Examination of the marks in the bundle Y7-V9
6.1. SCRO's worksheets showed that the bundle of marks Y7-V9 was being examined from Sunday 19 January.1 Marks in the bundle were compared, for example, against the prints of scene of crime officers2 and from 3 February against persons on a list of police staff. 3 The initials on the worksheets show that at least seven different examiners had been involved in comparing and checking the marks in this bundle before Y7 was identified. The initials of Mr Geddes and Mr MacPherson both appear on the sheets in this period.
6.2. Sometimes the police told SCRO which marks were to be checked against which people in order to narrow their focus and therefore prioritise their workload but the batch Y7 - V9 was being checked against all officers on the list.4
6.3. The partial palm print Z7, which was found close to Y7, was in this batch. SCRO set it aside as fragmentary and insufficient and given SCRO's working practices this would have happened early in the process.5
6.4. Mr Heath's briefing notes for Tuesday 4 February6 recorded that the number of fingerprints still to be addressed was down to four, including one on "hoover bedroom door" (which is taken to be a reference to C8) and "1 on bathroom door facing" (Y7).7
6.5. The worksheets showed the bundle Y7 - V9 being examined into March 1997, but the bundle would be reducing in size as the photographs of marks for which a conclusion had been reached (fragmentary and insufficient, identified as, etc) were removed. Once Y7 was identified it would have been taken from the bundle and not compared against anyone else's prints.8
6.6. Y7 was not one of the marks run through the AFR system.9 The computer could not use a mark which was distorted, twisted or superimposed.10
Receipt of Ms McKie's prints
6.7. Ms McKie said she mentioned the need to compare her prints on Thursday 6 February. She was no longer working on the murder investigation but had learned that Mr Asbury had been arrested and the tin recovered and explained to a member of the HOLMES unit that as she had handled the tin her prints should be compared against any impressions found on it.11 SCRO did not have her prints and requested them that day, as well as those of other officers.12 Because Ms McKie's ten prints could not be found in the police records Mr Shields took another set from her.13 They were supplied to SCRO on 7 February and Mr Geddes added her name to the list on the elimination sheet.14
6.8. Although it might have been considered that Ms McKie's relevance was limited to the tin, once she was included in the list of police officers for 'elimination' she would have been checked against the Y7-V9 batch like the other officers on the list.
The identification and verification of the mark
Identification by Mr MacPherson
6.9. Mr MacPherson did the initial comparison of Y7 with Ms McKie's prints. It was a random occurrence that he was the person to do so.15 Although his initials do not appear frequently on the worksheets for this bundle he had compared "a Martin Fairley" against Y7 on Friday 7 February, and said he might have compared the mark to the prints of other officers before he got to hers.16 Although his initials did not appear before then on the 'police' elimination sheet, he thought that it might not be complete. It does appear that he was the first person to check the bundle against, for example, Miss Ross's prints and Mr Asbury's.17
6.10. Mr MacPherson was not sure when exactly he compared Y7 with Ms McKie's prints, but his initials and the date "10/2" were on the elimination sheet, under the heading "COMP",18 suggesting that he did so on 10 February.
6.11. Mr MacPherson recalled taking "a long time" (he thought a minimum of thirty minutes) to identify Y7 as being Ms McKie's as he looked at it originally under glasses and also spent some time on the comparator with it.19
6.12. In his witness statement he described it as a distorted mark, which looked as if it had been twisted and pulled down at the tip.20 In oral evidence he gave various descriptions. It had either been put on, lifted and then rolled up to the tip, or put on and lifted, slightly turned and put back down again. There was compression of ridges, probably caused by the bone at the tip of the thumb being pressed really hard when it was deposited.21 An alternative description was that the lower part of the mark was a single touch which could have been placed first and then an anticlockwise movement to the top or alternatively the tip placed first, clockwise movement and then placed again.22
6.13. He regarded the top of the mark as fragmentary and insufficient. He accepted that there were one or two characteristics at the top (what has become known as the Rosetta and possibly a bifurcation above it) but he could not count through to this.23
6.14. He considered that Y7 was a loop to the left.24 This he supported by reference to the ridge flow in the bottom part of the mark. He accepted that the ridge flow in the top section looked like that of a right thumb but he said it was not: "It is just the way the mark has been placed on the door surround."25
6.15. Mr MacPherson said that his knowledge of the door-frame from his visit to the house would have helped in this analysis.26 He described the lower part of the mark as pointing in an inwards direction to the bathroom. His explanation of this observation was difficult to follow and it may have meant no more than that it was the ridge flow in the bottom of the mark, rather than the finger itself, which was orientated in that direction. His drawing of the tip of the thumb was consistent with that part of the finger facing outwards from the bathroom.27
6.16. Having concluded that Y7 was a loop to the left, in processing elimination forms he would have been excluding things that were not a loop to the left. When he found Ms McKie's print was a loop to the left that was a start for his examination.28
6.17. He applied the 16-point standard in examining the mark. That was the standard that he was applying generally to the marks in this case but more particularly for Y7.29 "The mark was two feet away from where the body had been discovered; so it does not take a top detective to know that the officers in charge of the case would probably be interested in it."30
