there was such a
 8       culture in place, first of all?
 9   A.  I think because the documentation at that time did not
10       allow you to put a less than 16-point identification on
11       the documentation.
12   Q.  Is that what you were referring to when you say you
13       experienced a degree of peer pressure?
14   A.  Yes, that's right because basically people were just
15       pushing it to 16 points so that it could be recorded as
16       an identification.  I think there's two other experts
17       that do state that in their statements as well and
18       that's Edward Bruce who says at that time we did not
19       sign the envelope if we got less than 16 points,
20       characteristics.  They only signed the envelope with
21       16 points in agreement.
22   Q.  This is what you would characterise as peer pressure?
23   A.  Yes, yes, most certainly, working to 16 points all the
24       time.
25   Q.  Is it something you ever made any sort of complaint to
page  44
 1       the management about?
 2   A.  I did, yes.
 3   Q.  Mr Bell has already given evidence and my understanding
 4       of his evidence -- I will be corrected if I am wrong --
 5       is that he saw no evidence of peer pressure within the
 6       Bureau.
 7           How does that reconcile with what you have had to
 8       say?
 9   A.  There was peer pressure because they were working to 16
10       points all the time and this was recognised and also 10
11       and 10 characteristics, I was getting not just -- that
12       was pressure from my supervisor, Cathy Deany.
13   Q.  Paragraph 2 of your statement also refers to what you
14       have referred to as an insular culture at SCRO.
15           Again, what evidence can you offer that there was
16       such a culture in place?
17   A.  Well, I was the first fingerprint expert to go there
18       from anywhere else and a lot of their training was
19       in-house.
20   Q.  Not all of the training was in-house though, was it?
21   A.  That's correct.  Not all the training was in-house.
22   Q.  You say that you believed that the majority of Trainee
23       Fingerprint Officers felt uncomfortable in such an
24       environment.  Is that --
25   A.  Most definitely after speaking to them, yes.
page  45
 1   Q.  Are the conversations that you had with Trainee
 2       Fingerprint Officers the only basis on which you say
 3       that there was any discomfort on their part?
 4   A.  Well, there was obviously discomfort on my part because
 5       I was recognising procedures that were wrong.
 6   Q.  Is there anything specific that you can point to that
 7       shows that trainees within the Glasgow Bureau were
 8       uncomfortable working within it?
 9   A.  I think they were uncomfortable in pushing to 16 points
10       all the time.
11   Q.  You state in the same paragraph -- and this is perhaps
12       related -- that Trainee Fingerprint Officers were made
13       to feel inadequate if they could not see 16 points in a
14       comparison.
15           My clients trained at the Glasgow Bureau and you
16       were not a trainee at the Glasgow Bureau.  Is that
17       correct?
18   A.  That's correct.
19   Q.  So how can you speak to trainees being made to feel
20       inadequate if they could not see 16 points in a
21       comparison?
22   A.  Because I was speaking to them on a day-to-day basis.
23   Q.  The same paragraph also states that there was peer
24       pressure in respect of the fact that the SCRO
25       Fingerprint Bureau believed that no other Fingerprint
page  46
 1       Experts have the kind of training and experience that
 2       SCRO fingerprint experts have.
 3           How does a belief in the institution in which you
 4       work translate to peer pressure?
 5   A.  Well, it is peer pressure because the arrogant culture
 6       breeds.
 7   Q.  If there was some pride within the Bureau, would that
 8       not be something that was felt by experienced officers
 9       and trainees alike?
10   A.  Oh, yes, most definitely but with SCRO, there was the
11       attached arrogance.
12   Q.  Did you experience the same sort of pressure within any
13       of the other bureaux that you have worked in?
14   A.  No, I did not.
15   Q.  Is the training and experience offered to officers that
16       work within the Glasgow bureau not extensive?
17   A.  How do you mean extensive?
18   Q.  Is Glasgow not an extremely busy bureau?
19   A.  I would say, yes, extremely busy.
20   Q.  The officers within the Glasgow Bureau would specialise
21       in comparison work rather than in comparison work and
22       recovery work as well, for example?
23   A.  Not sure about recovery work.
24   Q.  Are there other officers in the country who do Scenes of
25       Crime work as well?
page  47
 1   A.  Yes.
 2   Q.  But not within the Glasgow Bureau is what I'm asking
 3       you.
 4   A.  They weren't doing scene of crime when I was there, no.
 5   Q.  No, they were doing comparison work only?
 6   A.  Yes.
 7   Q.  Again, is that degree of specialism not something that
 8       would lead to great experience?
 9   A.  It can lead to great experience.  I've no doubt in that,
10       but you can build yourself up too much and, again, I
11       can't stress enough the arrogant culture that you're not
12       capable of making a mistake.
13   Q.  Where is it that your evidence of this arrogant culture
14       comes from?
15   A.  I think what I've said in previous evidence is that, for
16       instance, Charles Stewart saying they're the best
17       bureau, they have the best officers, they get the most
18       experience and it's kind of this ignoring the fact that
19       there are good officers everywhere who have got just as
20       much experience as SCRO in dealing with high volume of
21       cases.
22   Q.  You go on in your statement to say that if a Junior
23       Fingerprint Officer suggested a change to a process or a
24       possible improvement in working method it was met with a
25       negative response.
page  48
 1           Again, can you give me an example of that, please?
 2   A.  Yes, I think in Edward Bruce's statement it states that
 3       we were not paid to look at procedures and it was very
 4       much the culture of SCRO was, "Sit down and do as you're
 5       told and don't ask questions about procedures.  Our way
 6       is the best way".
 7   Q.  You have said that if a suggestion was made it was met
 8       with a negative response.  Can you give an example where
 9       an officer made a suggestion about a change to procedure
10       and was met with a negative response?
11   A.  I think there was suggestions to make things more
12       efficient, yes.
13   Q.  Are you giving evidence of a general impression that you
14       gained or is there something specific to which you can
15       point that suggests there was a negative response given
16       to an officer who had suggested a change to procedure?
17   A.  No, there was lots of suggestions and lots of negative
18       responses so ...
19   Q.  Paragraph 3 of your statement says:
20           "SCRO Fingerprint Bureau in general never accepted
21       that they could be wrong during the identification
22       process."
23           Is the reason for having procedures whereby a number
24       of individuals will check a mark not designed so that
25       any mistake would be caught before it left the bureau?
page  49
 1   A.  That should be the case.  Obviously in the case that I
 2       challenged that happened.
 3   Q.  What happened?
 4   A.  That it was stopped from going out the Bureau.
 5   Q.  Again, is the reason for having facilitated discussions
 6       not so that experts can have a chance to consider their
 7       views before the marks go out of the Bureau.
 8   A.  I wasn't given that chance.  That didn't happen in that
 9       case.  There was no facilitated discussion.
10   Q.  Do you know of facilitated discussions taking place
11       within the Glasgow Bureau?
12   A.  Do I know if they do?
13   Q.  Yes.
14   A.  What, at present?
15   Q.  No, when you were there.
16   A.  Not in this case it didn't.
17   Q.  Do you know whether that was something that took place
18       on a regular basis whilst you were there?  I'm not
19       referring to any specific case?
20   A.  I can only go from my experience in that it didn't
21       happen in that case.
22   Q.  So there was no other incidents in which you took part
23       in one and you are not aware of anyone else having taken
24       part in one; is that your evidence?
25   A.  I think there were disagreements in relation to number
page  50
 1       of characteristics but I didn't hear of another
 2       erroneous identification such as the case that I
 3       challenged.
 4   Q.  Are you aware of a discussion like that taking place at
 5       any of the other bureaux that you have worked in?
 6   A.  Definitely discussions took place, yes, about number of
 7       characteristics.
 8   Q.  But not about disputed identifications?
 9   A.  They would take place if there was any disputed
10       identifications but there were none that I was aware of
11       while I worked there.
12   Q.  You have referred to the evidence of some of the other
13       experts.  If I can refer you to the evidence of
14       Mr Geddes who was a junior expert within the Glasgow
15       Bureau.  He said in his own evidence that junior experts
16       were encouraged to think for themselves.  How do you
17       reconcile that with your own evidence that they were
18       not, that they were subjected to peer pressure?
19   A.  Well, I think that I mentioned that the management
20       portrayed this culture of sit down and do as you're
21       told.  Don't ask questions.
22   Q.  So when he says that junior experts were encouraged
23       within the bureau to think for themselves he is not
24       correct?
25   A.  Not in my experience.
page  51
 1   Q.  You say that the work culture that you experienced
 2       within the Bureau, you describe it as depraved and
 3       unhealthy.  What do you mean by that?
 4   A.  Absolutely.  The way that I was treated is an example of
 5       that, where I asked questions, new ideas weren't allowed
 6       to flourish, it was -- the SCRO Fingerprints at that
 7       time was very much a tunnel vision of doing things.
 8   Q.  You say also that SCRO had never taken part in the
 9       external training of experts and had no input from other
10       bureaux.
11           Was there not external training of other experts
12       within the Glasgow Bureau before the NTS at Durham was
13       set up?
14   A.  I think there was a tiny bit but the majority was
15       in-house.
16   Q.  So is your evidence that Glasgow never participated in
17       external training?
18   A.  As far as I'm aware, most of it was in-house.
19   Q.  Is your evidence also that there was no training of
20       external experts in which Glasgow participated?
21   A.  Sorry, could you repeat the question?
22   Q.  Do Glasgow provide training for any other officers?
23   A.  Outwith Glasgow, do you mean?
24   Q.  Yes.
25   A.  I don't know.
page  52
 1   Q.  Paragraph 8 of your statement mentions that you felt
 2       peer pressure and you feel that that could lead towards
 3       a bias towards identifications.  That's not been
 4       something that has been identified in a number of years
 5       of reviews.
 6           Are the people conducting those reviews getting it
 7       wrong?
 8   A.  I don't know what reviews you are referring to.
 9   Q.  I'm talking about the HMCIC reviews?
10   A.  I think there was 25 recommendations in that.
11   Q.  Is it not a normal part of the training process in any
12       workplace for junior colleagues to defer to their more
13       senior counterparts occasionally?
14   A.  Defer in what manner?
15   Q.  Is it not a normal part of the training process for
16       junior colleagues to perhaps seek out the opinion of
17       senior experts?
18   A.  Certainly.
19   Q.  Was that something that you say did not take place at
20       Glasgow?
21   A.  No, I'm not saying it didn't take place.
22   Q.  So if that's a normal part of the training process where
23       do you say the peer pressure came from?
24   A.  The peer pressure came from not working to the
25       standards, ie pushing everything to 16 points and that
page  53
 1       has been borne out by other experts' statements, ie
 2       Edward Bruce and Greg Padden.
 3   Q.  You say in your statement that the department you worked
 4       within was volume crime; is that correct?
 5   A.  That's correct.
 6   Q.  You say in your statement that the department that you
 7       worked in did not make identifications with fewer than
 8       16 points, but other witnesses have mentioned strong
 9       suspicion, they have mentioned rules referred to as 10
10       and 10 and they have mentioned eliminations with fewer
11       than 16 points.
12           Is their recollection incorrect?
13   A.  Can you explain by what you mean by strong suspicion?
14   Q.  Is there not a concept whereby if less than 16 points
15       are found a strong suspicion letter can be sent?
16   A.  At the time I was at the SCRO that didn't happen.  I was
17       told that any idents or where you found an
18       identification with less than 16 it was not documented
19       on the envelope and I think that is corroborated by
20       Edward Bruce in his statement.
21   Q.  Did 10 and 10 identifications happen when you were
22       there?
23   A.  Well, my supervisor told me that we don't do 10 and 10
24       identifications in SCRO.
25   Q.  Have 10 and 10 identifications not always taken place
page  54
 1       within the Glasgow Bureau?
 2   A.  I can only go what my supervisor, Cathy Deany, said that
 3       we don't do 10 and 10 identifications and she was spoken
 4       to on that matter by Robert Mackenzie.
 5   Q.  Was it not the case that officers have always been able
 6       to assign ownership of a mark with fewer than 16
 7       characteristics?
 8   A.  Well, if that's the case why was it not documented on
 9       the envelope?  I think you will find that Edward Bruce
10       says that he, at the time SCRO did not sign the envelope
11       if they found less than 16 and Greg Padden was also
12       under the impression that you needed to go the extra
13       lengths to find 16 characteristics so it could
14       documented.
15   Q.  So, in summary, your position is you felt pressure
16       within the Bureau because no identifications ever took
17       place with fewer than 16 characteristics and that if
18       there is any evidence to the effect that that did happen
19       that's incorrect?
20   A.  They were under the impression, that team that I worked
21       on, that less than 16 characteristics was not
22       documented.  In fact, they didn't document less than 16
23       characteristics.  And when I brought this to the
24       attention of Alan Dunbar and Robert Mackenzie they were
25       quite shocked that this was going on and that's when
page  55
 1       Alan Dunbar states that he appended the 1953 and 1983
 2       standard to any notification.
 3   Q.  I will move on to the discussion that you had with
 4       Mr Dunbar.  You describe a meeting with him at
 5       paragraph 22 of your statement.  For the purposes of
 6       that meeting, were you asked to mark up a set of
 7       enlargements?
 8   A.  I was not asked to mark up a set of enlargements, no.  I
 9       was asked to look at enlargements.
10   Q.  With any dispute would enlargements be produced?
11   A.  There was no procedure re that.
12   Q.  Were the experts involved not asked generally to produce
13       enlargements in order to facilitate the discussion
14       between them?
15   A.  Not that I'm aware of.
16   Q.  When it was explained that a discussion was to take
17       place that was prior to the weekend; is that correct?
18   A.  It was either prior to the weekend -- which discussion
19       do you mean?
20   Q.  The discussion that you have already described with
21       Mr Dunbar.
22   A.  I think it was prior to the weekend and after the
23       weekend.
24   Q.  Was it intimated to you that a discussion was to take
25       place prior to the weekend and then the actual
page  56
 1       discussion took place following the weekend?  Is that
 2       the evidence that you have given of it?
 3   A.  Which discussion?
 4   Q.  The discussion with Mr Dunbar on the disputed mark that
 5       you described earlier in your evidence.
 6   A.  The discussion took place before the weekend and after
 7       the weekend.
 8   Q.  In the portion of the discussion that took place after
 9       the weekend, did you produce to Mr Dunbar a written
10       report?
11   A.  I did.
12   Q.  What was Mr Dunbar's reaction to the production of that
13       report?
14   A.  He didn't have much time to have a reaction because the
15       Chief Inspector Griffiths jumped in and took over.
16   Q.  Did the involvement of Chief Inspector Griffiths not
17       come about as a result of your producing a report over
18       the weekend?
19   A.  All I can say is that Chief Inspector Griffiths jumped
20       in and took over.
21   Q.  I see.  Do you know what the eventual outcome of that
22       case was?
23   A.  As far as I'm concerned, there was no further action.
24   Q.  Do you know whether the mark was sent out to be checked
25       elsewhere?
page  57
 1   A.  I don't.  I didn't hear of that.  I'd be very, very
 2       disappointed if I was not made aware that that case had
 3       been passed to another bureau.  I know Harry Bell states
 4       that it was but I would be absolutely sure that somebody
 5       would have told me that would have happened.  So, in my
 6       opinion, I don't believe that happened.  I believe that
 7       that was a wrong identification and it never, never left
 8       the Bureau so ...
