Introduction
4.1. The sequence of events in the investigation and in the prosecution of Mr Asbury was of interest to the Inquiry insofar as the case against him included reliance on fingerprint evidence, including reliance on QI2 Ross that came to be disputed at a later date. The controversy surrounding Y7 and the significance of the mark QI2 Ross are to be viewed initially in the context of the importance of fingerprint evidence to the prosecution of Mr Asbury.
4.2. This chapter focuses on events external to the fingerprint bureau. The detail of the identification work done by SCRO is discussed separately in chapters 5 and 6.
Outline of the early stages of a prosecution
4.3. In Scotland the investigation and prosecution of crime is a matter for the Crown, and the police act under the general direction of the procurator fiscal during an investigation.1
4.4. Police officers can on their own authority detain individuals for questioning and if they have grounds to do so they can arrest and charge the individual. The police then make a report to the procurator fiscal.
4.5. In the more serious cases where an individual may be prosecuted on indictment the court process starts with the procurator fiscal framing a 'petition' detailing the charge. There are two hearings in court. At the first hearing the accused appears in private before a sheriff on petition and may be remanded in custody pending further enquiries. The second hearing occurs not later than eight clear days after the first hearing. At the second hearing, the sheriff may fully commit the accused for trial and in 1997 a charge of murder would invariably have resulted in the accused being remanded in custody.
4.6. The decision to place the accused on petition is generally a matter for the local procurator fiscal and Mr John McMenemy, Senior Procurator Fiscal Depute (retired), explained that such a decision was based on whether there was credible information in the police report.2
4.7. The decision whether to make an application to the sheriff for the accused to be fully committed was for Crown Counsel. The local fiscal was required to submit a report to Crown Office within three days of the accused first appearing on petition. The purpose of this report, known as a "three day report", was to inform the decision by Crown Counsel, who had to consider whether there was a corroborated case.3 The decision was not taken lightly. Mr Frank Crowe, formerly Deputy Crown Agent,4 put it in this way: "You were really imprisoning someone for the equivalent of seven months5 and you had to have a proper standard. This was a standard that was not checked by the courts so it was a standard I think we held very high and very dearly as fiscals to achieve that."6
4.8. Throughout this period police enquiries may be continuing and they may continue beyond the date of full committal. After full committal the case is also investigated by the local fiscal under direction of Crown Office. The decision fully to commit for trial is not final. The case having been fully investigated by the local fiscal it is again reported to Crown Office and Crown Counsel will decide whether the accused should be indicted for trial.
4.9. The indictment of Mr Asbury is discussed in Chapter 8. The principal dates of relevance to this chapter were:
13 - 17 January
13 January - the discovery of XF
4.10. A number of items that appeared to have been intended as gifts for others were in Miss Ross's home. One gift, which was wrapped and oblong in shape, was on the smallest of a nest of tables behind the door in the main living room.7 A tear was visible in the gift wrapping and the police considered the wrapped gift as the significant item out of the Christmas gifts found in that room.8
4.11. On 13 January, Mr Robert MacNeil9 and his senior10 Mr Leslie Gibbens11 of the Identification Bureau discovered mark XF on the gift tag attached to this wrapped gift.12 XF was one of a number of marks (XD to XY) that were passed on to the fingerprint bureau that day.13
4.12. The record of the police briefing held on 13 January said "175 fingerprints found from the house so far. SCRO working on the prints and some priority system needs to be established for elimination prints submitted to SCRO."14
14 January - Mr David Asbury
4.13. On 14 January information came to light as part of an enquiry by Mr Shields about the construction of the extension to Miss Ross's house in 1995.15 The extension had been built by Asbury Builders, and a grandson of the family, Mr David Asbury, who had worked on it, had left a suicide note and been reported missing. He had gone missing on 13 January.16 Enquiries were underway to trace him.
Examination of tin in Mr Asbury's home
4.14. Mr Shields and Ms McKie visited his home. Ms McKie said that the suicide note, which had been handed in to the local police station, mentioned that Mr Asbury had left a sum of money in a tin in his bedroom. The officers found the tin in a cupboard in his bedroom and in it they found "approximately £1,700" tied together in bundles of £100. This was the tin on which QI2 was subsequently to be found. They left the tin and contents where they found it. No gloves were worn when the police examined the tin.17
4.15. Mr Asbury returned home on Tuesday 14 January.
4.16. The fact that Ms McKie was involved in the examination of the tin at Mr Asbury's home subsequently assumed a possible significance. At its simplest it meant that Ms McKie recognised that her fingerprints would be needed for elimination purposes. There was also room for the possible theory that she might have left her mark on the tin, and that the mark had been transferred from there to Miss Ross's house.
