Preparation by the Crown
The information available to Crown Office
11.1. As noted in chapter 10 Crown Office was only made aware of the views of the SCRO examiners who had been signatories to the original report on Y7 prepared for the Asbury trial and in preparing for the trial in HMA v McKie Crown Office continued to rely on those examiners.
Materials specific to Y7 prepared for the Crown
11.2. Two joint reports and three books of photographs and enlargements were lodged on behalf of the Crown in respect of Y7 in HMA v McKie.
11.3. The first report, Production 154,1 was dated 10 April 1997. It was accompanied by a book marked "L", Production 1522 The productions were signed by Mr Stewart, Mr MacPherson, Mr McKenna and Ms McBride.
(i) This joint report related to the comparison of two photographic images of Y7 (dated 16 January and 18 February 1997) and the elimination fingerprint form for Ms McKie3 dated 7 February 1997.
(ii) Original actual size prints of each of those photographs were included in Production 152.
(iii) The fingerprint form (actually dated 6 February 1997 but stamped as received at SCRO on 7 February 1997) was Production 153.4
(iv) The report referred to charted enlargements in Production 152. The charted enlargement used the image of Y7 numbered UCO1050197Y7 (i.e. dated 16 January 1997) and the left thumb print on the form dated February 1997.
11.4. The second report, Production 190,5 was dated 29 January 1999 and was signed by the same examiners. It was accompanied by a book marked "L2", Production 189.6
(i) This report related to the comparison of two photographic images of Y7 (dated 16 January and 18 February 1997) and the fingerprint form for Ms McKie dated 15 March 1998.
(ii) Original actual size prints of both photographs were included in Production 189.
(iii) The fingerprint form (actually dated 6 March 1998 but stamped as received at SCRO on 15 March 1998) was Production 187.7
(iv) The report referred to charted enlargements in Production 189, based on the image of Y7 numbered UCO105196Y7 (i.e. dated 18 February 1997) and the left thumb print on the form dated March 1998.
11.5. The third book of images was Production 180.8 It also contained two original one to one size photographs of Y7 and a charted enlargement of the impression numbered "UC01050197 Y7" and Ms McKie's left thumb print.9 This book was signed by Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart only, and was not dated.
Explanation for multiple productions
11.6. The fact that SCRO prepared multiple productions was itself considered suspicious by Mr Wertheim, a suspicion compounded by the fact that the last production (189) used separate source materials, the allegation being that there was a pattern of deception in the generation of a succession of reports.10 On the same theme, staff at the National Training Centre at Durham noted that two of the productions (152 and 180) used the same charting and that was one of the grounds on which they reported that, in the absence of adequate explanation, there appeared to have been "collective manipulation of evidence and collective collusion to erroneously identify" Ms McKie.11 Given these allegations it was important to establish why these reports were prepared.
11.7. The first report and associated productions were the productions that had been used in the trial in HMA v Asbury.12
11.8. The second report and its associated productions were prepared specifically for the trial in HMA v McKie as a consequence of instructions from Crown Office that the mark be compared with the fingerprints taken when Ms McKie was arrested in March 1998.13
11.9. There was some doubt about the explanation for the third book of images, Production 180.
11.10. When Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart gave their statements to the Inquiry they were unsure why Production 180 came to be prepared.14 At the hearings, Counsel to the Inquiry put three possible alternatives to them:15 (i) that the book had been prepared in conjunction with the joint report dated 27 March 1997;16 (ii) that it might have been intended to illustrate the comparison with the prints of 18 February but in fact used the earlier prints because the 18 February prints had been poorly taken;17 or (iii) that it might have been prepared for Mr Wilson's disciplinary inquiry.
11.11. The copy of the 27 March report was available to the Inquiry.18 It had "Report without book" written on it, which Mr Stewart had said was a note in his handwriting written when he was collecting evidence for the HMICS Inquiry.19 That would tend to exclude the first of those possible explanations.