 9   Q.  How do you account for Mr Bell giving evidence that it
10       was sent out?
11   A.  I think he's just mistaken in his recollection.
12   Q.  Paragraph 56 of your statement says that you witnessed a
13       case where marks were left on a comparator machine.  You
14       describe this as bad practice.
15           Do you have any evidence that this was a matter of
16       practice or if this was a single incident?
17   A.  All I can speak to is that it happened to me once and
18       that was when my supervisor Cathy Deany made an
19       identification, put the marks on the comparator and left
20       the characteristics marked on the comparator.  But I was
21       aware, talking to individuals, that it was a practice
22       that had happened prior to me arriving.
23   Q.  How do you account for the fact that there were
24       facilitated discussions taking place between experts and
25       that we have heard evidence of trainees being encouraged
page  58
 1       to think for themselves and to question things as spoken
 2       to by Mr Geddes?  How do you equate that to your
 3       evidence that the culture within SCRO was simply a
 4       matter of blind faith?
 5   A.  It was certainly blind faith in supporting the experts
 6       who had made the McKie ident -- totally blind faith.
 7   MR HOLMES:  I will leave it there.  Thank you, Mr Luckraft.
 8   THE CHAIRMAN:  Do you have an application, Mr Smith?
 9   MR SMITH:  Yes, sir, there is just one matter I would like
10       to ask a question about and that is whether Mr Luckraft
11       was at any stage involved in the production of a report
12       relating to Y7.
13   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, you may certainly ask that.
14                    Cross-examined by MR SMITH
15   Q.  Mr Luckraft, I think you previously worked at the
16       Grampian Bureau; is that right?
17   A.  I did, yes.
18   Q.  As far as the Grampian Bureau is concerned, are you
19       aware of whether or not any report was prepared in
20       respect of the identification of Y7?
21   A.  I'm aware of a report that three officers have made in
22       relation to Y7, yes.
23   Q.  Were you one of these officers?
24   A.  No, I wasn't.
25   Q.  You had sight of the report, did you?
page  59
 1   A.  I have seen the report on the Internet, yes.
 2   Q.  Perhaps you can just confirm to us what the conclusion
 3       of that report was from the Grampian Bureau?
 4   A.  The conclusion was that Y7 was not made by Shirley
 5       McKie.
 6   Q.  Have you yourself examined the mark?
 7   A.  I haven't examined the original productions.
 8   Q.  But you have examined some productions?
 9   A.  I have examined a copy of the mark which I believe -- if
10       I go back to when I was employed at Aberdeen, the then
11       Head of Bureau, Terrence Major, received a copy of Y7
12       from Martin Leadbetter and I was shown this at Aberdeen
13       and, yes, I made an examination of that copy.
14   Q.  I wonder if you can indicate to us what your view was?
15   A.  My view was that it was a wrong identification and it
16       was -- my opinion is that it was such an obvious wrong
17       identification as well, there was so much disagreement.
18   Q.  I am hampered without the LiveNote.  Did you say that
19       some information had come from Mr Leadbetter's
20       department?
21   A.  It did, yes.  It was sent from Martin Leadbetter to
22       Terrence Major, who was the Head of Bureau at Aberdeen.
23   MR SMITH:  Thank you.
24   THE CHAIRMAN:  Miss Grahame?
25   MISS GRAHAME:  No, thank you, sir.
page  60
 1   THE CHAIRMAN:  Do you have any questions?
 2   MISS CARMICHAEL:  No, thank you, sir.
 3   THE CHAIRMAN:  Could I just ask you to deal with a couple of
 4       matters.  Did you go straight from Aberdeen to Glasgow?
 5   A.  Yes, I did.
 6   THE CHAIRMAN:  So you were in Aberdeen, you began there in
 7       April 1993 and then you came to -- in January 2000?
 8   A.  That's correct yes, sir.
 9   THE CHAIRMAN:  So you would have been very conscious, I
10       presume, indeed, from your most recent answers that you
11       were coming into the Scottish Criminal Record Office at
12       a time when there would have been great sensitivity
13       about the McKie case and, indeed, you were reassured or
14       an effort was made to reassure you about joining.  So
15       you were coming in as a new person, one of the first I
16       think you said from outside, into an atmosphere very
17       much in the wake of the McKie case where there would
18       have been great sensitivity in the office in Glasgow?
19   A.  Mmm.
20   THE CHAIRMAN:  And no doubt a certain closing of ranks and
21       trying to reassure themselves, if not others?
22   A.  Hmm.
23   THE CHAIRMAN:  And it was in that atmosphere, was it, that
24       people were saying, "Well, we are the best and we are
25       outstanding", and so on?
page  61
 1   A.  (Nodded)
 2   THE CHAIRMAN:  Is it possible that there was an element of
 3       having been under attack, so to speak, people were
 4       reassuring themselves by making these statements about
 5       how good they were and how they did not make mistakes?
 6   A.  Yes, I'm sure it was a reassurance within themselves and
 7       I think you're right.  Perhaps they did feel that they
 8       were being attacked unnecessarily.
 9           I must admit that after receiving that phone call
10       from Christopher Griffiths before I started at SCRO, I
11       did truly believe the whole thing would blow over and
12       there would be some perfectly reasonable explanation why
13       this had happened and every party involved would have
14       got together and, you know, come to some conclusion and
15       hopefully sort the thing out but, unfortunately, that
16       just never happened and of course, yes, I went to SCRO
17       because I wanted to continue a fingerprint-only career
18       and I believe that the best chance to get to a Senior
19       Fingerprint Officer was to go to a big bureau because
20       there would be more positions.  But I did, kind of, go
21       to SCRO perhaps at its worst and most sensitive time,
22       definitely.  And it was sort of getting a lot of
23       negative from the papers as well.  So you can
24       understand --
25   THE CHAIRMAN:  I'm just trying to --
page  62
 1   A.  -- the protection.
 2   THE CHAIRMAN:  -- put myself back into the position nine
 3       years ago, which is always very difficult or indeed I am
 4       sure it is difficult for you.
 5           What I was just wondering was in that position,
 6       where people maybe were a bit raw in their feelings
 7       about having been under attack, it really called for a
 8       great deal of tact to be suggesting changes that should
 9       be made, did it not?
10   A.  It did.  On reflection it was just such a difficult time
11       and perhaps the experts there at the time, they weren't
12       used to somebody coming in and sort of asking questions
13       and sort of saying, "Why do we do it this way?  Why do
14       we do that".  There was lots of little intricacies in
15       the procedure.  Of course, I wasn't shown any procedure
16       either and I think that they really had suffered.
17       They'd been really under the mill, the Bureau, and
18       they'd had the poor police management as well which, you
19       know, is bound to affect anybody and the heavy workload
20       was unbelievable.  I've never seen a backlog like it.
21       So there was pressure on people and when you're working
22       in such a tightly-knit environment where we were more or
23       less sitting right next to each other, no room, you
24       know, and really, really poor management that ...
25           I believe that the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau served a
page  63
 1       function for Strathclyde Police officers to obtain
 2       promotion into and serve a little time there and I think
 3       that was borne out by those senior Strathclyde Police
 4       officers getting promotion into those positions.  Of
 5       course they weren't au fait with fingerprint procedure
 6       or anything about fingerprints and, therefore, I do
 7       truly believe that SCRO suffered from mismanagement
 8       catastrophically.
 9   THE CHAIRMAN:  At the top level?
10   A.  At the top level, yes.
11   THE CHAIRMAN:  If I could come now to a totally different
12       topic and that is about the use of the comparator.  You
13       say that part of the culture was that the use of the
14       comparator was thought to be a sign of weakness.
15           When a verification was being done, did the person
16       begin, the examiner, begin all over again at that stage?
17       I am trying to get clear in my mind whether one looked
18       at a comparator at what the previous expert had found
19       and could then say, "Well, I can see all those points
20       and therefore I will verify it", or whether that's a
21       wrong impression if one had that and I'm not saying I
22       have that.  But it would be wrong to get that because
23       you say using comparators was more taboo, it was thought
24       of as not a good thing to do?
25   A.  Yes.  I think certainly from my discussion with people,
page  64
 1       especially trainees, it's kind of frowned on to use --
 2       not frowned on, looked at as a bit of a weakness.
 3       Certain people would use the comparator more than
 4       others, obviously, but it seemed to be looked upon as a
 5       weakness.
 6   THE CHAIRMAN:  But when you were doing a verification, did
 7       you go back to the beginning?  I'm not saying you but
 8       was the practice to go back to the beginning and make
 9       your own examination rather than checking somebody
10       else's on a comparator?  If you see the distinction.
11   A.  Yes, I do, yes.  Definitely, you should always start --
12       well, I always started all over again and then I would
13       use the comparator from a blank.
14   THE CHAIRMAN:  I was really asking whether you noticed
15       whether that was the practice with others to do that, so
16       far as you were aware?
17   A.  As far as I'm aware, well, I can only go that it did
18       happen to me once and the points were left on the
19       comparator screen for me to look at.  Of course I
20       brought it to the attention of that person and said,
21       "Look, I'm going to wipe them clear and start again".
22   THE CHAIRMAN:  I take your point that you ought to go back
23       and look at it.  All I am trying to see was whether
24       people would, in that office, have looked just at the
25       comparator for a verification to see whether they could
page  65
 1       agree with the points that someone else had found or
 2       whether when you say the comparator was badly thought of
 3       as an instrument that, in fact, that you never saw that
 4       happen.
 5   A.  I couldn't say for certain.  I mean, quite possibly it
 6       did happen where people would only look at the
 7       comparator.
 8   THE CHAIRMAN:  But you can't go beyond that?
 9   A.  I can't say for certain, no.
10   THE CHAIRMAN:  The last thing I wanted to ask you was at the
11       end of your statement when you described the incident
12       about, on your departure, what was said to you.  Did you
13       take that any further or was that just as you were going
14       you just left it at that?
15   A.  No, I didn't take it any further.  Perhaps in hindsight
16       I should have done but with there only being myself and
17       Mr Harry Bell in the offers when he said that I think
18       it's a case of his word against mine.  So it would be
19       difficult.
20   THE CHAIRMAN:  I am right in thinking that you then went to
21       your next post, it was really a promotion, you became a
22       senior examiner then?
23   A.  I did, yes, and I've been there for eight years, just
24       over eight years now.
25   THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much and thank you for coming
page  66
 1       today and assisting the Inquiry.
 2   A.  I wonder, there was one little thing.  What I did bring
 3       with me -- and I don't know if it might assist the
 4       Inquiry -- this is just -- I know with the fingerprint
 5       community in the UK that we don't have time to use IT as
 6       much as we perhaps would like to in terms of
 7       presentations and stuff.  If I can just briefly show you
 8       what Bedfordshire do.
 9           Every fingerprint expert in Bedfordshire has a
10       visual aid that they make up themselves and --
11   THE CHAIRMAN:  Would you like us to put it on the screen so
12       that everyone can see it in the hall?
13   A.  If that's possible, yes.  (Handed)
14           What it is it is just a generic visual aid.  Every
15       fingerprint expert in Bedfordshire certainly has put one
16       of these together and --
17   THE CHAIRMAN:  Is this for the purpose of a criminal
18       proceeding or --
19   A.  For going to court, yes.  It's actually up the wrong
20       way.  Thank you.
21           You will see that these are enlarged photographs.
22       The one on the left is the scene of crime mark, the
23       enlarged photograph.  I've actually brought the lift
24       with me here today as well so we would actually look at
25       the lift as well during that analysis.
page  67
 1           The scene of crime mark, as you can see, has been --
 2       the board around it leaves plenty of space of the
 3       background so we're not putting into any ridge
 4       information.  So once it's cut down you're not blocking
 5       off any information.
 6           Then you have the print, the enlargement of the
 7       print, on the right-hand side.  In this particular
 8       visual aid, we're showing the Scene of Crime mark and
 9       the print as they are without any markings of the
10       characteristics.  So we can see some smudged area in the
11       centre and pressure distortion but the mark, I would
12       say, was of reasonable quality.
13           If we turn over the next page, please, you can just
14       flip from one page to the other and just see the
15       characteristics that are not marked on the previous page
16       and see if they are in the right position on the next
17       page.
18           So, for instance, if we start on the left-hand side
19       you have a ridge ending going down, follow the next
20       ridge along and there's a ridge ending going up.  So you
21       can clearly see those ridge endings.  Then if you follow
22       those two ridge characteristics on the left, the bottom
23       one, if you follow that ridge down and it ends at
24       another ridge ending.
25           So I was just wondering if the Inquiry was
page  68
 1       interested in just how -- what we would take to court.
 2   THE CHAIRMAN:  How you present, when you are presenting your
 3       evidence, this is made available to the jury, is it?
 4   A.  That's right, yes.  Obviously, it's a generic one.  If
 5       the jury then want to see the specific identifications
 6       in the case, then we would have to go away, mark them up
 7       and come back with those but this does serve a purpose
 8       in it illustrates the scene of crime mark unmarked as a
 9       sort of a quick flipping of the pages.
10           But, as I say, every expert in Bedfordshire has
11       something similar.  They might, sort of, have a few
12       words of explanation on it as well but I just thought
13       this might help.
14   THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much.
15   MISS CARMICHAEL:  Sir, since Mr Luckraft has been good
16       enough to bring this along, with your leave, I wonder if
17       I might just ask a couple of follow-up questions arising
18       from it?
19   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.
20                  Re-examined by MISS CARMICHAEL
21   Q.  I take it from what you have just said, Mr Luckraft,
22       that this is all that one would normally take to court.
23       There wouldn't normally be a charting of a mark prepared
24       in advance?
25   A.  No, there wouldn't be a charting of a mark prepared in
page  69
 1       advance.  We would just take this along to court.
 2   Q.  You said that if the jury wanted to see something else
 3       you would go away and prepare something else.  I'm just
 4       wondering, first, whether that has ever come about in
 5       your experience and, second, how that is managed as a
 6       matter of procedure in the event that it does happen?
 7   A.  It has happened in Bedfordshire, yes, where a couple of
 8       fingerprint experts have had to go away and produce a
 9       charted enlargements of the actual identifications in
10       that case, yes.
11   Q.  Just asking a little more about this, do you know
12       whether that came about as a result of a request from
13       the prosecution authority rather than perhaps something
14       raised by a jury which, certainly in Scottish
15       experience, would be a relatively unusual thing?
16   A.  I see what you mean, yes.  I think it was the
17       prosecution or the defence would ask for that, yes.
18   Q.  One more question about your preparation for court,
19       Mr Luckraft: when you go about your work of preparing
20       comparisons do you keep working notes of what you are
21       seeing as you go along?
22   A.  As a rule, no, with sort of basic day-to-day work but if
23       there is movement or pressure distortion, then we do
24       make notes if it looks as though it's a particularly
25       difficult examination.
page  70
 1   Q.  At what stage do you make those notes?  We've heard
 2       about the ACE-V procedure.  Would that be at the stage
 3       of your analysis or at the stage of your comparison or
 4       at the stage of your evaluation?
 5   A.  It can be made at each of those processes and also when
 6       we get a request for fingerprint evidence from the
 7       prosecution, we would also make notes there as well.
 8   Q.  Do you make either the notes made at the earlier stage
 9       or any notes that you're making once you know the case
10       is going to court available to the prosecution or the
11       defence?