4.17. I did not consider it necessary to investigate planting or transfer of fingerprints. That suggestion had come from Ms McKie at a time when she accepted the reliability of the identification of Y7. By the time of the Inquiry this was no longer a live issue.
15-17 January
4.18. SCRO's work on 15 January included the bundle of marks with XF in it. Conclusions about marks that were insufficient or belonged to Miss Ross were reached and those marks were removed, leaving XF, the mark on the gift tag, as the only outstanding mark in that bundle.18
4.19. On 16 January Mr Asbury was interviewed by police and a statement taken from him. At that stage his fingerprints were taken for the purposes of elimination. The Inquiry was unable to trace these elimination prints.
17 January - visit of fingerprint officers to the murder scene
4.20. The Glasgow fingerprint bureau examiners were usually office-bound19 but occasionally visited a crime scene to look at marks and on Friday 17 January Mr MacPherson and Mr Alister Geddes visited 43 Irvine Road, with Mr Thurley, primarily to view a mark on a chair.20
4.21. Mr MacPherson recalled that the visit was before Y7 was identified. He thought that he saw Y7 when he was there because it was an important mark since it had been discovered near where Miss Ross's body had been found,21 but he would not have had the photographs of Y7 with him and had no recollection of trying to orientate the mark or anything like that.22 In the days between 16 January and 11 February when he identified Y7 as belonging to Ms McKie, various examiners in the bureau would have been working through the elimination forms. When Mr MacPherson was dealing with the mark, he was looking firstly at left thumb prints. "This would have been because of its position on the door-frame. My knowledge of the locus would have helped me in that analysis."23
4.22. Mr Geddes said that the police were excited by the potential of Y7 so it was noted at the time of that visit, though the emphasis was more on the print on the chair.24 In a written submission to the Scottish Parliament's Justice 1 Committee Inquiry he had said that the visit was illuminating with the mark on the chair being able to be correctly orientated and Y7 being properly assessed as a left thumb. However, in his evidence to the Inquiry he thought that he had been over definite in saying that. During the visit he could see that Y7 was potentially going to be a thumb print but he was not definite in that conclusion and he could not differentiate it as a right or left thumb. Nothing could be ruled out until comparison and analysis and assignment of ownership.25
21 - 31 January
XF and Mr Asbury's detention and arrest
4.23. On Tuesday 21 January, SCRO identified XF, the mark on the gift tag found in Miss Ross's house, as that of David Asbury.
4.24. At 14:00 on 21 January Mr Kirkland told Mr Heath of the identification of mark XF as David Asbury's. Mr Heath and Mr McAllister regarded this as an important development.26 At this point, dating the gift became a focus of the inquiry,27 and David Asbury was now a "TIE suspect".28
4.25. Mr Heath met staff at the procurator fiscal's office, Mr John McLellan and Mr McMenemy, and prepared a report29 requesting a warrant to search David Asbury's home. The sheriff granted the warrant.30
4.26. On Wednesday 22 January Mr Asbury was detained under section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and his home was searched. The tin was recovered, sealed and labelled and taken to Kilmarnock Police Station. It contained £2,240 in notes. He was taken to a police station for interview, at the conclusion of which, on Mr Heath's instructions, he was arrested and charged with murder.31
23 January - Mr Asbury's first appearance in court
4.27. The police prepared a report dated 22 January and submitted it to the procurator fiscal at Kilmarnock next day.32 The police report33 recorded the evidence that the police then had against him:
"The gift, which was a boxed set of soap, appeared to have been wrapped for a known relative at Christmas 1996. Although the tag was of a type that had been on sale for Christmas 1995 and 1996, a receipt had been found in Miss Ross's house indicating a purchase of gift tags and wrapping paper on 18 November 1996.34 At interview Mr Asbury had denied being in the house since the renovation work, hence the presence of his fingerprint on the gift tag was unexplained.
He had delayed for 38 seconds before replying in the negative to the direct question whether or not he murdered Miss Ross.