11.12. Counsel to the Inquiry drew attention to Mr Wilson's statement to the Inquiry20 where, in a reference to the text in his report,21 he indicated that he had requested a book of photographs. In his report he had recorded that Mr MacPherson had provided it and Mr Stewart had signed it. He said that if anyone else had signed it this would have been recorded. In light of this information both Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart thought the most likely explanation was that the book of photographs was prepared for Mr Wilson's investigation.22
11.13. I accept that this is the most likely explanation for the preparation of a third set of illustrative productions.
Multiple reports and productions
11.14. I am accordingly satisfied that there is a proper explanation for the production of two joint reports and three sets of chartings.
Negatives and additional fingerprint form
11.15. In addition to lodging the books with photographic images (both unmarked originals and charted copies), the Crown also lodged the photographic negatives (Production 172) and Levy & McRae (the solicitors instructed then on behalf of Ms McKie) were in correspondence to secure original photographic images from the negatives.
11.16. Production 179 was a fingerprint form taken from Ms McKie 18 February 1997.23
Booklet
11.17. When interviewing Mr Stewart and Mr MacPherson Mrs Greaves did not go into the detail of the 16 points on which the four examiners had relied in coming to their conclusion, but there was some discussion as to how this evidence could be presented to the jury and Mr Stewart offered to provide an additional illustration. He prepared Production 181, a booklet entitled 'A Brief Insight into Fingerprints and Fingerprint Identification' 24 (signed by him and Mr MacPherson) and an accompanying narrative.25 The booklet contained generic (or non-case specific) materials intended (and in the event used) by Mr Stewart to give the jury a general introduction to the theory underlying fingerprint comparison work and to explain the methodology applied by fingerprint examiners.
SCRO productions: routine evidence
11.18. The preparation of joint reports and supporting productions (including charted enlargements) is explained in Chapter 9.
11.19. The joint reports (Productions 154 and 190) followed the pro forma style. That indicates that the fingerprint evidence relative to the identification of Y7 was still being approached as essentially routine and carrying the imputation of infallibility. Even though Mr Stewart and Mr MacPherson had been precognosced by the Crown, that was at a time when the anticipated line of defence, planting, implicitly assumed that the identification was correct.
Defence preparation of fingerprint evidence
April 1998 to February 1999
11.20. Ms McKie instructed Levy & McRae as her solicitors. Mr McKie and Ms McKie had a meeting with Mr Swann in early May 199826 with a view to him being appointed to advise on the fingerprint evidence and on 22 May 1998 Levy & McRae confirmed his appointment. From the outset Mr Swann underlined the importance of access to all relevant productions (including fingerprint images28 and negatives29 ) and that informed the requests by Levy & McRae for access to the productions that are narrated in chapter 10. Mr Swann's work was delayed pending access to the productions.
11.21. At that time Mr Kerrigan Q.C. was instructed as senior counsel for Ms McKie. Mr Kerrigan wrote a note dated 5 November 199830 recommending lines of inquiry and this was forwarded to Mr Swann and they had a meeting on 8 December 1998.31 The note of that meeting does concentrate on planting but it also mentions that Mr Swann was to examine the productions and give a view on whether this was, in fact, Ms McKie's print.32 However, Mr Kerrigan's note dated 17 December 1998 indicates that follow-up instructions to Mr Swann were being postponed while Mr McKie considered the possibility of using another expert.33 It was about this time that Mr McKie was first in contact with Mr Wertheim,34 having seen on the internet a presentation by him on fabrication of prints.35
11.22. In this period Levy & McRae had been precognoscing witnesses on the Crown List for the anticipated trial and they took statements from Mr Stewart and Mr Foley. The statement from Mr Stewart36 contained no more than a reproduction of the contents of the SCRO joint report dated 27 March 1997.37 The statement from Mr Foley,38 like the statement from him that Mrs Greaves included in the Crown Precognition, was confined to the previous case in which Ms McKie's print had been found on a production, and made no mention of his involvement with Y7.
February-March 1999: Mr Swann's examinations of the mark
11.23. Ms McKie changed counsel and her counsel for the trial were Mr Donald Findlay Q.C. and Ms Victoria Young, advocate. Mr Findlay was instructed in February 1999, after the indictment was served.