12   A.  I think they are mainly made at the point where we know
13       the case is going to court but I have been part of
14       making notes at the earlier stage as well.
15   Q.  Do you provide those, sorry, to the prosecution
16       authorities, your notes?
17   A.  Yes, there is full disclosure.  What we do produce as
18       well is a standard format in listing everything involved
19       in that case.  So there's a list of disclosure.
20   Q.  You have referred on a number of occasions to what we do
21       both in relation to the generic illustration and in
22       relation to note-taking.
23           First, in relation to the question of illustration,
24       is there a force policy on the matter as to how this is
25       to be done?
page  71
 1   A.  No, there isn't a force policy and there isn't a
 2       national policy.
 3   Q.  In relation to your taking of notes, is there a policy
 4       where you work relating to that or is it a case of
 5       everything man following his own instinct as to what's
 6       necessary?
 7   A.  There isn't a policy on that and I don't believe there's
 8       a national standard on that, a national policy on that
 9       either.
10   Q.  Again, I come back to the use of your word "we",
11       Mr Luckraft, because I can understand if you're telling
12       us about your own practice as to note-taking but I think
13       you did say -- I don't have the LiveNote in front of me
14       but I think you said "we do" in that context as well and
15       I'm just wondering where the collective comes from if
16       there is not a policy?
17   A.  Right, well, yes, I mean that is something that we do in
18       the Bedfordshire Bureau but I couldn't account for what
19       happens elsewhere.
20   Q.  Why is it done in the Bedfordshire Bureau collectively?
21       Is there any particular training within your Bureau that
22       directs people to do it or a particular instruction
23       within your Bureau about that?
24   A.  I think it's down to the training and it could possibly
25       be mentioned in the procedure, in that any note should
page  72
 1       be taken at the time.
 2   Q.  It was my fault, I did not catch the very last thing you
 3       said there, Mr Luckraft.
 4   A.  It could be the case that notes to be taken is detailed
 5       in the procedure, in the Bedfordshire procedure.
 6   Q.  But that is not something that you can tell us off the
 7       top of your head, as it were?
 8   A.  I can't recall what part of the procedure it would be
 9       but ...
10   Q.  In any event, you are describing what goes on as a
11       matter of practice?
12   A.  As a matter of practice, yes.
13   THE CHAIRMAN:  Have we a sufficient record of the example of
14       that we can give the book back to ...?
15   MISS CARMICHAEL:  I wonder if we might be permitted to take
16       a photocopy of it so we can have a record of what has
17       been displayed here but I wouldn't want to deprive Mr
18       Luckraft of it.
19   A.  I can provide a photocopy.  There is one for you.
20   MISS CARMICHAEL:  That is very kind of you.
21   THE CHAIRMAN:  Maybe if you give it to some member of the
22       staff before you leave that would be very helpful.
23       Thank you very much indeed.
24   MISS GRAHAME:  Sorry, Mr Chairman, before Mr Luckraft's
25       invited to leave, there is a matter which I wonder if I
page  73
 1       could be allowed to ask a question about.  It arises as
 2       a result of the questions Miss Carmichael raised.
 3   THE CHAIRMAN:  Certainly.
 4                  Cross-examined by MISS GRAHAME
 5   Q.  I would like to ask you one or two questions,
 6       Mr Luckraft, about the procedure in England.
 7           Can I clarify one thing with you.  You have talked
 8       about preparing written notes before a trial.
 9   A.  Yes?
10   Q.  And giving the Crown Prosecution Service full
11       disclosure.
12   A.  (Nodded)
13   Q.  Do the Crown Prosecution Service have a report from you
14       in relation to any identification?
15   A.  They have the statement.
16   Q.  Is it a statement rather than a report?
17   A.  It is a statement, yes.
18   Q.  Can I ask, in Scotland we have a procedure known as
19       taking a precognition from an expert, which is when the
20       expert will meet with the prosecutor, in Scotland the
21       Fiscal, and discuss a statement or a report with the
22       Fiscal and go into some further explanation about the
23       reasoning.
24           Do you have a similar process in England or in
25       Bedfordshire?
page  74
 1   A.  I'm not sure, to be honest with you.
 2   THE CHAIRMAN:  Do you make a deposition in criminal
 3       proceedings in England?  For example, if you are giving
 4       evidence.  You see, a precognition is not a signed
 5       statement.  It is what somebody else records as being
 6       your evidence.  My experience would be closer to the
 7       English practice, which would be that you would have a
 8       deposition, which is a sworn statement --
 9   A.  That's right.
10   THE CHAIRMAN:  -- by the witness in the proceedings, which
11       is served on the defence before the proceedings
12       commence.
13   A.  That's correct, yes.  That's my experience at
14       Bedfordshire, yes.
15   MISS GRAHAME:  So the statement you mentioned is actually a
16       signed deposition.
17   A.  Correct, yes.
18   Q.  And there is no meeting between you and the prosecutor
19       where the prosecutor will take notes and prepare what's
20       known in Scotland as a precognition?
21   A.  No, no, that doesn't happen.
22   Q.  So the prosecutor has your statement or deposition plus
23       your handwritten notes?
24   A.  They wouldn't necessarily have the -- yes, they would.
25       Yes, they would -- full disclosure, yes.
page  75
 1   Q.  Is that if they are only going to trial?
 2   A.  That's correct, yes.
 3   Q.  Do they also receive that if there's a plea agreed or
 4       the case isn't proceeding to trial?
 5   A.  No, they would only receive the statement and a
 6       disclosure report and a list of what we hold but that
 7       wouldn't be made available to them unless it was going
 8       to court, going to trial.
 9   Q.  Is that the written notes wouldn't be made --
10   A.  That's right.
11   MISS GRAHAME:  Thank you very much.
12   THE CHAIRMAN:  I think now we can finally let you go.  Thank
13       you very much, Mr Luckraft.
14                      (The witness withdrew)
15                     ALLAN JOHN BAYLE, sworn
16   THE CHAIRMAN:  Could we have your full names, please?
17   A.  Allan John Bayle.
18   THE CHAIRMAN:  Take a seat, please.
19                   Examined by MISS CARMICHAEL
20   Q.  Please make yourself comfortable with the microphone and
21       bring it as close to you as you can because that makes
22       it easier for everybody to hear.
23           Mr Bayle, before we turn to your statement and the
24       rest of your evidence, I understand you have brought
25       along today some transparencies and some images which
page  76
 1       the Inquiry has not seen before.
 2   A.  Yes.  I mentioned it in my statement that I didn't know
 3       where they were but Sunday night I was looking for
 4       another case and I found them, which was excellent
 5       because it shows -- what I've actually learnt over the
 6       years now as an instructor and I was given the
 7       opportunity to go to America to learn the new techniques
 8       in fingerprint identification.  I did the research for
 9       New Scotland Yard and it taught me a lot on how to do
10       modern marking-up without using lines.  The reason for
11       this was to let the jury and the judicial in the court
12       make the decision by looking at shape.  Shape is very
13       important when you are actually making identifications.
14           I mean, I've asked quite a few people.  I've said,
15       "Okay, look at the normal identification with the
16       lines".  They're not looking at the ridge
17       characteristics.  They are looking at position of the
18       lines.  This technique I got from David Ashbaugh because
19       he taught me how to concentrate on shape and how to make
20       it easier for juries by using shape to actually use the
21       identification themselves without looking at lines.
22           You don't need a table, characteristic table,
23       because the way I've actually done it using shape.  And
24       that's the reason why I'm glad I've found these because
25       they are very important and we actually used them for
page  77
 1       the first time in the United Kingdom at the Lockerbie
 2       Inquiry and I hope they haven't lost them because it's
 3       the first time we ever used this type of marking up in
 4       this country and it is very effective.
 5   Q.  What I would like to do is take this opportunity to get
 6       on the record what it is you have brought us.
 7           I am conscious that we are coming to lunchtime.
 8       That may give others who have not seen them before
 9       either, sir, an opportunity to see them and see what
10       significance they may have.  I should say they are as
11       new to me as they are to anybody else in the room.
12           I understand you have brought two enlarged
13       photographic images; is that correct?
14   A.  Yes, I have, yes.
15   Q.  Is one of them an image of mark Y7?
16   A.  Yes, it is.
17   Q.  I wonder if you could simply at this stage hold it up.
18       As I say, over lunchtime there will be the opportunity
19       to circulate this.  If we could just see broadly what it
20       is you have with you.
21   A.  That's an enlargement of Y7.
22   Q.  It looks as if it has been copied from something that
23       has perhaps been comb-bound on the left?
24   A.  That's just -- that was taken from the actual mark
25       itself.  This is a Pat Wertheim mark, by the way, so
page  78
 1       it's an enlargement of actual Y7.
 2   Q.  You said it was a Pat Wertheim image so --
 3   A.  Yes.  It was taken from that image.  I think it was the
 4       second time he photographed it.  When I went with him he
 5       photographed it and then I got it enlarged at New
 6       Scotland Yard.
 7   Q.  So this would have been an image taken, what, in early
 8       2000?
 9   A.  Whenever it was when I was with him.  He took another
10       photograph of the actual mark itself.
11   THE CHAIRMAN:  April 2000?
12   MISS CARMICHAEL:  I think there was a stage when you and
13       Mr Wertheim in about maybe March or April 2000 together
14       viewed productions from the Asbury trial; is that
15       correct?
16   A.  Yes, but he also -- I can't even remember if I was with
17       him or not when he actually took the photograph again.
18       I just can't remember, but I think he took another
19       photograph of it and that image -- and I got it enlarged
20       because I wanted to work on it anyway.
21   Q.  Do you understand that to be a photograph that was taken
22       of the doorframe itself or a photograph of a photograph?
23   A.  I think it's the enlargement of the-photograph.
24   Q.  Sorry, I'm not asking the question sufficiently clearly.
25       But that photograph derives from somebody pointing a
page  79
 1       camera at the doorframe rather than at anything else?
 2   A.  Yes.
 3   Q.  You obtained the enlargement through New Scotland Yard,
 4       you said?
 5   A.  Yes, I used their photographic section.  I didn't tell
 6       them what it was, by the way.  I just said I wanted it
 7       done, you know, so ...
 8   Q.  You have also with you an enlarged photographic image of
 9       a left thumbprint from Shirley McKie?
10   A.  That's right, yes.
11   Q.  Where did you get that?
12   A.  That was taken from the fingerprint form whenever -- I
13       don't know.  I can't remember now.  It was so long ago,
14       but I got the image there so I had that enlarged as well
15       and then I could work on them.
16   Q.  So do I understand you to be saying that you yourself
17       had that enlarged from a fingerprint form?
18   A.  No, it's from a photograph.  That was also from a
19       photograph.  I'm not too sure.  It's such a long time
20       ago.  I just can't remember but all I know is that it
21       was a copy of the actual image there.  I just can't
22       remember.  I just can't remember.  But it is one of
23       Shirley McKie's left thumb anyway.
24   Q.  Do you know how you got the image?  If you can't
25       remember you can't remember and I appreciate this is a
page  80
 1       long time ago but can you recall where you got the image
 2       that you copied the left thumbprint from?
 3   A.  Well, I've had to get it from Pat or somebody so I'd say
 4       it's probably from Pat Wertheim.
 5   Q.  Again the enlargement was done by ...?
 6   A.  New Scotland Yard.
 7   Q.  You have brought some transparencies with markings on
 8       them with you as well.
 9   A.  From this, I mean, this is the first one I did of the
10       actual mark.
11   Q.  I am just going to try to get this into the record in
12       some way, Mr Bayle.  What we've got are two acetates one
13       sellotaped on top of the other?
14   A.  I've got one of top of the other.  There's two things to
15       this technique.  The first thing is to actually, via
16       the -- like you've got on the computer here were you use
17       the cursor to follow the ridge detail, I actually use a
18       pen to follow the ridge detail so it actually gives me
19       this image.
20   Q.  So you are showing the lower, if I can call it that, of
21       the two transparencies which has a series of what appear
22       to be green ridge tracings on it with a gap about
23       two-thirds of the way up in a roughly rectangular shape?
24   A.  That's right.  That's the area that I couldn't find any
25       ridge detail.  I've got a funny feeling now the reason
page  81
 1       why I did this was for a press conference to show them
 2       the technique that hasn't been shown before in public.
 3       I wanted to explain -- I mean, I've actually put this on
 4       top of that and ... I'll explain that later.
 5   Q.  If I can stop you there, could I ask you to show us the
 6       top transparency, the smaller one, separately from the
 7       second one just so we can see?
 8   A.  Okay, this has got triangles and circles on.  The
 9       triangles represent bifurcations and the direction it's
10       going in.  So the apex is actually where the bifurcation
11       is.  The circles are ridge endings and we use other
12       shapes as well for other things, like short independent
13       ridges I'll do a square.  So you can do the shapes to
14       your advantage to show the judge and jury and it's very
15       effective.
16           So, in fact, when you actually put the circles and
17       the triangles on to the lines I've actually drawn there,
18       it actually explodes there what it's actually looking at
19       so you've got the ridge ending or the bifurcations.
20   Q.  Is this something that you prepared from tracing the
21       photograph of the mark Y7 that you have brought with you
22       today? (EE0001 to EE0008)
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  You say you prepared those for a press conference?
25   A.  Yes, a press conference, I'm pretty sure it was for a
page  82
 1       press conference.
 2   Q.  I perhaps do not need to ask you any more about those at
 3       least at this stage and perhaps the lunchtime break will
 4       give others the opportunity to see whether they are
 5       interested in asking you anything further about that
 6       also, Mr Bayle.
 7           You have prepared a statement for the Inquiry and
 8       you have signed that.
 9   A.  I did, yes.
10   Q.  Are you happy, subject to anything that you may say to
11       elaborate on it or that differs from it today, to adopt
12       it as your evidence?
13   A.  This is my evidence.
14   Q.  Could we have, please, FI0154, which is Mr Bayle's
15       statement.  I would like to look at paragraph 8, please,
16       where you tell us about how you first became involved
17       with mark Y7.
18   A.  Yes.  I was sent over to Canada by the Lockerbie
19       prosecution team.
20   Q.  Ah, there is perhaps something I need to clarify with
21       you immediately because your statement says the
22       Lockerbie defence team and I confess that was something
23       that had confused me slightly since you seemed to be
24       working for the police at the time.
25   A.  Sorry.  Yes, it was the prosecution team because they
page  83
 1       were very aware that because of the 16-point standard it
 2       might not be accepted in the court in Scotland.  So I
 3       was approached by Bruce Grant who was in charge of the
 4       terrorist team there at New Scotland Yard.
 5   Q.  I don't need perhaps to ask you too much about the
 6       detail of your involvement in another case.  I don't
 7       think that necessarily would be appropriate but --
 8   A.  Okay, so I was asked by the prosecution to do a report
 9       and to do a marked-up on the impressions there which I
10       did.
11           My biggest problem was there was nobody else in the
12       UK that could check my work and do the second checking
13       of my report and my marking-up.  They sent me over to
14       Canada with David Ashbaugh and he checked my report, my
15       marking-up and that was very good for me because he
16       taught me a lot in one week which he never teaches
17       anybody else.  It was a one-to-one and he taught me this
18       way of actually marking-up and report-writing as well.