While his arrest prints were being taken, he had started to make a voluntary statement saying that he had been in the house to use the phone when his car broke down 2 or 3 days before the murder. Mr Heath had arranged for officers previously unconnected with the inquiry to be brought in and his voluntary statement was tape-recorded in their presence.35 This was to the effect that he had called at the house of the deceased because his car had broken down and he wanted to call his mother. He then said that he had realised that the car had run out of petrol and had therefore not placed the call. The deceased had shown him around the house and he had used the toilet and then left."
4.28. The case report from the police was, at that time, delivered in hard copy to the fiscal's office to be attended to by the fiscal who was doing the custody court that day.36 Mr McMenemy explained that in Kilmarnock the police office, the sheriff court and the fiscal's office were close to one another making it easy for police to come across to discuss matters and Mr Heath said that it was his normal practice to visit the procurator fiscal at the point when a custody case was delivered.37
4.29. Mr McMenemy did not recall personally taking up this particular case.38 However he did recall that his view at that point was that it was a 'circumstantial' case.39 The term 'circumstantial' is a term of art used to describe a case where there is no direct evidence that the accused committed the crime (such as an eye witness who observed the crime taking place or an admission by the accused) and where the guilt of the accused has to be inferred from a number of different circumstances. The term is not a reflection on the strength or weakness of the case; circumstantial evidence may create a strong case or a weak case against an individual.
4.30. Mr Heath said that during his visit they would have discussed issues in the case. Though he considered that it "was an extremely thorough investigation" and that the police were presenting a sufficiency to the procurator fiscal,40 it was for the fiscal to take an independent decision about someone's liberty, based on the evidence provided to them.41
4.31. Mr Heath's recollection was that Mr McMenemy said to him that it was "a fairly circumstantial case"42 and Mr McMenemy agreed that it was "quite possible" that he might have said something of the sort.43 He described Mr Heath as "a very, very experienced police officer. He knew it was a circumstantial case. We did not have an admission."
4.32. On 23 January, Mr Asbury appeared on petition at Kilmarnock sheriff court and was remanded in custody for further examination.
23 January - visit of Mr McAllister and Mr Moffat to the locus
4.33. On 23 January Mr Moffat was instructed to return to the scene with Mr McAllister to go over the positions of certain prints.44 They had different recollections about the details of this visit.
4.34. Mr Moffat45 said that he was asked by Mr McAllister to return to the scene and to go over the positions of some of the prints. He had not done that before and on reflection he had concerns as to why he was asked to visit the scene.46 His recollection was that Mr McAllister wanted to ask him for an opinion on certain marks at the scene, and he was mainly interested in Y7 and Z7 though they also discussed A8. Mr McAllister also asked him about the age of the prints.
4.35. Mr Moffat said that he raised with Mr McAllister the possibility that Mr Gray might have been the donor of Y7 and Z7, because of the incident that had taken place when Miss Ross's body was being removed.47 His recollection was that Mr McAllister replied that the marks were not those of Mr Gray, but of another police officer. Mr McAllister did not indicate the name, age or sex of the officer.48 From Mr McAllister's tone, Mr Moffat concluded that he should not attempt to pursue the matter further with him.49
4.36. Mr McIntyre worked with Mr Kerr at the scene attending to productions and dealing with any locus specific inquiries from police officers. He had a recollection of Mr McAllister visiting the locus and showing him Y7. By the time of the Inquiry he had no memory beyond that.50 He was shown the statement that he gave to Chief Inspector Laurence Wilson51 dated 10 July 199752 and said that he believed that statement would be correct.53 It noted Mr McAllister as having said of Y7 that "it looked like a child or a female, but was not more explicit than that".