11.24. From January 1999 Levy & McRae renewed the request for access to Crown productions39 and by letter dated 22 February 1999,40 in anticipation of a consultation with Mr Swann on 2 March 1999, Levy & McRae requested permission to uplift the copy photographs lodged by the Crown.
11.25. In preparation for that consultation Levy & McRae sent copy productions to Mr Swann under cover of letters dated 22 and 26 February 1999.41 Mr Swann said that he was asked by Levy & McRae to compare one specific chart,42 this being a "second or third generation"43 photocopy of the SCRO charted enlargement in Production 152,44 similar to the document which he made available to the Inquiry.45 Consistently with the correspondence summarised above, Mr Swann explained that he had asked at various times to be supplied with original materials and Levy & McRae had tried unsuccessfully to obtain originals.46 In those circumstances he worked with the copy supplied to him.47
11.26. He confirmed that, being a copy of the SCRO charted enlargement in Production 152, the image of the mark was "cut off"48 (i.e. it did not show the whole mark). In this initial period he did not see a photographic image of the entire mark.49 As to the quality of the copy, he said in oral evidence that "It was not a particularly clear copy"50 and described it as "a bit dull and a bit grey";51 it was not as clear as the original but adequate for the job.52 Following his normal practice he examined the chart on three alternate days in order to triple check his conclusion.53 He found 16 ridge characteristics in agreement and was satisfied that it was a positive identification;54 and he formed a concluded view at that stage55 before his visit to Glasgow where he examined original materials.
11.27. Subsequently, on 2 March 199956 he attended the High Court in Glasgow in order to view the original exhibits (i.e. the door-frame and an actual size photograph of the mark and a fingerprint form). Inspection of the mark on the door-frame satisfied him that it was genuine and when he examined the photograph of the mark and the fingerprint form he was able to find at least 16 ridge characteristics in agreement and identified Y7 as being the left thumb print of Ms McKie. He described the room in the High Court in which he worked as being very small (a storeroom)57 but adequate for the purposes of inspection and examination. He said that he was accustomed to working at crime scenes where the conditions are frequently difficult.
11.28. Later that day Mr Swann informed Mr Findlay and Ms Young that Y7 was a genuine mark and had been correctly identified by SCRO as belonging to Ms McKie.58 Mr Findlay recalled meeting Mr Swann and said that Ms McKie would not have been present at this meeting.59
11.29. On 3 March 1999 Levy & McRae wrote to Mrs Greaves referring to the actual size images in Production 189 and requesting "first generation copies taken from negatives to ensure the quality of the pictures".60 There was further correspondence on that matter between Levy & McRae and the fiscal's office on 961 and 17 March 199962 but the upshot was that, apart from the productions that he examined in Glasgow on 2 March 1999, Mr Swann was not provided with an original image of Y7 to examine. Under cover of a letter dated 3 March63 Levy & McRae did forward to Mr Swann a set of blue inked original prints of Ms McKie64 but he said that he could not use them in a comparison because he had nothing (in particular no copy of the mark) to compare them with: "when I left Glasgow nobody would supply me with anything". His reports were, accordingly, based on his initial examination of the copy of the charted enlargement and the examination of the original materials in Glasgow.65
11.30. He returned his papers to Levy & McRae and did not retain copies.
5 March 1999: Ms McKie informed of the result
11.31. Mr McKie said that on 5 March 1999 he and Ms McKie were told of Mr Swann's opinion at a meeting with Mr Findlay and the legal team.67 Ms McKie's account is slightly different, principally as regards timing. She said that Mr Swann carried out examinations in February and shortly after his examination she attended at the offices of her solicitors where she was told that Mr Swann's conclusion was that Y7 was her print. She was "completely devastated".68 Not much turns on the precise date. On her own account Ms McKie was aware that Mr Swann had examined the mark and advised that SCRO were correct to say that Y7 was her mark.