19   Q.  So when you are talked about this way of marking up you
20       are talking about the sort of ridge tracing you have
21       shown us on the transparencies you have brought along
22       today?
23   A.  That's correct, that's correct and during that week he
24       said, "Have you seen this mark", and I said, "Well, I
25       have seen it before but I didn't take any notice", and
page  84
 1       the reason why I said I'd seen it before is because it
 2       was on various teams' walls at New Scotland Yard and
 3       people were talking about it and -- but because I was
 4       instructed at the Police College in Hendon I didn't take
 5       any notice.  I had my own problems to deal with without
 6       looking at somebody else's work so I ignored it.  But
 7       when I went to Canada and David Ashbaugh said, "Take a
 8       look at that.  What do you think".  So I looked at it, I
 9       examined it I said, "Well, it's not, identical.  They're
10       not identical".
11           So he said, "Well, what are you going to do about
12       it?"  I said, "What do you want me to do about it".
13   Q.  He asked you what you were going to do about it?
14   A.  That's right because I was well-known, in America and
15       various other places as an instructor and I taught the
16       US Army and various other organisations, whatever.  So I
17       didn't think any more about it and I went back to the
18       UK and I had a thought about it and I still see it on
19       people's walls so I decided, well, I'll think about it
20       and see if anything happens.
21           Anyway in that time, David Ashbaugh was invited to
22       come over to do some lectures on ridgeology and I was
23       chosen to do the courses with him and we did four
24       courses.  We did two in London and two in Durham.
25           He decided we'll show this Y7 to all the students
page  85
 1       except for the last one because there was two from SCRO
 2       who were on the last one.  We had a problem with the
 3       fourth one -- oh, Jeff Sheppard was working with us, by
 4       the way, from Durham -- and we decided not to show them
 5       Y7 because of these two SCRO people were there and then
 6       Jeff Sheppard interrupted us and said, "Look, we've had
 7       some officer in the hierarchy from SCRO complaining that
 8       we're showing the mark".  So David Ashbaugh said, "Look,
 9       it's on the Internet.  It doesn't make a blind bit of
10       difference.  Tell him it doesn't make a difference, it's
11       on the Internet".  So that was that.
12           Anyway, after --
13   Q.  If I can stop you there, there is something I would like
14       to ask you about that because if I have understood
15       Mr Sheppard's position, it was that he was not aware
16       until there was some complaint about the matter that Y7
17       was a mark that you were using on these courses?
18   A.  Yes, we showed it to every course, so three courses we
19       showed it to.
20   Q.  What I'm trying to get at is Mr Sheppard's position, if
21       I am reflecting this correctly, is that he was not aware
22       that he was dealing with Y7 at the time that you were
23       presenting these courses.
24           Is that something where your recollection and his
25       differs?
page  86
 1   A.  Well, I mean sometimes he wasn't in the -- because he
 2       went away and then came back or whatever but we did show
 3       it and, in fact, one of the students was Martin
 4       Leadbetter on the first course and we showed it to him.
 5       Now then, he said, "Well, I know somebody that's saying
 6       it's definitely ident".  So we said, well, we knew who
 7       that was.  So fair enough but that's all he said.  But
 8       he was one of the students and he saw it and we gave
 9       each student a copy of it.  We had lots done of the mark
10       and we asked them to look at it.  Not one of them found
11       it ident.
12           That was the position of that.  After all this had
13       finished, I then went to management and I said, "What
14       are you doing about the McKie mark".
15   MISS CARMICHAEL:  If I can stop you perhaps before we go on
16       to that because I think we may come back to those
17       courses briefly after lunch.  This might be a convenient
18       point to break.
19   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, we will break now and sit again at 1.50.
20   (1.00 pm)
21                     (Luncheon Adjournment)
22   (1.52 pm)
23                   ALLAN JOHN BAYLE (continued)
24             Examined by MISS CARMICHAEL (continued)
25   Q.  Thank you, sir.
page  87
 1           Mr Bayle, just before lunchtime you were telling us
 2       about the courses that you had been involved in and you
 3       started to speak about Mr Leadbetter.
 4           There was just one point I wanted to follow up on on
 5       that.  What you said in your statement is that
 6       Mr Leadbetter did not dissent.
 7           There's a difference between somebody not showing
 8       dissent and actively agreeing or disagreeing.
 9   A.  No, I don't think he wanted to say anything, which we
10       were a bit amazed about because everybody else in the
11       room was saying it definitely wasn't Shirley McKie's
12       mark.  But I wasn't surprised but then when he said he
13       had a friend who said it was identical we knew who he
14       was talking about.  But we did show to them except, the
15       last one for good reasons.
16   Q.  I would like to go back and ask you something perhaps I
17       should have asked you earlier.  When you were shown the
18       mark by Mr Ashbaugh, what exactly did he tell you about
19       it?
20   A.  Well, he just said, you know -- well, he didn't say
21       anything about it because he didn't want to say anything
22       about it; he just wanted my opinion on it.  He wanted my
23       opinion on it, I think, because he didn't want to give
24       me any clues or anything else but I knew I'd seen it
25       before but I didn't know anything about it.
page  88
 1   Q.  So he didn't tell you his view about it?
 2   A.  No, he just said, "Can you have a look at it", and
 3       that's what I did.  He didn't mention SCRO or anything
 4       like that, any experts or whatever.  He just said, "What
 5       do you think of this mark".
 6   Q.  So the first time you saw it, were you or were you not
 7       aware that it was Y7 and Shirley McKie's mark you were
 8       dealing with?
 9   A.  No, no, I didn't know at all.  Even when people were
10       talking at New Scotland Yard I didn't really take any
11       interest because I've got my own -- I was an instructor
12       at Hendon and I only used to go to New Scotland Yard for
13       liaison visits and making sure the students are doing
14       what they're supposed to do and getting an update on
15       their progress.  So when I did see it on the walls I
16       looked at it but I didn't really take any notice of it.
17       I wasn't really interested in it.
18   Q.  Could we have paragraph FI0154, that is on page 2.
19       Before we leave paragraph 9 just to return to the detail
20       of this for a moment you say in your statement that on
21       your return from seeing Mr Ashbaugh you started to make
22       enquiries.  What were those enquiries?
23   A.  I wanted to know what was happening about this mark;
24       what was New Scotland Yard doing about it.  Their reply
25       was, "We do not investigate other police forces".  Now,
page  89
 1       that comment shocked me because I thought now here we
 2       have a lady who's supposedly left a mark at the scene
 3       and it's not her mark.  Why are they keeping quiet?  Why
 4       aren't they doing something about it?  And it just got
 5       to me.  I thought this is wrong and I didn't like the
 6       attitude of senior officers at New Scotland Yard.  As
 7       far as they are concerned it's SCRO's problem.  Well, to
 8       me, on, it's not their problem.  It's everybody's
 9       problem because it will affect us in the future and by
10       God it has.
11   Q.  You go on to say you were told it would be sorted out by
12       senior officers.  That's the next sentence in your
13       statement.
14   A.  Mmm.  They said, well, they would sort it out.  I did
15       hear later that the Director of Identification, who was
16       Mr Chris Coombes at the time, actually wrote to the
17       hierarchy at SCRO requesting that they look at the mark.
18       I think they turning him down.  I'm pretty sure they
19       turned him down but that's second-hand, by the way.  I'm
20       not too ... that's what I heard.
21   Q.  What did you see your own role in all this as at that
22       point?
23   A.  I was confused, I was angry and I thought this can't go
24       on and I tackled them again after a few months and their
25       attitude was as worse as ever and I had the feeling
page  90
 1       there, especially with Mr Bruce Grant -- he was a
 2       Scotsman by the way -- his attitude was that I don't
 3       think he wanted to get investigated or (inaudible) it at
 4       all.  He didn't want to know.
 5           I thought, right, I've had enough of this and I'll
 6       go on to the Internet and the night before or when I was
 7       going on the Internet I said to my wife, "This is the
 8       end of my career", and I went on to the Internet and
 9       then the next day all hell broke loose.  You can
10       imagine, can't you?
11           The reason why I did that was because it was
12       becoming Scotland versus America.  You had the SCRO
13       experts against Pat Wertheim and Dave Grieve.  Nothing
14       was being done and I thought I can only make that
15       difference and I knew I'd make the difference.  So from
16       are member from New Scotland Yard, from the Scientific
17       Support College, to say ... and go in agreement with the
18       Americans that must have hit them for a six and I knew
19       it would and it certainly did.
20   Q.  Just on this theme, if I can take you to paragraph 10 of
21       your statement, Mr Bayle, you say there that by
22       18th January 2000 you knew nobody was going to speak up
23       publicly in the UK about the case?
24   A.  That's right.
25   Q.  I'm wondering why we light on this date, 18th January,
page  91
 1       and why your mind was decided by that particular point?
 2   A.  It was just by that date I had had enough.  It was
 3       just -- I mean, I made a note of it you see, that's why
 4       I put it in the -- it's just a date that I knew that
 5       nobody's going to talk about it, nobody's going to do
 6       anything about it and that's when I decided to start
 7       talking up about it and speaking about it.
 8   Q.  How did you know that?  How did you know that nobody was
 9       going to speak up about it or talk about it?
10   A.  Because just of their attitude and because I challenged
11       senior officers.  I challenged them quite a few times
12       and I knew that nothing was going -- nothing was going
13       on on the Internet.  Nobody from the UK would speak up
14       and because I know, okay, there's a culture at SCRO.
15       There's also a culture in England and it's this culture
16       that the lads stick together, you mustn't speak out and
17       I found that difficult as well and I thought, well,
18       it's -- somebody here could actually commit suicide
19       because of a result of incompetence.  That's what I saw
20       it as and that's the reason why I went on the Internet.
21           I was known because I taught a lot of US officers on
22       fingerprints and stuff like that.  So I was well-known
23       and I thought this was the only way I could hit it and
24       bring it to the fore but I did know it would finish my
25       career, which it did in the end.
page  92
 1   Q.  So you made a decision to publish your own views on the
 2       Internet?
 3   A.  Yes, I did, yes.
 4   Q.  I think the Inquiry has heard that shortly after that
 5       time there came to be a BBC documentary and a number of
 6       official investigations that followed after that so it
 7       would appear, perhaps with the wisdom of hindsight, that
 8       others were interested and that other investigations did
 9       follow.  Would that be fair to say?
10   A.  Yes, just a bit because when -- the day after I went on
11       the Internet I was actually marched in, literally
12       marched in, and I knew what was coming and the head
13       of -- there's no point mentioning his name -- anyway, he
14       called me in, the head of the Scientific Bureau, and
15       said, "What have you done?"  I said, "What do you mean
16       what have I done?"  He said, "You've gone against SCRO".
17       I said, "Yes, that's right.  I'm doing my honest
18       analysis and it's not her mark.  What are you going to
19       do about it?"
20           "We're going to bring disciplinary action against
21       you."
22           "Well, go ahead."
23           A few months after that or whatever they did try to
24       bring disciplinary action against me and they called a
25       day -- they called a union man -- I called the union man
page  93
 1       in with me, a higher manager interviewed me and we got
 2       about 10 minutes/15 minutes through the interview and
 3       the union man says, "Are you going to carry on with
 4       this?  It's corruption".  So the manager said, "I can
 5       see that.  We're going to stop this interview now", and
 6       then I got a letter saying that I would not be
 7       disciplined.  But after that, it got a little bit hairy.
 8   Q.  If I can take you on to paragraph 15 of your statement,
 9       is this the interview that you are talking about at the
10       moment?
11   A.  Right, that was the interview by Tayside Police.
12   Q.  No, I'm sorry.  You start the paragraph saying:
13           "I was interviewed by officers from Tayside Police",
14       then two lines later you say:
15           "Some time later I was interviewed for a
16       disciplinary matter regarding my conduct with the McKie
17       case."
18           Is that what you are talking about here?
19   A.  Yes.
20   Q.  So it was some time after 11th August?
21   A.  Yes.
22   Q.  So should we understand that you remained in your job
23       certainly through from the January to the August?
24   A.  Mmm.
25   Q.  But in the meantime you tell us also that you had been
page  94
 1       meeting with Pat Wertheim, looking at certain matters
 2       connected with the McKie and Asbury cases?
 3   A.  That's right.
 4   Q.  And, indeed, meeting a film crew in the April in
 5       Kilmarnock?
 6   A.  That's correct, yes.  There was a Panorama team, I
 7       think, I'm not too sure now or it was -- I can't
 8       remember.  I made quite a few media presentations.
 9   Q.  What exactly was your role at this stage because you
10       weren't at that stage yet an independent fingerprint
11       expert?
12   A.  No, I was at New Scotland Yard.  I tried to do things
13       under cover but I realised that my career was finished
14       anyway so I was going to head -- I went ahead with Pat
15       and this was the Marion Ross mark on the tin and Pat
16       took photographs of it and he said, "Don't look at it
17       now.  You go back to your Bureau.  I'll go back to mine.
18       We'll phone each other when we've looked at it".  So
19       some time after I phoned Pat up in America and he says,
20       "What do you think then?"  I said, "Well, it's not
21       Marion Ross's print".  He said, "Yes, you're damn right
22       it isn't".  So we went ahead with that, so we made a
23       programme with it.
24           After that one, I was called in again and they said,
25       "Mr Bayle, you have been in front of the cameras again".
page  95
 1       I said, "Yes, that's right, because you're not doing
 2       anything about it so that's it".  Well, I think the
 3       Official Secrets Act was mentioned then.  I thought
 4       that's a load of rubbish for a start but do your worst.
 5       Well, they did their worst in the end because they made
 6       my life a bit of a misery.  They stopped me from going
 7       to the ACPO training meetings.  Which I found a bit
 8       silly really because there was a member of SCRO who was
 9       at the ACPO training meetings, Mr Dunbar.  They didn't
10       ban him.  They banned me.
11           I then wasn't allowed to do any advanced courses,
12       just fingerprint courses, just for the basic stuff, I
13       thought was an insult to my intelligence.  I did a few
14       courses.  I'd had enough.  I decided, well, can I go
15       back on the area as crime scene examiner, going to major
16       crime scenes.  I was refused.  I then had a word with my
17       family and said, "Right, I've had enough of this.  I
18       think I'll go independent", and they said do it.  So I
19       handed in my resignation.
20   Q.  When did that happen?
21   A.  I think it was a further(?) time in the year, or
22       something like that.  I can't remember dates any more
23       but it was some time after anyway because it was over a
24       period and it was getting worse and worse and in the end
25       I couldn't do it any longer.  I had to get out.
page  96
 1   Q.  The events that you describe, were these entirely as a
 2       result of your involvement with the McKie case?
 3   A.  Yes, it was, yes.  There's no doubt about that because
 4       they sent me over to America to do the ridgeology
 5       course.  I was doing all the research for modernisation
 6       of fingerprint experts in this country.  I wrote a
 7       manual for future expertise looking at identification
 8       and since that time I've actually changed the way I
 9       present evidence to courts, especially in Scotland as
10       well.  So it's been a big change but I've been doing it
11       now for, what, nine years, doing just reports and not
12       statements.  I do forensic reports in Scotland and
13       solicitors like it, the judiciary like it.  I've never
14       had to use the marking up, which I'm a bit disappointed
15       about because my reports are very good.