6.18. The manner in which he conducted his analysis and comparison is summarised in Chapter 28.
6.19. Once he had made an identification he asked Mr Geddes to do the second check31 and might have told him the mark was that of a police officer (the ten-print form32 would have disclosed that fact anyway because Ms McKie was named as "Shirley Cardwell DC") and indicated there might be repercussions because it was found so close to the body of the victim.33
Mr Geddes's examination of the mark and print
6.20. Mr Geddes was the other examiner assigned to the fingerprint work in the Marion Ross case.34 The worksheets show that he compared or checked the marks in the Y7-V9 bundle against a number of individuals prior to the comparison with Ms McKie's print form,35 and he was recorded as one of the verifiers for each of XF, QD2 and QI2.
6.21. Mr Geddes said when Mr MacPherson "ultimately succeeded in finding the elimination for Y7" and asked him to do the second check he would have told him he had eliminated it as a police officer's mark.36 His recollection was that Y7 was handed to him in paper form and not on the comparator. He initially examined it using glasses and then put it on the comparator.37
6.22. He had been with Mr MacPherson at the locus to look at another mark and saw Y7 in situ but in his evidence to the Inquiry he did not place much reliance on what he saw that day, saying no more than that it indicated to him that Y7 had the potential to be a left thumb print.38
6.23. He declined to comment on whether anyone viewing Y7 in situ could draw an inference as to whether the person who made the mark was looking into or out of the bathroom at the time, as his knowledge, training and experience was to do with orientation of marks but not body alignment. That was outwith his expertise, he could only draw on the detail disclosed by a mark.39
6.24. He described Y7 as a complex mark that seemed to have been subjected to movement, as if it had been placed onto the door-frame and then twisted. In his view, if it was looked at "up from the core" it became elongated, indicating "severe" movement.40 The movement was clear to him.41 When he could not work from top to bottom due to the movement he concentrated on the bottom of the mark and found "sufficient volume of ridge detail to assign ownership of the mark".42 He then counted ten points of comparison and was satisfied that Y7 was Ms McKie's left thumb print43
Mr Geddes's discussion with Mr MacPherson
6.25. Once Mr Geddes told Mr MacPherson he was happy to eliminate it, Mr MacPherson asked him to get 16 points. 44
6.26. He told the Inquiry he looked at the mark further on his own to see if he could find 16 points. He and Mr MacPherson then discussed the mark and Mr MacPherson used the comparator and marked up the points that he could see. Mr Geddes explained his difficulty, and marked up what he saw. He told Mr MacPherson that he was not comfortable identifying 16 points. He could see the sequence marked up by him but was not confident enough of some of the points.45 Mr MacPherson said it was "a professional discussion. Alister still felt that he was only with the ten that he saw at that time and that was it. That was fine. He was basically identifying the mark but just not to 16."46 There was no pressure on Mr Geddes to find
16 points.47
6.27. Mr Geddes did not sign the elimination sheet because Mr MacPherson was looking for an identification to 16 points and he was unable to commit to that.48
6.28. Mr Geddes told the Inquiry that in 2005, in connection with Ms McKie's claim for compensation, he was able to find 16 points and he suggested that that might have been down to his greater experience by then.49 In 1997 he had not been surprised that Mr MacPherson had found more points than he had because Mr MacPherson had "a vast amount of practical experience".50
Next step
6.29. Had Mr Geddes said this was a misidentification Mr MacPherson would have had to report to the chief inspector51 but the fact that it was only a difference of opinion as to the number of characteristics in an otherwise agreed identification meant that Mr MacPherson could go to another fingerprint officer.52
Verification by Mr Stewart
6.30. Mr Stewart was asked to look at the mark and the ten-print form by Mr MacPherson.53 He did not remember anyone telling him at the time that Mr Geddes had looked at it and found ten. He became aware of Mr Geddes's involvement later, possibly when they were preparing evidence for court but he could not be sure.54
6.31. Mr Stewart remembered looking at Y7 but did not have a clear recollection of how he did the comparison.55 He said he was not given background information about whose print it was or the significance of it. The photograph might have had the mark "No 6" with an arrow on it, to indicate that it was a left thumb and the direction of the mark, as that was what Mr MacPherson normally gave an examiner.56 He would have carried out the comparison using glasses, looking at the mark and the known print at the same time. He did not remember using the comparator screen though he might have done so. His decision-making was always on the basis of using two glasses.58