11.32. Mr McKie said that after receiving this information he raised various questions for discussion with Mr Swann by way of a paper entitled 'Some Questions to be Answered by the Fingerprint Expert'.69 The paper was sent under cover of a letter from Ms McKie to Ms McCracken of Levy & McRae.70 Ms McKie signed a copy of that letter71 but it may be the case, on her evidence, that this document was prepared by Mr McKie and that she signed it without reading it.72
11.33. Mr Swann considered these questions but did not change his opinion. He submitted two reports to Levy & McRae dated 16 March 1999. The reports confirmed his findings, in particular that Y7 was made by Ms McKie. One report dealt with his examination of Y773 and the other74 dealt with the questions raised by Ms McKie's letter.75
March 1999: Mr Wertheim's examination of Y7
11.34. Mr McKie had searched the internet in an attempt to find experts in the area of the transplanting and forgery of fingerprints. By that means he had identified Mr Pat Wertheim, an American fingerprint examiner. He first made contact with Mr Wertheim by telephone on 23 December 1998. On the same day he wrote to Levy & McRae with Mr Wertheim's contact details, asking them to instruct Mr Wertheim. On 17 February 1999, Mr McKie telephoned Levy & McRae, and was informed that they had not been able to contact Mr Wertheim. Mr McKie then telephoned Mr Wertheim, who said he would be in Scotland in March, and offered to become involved in the case. Mr McKie wrote76 to Levy & McRae on 18 February 1999 emphasising the importance of Mr Wertheim. He received a letter from Mr Wertheim77 confirming his willingness to review Y7.78
11.35. In March 1999 Mr Wertheim was on holiday in Scotland with his wife, and Mr Grieve, Mr David Ashbaugh, a Canadian fingerprint expert and author of the text book 'Quantitative-Qualitative Friction Ridge Analysis', and their respective spouses. Messrs Wertheim, Grieve and Ashbaugh had been attending a conference.79
11.36. On 24 March 1999 Mr Wertheim met with Ms McCracken of Levy & McRae. They attended the High Court in Glasgow where he examined the door-frame and concluded that Y7 was not forged. He took photographs of the mark. He also examined a SCRO charted enlargement. "Within seconds" of examining the SCRO charted enlargement he began to have very serious doubts about the accuracy of the identification. Thereafter he met Ms McKie and took a large number of fingerprints paying special attention to her left thumb.80
11.37. After his first reaction to the identification, Mr Wertheim decided that he had to carry out a complete and thorough analysis of the latent fingerprint without reference to enlargements.81 He took notes of his examinations and these are at appendix B of his statement to the Inquiry.82
11.38. Mr Wertheim thereafter gave Mr Ashbaugh and Mr Grieve each a copy of a photograph of Y7 and a page with a number of inked impressions of Ms McKie's left thumb. He asked them to examine Y7 and the impressions. Mr Ashbaugh did not do so. Mr Wertheim recalled that Mr Ashbaugh left the party the next morning and did not review the material at that stage. Mr Wertheim explained that Mr Ashbaugh felt it inappropriate to become involved.83
11.39. On 26 March 1999 Mr Wertheim met with Mr Findlay and told him that Y7 was not made by Ms McKie.84
11.40. Mr Grieve also examined the mark. Mr Wertheim said that they did not discuss the mark. Mr Grieve then met Mr Findlay.86
11.41. Ms McKie said she was told that Mr Wertheim's opinion was that Y7 was not her mark and "broke down with sheer relief".87
Damage to the mark
11.42. Mr Wertheim's photographs of Y7 show a smear or some striations on the mark. This damage does not appear on earlier photographs. The latest set of photographs that do not show the damage are those taken by Mr Kent in 1998. There is no evidence that the mark was photographed after Mr Kent photographed it and before Mr Wertheim photographed it.
11.43. Mr Wertheim denied damaging the mark and stressed that he was careful in his handling of it.88 He said that the damage had already taken place when he came to examine the mark.89
11.44. Mr MacPherson and Ms McBride described the damage as appearing as though it was made by a brush stroke.90
11.45. Dr Bleay examined the damage. He said that the damage could have been caused by a brush. He also noted that a piece of string was attached to the wood. This looked like it was from an exhibit or production label. Dr Bleay said that this piece of string might account for the damage, however it could have a variety of causes.91
11.46. As to whether the damage was material, Mr Sheppard said that the damage did not prevent examination of the mark92 and "in actual fact it had not done any real damage to the impression whatsoever".93
Commentary
11.47. Mr Wertheim states that he did not damage the mark. Mr Wertheim had, by the time he came to examine Y7, many years experience. There is no evidence to suggest that he damaged the mark or that he had any reason to do so.