16           Two reports -- they were basic reports when I first
17       started, like the mark on the tin and the other mark,
18       you can actually see the reports I've done there and
19       they are completely different from the reports that a
20       normal expert does and that's the way I was going to
21       start teaching experts in this country.  "Forget about
22       statements, you want to call yourself forensic
23       scientists, you want to call yourself scientists, then
24       you have to do a report on what you see.  I want you to
25       tell me what you see in that mark, not say I've got so
page  97
 1       many points in agreement.  So what?  It doesn't mean
 2       anything.  I want you to tell me -- do your notes and
 3       tell me how you come to your conclusions", and that's
 4       what I now do in reports and I've been doing that for
 5       nine years.  I don't do statements any more.  I do
 6       forensic reports.
 7   Q.  So your view is that you are very clearly of the view
 8       then, I take it, that you would be wanting to record
 9       things like the medium of development, matters relating
10       to the deposition of the mark, those sorts of factors in
11       your report?
12   A.  Yes.  I did have meetings with senior solicitors about
13       how to present evidence in this country.  We had
14       problems with the Americans and the Canadians as well
15       with some of the technicality of the wording like if
16       there's a problem they call them red flags.  Now to me
17       that was unscientific and I said to Ashbaugh, "We can't
18       use red flags here.  Nobody knows what red flags are.
19       It's problematic areas.  It's more scientist".  It's
20       things like matrix.  Well, we don't understand matrix in
21       this question.  So the wording, if there was a question
22       of pressure distortion, things like that, it was okay
23       but some of the wording like incipient ridges, double
24       taps, we don't use that in this country.  It wouldn't be
25       accepted.  That's Americanism, so we stopped all that.
page  98
 1   Q.  When you say you had discussions with senior solicitors
 2       about reports, were these defence solicitors or
 3       prosecution lawyers?
 4   A.  No, they were from the Crown Office or wherever.  They
 5       were quite senior lawyers and they wanted to know where
 6       we were going in giving our evidence and I had meetings
 7       with some of the senior staff there on what I wanted to
 8       do and how to present evidence in court.
 9   Q.  When you say in this country, do you mean Scotland
10       specifically?
11   A.  When I said "this country", sorry, I mean the whole of
12       the United Kingdom.
13   Q.  Because you will appreciate there are different
14       prosecution authorities in Scotland than in England and
15       I would like to be quite clear who it is you say you met
16       and had discussions with.
17   A.  Yes and I had some big problems when I started giving
18       evidence in Scotland as well and I had to learn that
19       particular way but the reports on what I had actually
20       done, giving evidence it's all been accepted in
21       Scotland, say, for the last nine years now.  So I
22       actually do a forensic report now.
23           You were talking about notes with Richard and
24       whatever.  Well, the notes -- my notes and my report,
25       when I've got a mark in front of me I write my report.
page  99
 1       My notes are in my report because I'm actually
 2       describing that mark.  Now, I don't even look, do the
 3       comparison.  I want to know everything that's going on
 4       in that mark.  I want to know all the movement.  I want
 5       to know where everything is going from.  Is there a
 6       delta region?  Is there a core region?  Is part of the
 7       mark missing?  Is there a lot of pressure?  I put all
 8       that in my book.
 9           Now then, when I've finished all that and I look at
10       the fingerprint I can see where the problems are and I
11       can actually describe is there enough ridge
12       characteristic to make an agreement?  Yes, there is.
13       Are the furrows okay?  Yes, it is.  I never, ever
14       mentioned in nine years -- in fact it's ten because when
15       I was in New Scotland Yard in the last year I was
16       actually doing cases at New Scotland Yard using
17       ridgeology.
18           So in these final reports I don't mention how many
19       ridge characteristics.  There's no need to because I've
20       done the analysis.
21   Q.  I'm not sure I was quite clear that I got an answer to
22       the question, you're not saying, are you, that you have
23       met with senior Scottish legal personnel about
24       preparation of evidence?
25   A.  No, no, but they have accepted my evidence.
page 100
 1   THE CHAIRMAN:  So it would have been the Crown Prosecution
 2       Service in England and Wales that you talked to?
 3   A.  That's right, sir.
 4   MISS CARMICHAEL:  I would like to move on, please, to
 5       paragraph 16 of your statement, Mr Bayle.  I wonder if
 6       we could have AZ0011 up on the screen at page 5, please,
 7       alongside.  I think this is the petition or part of it
 8       that you refer to in your statement.
 9   A.  Yes.
10   Q.  That was a petition to the Scottish Parliament.
11           If we look at the second paragraph on the page
12       on the right here we see:
13           "We believe the best way to resolve the matters we
14       raise is to commission a fingerprint expert of world
15       renown to examine them therefore respectfully suggest
16       that the relevant committee of the Scottish Parliament
17       seeks the assistance of the Royal Canadian Mounted
18       Police to obtain the service of the World's foremost
19       fingerprint experts, David Ashbaugh, in this regard."
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  Can I suggest to you that it was perhaps a slightly
22       curious suggestion that you made there of Mr Ashbaugh
23       knowing that he was of a particular view about Y7 and
24       that he might, therefore, not be perceived to be an
25       entirely independent person for the purposes you were
page 101
 1       suggesting there?
 2   A.  The Canadians are the world leaders in identification.
 3       Although it said David Ashbaugh there, he's a man
 4       that -- he looks at everything as a scientist and he was
 5       the best man.  Although we say, yes, he's looked at it
 6       and whatever -- because SCRO were making all sorts of
 7       statements saying it's not the same mark and all this
 8       silly business.  But anyway, David Ashbaugh was the best
 9       person we thought because, I mean, don't forget on the
10       internet there we were getting such response from over
11       the world, come on, what we doing about it, and we all
12       decided that this was the best way to go.  And David
13       Ashbaugh really, although, yes, he's made a few comments
14       and whatever, he wasn't involved as much as Pat
15       Wertheim, Dave Grieve or myself or Arie Zeelenberg.  So
16       that's what -- we decided to do that because he was the
17       best in the world.
18   Q.  I think I will be corrected if I am wrong, I am sure,
19       but I think I am right in saying Mr Wertheim had
20       originally shown the mark to Mr Ashbaugh; is that right?
21   A.  Yes, that was at an IAI conference, I think.
22   Q.  And mr Ashbaugh had shown you the mark because he was
23       concerned about it?
24   A.  Yes.
25   Q.  So thinking about this for a moment for the point of
page 102
 1       view of the SCRO personnel and organisation, would you
 2       accept that it would perhaps be rather difficult for
 3       them to see him as an independent and honest broker in
 4       the way that you are suggesting in this petition?
 5   A.  They knew about David Ashbaugh and they sent people on
 6       the courses so I don't think it had been a problem for
 7       SCRO.  Why?  They must have known about David Ashbaugh.
 8       Everybody was accepting his work so -- he was a very
 9       good person to do that, the best person to do that.
10   Q.  I would like to ask you a little bit about one of the
11       reports you wrote and if we could have SG0518, please.
12       What should come up here is the report that you wrote
13       about Y7, SG0518.
14           I think you started to tell us a little bit about
15       how you write your reports.  It should be on the screen
16       for you, Mr Bayle.
17   A.  Yes, I've got it.  I just wanted to look at my own but
18       okay.
19   THE CHAIRMAN:  If you would prefer to work from your
20       original, from your own copy?
21   A.  No, it's all right sir, no problem, no problem.
22   MISS CARMICHAEL:  When you are telling us how you come to
23       write your reports we see here you mention the
24       substrate, which in lay language is what we find the
25       mark on?
page 103
 1   A.  That's right.
 2   Q.  I think you indicated didn't much like the term matrix
 3       yourself, perhaps you can tell us what you meant here.
 4   A.  No, this is the very beginning of my career in writing
 5       reports.  It's changed a hell of a lot since then but I
 6       myself wanted to do a forensic report on this and it was
 7       a good opportunity to do that and for people to actually
 8       see where I was coming from when I wrote this report.
 9       But I have changed a hell of a lot and I've learnt a lot
10       in the last nine years on how to write reports and
11       whatever.  But this is how, yes, that's how I started in
12       doing this particular one.
13   Q.  So we see, in ordinary language, a description of some
14       aspects of the appearance of the mark?
15   A.  That's correct.
16   Q.  You mention the development medium.  You say you could
17       see no evidence of any other developing powder.  We have
18       heard some evidence there was aluminium powder applied
19       here as well.
20   A.  Yes, but it was mainly black when I saw it.  I don't
21       know the reason why neither.
22   Q.  If we move on to the next paragraph about deposition
23       pressure and you record there about there being more
24       pressure above the core area and towards the top of the
25       digit.
page 104
 1   A.  Yes.
 2   Q.  Can I clarify with you whether you are of the view that
 3       the mark was a single touch?
 4   A.  It was a single touch?
 5   Q.  That was your view?
 6   A.  (Nodded)
 7   Q.  If we can move on to the next page, please.  If we look
 8       under the heading "Clarity "and the final sentence under
 9       that heading you say that "tolerance appears to be low",
10       and I would like to clarify with you what you meant by
11       that?
12   A.  Tolerance low means there's a lot of detail there.  If
13       there's not so much detail like there's ridge
14       characteristics missing or Third Level Detail missing or
15       whatever then the tolerance becomes higher but there's
16       so much detail there it was a low tolerance.
17   Q.  When you have a low tolerance, what is it that you are
18       tolerating, Mr Bayle, if you could just make that quite
19       clear?
20   A.  The tolerance I'm actually looking at is the amount of
21       detail there.  So the amount of tolerance is you can
22       work either side of -- I know it's a bit difficult to
23       understand but what it's what you're actually -- detail
24       you're looking at, how much detail is there.  If there's
25       a lot of detail there that's going to be a low tolerance
page 105
 1       because if you've got the high tolerance then you have
 2       got to make allowances and those allowances -- that's
 3       why you get the high tolerance.  You've really got
 4       beware.  If there's high tolerance there you've really
 5       got to be careful.
 6   Q.  So if there's low tolerance you would expect there to be
 7       clear resemblances between mark and print?
 8   A.  No, there's got to be clear detail, clear detail of
 9       ridge characteristics, clear detail of Third Level
10       Detail.  Everything there that's looks like a mark -- I
11       mean, if you look at an ordinary print, say, just
12       looking at that, that's got a lot of detail in it.
13       (Indicated)
14   Q.  You're holding up the known print of Shirley McKie.
15   A.  That's right.  You can see the pores and everything.
16       That's a very low tolerance.  If it's all smudged and
17       everything else that's a high tolerance.  Be careful, be
18       very careful.
19   Q.  So you are indicating that when an image appears to be
20       of poorer quality, greater care needs to be taken?
21   A.  Very much so.
22   Q.  That is what you mean when you refer to tolerance?
23   A.  That's right.
24   Q.  You have a heading, "Anatomical core aspects", where you
25       say that after experimentation you believe that the mark
page 106
 1       was made by a right hand digit on the basis that it
 2       would be impossible for a person to be facing the
 3       doorway and depositing a mark with a digit from the left
 4       hand.
 5   A.  Because it would be like that (indicated).  It was just
 6       a peculiar way of looking at it and I thought I can't
 7       understand how that could be a left thumb in that
 8       particular position and very difficult and the mark
 9       itself, that's not a left thumb.  I would be very
10       surprised if it's a thumb at all.  It's experience.  I
11       mean, I'm a forensic scene examiner and you get to know
12       the position of marks.  It didn't look right.  Well,
13       it's not a left thumb.
14   Q.  I take it that if things were reversed from, I suppose,
15       the assumption you've made there and someone was facing
16       out of the doorway it might be easier to place a left
17       thumb?
18   A.  If it was a left thumb, yes.
19   Q.  If it was indeed a left thumb, yes.  Indeed, one could
20       be facing in from an odd angle, albeit it's all a bit
21       more difficult and tricky, and place a left thumb there?
22   A.  Yes.
23   MISS CARMICHAEL:  Thank you very much.
24   THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr Holmes, have you any application?
25   MR HOLMES:  Yes, sir, thank you.  There are three areas that
page 107
 1       I would like to ask Mr Bayle about.  The first relates
 2       to his initial examination of Y7 and the second relates
 3       to his --
 4   THE CHAIRMAN:  That is in Canada you mean?
 5   MR HOLMES:  Yes.
 6           The second relates to his actions after having seen
 7       Y7 and the third relates to the two reports that he has
 8       prepared.
 9   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, very good.
10                   Cross-examined by MR HOLMES
11   Q.  Mr Bayle, if we can turn first to paragraph 8 of your
12       statement to the Inquiry.  You say that you were first
13       given sight of Y7 in December 1999 by Mr Ashbaugh,
14       although you had noticed the impressions on the walls of
15       various departments at New Scotland Yard.  Is that
16       right?
17   A.  That's correct.  I don't know whether it's from the
18       Daily Mail or a Scottish paper because we had a few
19       Scottish personnel anyway but everybody was talking
20       about it.
21   Q.  Do you know why the images were on the walls of these
22       various departments that you had seen them on?
23   A.  When I asked about it and what I did find out eventually
24       was it was because it was so bad.
25   Q.  You have said in your statement that your colleagues
page 108
 1       were talking about what you refer to as "the mistake in
 2       Scotland"?
 3   A.  That's right.
 4   Q.  So you were aware at the time that this was something
 5       that was viewed as an error that had been made?
 6   A.  That's correct.
 7   Q.  Was it with that knowledge that you had your first
 8       opportunity to look at mark Y7 when you went to see
 9       Mr Ashbaugh in 1999?
10   A.  That's correct.
11   Q.  Does it not concern you that you had some prior
12       inclination towards seeing this as a mis-identification
13       because you had seen the mark on the walls of various
14       offices in New Scotland Yard and this had been spoken of
15       as a mistake?
16   A.  I don't take any notice of that.  I make my own
17       opinions.  So although people say, okay, they have made
18       a mistake, or I've made a mistake or somebody has made a
19       mistake, I want to look at it and evaluate it myself.
20           It's like a student coming up to me and saying, you
21       know, look, I think this is wrong and I want to tell
22       them why is it wrong and I will look at it.  I won't
23       make any opinions about it and I want them to tell me
24       why they think it's wrong.  Okay?
25           The same type of thing, see something on a wall,
page 109
 1       okay.  They are saying it's a mistake.  Well, okay, it's
 2       a mistake but I won't take any notice of that unless
 3       somebody really asks me to evaluate it and nobody asked
 4       me to evaluate it.  It's only when I went over to Canada
 5       and Ashbaugh asked me to evaluate it then I'll have a
 6       look at it.
 7   Q.  No doubt the majority of fingerprint experts would say
 8       that they would not want to be influenced by anything
 9       that they may have seen or heard before carrying out an
10       examination but much has been made in the evidence that
11       we have heard of a concept called confirmatory bias.
12           Are you familiar with that?
13   A.  Well, I think that's SCRO's own fault because they
14       wrote -- somebody wrote -- I can't remember who wrote
15       the paper now, saying that it wasn't the same mark.
16           Now, we were given, if I remember rightly that went
17       round the office and it was just -- we were just amazed
18       that SCRO could come out with something like that.  It
19       was a very stupid thing to do and to say, "Oh, there's
20       brush marks.  It can't be the same mark", look, experts
21       all over the country, fingerprint experts, look at Xerox
22       copies of Xerox copies, I've even made an identification
23       over a phone, I'm at a murder scene and I've got a mark
24       and I'm talking to a fingerprint expert and when I get
25       back we'll see what he's pulled out.
page 110
 1           So it's evaluating.  You have to have a look at that
 2       mark.  You don't turn round until you see that actual
 3       mark but that's SCRO's own fault.  If they hadn't sent
 4       that letter out or making silly remarks like "Well, it's
 5       not the same mark", that made things even worse, if that
 6       answers your question.