6.32. He did not find it a quick and easy mark59 and regarded it as complex60 and of poor quality, by which he meant that there were not a lot of ridge characteristics in it (the average mark might have 20 or 30 but Y7 did not contain a lot), and it contained areas where there was obviously pressure or movement, distortion.61 He would have spent a reasonable time on it because of the quality but could not say how long.62
6.33. Asked whether he had considered the upper part of the mark, he thought there were two reasons why he did not spend long on that part. Firstly there appeared to be a lot of movement and distortion. Secondly, at that time the fingerprint form he had did not show a lot of the upper part of the mark. All that he could remember was that there were considerable signs of movement, superimposition, maybe even a double touch, so he left it out of his comparison and worked with the area of the mark he deemed viable, which he thought was the bottom half.63
6.34. When he reached 16 points he would have stopped because there was no need to go beyond that. He might have reached his conclusion before this.64
Verification by Ms McBride
6.35. Ms McBride was asked by Mr MacPherson to compare Y7, which she did in the middle of doing another case.65 She was also one of the verifiers for QD2.
6.36. Mr MacPherson handed the mark and elimination form to her.66 Her recollection was that Mr MacPherson told her that it was a whodunit and that the marks were being eliminated to the 16-point standard. He also told her that it appeared that the mark had been made by a police officer near to the body of Marion Ross.67 He did not mention that Mr Stewart had examined the mark but did say that Mr Geddes had done so and could not find 16 points of similarity, which she took to be to emphasise to her that if she thought it was a difficult identification she did not have to sign.68
6.37. On an initial glance looking at the top of the mark she thought it was a right thumb "because of the slope at the top" but when she looked at it closely she realised it was not. She said that she looked at the right thumb,69 and checked it against Ms McKie's left thumb.70
6.38. It was clear to her that Y7 was not a continuous print, which was not to say that it was not put down at the same time. She recalled that it was "broken" and that it was moved at the top, but other marks also had movement in them. There was nothing particularly interesting about this mark, though later it turned out it was a very complex mark if one studied the movement in detail. The mark was in pieces and she described the top as a "mishmash".71 There were a couple of points here and there but it was insufficient for comparison. She said that she must have seen the Rosetta and discounted it: she described it "existing in the twilight zone between the two [parts of the mark]".72
6.39. At the time she focussed on the bottom part. She was likely to have started at the core and working out and she checked every characteristic in the clear part against both the plain and rolled impressions and got over 16 points.73
6.40. She spent a long time on the mark. Mr MacPherson came over and asked her if she was finished but she told him she was not, and to go away.74 She studied it under glass. Once she was finished she had a conversation with Mr MacPherson about recording initials on the back of the image and only then did she learn that Mr Stewart had identified it.75 She marked three sets of initials on the back and handed it back to Mr MacPherson, who continued down the office to get a fourth checker.76
Verification by Mr McKenna
6.41. Mr McKenna was then asked to look at the mark by Mr MacPherson.77 He was also one of the verifiers for XF. His team was dealing with two murders at the time. There was never any issue about the time one could spend examining marks; it was just a case of managing resources.78
6.42. He was not given any information before he looked at it79 but he knew he was the fourth checker and thought he would have been aware that 16 points had already been identified by Mr MacPherson, Mr Stewart and Ms McBride.80 He was not aware of the prior involvement of Mr Geddes until after Ms McKie's trial.81
6.43. He believed that it was on the comparator when he first saw it and he thought there were signatures on the side of the comparator but could not remember if there were other markings. He removed Y7 from the comparator and carried out a comparison at his desk.82 This is not readily consistent with Ms McBride's evidence but it is fair to observe that Mr McKenna's recollection of detail was vague, which is understandable given the passage of time and the fact that he did not give evidence at the trial in HMA v McKie.