4.37. Mr McAllister54 said that he reviewed the scene on 23 January, which he recalled as the day following the arrest of Mr Asbury. A specialist search team was to be introduced the next day and, as part of a series of actions in advance of that he "felt it prudent to conduct a review ¿ both of the forensic examination by the forensic examiners and also the search of the house by my own staff".55 In relation to the fingerprints he was seeking an assurance from the Identification Bureau that the strategy agreed between himself and its head, Mr Hogg, had been followed through and "more specifically within that, [I was] seeking information about the small number of outstanding marks which had yet to be identified". Mr Moffat was there to point out the various outstanding marks to him.56
4.38. Mr McAllister told the Inquiry that he had no recollection of the specific discussions, but that he probably had a discussion with Mr Moffat about all the outstanding marks "to see what further action we might take to try and achieve identification".57 He commented that "the role of the police is to try and identify legitimate donors of those marks, obtain elimination forms and submit them to SCRO".58 Marks around the bathroom area were of particular importance, "but only from a perspective of they were in the vicinity of where Miss Ross's body had lain".59
4.39. After this visit Mr McAllister prepared his own aide-memoire60 about around 18 outstanding marks.61 In this he noted against Y7 "very interesting position on right door surround - leaning into bathroom? possibly right little finger of palmar Z7?" He noted also "Z7 insufficient".62 These were his own thoughts or questions to himself at the time and later he marked up answers to some of the questions "presumably after checking with SCRO around the identification or elimination of marks".63 There were no further comments against Y7 in his note.
4.40. He did not recall expressing the view that Y7 could be the mark of a woman or a child but accepted that he might have done so. He might have been thinking out loud and speculating whether, because of the size of the mark, it might have been. He had taken fingerprints many times and was aware that "in general terms the impressions taken from females tend to be smaller and neater than impressions from men" but his expertise was no more than that.
4.41. Mr McAllister denied making any comment on 23 January to the effect that the donor of Y7 and Z7 was known at that time to be a police officer. He denied that there had been any discussion about Mr Gray as a possible donor of the mark. He had become aware that this was Mr Moffat's recollection only in the course of the Mackay enquiry. When he became aware of Mr Moffat's position he had prepared a memorandum on the point and submitted it to the head of Strathclyde CID, Mr Malcolm.64 He had set out his version of events as he thought that the remarks attributed to him could be taken to infer that he might have had some level of prior knowledge of the identification of Y7, and that was not the case.
4.42. Mr Moffat confirmed to the Inquiry his recollection of what occurred on 23 January 1997 even when it was pointed out to him that Y7 was not identified as Ms McKie's until 11 February65 and that the Mackay report narrated that Mr McAllister disputed his account.66 He conceded however that since he wrote nothing down he could not disagree with what the Mackay report had concluded namely that there was no evidence to corroborate his account and that the weight of evidence supported Mr McAllister's position that he had no knowledge of the donor of the mark until 11 February.67
4.43. Mr Moffat accepted that there was no mention of his suggestion about Mr Gray in his statements to Mr Malcolm and Mr Wilson in 1997 but he explained that at that time the print had been identified as Ms McKie's and there would be no reason to query that.68 Other than at the start when it was "no big thing",69 the time when he felt it was appropriate to speak about it was when he first learned that there would be a challenge to the identification of the print and SCRO had possibly made a mistake.70
4.44. It was only during the Inquiry hearing on 11 June 200971 that Mr Moffat first learned that the Mackay enquiry concluded that Y7 was not the mark of Mr Gray72 that finding not having previously been made public.
4.45. In relation to this matter I prefer the evidence of Mr McAllister. There is no evidence to support the proposition that Y7 or Z7 had been identified by 23 January 1997. SCRO received Ms McKie's prints on 6 February73 and on 11 February Mr McAllister was informed that Y7 had been attributed to her.74 There is no reason why Mr McAllister would have made such a comment on 23 January. Mr McAllister's position is also supported by the terms of his own aide-memoire. I do not suggest that Mr Moffat was in any way seeking to mislead me. I accept that he genuinely believed a conversation took place in the terms he described, but I conclude that his recollection is not reliable on this point.
Miss Ross's prints retaken
4.46. Fingerprint and palm impressions had been taken from Miss Ross's body on 10 January.75 Further impressions were taken on 23 January.76
The discovery of marks on the tin and contents, including QD2 and QI2
4.47. On Friday 24 January the tin was examined at the Strathclyde Forensic Science Laboratory,77 and on Monday 27 January Mr Gibbens and Mr MacNeil at the Identification Bureau examined it for fingerprints.78 The examination disclosed two prints on the lid (QE2 and QF2) and six others on the outside of the tin.79 QI2 was one of those found on the outside.80 They also examined the money and found mark QD2.81
The continuing investigation and Crown Counsel
4.48. Mr Heath said that he and his officers were working extremely hard during the period between Mr Asbury's two court appearances and a lot of significant evidence developed that week. The job of a senior investigating officer was a very busy and pressured one and he would have had his people working as hard as they possibly could to pursue the lines of enquiry. In the course of such an investigation it was normal to have many discussions with the fiscal. Part of the job was to get as much work done as they could before the next appearance "because that is our duty to an accused person as well as to the relatives of the victim and the victim".82
4.49. The police report83 had indicated that the police were following a positive line of enquiry regarding the possibility that the money, and perhaps also the tin, had been taken from the deceased. It stated "£2,240 recovered in the bedroom of the accused on 22/1/97 will be examined for blood and the fingerprints of the deceased". The entry for 23 January in the HOLMES event file84 included the following:
"The money found in his house with the clothing and footwear to be a priority for examination. Financial profile of Asbury required ASAP. The sweet jar/tin found in house containing money from M&S to be fingerprinted."