11.48. There are a number of potential explanations for the damage, including the presence of a piece of string. I make no finding as to what did damage it. In any event, I accept Mr Sheppard's evidence which was that the damage was of no real consequence.
Late March 1999: Crown preparation for the trial
11.49. The trial had initially been assigned to a sitting of the High Court94 commencing 1 March but was adjourned to the sitting starting on 12 April and began on 21 April. Mr Murphy was the trial advocate depute. This meant that he would conduct the prosecution in court. His involvement began when he received a set of papers for the trial. It is not entirely clear when Mr Murphy received the papers. He was able to say that he must have received the papers before 30 March 1999, when he met with Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart.95 He said that his earliest involvement was probably two or three weeks before the trial, which is consistent with receiving the papers around the end of March. He had no involvement in the case before then.96
11.50. The papers delivered to Mr Murphy, were the indictment, the Precognition and the Crown Office file for the case.
11.51. Mr Murphy said that ideally a trial advocate depute would not need to look at material outside the Precognition. It should have contained all the information required to conduct the trial.97 Broadly speaking the case was meant to be fully prepared for trial by the time that the papers were delivered to the trial advocate depute. There should not have been decisions of an important nature remaining to be taken.98 Mrs Greaves agreed that the Precognition as provided to the trial advocate depute was a self-contained master set of all that he or she might require in the conduct of the case.99
Mr Murphy's analysis
11.52. From Mr Murphy's point of view there were two strands of evidence in the Crown case. The first was evidence from one of the police officers (Mr Kerr) who had seen Ms McKie at the locus when, according to other material, she should not have been there. The second was the discovery of Y7 and its identification as Ms McKie's mark.100
Instruction of English expert
11.53. Mr Murphy could remember no personal involvement in relation to the previous consideration of the possible instruction of a review of Y7 by an English expert.101 The fact that an independent expert had not been instructed was not something that he explored in preparing for the trial. Insofar as that exercise was not completed when Mr Murphy received the papers he would have assumed that the case was "put to bed and ready to go". He would have considered the evidence available. He had sufficient evidence available and so proceeded.102
30 March meeting with Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart
11.54. The consideration of fingerprint evidence formed an important part of Mr Murphy's work in preparing for the trial. This involved two meetings with Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart.
11.55. Mr Murphy's evidence was that the first of those meetings took place at SCRO on 30 March 1999.103 He believed that by that stage he was aware that the identification of Y7 was to be challenged by the defence, and this was one reason for seeing the SCRO experts.104 However, he was not entirely sure if this was the case.105 It was likely that he would have seen them in any event because he habitually consulted with experts before a trial.106 Mr Murphy noted at this meeting that Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart told him they would like time to consider the defence materials and methodology and he said it was his practice to put defence materials to his own experts.107
11.56. Mr Stewart had no memory of this meeting.108 Mr MacPherson also had no recollection of this meeting, but accepted that it may have occurred.109
Commentary
11.57. Although only Mr Murphy now remembers this meeting, I accept that a meeting occurred on 30 March. Mr Murphy spoke in evidence to his notebook indicating his having gone to SCRO on that date.110
2 - 13 April 1999: defence preparation of fingerprint evidence
11.58. Mr Grieve's findings were set out in a letter to Levy & McRae dated 11 April 1999111 but that letter was not lodged as a production at the trial.
11.59. Mr Wertheim prepared two reports, dated 2 April112 and 12 April.113 He also prepared an illustrative booklet. His report of 12 April 1999 was accompanied by a fax114 which included six suggested areas for questions prepared by Mr Wertheim. An undated note shows that Mr Findlay consulted with Mr Wertheim by video conference. The note shows that lines of questions were discussed.115 It appears from contemporaneous correspondence116 that this occurred around 10 April 1999.