 7   Q.  I'm afraid not, Mr Bayle.  Witnesses on both sides of
 8       this argument have been asked about the possible effects
 9       of what has been referred to as confirmatory bias and
10       from that I understand that if a fingerprint expert has
11       some kind of prior information before he or she carries
12       out his or her examination that it can affect the
13       outcome of that examination.
14           Are you saying that is a phenomenon that just
15       doesn't exist?
16   A.  Well, I've never been in -- I don't know.  I've never
17       heard of that.  That's ...
18   Q.  You're not familiar with the work of Dr Dror?
19   A.  No, no.
20   Q.  No?
21   A.  No.
22   Q.  What was your concern about the impression when you
23       first saw it?
24   A.  Amazed.  I thought, well, okay, it's a mistake.  Perhaps
25       they'll they put their hands up because we had a mistake
page 111
 1       at New Scotland Yard and they put their hands up and
 2       what we did was I had to test -- I think we had six
 3       experts who made the same mistake on the one mark and I
 4       had to organise a course to test these officers and it
 5       went down from the lowest Fingerprint Officer to a very
 6       senior fingerprint officer and test them.  So that's
 7       what we had to do.  So honesty is the best policy.
 8   THE CHAIRMAN:  I think what you were being asked about when
 9       you first saw it, which was in Canada, you're now
10       talking about when you came back but when you actually
11       looked at it in Canada, what sort of an examination did
12       you have of it there?  Was that with --
13   A.  Well, I had plenty of time, sir, because although I saw
14       the mark on the walls I didn't take much about it.
15       People were probably talking about it but I didn't take
16       any notice because it didn't concern me and I didn't
17       think much about it because I had enough to do anyway in
18       Hendon and -- But when I went to Canada I had plenty of
19       time because I had this one mark Ashbaugh, is checking
20       it or whatever, and he took this mark ... so I had hours
21       to look at it and I just looked at it but it didn't take
22       me long to look at it and say --
23   THE CHAIRMAN:  I am just trying to find the conditions under
24       which you -- were you being asked, "Take a look at that
25       and see what you think", or was it really under
page 112
 1       laboratory conditions that you were looking?
 2   A.  No, no, it was just have a look at it and, you know,
 3       I've got quite a few years service in so I've got a lot
 4       of experience in anyway.  So I looked at it and it was
 5       wrong; it was wrong.  It didn't take me long at all, by
 6       the way.
 7   MR HOLMES:  Is that why you took it upon yourself to make
 8       more enquiries when you got back to the UK?
 9   A.  That's correct, yes.
10   Q.  That led to your actions after you had initially seen
11       the mark.  One of the things that you did, aside from
12       making more enquiries, was to include the mark Y7 in the
13       training courses that you have spoken about, the four
14       courses.
15   A.  That's correct -- well, it's three courses not four.
16       The fourth one because SCRO were present so we decided
17       not to show the mark on that particular course in
18       Durham.
19   Q.  You have said that yourself and Mr Sheppard showed the
20       mark to a number of training groups and I think you have
21       explained that was three out of the four courses that
22       were run.  Which images of Y7 did you show to the
23       training groups?
24   A.  It would be pat Wertheim's.
25   Q.  Were these the same images that you saw when Mr Ashbaugh
page 113
 1       showed you the images?
 2   A.  Yes, they were because it was Ashbaugh that got the
 3       copies.
 4   Q.  Did you have any discussions from anyone, from either of
 5       the two training centres that the courses were run at,
 6       before you decided to use the mark?
 7   A.  Can you repeat the question again, please?
 8   Q.  Did you have any discussions with anyone from either of
 9       the two institutions that you were teaching at before
10       you decided to make use of the mark on those courses?
11   A.  No.
12   Q.  Was Mr Ashbaugh present during any of the courses?
13   A.  Oh, yes, yes, because with Jeff Sheppard we did all the
14       lecturing.  I did some, David did some and Jeff Sheppard
15       on the one lecture to each day.  So we picked our
16       different subjects we'd talk about like how skin's
17       formed, how ridges are formed and everything else
18       because it's quite a ... but it wasn't -- I must insist
19       here that it was only an awareness course.  It wasn't a
20       training course.  It was an awareness course and it was
21       just for training officers but for some strange reason
22       we had managers turning up, which we thought was a bit
23       strange but anyway we did it off our own back because we
24       just wanted to see what their opinions were and that's
25       why we did it.
page 114
 1   Q.  Mr Grigg has also spoken about a number of courses.  I
 2       am wondering if these are the same.
 3           Was Mr Grigg present during any of these?
 4   A.  No, I don't think he attended a course in America at
 5       that time.  I was -- it was only Jeff Sheppard and
 6       myself.
 7   Q.  I am sorry, you have referred to a course in America.  I
 8       was asking you about Mr Grigg?
 9   A.  Yes, but Mr Grigg hadn't been on a course in America.
10       He hadn't done the ridgeology course.  There was only
11       Jeff Sheppard and myself so we were the main lecturers
12       from both colleges.
13   Q.  You have said that all the marks used on these courses
14       were displayed anonymously.  There was no indication of
15       what they were when you were showing the students.  Is
16       that correct?
17   A.  That's correct but I think some of them recognised it.
18   Q.  Are you able to say who it was that recognised Y7?
19   A.  Mr Leadbetter definitely did.
20   Q.  You have mentioned a conversation that you had with
21       Mr Leadbetter where he seemed to recognise the mark and
22       I think the comment you have attributed to him is that
23       he said a friend of his said that it was identical.  Is
24       that right?
25   A.  That's correct, yes.
page 115
 1   Q.  You have said that you were aware who he was speaking
 2       about.  How would Mr Leadbetter recognise the mark if it
 3       was someone other than Mr Leadbetter who had examined
 4       it?
 5   A.  I don't know.  I can't answer that.
 6   Q.  You have said as well this afternoon that everyone in
 7       the room said that Y7 was not Shirley McKie's.  Why
 8       again would they be saying that if these marks were
 9       displayed anonymously?
10   A.  Well, because we gave them so many marks from
11       complicated cases which -- we left a certain time in the
12       timetable so they can look at various marks, difficult
13       marks, and then we wanted them to explain to us what was
14       going on with that mark.  So that was -- we just put it
15       in, mixed it in with everything else.
16   Q.  So was there some point during the course that the
17       people who were attending it became aware that Y7 was
18       the mark that had been attributed to Shirley McKie?
19   A.  We told them.
20   Q.  Oh I see.  At what point during the course did you tell
21       them?
22   A.  Well, after everybody had seen it.  I don't know how
23       long it was afterwards but we told them, you know, it
24       was the McKie mark.
25   Q.  Was that subject for some further discussion on any of
page 116
 1       these courses?
 2   A.  No, no.
 3   Q.  You also speak in your statement about the examination
 4       that yourself and Mr Wertheim carried out on the
 5       productions from the Asbury trial and you have said that
 6       you went to visit the offices of the Procurator Fiscal
 7       and carried out an examination of the productions from
 8       the trial.
 9           Do you recall that?
10   A.  Yes.  It was very difficult, very difficult.  It was
11       difficult because, if I remember rightly, we had to go
12       through all sorts of procedures to actually finally look
13       at the productions.
14   Q.  You eventually got to see those.  Do you remember when
15       that was?
16   A.  Unless I put a date in there, no.  But it was all -- we
17       organised it so that the camera team would be there and
18       we'd look at the stuff and whatever and by the way we
19       used a laboratory in the programme to try and make it a
20       bit more scientific or whatever.
21   Q.  Was that the point at which one of the BBC documentaries
22       was filmed?
23   A.  Yes, yes.
24   Q.  So your examination took place around about that time?
25   A.  Something like that.
page 117
 1   Q.  If I suggest to you that that might have been around
 2       about April 2000 does that sound right?
 3   A.  I'll take your word for that.
 4   Q.  Amongst the productions that you examined that were
 5       involved in David Asbury's trial do you recall whether
 6       there was a gift tag from a Christmas present?
 7   A.  I was aware of that but I never saw it.
 8   Q.  You have said in relation also to the tin on which QI2
 9       was found that Mr Wertheim took photographs of it.  Is
10       that right?
11   A.  That's correct, yes.
12   Q.  Did he do so using any kind of special light source?
13   A.  He had a very good camera.  I didn't think so.  I can't
14       remember really.  I can't remember any light sources but
15       he just used his ordinary camera.
16   Q.  How was it that the mark on the tin was developed?
17   A.  I can't remember.  I can't remember, sorry.
18   Q.  You have described also some of the effects on your own
19       career of taking part in various stages of this case.
20       Paragraph 15 of your statement describes the way in
21       which you were ostracised by some colleagues as a result
22       of your involvement, leading eventually to your
23       resignation from the Metropolitan Police.
24           That is the reason you gave a short time ago to my
25       learned friend for your departure from the Met; is that
page 118
 1       correct?
 2   A.  That's correct.
 3   Q.  Do you recall giving an interview in 2001 in connection
 4       with another case where you attributed your departure
 5       from the Metropolitan Police to your involvement in
 6       that?
 7   A.  No.  Hold on a minute.  Are you talking about the
 8       McNamara case?
 9   Q.  Yes.
10   A.  No, I didn't leave because of that.
11   Q.  If I tell you that you gave an interview to a newspaper
12       called the Barnet Times describing your involvement and
13       you stated to them that:
14           "I had had enough and I said I would leave to
15       represent him and that's what I did."
16           Do you recall making that statement?
17   A.  Yes.  I think that was the final nail in the coffin.
18       I've got a funny feeling that was the final nail in the
19       coffin.  That was it, that was the final thing.
20   Q.  So is your evidence now that Ms McKie's case was not the
21       entire reason that you left the Metropolitan Police,
22       there was another case at least in which you were
23       involved?
24   A.  No, the McKie case was the big problem and that was just
25       a small side -- no, it was the McKie case.  That was the
page 119
 1       one that I was marched in for; that was the one I was
 2       going to be disciplined for; that was the one I was
 3       allowed to do a small course; that was why I was taken
 4       off the ACPO meetings; that's why I wasn't enough to
 5       give enough training to senior officers.  That was it.
 6       That was it for me.  I had enough of it.
 7   Q.  So if you previously attributed your departure in part
 8       to the McNamara case that wouldn't be right?  Is that
 9       what you are saying now?
10   A.  No, not really.
11   Q.  You have spoken to the media about the McKie case and is
12       it fair to say that you have been critical of SCRO?
13   A.  SCRO, yes, but not the experts.  I've never, ever named
14       the experts.  Really, they're victims as well and I must
15       say to the Inquiry that this has been going on a long
16       time.  Now I've been checking SCRO work now for nine
17       years.
18   THE CHAIRMAN:  In the sense of when you were appearing for
19       the defence.
20   A.  This is as an independent expert for the defence.
21   THE CHAIRMAN:  But not in any official capacity, so to
22       speak.
23   A.  No.
24           90 per cent of their marking-up was not right -- 90
25       per cent of it was not right.  The angle of the marks
page 120
 1       were wrong.  There's one nearly upside down but it was
 2       still ident so I let it go.
 3           Their lines went to the wrong place and there's a
 4       set procedure for doing enlargements in the United
 5       Kingdom.  The lines must be at a 90-degree angle to the
 6       ridge characteristic.  They must never, ever go through
 7       other ridge characteristics.  You must never use ridge
 8       characteristics at the edge of a mark because you don't
 9       know what's happening to them.
10           Also, in all those nine years I never, ever saw a
11       characteristic table with those enlargements.  Now then,
12       when you produce enlargements for any court in the
13       United Kingdom you must produce a characteristic table.
14       That is your expertise.  So when you start off, sir, and
15       you must go round the clock, clockwise, point 1, we'll
16       say it's a bifurcation, then you go to the next line
17       ridge characteristic number 2, there are two intervening
18       ridges and you go down to number 16 and then from 16 you
19       count the number of ridges back to number 1 again.  That
20       is your expertise, that is your explanation when you are
21       charting.  Now I have not seen that in nine years with
22       SCRO.  That is part of your expertise.  You must do
23       that.
24           If you do not produce a table then you are relying
25       on the responsibility of the court to make that judgment
page 121
 1       and that is wrong.
 2   Q.  How often do experts in the UK, with the exception of
 3       Scotland, produce case-specific enlargements?
 4   A.  Very rarely now but there is a problem.  England have
 5       got rid of the standard, okay.  It's okay getting rid of
 6       the standard but you've got to back it up and what they
 7       are not doing is when they do have a number of 9 or 10
 8       they are not producing enlargements to explain the
 9       identification.
10           You will probably say to me, okay, they've done a
11       statement.  Now that statement it says there they've got
12       so many points in agreement.  Some English bureaux are
13       saying, well, this mark was made by this person and
14       that's it.  Well, you're going to collapse.  The system
15       will collapse.  There's no co-operation now between the
16       bureaux.
17           I went to Nottingham.  As far as I've heard from
18       them they are not going to send anybody to Durham and
19       they are actually doing Ashbaugh stuff.  So there's a
20       big problem.
21           Scotland, okay, there's been a mistake.  We've gone
22       past that now.  These people now that are in Scotland,
23       experts, have got to be trained properly and they've got
24       to go back to the basics because -- let's give you an
25       example.  All right, each ridge characteristic has got a
page 122
 1       definition.  Now then has the SCRO experts forgotten the
 2       definition of a ridge ending?  Okay, the definition of a
 3       ridge ending is where a ridge stops short and flanking
 4       ridges takes its place.  This is very basic stuff.  They
 5       haven't been doing it.
 6           To me, there's this problem but now you've got the
 7       opportunity here in Scotland for God's sake get somebody
 8       that knows how to do up-to-date, modern marking-up or
 9       whatever and get a team in to do the training to all the
10       experts in Scotland.
11   Q.  Have you ever mentioned any of these concerns to anyone
12       within the organisation in Scotland?
13   A.  Right, I came up against another problem and my problem
14       with solicitors, PFs and when I deliver reports I put on
15       the bottom there, look, "Please ask the expert where is
16       the characteristic table.  Why is this line doing this?
17       Why isn't it pointing to the correct ridge
18       characteristic?  Why haven't they done this?  Why
19       haven't they done that?"  And the answer I got a few
20       times was, listen, fingerprints is God in Scotland.
21       Nobody goes against the fingerprint experts and I just
22       thought, well, come on, I'm giving you bullets to fire
23       in your gun to try and put this expert in the box there.
24       I want an answer from him.  They never did it.
25           Also the PFs as well, I've had big problems with
page 123
 1       those as well and to me there's a problem with the
 2       system and also I used to fly up from London to Scotland
 3       and then say go to the PFs office and look at these
 4       latent marks, I would be put into a dingy old blooming
 5       cellar and I've got my magnifying glass, I thought,
 6       "Bloody hell, how long have they been doing this for",
 7       and really you should be going to the bureaux or the
 8       bureaux in Wales now they will send me the stuff by
 9       recorded delivery instead of wasting taxpayers' money
10       going backwards and forwards looking at marks.