4.50. On Monday 27 January Mr Heath submitted a follow-up report to the procurator fiscal.85 The report touched on the Christmas gift tag and also stated86 that a significant part of the money found in Mr Asbury's house was folded in a manner associated with bank staff and that Miss Ross was known to fold money in this way. Fingerprint, forensic and handwriting examinations were to take place to endeavour to prove that the money belonged to Miss Ross.
4.51. Mr MacTaggart, a procurator fiscal depute at Kilmarnock, submitted the three day report to Crown Office on 28 January.87
29 January - Marks QB2 - QL2
4.52. On 29 January SCRO received the photographs of QI2 and QD2 in a bundle QB2 to QL2,88 and that day QD2 was identified as the right little finger of David Asbury, and QE2 and QL2 were also identified as belonging to him.
4.53. Mr Heath attended a lab, IB and SCRO liaison meeting that afternoon. The purpose of such a meeting he said was to explain the priorities in the case.89 His briefing notes for that day90 referred to elimination of prints and this was critical at this stage.91 "I was very clear: any TIE people that were still in the system had to be eliminated. Any prints that were still there had to be eliminated if possible and any forensic work that still needed to be done, even if it did not relate to Mr Asbury, still had to be done. I think we still raised in the region of 200 actions not related to Mr Asbury after that arrest."92
4.54. Although SCRO had received most fingermarks by 29 January, marks continued to arrive into March 1997.93
4.55. SCRO's diary page recorded "2:00pm debrief/police elims prioritised".94 The identifications of QD2, QE2 and QL2 were intimated to Mr McAllister at the meeting.95
4.56. The bundle QB2 to QL2 contained eleven marks, of which three were identified as belonging to Mr Asbury. The evidence about SCRO's standard process96 would indicate that the first action with a bundle is to isolate marks considered to be fragmentary and insufficient. The marks worksheet97 shows that seven of the batch were so marked. Although SCRO's records do not give dates for such findings, three of the marks had been identified and seven marked fragmentary and insufficient so it would appear that from the afternoon of 29 January, the only outstanding mark of the eleven in this bundle was QI2.
4.57. The three day report was received at Crown Office on 29 January98 and studied by Mr William Gallacher, a procurator fiscal depute who was then the head of the High Court Unit.99 He passed it to the duty advocate depute for instructions, appending a note:100
"I have asked PF to clarify what the evidence is of his family re 5-7 Jan. Police say they cannot support the accused - I have asked just what they say. At JE [judicial examination] a/c says in house on 4/1/97 and at home 5-7 Jan. As for money I have asked for explanation as to differences in amounts, whether all the money is folded unusually and for what accused actually says about it."
30 January - instruction for full committal for trial
4.58. On 30 January Mr Heath delivered a manuscript note to Mr MacTaggart in Kilmarnock,101 with an update on the money, including disclosure of the fact that Mr Nimrod Asbury, the accused's grandfather, was said to fold money in the same manner.102 The procurator fiscal had contacted him that day and they had a meeting.103
4.59. The slip immediately following in the Crown Office file, dated 30 January, was from "RGC AD" (Mr RG Clancy, Advocate Depute) and read: "CC instruct FC murder" [Crown Counsel instruct full committal murder].104
4.60. That was the instruction authorising the local procurator fiscal to apply to the court to have Mr Asbury fully committed for trial. An insight into the thinking behind that decision is given by the manuscript note written by Mr Gallacher to Crown Counsel seeking instructions on full committal and dated 30 January:
"...In essence the evidence is that the accused's fingerprints are found on property in the house which was there after the time when the accused last had legitimate access to the house - His 'explanation' does not cover anything other than the phone.