6.44. His evidence was that he would have had the form and photograph in front of him and, using linen glasses and pointers, scanned the mark and print together to find something to catch the eye in one or the other. Then he would have looked for characteristics in sequence and agreement and kept a mental count as he went along, stopping once he had 16. When he was satisfied with his identification he put it back on the comparator to confirm that he had 16 points in sequence and agreement.83
6.45. He could not remember if he noticed any differences and when asked if he considered at all the upper part of the mark he replied that the form he saw did not disclose that area. He remembered getting 16 points on the area he examined.84
Communication of checkers' conclusions
6.46. When Mr Stewart, Ms McBride and Mr McKenna were each finished they handed the mark and form back to Mr MacPherson and told him their conclusion.85
Recording the result
6.47. Ms McBride wrote the first three sets of initials on the photograph of Y7 (those of Mr MacPherson, Mr Stewart and herself).86 Mr McKenna said that these initials were already on the image when it reached him and he added his.87
6.48. It was not documented in the case papers that Mr Geddes found ten points because the procedures did not provide for this at the time.88
Result phoned out
6.49. Mr MacPherson phoned Mr Heath with the result on the afternoon of 11 February.89 This was recorded on the back of the photograph: "DCI Heath- informed of elimination overleaf by HMcP 16:05 on 11/02/97."90
Commentary
The involvement of Mr Geddes
6.50. Mr MacPherson said: "A fingerprint expert stands alone before the court¿.Everybody has to basically make their own personal decision as regards identity."91 The fact that Mr Geddes adhered to his view shows he was prepared to hold to his position, even when the more experienced Mr MacPherson demonstrated his 16 points.
6.51. The decision by Mr MacPherson to pass on from Mr Geddes and to seek verification by other examiners was in accordance with the practice of the time in SCRO.
6.52. At the time Mr Geddes attributed his inability to confirm the existence of 16 common characteristics to relative inexperience (he was only three years qualified). As discussed in Chapter 28, there is an alternative explanation and that is that those who believed that they were able to discern 16 points were applying an undue degree of tolerance and the inability of Mr Geddes to confirm this total was an opportunity for all to reflect on the tolerances that were applied, an opportunity that was not taken.
The examiners' comments on the mark
6.53. A detailed consideration of the opinion evidence relative to Y7 is contained in Chapter 25. Points addressed there include the justification for concentrating on the lower part of the mark and the existence and significance of differences in the upper part of the mark. A critique of the SCRO examiners' reasoning in this regard is also given in Chapter 28.
Previous incident
6.54. One incidental matter may be conveniently discussed at this point. It relates to a previous incident where Ms McKie's print was found on a production in a police investigation in 1993.
6.55. The Inquiry explored the question whether this previous incident was in the mind of any of the SCRO fingerprint examiners when they were examining Y7 in February 1997.
6.56. The background to the 1993 incident is set out in a report for the procurator fiscal by Mr Malcolm dated 3 April 1997.92 Ms McKie was a production officer in an investigation and her print was found on a plastic bag which was an important production in the case. Mr Stewart,93 Mr Terence Foley,94 another SCRO fingerprint examiner, and Mr McKenna were involved in the examination of the fingerprints in that case. The suspicion at the time was that Ms McKie had lied when initially saying that she had worn gloves when handling productions. Subsequently it came to light in July 1998 that fingerprints could come through the latex gloves worn by police personnel,95 so the finding of a print by Ms McKie did not support any allegation that she had lied. However, in 1997 the view reflected in Mr Malcolm's report was that Ms McKie had not been telling the truth in relation to the 1993 incident and the question is whether that had any bearing on the identification of Y7.
6.57. The witness statement of Chief Superintendent Hugh Ferry, the Director of SCRO,96 taken by the Mackay enquiry states that the mark Y7 was significant for two reasons: because it was close to the body and because Ms McKie had been involved in a previous incident where her print had been found on a bag "and she had denied handling the item". The statement continued: "As a result of this the mark had apparently been examined by four experts prior to me being informed."97 (emphasis added). The word in italics is understood to refer to both of these reasons.