11           There's a huge problem.  I know we've gone away from
12       your thing but I'm just giving you some idea of the
13       problems that we have in training in Scotland and it's
14       still in England as well, they still haven't sorted it
15       out in England, but there's going to come a point where
16       say, okay, there's eight or nine points in agreement,
17       well, they're going to have to put that on that because
18       I want to see those points.
19   Q.  You have spoken about comments you have made to defence
20       solicitors and you have spoken about comments that you
21       have made to Procurators Fiscal but what I am asking is
22       have you ever raised any concerns with anyone working
23       within the Bureaux in Scotland?
24   A.  I have with Grampian and -- God, I don't know the
25       places.  Okay, Edinburgh, Dundee, those sort of places I
page 124
 1       have done but I found there that there was a lot of they
 2       didn't like SCRO and I got that impression, only because
 3       I think they've had problems before with SCRO.  I don't
 4       know what the problems were but I knew there was a
 5       problem with the bureaux and with SCRO.
 6   Q.  I take it then that you have never yourself raised any
 7       concerns with anyone within the Glasgow Bureau?
 8   A.  No.  I feel it's like going into a spider's web.  I
 9       thought, well, there's been enough stuff now on the
10       Internet and whatever so really -- I mean, if they'd
11       invited me in and whatever some time just to talk about
12       it and whatever, but I also had a problem when I used to
13       phone up, say I had a chemical mark and I'd phone up
14       SCRO and say, "Look, what treatment did you use", and it
15       was a police officer, if I remember rightly, and he
16       said, "If you want some information about a latent mark
17       or a finger-mark, you send a letter to the PF and then
18       he can write to us".  Well, that report had to be in
19       within two days.  I was never going to get it.
20   Q.  You have worked on training courses with individual
21       officers who were also at Glasgow, is that the case?
22       You have worked on training courses with Mr Dunbar,
23       Mr Sheppard with others?
24   A.  (Nodded)
25   Q.  I am sorry that was badly worded.  It made it sound as
page 125
 1       if Mr Sheppard was at Glasgow but you have worked on
 2       courses in which Mr Sheppard and others were present and
 3       one of the others would have been Mr Dunbar; is that
 4       correct?
 5   A.  I've never worked on a course with Mr Dunbar.  Mr Dunbar
 6       I've worked with at ACPO meetings as he was there as a
 7       guest.
 8   Q.  Were you in a working group relating to modular
 9       training?
10   A.  No, not just modular training, it was all training.
11           We had to train -- I was totally against modular
12       training.  I don't like modular training but the
13       training, I try to give advice on ridgeology or whatever
14       and I had problems with some people because they
15       wouldn't want to change and I found it with quite a few
16       senior experts they did not want to change and that was
17       a big problem, not just for me but Chris Coombes who was
18       the Director of Identification.  It was a problem that
19       they wanted to do a lot of changes and they couldn't do
20       it because there was this background of -- I wouldn't
21       say it was cliquey but there was a problem there and I
22       couldn't put my hand on it but even when I tried to give
23       a lecture to field managers and whatever in Coventry and
24       I started to explain a future course on ridgeology, it
25       was for a week's course, and some of the audience
page 126
 1       started booing and I thought, "Crikey, is it as bad as
 2       that?"  But they are all senior people and there's about
 3       five or six of them.
 4           But going back to your question, Mr Dunbar, I've
 5       never done a course with at all.
 6   Q.  Have you ever been in a position to raise concerns that
 7       you might have had with any member of the Glasgow Bureau
 8       and not done so?
 9   A.  Not that I know of.
10   Q.  You have raised concerns though in other arenas.  You
11       have raised concerns in the media, taking part in a
12       documentary, for example, would that be correct?
13   A.  (Nodded)
14   Q.  You have also chosen to raise concerns as a result of
15       your involvement in this case about other cases in the
16       media, have you not?
17   A.  What, Scottish cases?
18   Q.  Yes.
19   A.  I complained -- is it the Chief Advocate, not mainly
20       about fingerprints.  It was mainly about crime scene
21       examination.  I was very concerned there about scene
22       examiners.  What really did it for me was it was a
23       particular crime scene, it was a murder crime scene, and
24       this scene examiner found finger-marks in every room but
25       they were all five feet from the base and I thought he
page 127
 1       hasn't used a measure.  There's no way that you can go
 2       round this house and all the marks are 5 feet from the
 3       floor.  He hasn't used a tape measure.  It was little
 4       things like that and I'm also concerned about the Scene
 5       Examiners, why aren't -- there's supposed to be a
 6       quality control or hopefully at SCRO and that, and
 7       they've found something was wrong with the lifts or
 8       whatever -- I used to do quality control in New Scotland
 9       Yard, crime scenes used to come in and that, and if I
10       noticed there was a mark there that didn't look right
11       I'd call that scene examiner and say, "Where did you get
12       that mark from, because what you are saying hasn't come
13       from there.  Where did you get it from?"
14           "I might have made a mistake."
15           "What's your mistake?" and I'd want to know what his
16       mistake was.
17   THE CHAIRMAN:  But you were being asked about others cases
18       that you complained about in the media.
19   A.  I think the main one was crime scenes.  I can't remember
20       about -- I mean, I just can't remember but go on if you
21       know of something I don't.
22   MR HOLMES:  I am going to have to be quite careful about
23       this because your statement makes reference to a
24       specific other case.  The name of that case has been
25       removed from the copy of the statement which will appear
page 128
 1       eventually on the Internet but if you look at
 2       paragraph 18 of your statement --
 3   A.  Yes, I know what you're talking about, yes.
 4   Q.  You know the case that I mean?
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  Did you make criticisms of SCRO in the media in
 7       connection with that case?
 8   A.  Yes, I did.
 9   Q.  Were you aware at the time that the Justice 1 hearings
10       were taking place in connection with the present case?
11   A.  Can you repeat the question?
12   Q.  Were you aware at the time that you were criticising
13       SCRO in connection with that case in the media that the
14       Justice 1 hearings into the present case were taking
15       place?
16   A.  Oh, I didn't take any notice of that.
17   Q.  So you did not see that any criticism in the media of
18       SCRO at that time could have been potentially quite
19       damaging?
20   A.  Damaging to whom?
21   Q.  Well, damaging to those who were appearing in the
22       Justice 1 hearings that were taking place at the time.
23   A.  I just wanted to bring forward what the problems were
24       and I thought that I -- I knew there was a problem.
25   Q.  Yourself and, if I'm correct, Mr MacLeod called for the
page 129
 1       closure of the Glasgow Bureau as a result of that case,
 2       did you not?
 3   A.  I can't speak for them.
 4   Q.  Yourself and Mr MacLeod?
 5   A.  Yes, I may have done.
 6   Q.  Do you recall having done so?
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   Q.  Do you recall or do you accept now that the allegation
 9       of a mis-identification in that case was not correct?
10   A.  I need some guidance with this, sir.  I need to speak to
11       somebody as well.
12   THE CHAIRMAN:  Perhaps if we --
13   A.  Because it's going to -- I need some guidance.
14   THE CHAIRMAN:  Perhaps the best course, since you are not
15       represented here today, I will give you an opportunity
16       to speak to Counsel to the Inquiry and we will rise for
17       ten minutes and sit again just after 3.05.
18   (2.57 pm)
19                         (A short break)
20   (3.10 pm)
21   MR MOYNIHAN:  I'm sorry, sir.  I have had discussions with
22       Mr Bayle to a limited extent and what I have advised
23       Mr Bayle is that if this matter proceeds then the safer
24       option may be for him to seek independent legal advice.
25           I have not felt able to give positive advice to him.
page 130
 1       However, what I can say is though the particular
 2       paragraph with the name deleted forms part of his
 3       statement, my learned friend, Miss Carmichael, and I
 4       were both taking the view that it was not part of the
 5       subject matter of this Inquiry to look at the handling
 6       of other cases and that case is one that has been
 7       mentioned to us in the past and we have set a course to
 8       avoid debating the rights and wrongs of this matter.
 9           My primary submission to you, sir, would be that
10       this matter is irrelevant and, therefore, need not be
11       pursued.  If, however, it is being pursued plainly it is
12       a matter for Mr Bayle to reflect on what I have said but
13       the advice I have given him is that he would be better
14       advised to take independent legal advice before
15       discussing this matter further.
16   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.
17           Mr Holmes, certainly get back to where the question
18       was ...
19   MR HOLMES:  I believed I asked, sir, if Mr Bayle recalled or
20       whether he accepted now that the allegation of a
21       mis-identification in the case referred to was not
22       correct.
23   THE CHAIRMAN:  Do you recall that you accept now that the
24       allegation of a mis-identification in that case was not
25       correct.
page 131
 1   MR HOLMES:  That's right.
 2   THE CHAIRMAN:  Do you wish to pursue that point?
 3   MR HOLMES:  I would like to pursue that line, sir.  The
 4       reason for that is that I believe that it is an
 5       allegation of a mis-identification which was levelled
 6       against SCRO.  It was done at a particularly sensitive
 7       time in relation to the present case because of course
 8       it was done during the Justice 1 proceedings and it has
 9       transpired that that allegation was incorrect.
10   THE CHAIRMAN:  The point really is that I am not, as you
11       will appreciate, going to investigate that matter at all
12       because it is not relevant to this Inquiry; in other
13       words, the subject matter of that case at all but on
14       that limited ground --
15   MR HOLMES:  It is the fact of the --
16   THE CHAIRMAN:  I can see you take it that it goes towards
17       credit really.
18   MR HOLMES:  Indeed, sir, yes.
19   THE CHAIRMAN:  I think in those circumstances we cannot
20       pursue that any further at this stage without Mr Bayle
21       seeking advice or having an opportunity to take advice.
22   MR HOLMES:  Certainly the position that was taken at
23       Justice 1 is a matter of public record, sir.
24   THE CHAIRMAN:  My recollection is that he stated his view on
25       that occasion but I don't know, there is some reason why
page 132
 1       and that is confirmed by Counsel to the Inquiry, that if
 2       he is going to answer the question, he should take
 3       independent legal advice.
 4           There can be no objection at this point if you want
 5       to put to him the passage at the Justice 1 Inquiry but
 6       whether that takes us any further or not because I am
 7       not going to require him to answer the question unless
 8       he has been advised.
 9   MR HOLMES:  Perhaps that is the way forward, sir.
10   THE CHAIRMAN:  Is there any other matter that we can move on
11       to so far as this particular one is concerned?  Then I
12       will give Mr Bayle an opportunity to take advice.
13           Are there any other subjects apart from this in your
14       list?
15   MR HOLMES:  I can move on and deal with the rest of my cross
16       from there, sir.
17   THE CHAIRMAN:  You could do that and we would return to this
18       issue --
19   MR HOLMES:  I am concerned as to how to deal with this.
20   THE CHAIRMAN:  -- when he has had advice.
21   MR HOLMES:  I am concerned as to how we deal with this
22       issue, sir, in the context of Mr Bayle's evidence.  Is
23       it likely that he will then be kept here overnight?
24   THE CHAIRMAN:  I am not sure when Mr Bayle is going to be
25       get advice.  It may not be today.  It won't be today
page 133
 1       that he can do that, I imagine.  He's got to seek
 2       someone, instruct them and this is going to take time.
 3   MR HOLMES:  I would like to be able to put the particular
 4       passages to him, sir, and if he wishes to take advice
 5       then --
 6   THE CHAIRMAN:  There can be no objection but I am not going
 7       to expect him to answer.  If you care to put the passage
 8       to him then you can do that now but I shall advise him
 9       not to answer the question.
10           Do you understand, Mr Bayle, what they want to do is
11       put something to you but on what I am told the advice is
12       that you should not answer at all at this stage until
13       you have been advised.
14   MR HOLMES:  Mr Bayle, I would like to put two passages to
15       you for your comment.  This is from the transcript of
16       the Justice 1 Committee hearings the date of which is
17       7th June 2006.
18           The first of these passages is from Mr Zeelenberg
19       and he states that:
20           "Although it is not the subject of today's meeting,
21       I will share an example.  It was recently alleged that
22       the SCRO had made a mis-identification on the basis of
23       the material that was presented to me on this matter, I
24       also speak on Allan Bayle's behalf, I am confident that
25       that allegation was wrong."
page 134
 1           Do you recognise that as the case we have been
 2       discussing that Mr Zeelenberg is speaking about there,
 3       Mr Bayle?
 4   A.  I do remember it.
 5   THE CHAIRMAN:  I would not -- I suggest you do not go any
 6       further than that.
 7   A.  Okay.
 8   MR HOLMES:  The second passage then I would like to put to
 9       you for your comment, Mr Bayle, is a question which was
10       asked of you by Mr Mackintosh MSP where he says:
11           "I return to the subject that the Convener
12       questioned Mr Bayle on earlier.  Allegations have been
13       made, not only about Shirley McKie's fingerprint but
14       about others.  Mr Bayle, a week last Friday you were
15       quoted in the papers as saying that the SCRO Fingerprint
16       Bureau should be shut down because it was incompetent.
17       Is it the SCRO that is incompetent or is it you?"
18   THE CHAIRMAN:  Again, do you want to continue?
19   MR HOLMES:  Sorry, sir, the answer to that that Mr Bayle
20       gives is:
21           "No, there are things that we did not set to the
22       procedures."
23           Mr Mackintosh asks:
24           "Were you right or wrong?"
25           And Mr Bayle says:
page 135
 1           "I was wrong.  I admitted that ."
 2   THE CHAIRMAN:  Can you now move to a different subject so
 3       that, in the interim, the witness can be advised as to
 4       his position with regard to the question that you posed.
 5   MR HOLMES:  Yes, sir, certainly.
 6           I will move on to Mr Bayle's report on Y7 which is
 7       SG0518.  There are just a couple of questions about
 8       that, sir.
 9           Mr Bayle, you state that the mark Y7 is of normal
10       appearance and deposition pressure appears to be light
11       to medium.
12           Can you tell me, are you saying in that report that
13       the mark is a single touch with a continuous ridge flow?
14   A.  Yes.
15   Q.  Are you aware that Mr Ashbaugh has given an opinion in
16       which he regards this as the result of a double of even
17       triple tap, as he would put it?
18   A.  Yes.
19   Q.  You obviously disagree with that.
20           Is there any reason that you are correct and
21       Mr Ashbaugh is not correct?
22   A.  I can't answer for him.  It depends if we looked at the
23       same photograph at the same time.  I can't answer for
24       that.
25   Q.  Is it a matter of looking at a different image to be
page 136
 1       able to tell whether this is a single touch or whether
 2       there are a multiple depositions in the same mark?
 3   A.  Looking at that (indicated) that's a single mark.
 4   THE CHAIRMAN:  That is on the basis of the print that --
 5   A.  That's the tracing of the actual mark itself, sir.
 6   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, but of the print that you brought today?
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   MR HOLMES:  Is there any evidence of movement or variation
 9       in pressure within the mark, in your opinion?
10   A.  Well, this part in the middle was smudged and I couldn't
11       get any detail off that at all.  So I couldn't answer
12       that but, as far as I'm concerned, that was just one
13       mark all made at the same time.
14   Q.  Is that the only area of distortion that you feel can be
15       accounted for by movement or variation in pressure?