There is in addition the money recovered, folded in a peculiar way (the figures of £1795 & £2240 appear in police report with no explanation of the difference) his unusual behaviour after the death, the falsehood of some of his interview, and I suppose his earlier involvement & knowledge of the house.
I think it is just sustainable to link the [fingerprint] to the murderer - given the other evidence on security of the house - & the other [circumstances] are probably enough to justify F.C." (i.e. full committal).105
4.61. Mr Gallacher communicated the instruction to the procurator fiscal at Kilmarnock by letter dated 30 January,106 which Mr McMenemy said would have been opened on 31 January.107
31 January - Mr Asbury in court, QI2 identified
4.62. Mr Asbury was fully committed for trial in a court appearance before the Sheriff on Friday 31 January 1997.
4.63. On 31 January, the same day as the full committal hearing and the day after Crown Counsel had instructed full committal, QI2, the mark on the tin found in Mr Asbury's house, was identified as being partly Miss Ross's right forefinger, and partly the right middle finger of David Asbury.
Commentary
4.64. When Mr McMenemy made a comment to Mr Heath about the case being circumstantial he was merely making an observation about the nature of the evidence. Mr Heath knew that Mr Asbury's arrest and appearance on petition did not signal the end of the investigation. He understood that he had to continue the investigation because Mr Asbury's, and other public, interests were at stake, and the investigation carried on. It carried on after the second court appearance. It was normal for an investigation to continue right up to trial.
4.65. It is also important to note that there was a procedural safeguard in operation. After the procurator fiscal had decided to place Mr Asbury on petition and bring him before the sheriff, the next decision, whether to seek authorisation from the sheriff to fully commit Mr Asbury for trial was taken by a different person. It was Crown Counsel and not the procurator fiscal who determined whether, on the basis of the information available to him, and to a different and higher standard (namely a corroborated case), there was sufficient evidence to apply to the sheriff to have Mr Asbury fully committed for trial.
4.66. In chapter 5 I look more closely at the circumstances surrounding the identification of QI2 Ross and, in particular, a difference in recollection between Mr McMenemy and Mr Crowe regarding the evidential significance of the identification of that mark. I am satisfied that Crown Counsel made the decision authorising the application to the sheriff to fully commit Mr Asbury for trial on 30 January and without knowing about the identification of QI2 Ross. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the identification of QI2 did not influence the Crown's decision that there was a sufficiency of evidence against Mr Asbury justifying the application to the sheriff to have him fully committed on the charge of murder.
1. See Appendix 7
2. Mr McMenemy 11 June pages 108 and 115
3. Mr McMenemy 11 June page 115 (See also Sheriff Crowe 2 July page 132)
4. Now Sheriff Crowe
5. The trial at that time had to commence within 110 days (i.e. 3½ months) but that was equivalent to a seven month jail sentence once remission was taken into account.
6. Sheriff Crowe 2 July page 33
7. So called in Mr Thurley's sketch of the ground floor of the house - DB_0014. This was a different living room to the one where the police officers were over the night of 8 January. On the video, the gift with its tag attached sat parallel to the left side of the table. In the photograph taken by Mr Moffat it sat along the front of the table. Mr Moffat explained that he would have moved the present, after taking the video, to allow for a better photograph - FI_0003 paras 17 - 18 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Moffat, ST_0001 - photograph A in Production 14 in HMA v Asbury, Mr Moffat 10 June page 144 and Mr Moffat 11 June pages 62, 73, 88-90.