6.58. Chief Inspector William O'Neill, Head of the SCRO Fingerprint Bureau, (whose involvement is discussed in the next chapter) also mentioned, in the context of being told about the identification of Y7, that he was told by Mr Alan Dunbar (SCRO's Quality Assurance Manager),98 Mr MacPherson and Mr Heath that Ms McKie "had done something similar before".99 Mr O'Neill could not recall who said what nor in what order the conversations took place.
6.59. One possible explanation as to how the previous incident came to be mentioned in 1997 is to be found in the witness statement of DC Lunardi.100 She said that, when SCRO requested elimination prints from Ms McKie, Ms McKie commented that her prints should be on file as one of her fingerprints had already been identified at a locus of a major incident, with Mr Shields then indicating the nature of the previous incident. Ms Lunardi said Mr Heath mentioned this incident to her during the week when Y7 was identified as Ms McKie's fingerprint. Mr Heath said he first heard of this matter when Ms Lunardi told him, at some point when she gave him statements from Mr Shields and Ms McKie, that Ms McKie had left her print at a crime scene before.101 Ms McKie said she did not mention the previous incident to anyone on or around 6 February.102
6.60. Mr Stewart had no memory of hearing about the 1993 case nor did he recall giving a statement dated 3 April 1997103 to Mr Malcolm. He explained to the Inquiry that he had eliminated many marks of police officers during his career and such an event was not memorable.104 Mr McKenna was not aware of the link to the earlier incident at the time and may not have learned of it until 1998 or 1999.105
6.61. Mr Geddes had no knowledge of the previous incident106 nor did Mr Mackenzie.107 Mr MacPherson said it was many months after his initial identification of Y7 that he learned of the 1993 incident.108 Mr Bruce said the 1993 incident became common knowledge "after a certain time". He became aware of it a couple of years after 1997.109
Commentary
6.62. Mr O'Neill's recollection appears to be vague but is consistent with the conclusion that at some stage the previous incident may have become known in SCRO. There were telephone calls back and forth between the police and SCRO, and it may be that information about the 1993 incident was given to SCRO but there is no evidence that it was known at the point when the mark was initially compared and identified as Ms McKie's. Some of the examiners were involved in both cases but more than three years had elapsed in between and as Mr McKenna remarke110
6.63. I discount the second proposition in Mr Ferry's statement, namely that the mark was significant because Ms McKie had been involved in a previous incident. SCRO followed their normal procedures when first comparing the mark and it did not influence the outcome.
1. CO_1444 and CO_1446
2. In one of the case envelopes, DB_0253, a manuscript sheet dated 23.1.97 (DB_0257) noted: "Checked against Y7-Y9 - Graham Hunter, Michael Moffat, David Thurley, David Ferguson, Stewart Wilson."
3. CO_0198
4. CO_0198
5. When marks were received, an examiner would check the documentation then assess which were "fragmentary and insufficient" - see Chapter 22. For the reasons given in Chapter 1 Z7 was only investigated by the Inquiry to the extent mentioned there.
6. AC_0054
7. FI_0013 para 239 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Heath
8. FI_0055 paras 137-138 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson, FI_0056 paras 35, 40 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Mr MacPherson. See Chapter 22.
9. DB_0261 listed marks searched on the AFR system in the Marion Ross case (FI_0056 para 137ff Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Mr MacPherson, FI_0032 para 10 Inquiry Witness Statement Supp. of Mr Geddes and FI_0036 para 210 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart). Of the marks considered by the Inquiry only XF was listed.
10. FI_0046 para 87 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
11. FI_0071 para 61 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McKie
12. FI_0055 para 134 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson and FI_0031 para 85 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes
13. FI_0071 para 62 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McKie and ST_0004h
14. FI_0031 para 85 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes and CO_0198 The various steps were recorded on the HOLMES system (CO_1432, CO_1434, CO_1697 and CO_ 1700).