16   A.  Yes.
17   Q.  Page 3 of your report says that there are problems with
18       the mark.  What are the problems that you had in mind
19       when you wrote that?
20   A.  Just the breaks in the ridges in that area.  That was
21       the main problem there.  No delta region.  I don't know
22       if it's been confirmed but there should be a delta
23       region here (indicated), that's missing.  Part of the
24       core is missing.  What we call platform ridges, they are
25       missing as well.  Platform ridges are below the delta.
page 137
 1       They hold up the delta.  They're missing as well.
 2   Q.  So you disagree with those, including Mr Ashbaugh, who
 3       would attribute some of the difficulties in the mark to
 4       either multiple touches or significant movement upon
 5       deposition?
 6   A.  It depends what photograph he looked at and when did he
 7       make that statement.  I mean, did he make that statement
 8       before I met him?  I don't know.
 9   Q.  The e-mail is dated 2000.
10   A.  Well, I can't -- I can't comment on what he's found.
11       This is my opinion; that's Ashbaugh's opinion.  I can't
12       go by what he said or not against it.
13   Q.  In relation to anyone who is of that view, you would
14       disagree with them; would that be right?
15   A.  Well, I don't know what photograph he looked at.  If he
16       looked at the same one as me -- which I don't think he
17       has by the sounds of it -- I don't know.  I just don't
18       know.  I can't answer your question.
19   Q.  It was he who showed you the photographs in the first
20       place, was it not?
21   A.  He showed me a photograph but I don't know if that's the
22       photograph he made his original analysis on.  I don't
23       know.
24   Q.  In relation to QI2 you also prepared a report and
25       there's only one point that I have to ask you about that
page 138
 1       so I am not going to put the report up but you refer to
 2       a quarter moon shape, which is part of the roof of the
 3       carriage.  Do you recall there's a pattern on the tin
 4       underneath the finger-marks that are on it?
 5   A.  Yes, that's right, street, if I remember rightly.
 6   Q.  Indeed, and it was part of that pattern, a trolley car
 7       or a carriage of some kind.
 8   A.  (Nodded)
 9   Q.  When you are referring to the roof of the carriage and
10       the visible quarter moon shape within the picture of
11       QI2, it seems that it's been obvious to you that that is
12       part of the background rather than part of the mark
13       itself.
14           Would you say that's fair?
15   A.  That's fair.
16   Q.  So if it's that recognisable from the photograph would
17       you agree it's clearly not going to be any sort of
18       damage or any sort of smudge to the mark, it's quite
19       clearly part of the background picture?
20   A.  Mmm.
21   Q.  There are only two further matters that I would like to
22       ask you about.  The first relates to paragraph 22 of
23       your statement which concerns remarks that were made on
24       the Internet.  You say in your statement:
25           "The remarks on the Internet have also been very
page 139
 1       hurtful and spiteful.  All this has damaged my
 2       reputation."
 3           Firstly, are you aware of whose remarks these were
 4       on the Internet?
 5   A.  No, that's why I didn't -- I don't know.  But I mean,
 6       Arie Zeelenberg phoned me up and said, "Don't bother
 7       looking at the Internet, it's pretty bad".  So I haven't
 8       looked at CPLEX in a long, long time now because he said
 9       some of the comments there are pretty awful.  So I don't
10       know who made them if that's what you're asking.
11   Q.  Is that the site on which these remarks appear?
12   A.  Mainly, yes, I think they are.  I haven't looked on the
13       Internet for a long time on that sort of website.
14   Q.  Have you yourself ever made Internet comments concerning
15       this case?
16   A.  No, I don't think so.  If there were, they were only
17       things -- I haven't mentioned anybody's names or
18       whatever.  It's been really -- I've been trying to be
19       honest when I'm on the Internet.  I haven't said
20       anything wrongfully, I don't think so anyway.  It's been
21       a long time now.
22   Q.  You made specific comments about individuals involved in
23       this case?
24   A.  Not that I know of.
25   Q.  Did you write a letter to the Fingerprint Society's
page 140
 1       journal in 2001 suggesting that Mr Mackenzie should be
 2       suspended?
 3   A.  Yes, I did because I thought at the time that SCRO
 4       should be taken off the board until something had been
 5       sorted out like an inquiry or something like that and
 6       that was probably my downfall as well because after that
 7       things started really going wrong as with the
 8       Fingerprint Society so, yes, I did because I thought if
 9       they were taken off there then -- because I always
10       thought that the Fingerprint Society would actually sort
11       all this out.  They never did and they actually made it
12       worse and worse and, I mean, I left in the end because
13       we were getting nowhere with them.  But that was the
14       reason.  It was an honest thing that I wanted them to
15       come up, put somebody on there until it all got sorted
16       out and then go back on there again.  So it's for an
17       honest reason.
18   Q.  Have you ever suggested that anything inappropriate has
19       taken place with the images of Y7 themselves?
20   A.  No, not that I know of.
21   MR HOLMES:  Aside from the matters on which Mr Bayle needs
22       to take advice, I don't propose to cover any further
23       then that, sir.
24   THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr Smith, have you any matters --
25   MR SMITH:  Sir, there is really one matter I would like to
page 141
 1       ask about and that is Mr Ashbaugh's opinion that was put
 2       to Mr Bayle, just to be clear about when he became aware
 3       of it and how he became aware of it.  I'd like to
 4       explore that with him if I may.
 5   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.
 6                    Cross-examined by MR SMITH
 7   Q.  Mr Bayle, I am sure you have heard what I have just
 8       asked.  A few minutes ago you indicated you understood
 9       what Mr Ashbaugh's opinion was regarding the number of
10       touches of the fingerprint.  Do you remember saying
11       that?
12   A.  (Nodded)
13   Q.  You have to speak your answers here so that we can
14       record them.
15   A.  Yes, yes.
16   Q.  How was it you became aware of his opinion?
17   A.  Well, when he showed me the mark.
18   Q.  Forgive me, it's my fault the way I put the question.  I
19       am interested just in the number of touches.  It was
20       suggested to you that he was of the view that there was
21       more than one touch, contrary to your view.
22           When did you first become aware that that may have
23       been his opinion at some time?
24   A.  I think a few weeks ago.  I didn't know.  When the
25       Inquiry actually sent me I think it was a statement or
page 142
 1       report from Ashbaugh.  I'd never seen that report before
 2       so that was new to me.  I didn't know.
 3   Q.  May I just be clear about it.  Could we have up the
 4       document CO1752, please, and scroll through that.
 5       Perhaps go to digital page 2 at the moment.
 6           You can see this is an e-mail that has been sent by
 7       Mr Ashbaugh to Mr Robertson in 2000.  Is that the
 8       document you say that you recently became aware of?
 9   A.  That's correct.
10   Q.  Again, I just want to understand the context in which it
11       seems Mr Ashbaugh was expressing a view.  Can you go on
12       to digital page 5, please.  Unfortunately, it is a
13       fairly poor copy but I think we can see if we can read
14       it properly that in the second last paragraph and the
15       last paragraph in that page could we have that expanded
16       and see if it is any clearer.  We can see that what he
17       is indicating is his initial view of the photographs in
18       the circumstances.  We can see in the third last line he
19       explains that he is looking at it on his lap in a lounge
20       using a small magnifying device after he had consumed
21       one or possibly two pints of beer.
22           In that context, he initially took the view it may
23       have been a multiple tap.
24           Do you understand whether there is any indication
25       anywhere that after he examined it more leisurely he was
page 143
 1       still of that view?  Have you seen any indication to
 2       that effect in this e-mail?
 3   A.  I can't explain what he's doing there but I can't really
 4       answer for him.  I just can't.
 5   MR SMITH:  Thank you.  I have no further questions.
 6   MISS GRAHAME:  Sir, there are two matters, if I may.  The
 7       first relates to the characteristic table.  I would like
 8       to clarify the position in relation to that.
 9           The second relates to the difficulties he has
10       experienced with the Fiscal and, again, I would like to
11       clarify the position.
12   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.
13                  Cross-examined by MISS GRAHAME
14   Q.  Mr Bayle, may I ask you, first of all, about the
15       characteristic table.  I don't have the benefit of
16       LiveNote this afternoon but I have you noted as saying
17       this must be produced in court anywhere in the UK.  You
18       then went on to talk about 16 points being identified in
19       it.
20   A.  That's correct.
21   Q.  Can I ask you, first of all, are you speaking of the
22       practice and procedure in England?
23   A.  Well, as far as I know, it should be everywhere because
24       we teach -- Durham actually teach the same stuff, as far
25       as I know, to Scottish trainees and the two colleges, we
page 144
 1       liaise with each other.  So we should be singing from
 2       the same hymn sheet.
 3   Q.  So would it surprise you to know that in Scotland we
 4       don't produce characteristic tables to court?
 5   A.  I've noticed.
 6   Q.  You have noticed that?
 7   A.  But let me say it's dangerous, okay, because really the
 8       reason why we teach experts to use the characteristic is
 9       because it's part of their expertise.  They're actually
10       explaining the identification process with that
11       characteristic table.  It would be interesting to know
12       did they ever do that or when did they stop it.  I don't
13       know.
14   Q.  Can I also ask since the introduction of the non-numeric
15       system in England, is this characteristic table still
16       produced by experts there?
17   A.  No, because they very rarely go to court with
18       enlargements now.  I've never seen one yet.
19   Q.  So is it only produced in England where the case is
20       going to trial?
21   A.  Enlargements -- no, they don't produce enlargements at
22       all now.
23   Q.  I am talking about the characteristic table.
24   A.  If they are going to produce it -- I don't know.  I just
25       don't know now because I've been left, what, nine years
page 145
 1       now.  We did teach up to I left they must produce a
 2       characteristic table.  I think that's the best answer I
 3       can give you for that.
 4   Q.  That was prior to the introduction of the non-numeric
 5       standard?
 6   A.  That's correct.
 7   Q.  The second matter I wanted to ask you about was
 8       something you said about having a complaint or problems
 9       with the Fiscal.
10           Am I correct in my understanding that the
11       difficulties seemed to be that you would have to go to
12       the Fiscal's Office to look at productions and labels?
13   A.  That's correct, yes.
14   Q.  Rather than them sending you any items for examination?
15   A.  Yes.
16   Q.  Was that when you were instructed by the defence?
17   A.  That's correct, yes.
18   Q.  Again, do you understand that in Scotland it's not the
19       practice of the Crown Office and Procurators Fiscal
20       Service to send labels or productions to outside parties
21       when they are going to be required for trial?
22   A.  Yes, I understand that although some of them have been
23       doing it now for the past year or so.  But I wasn't
24       really -- I'm not complaining about it.  It's that the
25       system that I have to go to a PF's office where I've got
page 146
 1       no lighting, I haven't got the facilities, I'd rather go
 2       to the bureau which I did on a few occasions but it's --
 3       really we shouldn't be examining latent marks in the
 4       PF's office.  They haven't got the facilities for doing
 5       it and I've been to some right dingy places.  So it's
 6       very difficult.
 7   Q.  So your complaint is that that makes you job more
 8       difficult?
 9   A.  Well, it does and how many other experts have had to go
10       through that process as well which why haven't they
11       complained about that?
12   Q.  But you will appreciate that COPFS have to make sure
13       items aren't lost and also that there's continuity of
14       the evidence and items aren't mishandled or damaged in
15       any way?
16   A.  Yes, I realise that but that's why I brought it up for
17       the Inquiry to have a look at.
18   MISS GRAHAME:  Thank you very much.  I have no further
19       questions.
20   MISS CARMICHAEL:  No thank you, sir.
21   THE CHAIRMAN:  I just wanted to clarify one thing.  When you
22       said that 90 per cent of the markings were wrong, of
23       course you are not saying 90 per cent of the
24       identifications are wrong, it's the way it is being
25       presented.  I just don't want it going abroad that you
page 147
 1       were suggesting things were otherwise.
 2   A.  No, it's just the marking-up -- very, very poor.
 3   THE CHAIRMAN:  I take it that is your view.
 4           Was one of the reasons why you used Y7 at Durham and
 5       at Hendon is that it is a difficult mark?
 6   A.  I think many experts would have problems with it.  An
 7       experienced officer wouldn't.  Trainees would have
 8       problems with it, but they should be able to look at
 9       that and make an ident.  The experts I spoke to had no
10       problems with it.  It's only been trainees or whatever,
11       but even I showed the marks to some trainees and they
12       still couldn't identify it.  So, no, I wouldn't say it's
13       a difficult mark, no.
14   THE CHAIRMAN:  It's just one witness suggested that you
15       could tell in 90 seconds that it was wrong.  But I'm
16       interested to know why you would choose something simple
17       when you are, as it were, training people you would give
18       them difficult ones which would test them.
19   A.  Oh, I do.  I've given them some very difficult ones --
20       more difficult than this.  It depends what stage they're
21       at and especially with the mistake we made at New
22       Scotland Yard and I tested six experts there and I gave
23       them some very difficult marks.  So really that's
24       nothing compared to what I've seen.
25   THE CHAIRMAN:  I think the next matter is administrative
page 148
 1       really.  You want to get some advice before you answer
 2       the question that was put and the problem will be how
 3       soon you can get that advice so we can let you complete
 4       your evidence, but could I leave that for you to notify
 5       the Inquiry team sitting on my left as soon as you have
 6       had an opportunity to take such advice as you feel you
 7       need and we will then try and interpose that short -- I
 8       hope it will be short -- bit of evidence from your point
 9       of view and we won't detain you much longer.
10   A.  Thank you very much.
11   THE CHAIRMAN:  So that seems to be as far as we can go
12       today.  I take it on the question of Mr Wertheim you
13       said you wanted to speak to him to take instructions.
14   MR SMITH:  I would prefer to do.  I may I say have been in
15       e-mail contact with him but he is unable to speak to me
16       by phone until this evening.  Obviously there is a time
17       difference.
18   THE CHAIRMAN:  If he is seven hours behind us --
19   MR SMITH:  He is indeed.  I hope I should be in a position
20       to make my position clear.
21   THE CHAIRMAN:  We will see how quickly we can deal with it
22       but my main aim, I think, would be that we should be
23       able to take Mr Swann and Mr Leadbetter and then deal
24       with that as soon as possible, but I don't want to delay
25       it, for a number of reasons, any longer than absolutely
page 149
 1       necessary.
 2   MR SMITH:  I am guessing that by tomorrow I will be in a
 3       position to enable the Inquiry to deal with the matter.
 4   THE CHAIRMAN:  We will try to deal with it as soon as we
 5       can.
 6           Tomorrow morning, have you arranged the order that
 7       the witnesses wish to be taken?
 8   MR MOYNIHAN:  Sir, I have not spoken to Mr Swann simply
 9       because Mr Russell is not available.  My current plan is
10       to begin with Mr Swann and then Mr Leadbetter
11       thereafter.  I understand Mr Leadbetter is arriving in
12       Glasgow this afternoon so he will not be --
13   THE CHAIRMAN:  I see Mr Swann is here so at least we can
14       start with him tomorrow.
15   MR MOYNIHAN:  Yes, sir.
16   THE CHAIRMAN:  Good.  Thank you very much.  We will meet
17       again as soon as you have had an opportunity.  So that
18       is 10.00 tomorrow.
19   (3.40 pm)
20        (Adjourned until 10.00 am the following morning)
21
22
23
24
25