8. Mr McAllister 16 June page 21 and FI_0068 para 81 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McAllister
9. Mr MacNeil 11,12 June and FI_0018 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacNeil
10. Mr MacNeil 12 June pages 34, 55
11. Mr Gibbens 12 June and FI_0074 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Gibbens
12. PS_0016
13. DB_0003
14. CO_1686
15. FI_0013 paras 120-124 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Heath
16. CO_1422
17. FI_0071 paras 47-53 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McKie and CO_2219 Mackay enquiry statement of Ms McKie (which she generally adopted in her Inquiry statement - see FI_0071 paras 6-8)
18. FI_0056 para 67 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Mr MacPherson
19. Mr MacPherson 3 November page 121 and FI_0055 para 140 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
20. Mr Geddes 26 June pages 96-97 and FI_0055 para 140 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
21. FI_0055 para 145 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
22. FI_0055 para 143 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
23. FI_0055 paras 144, 146 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
24. Mr Geddes 26 June pages 97-98
25. Mr Geddes 26 June pages 98ff, 140ff and FI_0031 paras 87-91 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes
26. FI_0013 para 151 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Heath and FI_0068 para 90 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McAllister
27. FI_0013 para 156 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Heath
28. FI_0013 para 155 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Heath - TIE: trace, interview, eliminate
29. CO_1422
30. FI_0013 paras 157-158 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Heath
31. FI_0013 para 167 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Heath
32. FI_0013 para 175 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Heath
33. CO_0994
34. Subsequent police enquiries found that the boxed set of soap was of a type not manufactured before 1996 which confirmed that Mr Asbury could not have placed his mark on the tag during the time he worked at the house in 1995. Narrative of Facts in the Precognition for HMA v Asbury (CO_3850)
35. FI_0013 para 168 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Heath
36. Mr McMenemy 11 June pages 105, 147-148
37. FI_0013 para 157 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Heath and Mr Heath 9 June page 34ff
38. The papers which he would have wished to refer to were not wholly available. Mr McMenemy 11 June pages 106, 118 and 141-147, FI_0135 - Note of his subsequent attendance to examine papers at the Inquiry's offices.
39. Mr McMenemy 11 June page 107
40. Mr Heath 9 June pages 36-37
41. Mr Heath 9 June page 36
42. FI_0013 para 222 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Heath
43. Mr McMenemy 11 June page 107
44. Mr Moffat 11 June page 12
45. Mr Moffat 11 June pages 63ff, 79ff and FI_0003 paras 62-66 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Moffat
46. Mr Moffat 11 June pages 12-13, 16-17, 87ff and FI_0003 para 64 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Moffat
47. See Chapter 3 para 31ff
48. Mr Moffat 11 June pages 13-15 and FI_0003 para 63 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Moffat
49. Mr Moffat 11 June pages 13-15
50. FI_0041 paras 25-27 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McIntyre
51. See Chapter 8 para 85
52. CO_1592
53. Mr McIntyre 18 June pages 94-95 and FI_0041 paras 3 and 27 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McIntyre
54. Mr McAllister 12 June pages 97ff
55. Mr McAllister 12 June page 97
56. FI_0068 para 71 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McAllister
57. Mr McAllister 12 June page 100
58. Mr McAllister 12 June page 122
59. Mr McAllister 10 June page 99
60. CO_1706
61. CO_1706 (and see also AG_0003)
62. 62Mr McAllister 12 June page 107 and FI_0068 para 75 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McAllister
63. Mr McAllister 12 June pages 109-110
64. Mr McAllister 12 June pages 101-107, Mr McAllister 16 June pages 13-17, FI_0068 para 73 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McAllister and AG_0003 - Memorandum dated 29 August 2000
65. Mr Moffat 11 June pages 65-66
66. Mr Moffat 11 June page 79ff
67. Mr Moffat 11 June page 83
68. Mr Moffat 11 June pages 18-23, 67
69. Mr Moffat 11 June page 68
70. Mr Moffat 11 June pages 78-79
71. Mr Moffat 11 June pages 84-85
72. See Chapter 3
73. ST_0004h
74. See Chapter 6 para 49 and Chapter 7 para 5
75. DB_0142h
76. DB_0017h
77. CO_2391
78. FI_0018 para 56 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacNeil
79. FI_0018 para 57 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacNeil. See Chapter 19
80. PS_0016
81. FI_0018 para 42 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacNeil and PS_0016
82. Mr Heath 9 June pages 37-39
83. CO_0994
84. CO_1686
85. AC_0045
86. AC_0045 para 8
87. CO_4036
88. DB_0003 and date stamp on form 13B
89. FI_0013 para 210 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Heath and CO_1688
90. AC_0050
91. FI_0013 para 214 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Heath
92. Mr Heath 9 June pages 53-54
93. DB_0003
94. DB_0002
95. FI_0055 para 103 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
96. See Chapter 22
97. DB_0003
98. CO_4036
99. Now a Sheriff
100. CO_4034 (underlining is in the original)
101. AC_0052
102. Miss Ross was believed to have folded bank notes in a particular manner.
103. FI_0013 paras 217-220 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Heath
104. CO_4035
105. CO_4036 (underlining is in the original)
106. CO_4033
107. Mr McMenemy 11 June page 116