15. FI_0055 para 144 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
16. FI_0055 para 146 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson and CO_0198
17. CO_1444 on 19 and 21 January respectively
18. FI_0055 paras 144 and 151 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson, FI_0056 para 39 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Mr MacPherson and CO_0198
19. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 60
20. FI_0055 para 150 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
21. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 110
22. Mr MacPherson 28 October page 87
23. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 110
24. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 46-47
25. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 112
26. FI_0055 para 146 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
27. Mr MacPherson 27 October pages 102-113 and FI_2710.06
28. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 46-47
29. FI_0055 para 148 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson, Mr MacPherson 27 October pages 40-42 and 3 November pages 61-65
30. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 40
31. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 63 and 3 November pages 99-101 and FI_0055 paras 55, 149, 152 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
32. ST_0004h
33. FI_0055 para 152 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
34. Mr Geddes 26 June page 74, Mr MacPherson 3 November page 71
35. CO_1444 and CO_1446
36. FI_0031 para 97 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes.
37. FI_0031 para 101 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes
38. See Chapter 4 para 22
39. Mr Geddes 26 June pages 104-105, 143-145, also Chapter 4 para 22
40. FI_0031 para 99 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes
41. Mr Geddes 26 June page 128
42. FI_0031 para 101 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes and Mr Geddes 26 June pages 127-128
43. FI_0031 para 101 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes and Mr Geddes 26 June pages 19-20, 126-127
44. FI_0055 para 153 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson and FI_0031 para 103 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes
45. FI_0031 para 103 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes
46. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 83 and FI_0055 para 154 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
47. FI_0031 para 104 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes
48. FI_0031 para 107 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes
49. FI_0031 paras 104 and 109 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes
50. FI_0031 para 103 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes
51. FI_0055 para 155 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson and FI_0031 para 105 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes
52. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 83 and FI_0055 paras 73-81 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
53. FI_0036 para 136 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
54. Mr Stewart 5 November pages 76-77
55. Mr Stewart 5 November pages 46-47, 60
56. Mr Stewart 5 November pages 173-174
57. Mr Stewart 5 November page 47
58. Mr Stewart 5 November pages 48, 61
59. FI_0036 para 135 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
60. FI_0036 para 142 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
61. Mr Stewart 5 November pages 61-62
62. Mr Stewart 5 November page 62
63. Mr Stewart 5 November pages 84-86, 97-98, 166-167
64. Mr Stewart 5 November pages 67-68
65. Ms McBride 6 November pages 82-86, 153
66. Ms McBride 6 November pages 120-121, 124, 126
67. Ms McBride 6 November pages 81-84
68. Ms McBride 6 November page 88ff
69. Ms McBride 6 November pages 126-127
70. Ms McBride 6 November page 126
71. Ms McBride 6 November pages 131 and 143-144
72. Ms McBride 6 November pages 145-146
73. Ms McBride 6 November page 126ff
74. FI_0039 para 78 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
75. Ms McBride 6 November pages 120-121
76. Ms McBride 6 November page 125
77. FI_0054 para 25 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna
78. Mr McKenna 6 November page 24
79. FI_0054 para 26 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna
80. Mr McKenna 6 November page 32
81. Mr McKenna 6 November pages 10-11
82. Mr McKenna 6 November pages 24-25
83. Mr McKenna 6 November pages 24-32
84. Mr McKenna 6 November page 32
85. FI_0036 para 143 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart, FI_0039 para 83 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride and FI_0054 para 36 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna
86. Ms McBride 6 November page 121ff
87. FI_0054 para 34 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna
88. Mr Geddes 26 June page 139
89. FI_0055 paras 138, 139 and 156 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
90. PS_0002h
91. Mr MacPherson 27 October pages 68-69
92. CO_1457
93. CO_2634
94. CO_2643
95. CO_0911
96. The fingerprint bureau, generally called 'SCRO' for short in this Report, was part of the Scottish Criminal Record Office of which Mr Ferry was the Director - see Chapter 21. Mr Ferry was deceased by the time of the Inquiry and is noted as having said that he did not have an opportunity to check his Mackay enquiry statement for accuracy - Chapter 7 para 39.
97. CO_1159 pdf page 3
98. See Chapter 7
99. FI_0120 para 13 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr O'Neill
100. Ms Lunardi's witness statement is on Crown Office file at CO_4010, also at CO 2579
101. FI_0013 para 265 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Heath
102. FI_0071 paras 63-64 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McKie
103. CO_2634
104. FI_0036 para 138 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
105. FI_0054 paras 27-28 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna
106. FI_0031 para 97 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes
107. FI_0046 para 129 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
108. FI_0055 para 135 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
109. FI_0015 para 4 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Bruce