11.60. Both reports by Mr Wertheim set out a detailed critique of the sixteen points identified by SCRO in the charted enlargement in Production 189.117 In that regard, the second report was, to some extent, a refinement of the analysis in the first and proceeded on the basis that five of the sixteen points in Production 189 might be considered to be a target group that matched, not exactly, but "within tolerance". This is considered in the chapter118 dealing with Mr Wertheim's evidence at the trial.
11.61. In both reports Mr Wertheim went on to discuss numerous points of dissimilarity.
11.62. The reports were not lodged as productions at the trial but the illustrative booklet was lodged (defence production 2).119 It had, on one side, an enlargement of one of the photographs of Y7 that Mr Wertheim had taken and, on the opposing page, an enlarged image of Ms McKie's left thumb print also taken by Mr Wertheim.120 There was a series of marked up acetate overlays to pin-point detail of relevance to Mr Wertheim.
Crown's emerging awareness of the defence position
11.63. The Crown Office file, that had not become available at the time of the Inquiry hearing and therefore was not discussed by Mr Murphy, contains an undated manuscript note for the advocate depute for the sitting of 12 April:
"Defence have conducted an audit of the fingerprint evidence here & will have a US expert to call. No doubt the methodology or techniques will be criticised but it is doubtful that this will materially affect the evidential conclusions. S67 Notice adds Pros [i.e. Productions] 189-191 the essential evidence!"121
11.64. The file also contains a memorandum122 dated 12 April by Mr Hogg to Mr Bradley, a procurator fiscal depute, which indicates that Mr Hogg was asked on 9 April to make enquiries about Mr Wertheim. By 9 April, at latest, the Crown must have known of the involvement of Mr Wertheim and Mr Hogg's memo reported that Mr Grieve may also have been asked to examine the print.
Mr Murphy advised of defence fingerprint evidence
11.65. Mr Murphy's recollection as to when he first became aware that the defence were challenging the identification was unclear. When he obtained the Precognition he knew that the defence were awaiting papers from American experts. He also said that he was aware that there was going to be argument about whether the identification of Y7 was correct as opposed to how the fingerprint was placed at the locus.123
11.66. Mr Murphy's statement to the Mackay enquiry124 records that he met with Mr Findlay sometime around 16 April 1999 and Mr Findlay outlined at that stage that the defence's position was that there had been a misidentification. In that statement he said that it was at that point that he became aware that the argument was that there was a misidentification. Mr Murphy accepted that his statement to the Mackay enquiry could be an accurate reflection of his position and it may be that he did not know about the misidentification argument when he met with Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart on 30 March 1999.125 An account of meeting Mr Findlay on 16 April is consistent with Mr Murphy's account that he may have received the defence production on the Friday before the trial started. Mr Murphy's note to the Home Advocate Depute and the Deputy Crown Agent of 3 June 1999126 records that Mr Findlay discussed the fingerprint evidence in some detail with him. Detailed discussion is more likely to have taken place after Mr Findlay had received Mr Wertheim's reports and had the video conference with him.
11.67. Mr Murphy said in evidence that he may have had more than one discussion with Mr Findlay and, as noted, the Crown had some awareness of the involvement of at least Mr Wertheim by 9 April at latest.
11.68. Mr Murphy recalled seeing defence production 2 before the trial.127 He believed that he obtained a copy at a very late stage, possibly on the Friday (16 April) before the trial.128
11.69. Mr Murphy could not recall seeing Mr Wertheim's two reports but believed he might have seen them, or something very similar.129 In his note to the Home Advocate Depute and Deputy Crown Agent of 3 June 1999 Mr Murphy recorded that the defence did not lodge any reports from Mr Wertheim or Mr Grieve before the trial. Reference to the Crown Office file now shows that on 5 May 1999 (the second day of Mr Stewart's evidence) the Crown Junior, Mark Dennis, advocate, recorded in a letter that the Crown had not been provided with any CV or report from the defence expert.130 It appears, therefore, that the reports were not shown to Mr Murphy. The SCRO examiners would, in consequence, have had no opportunity to consider them. Their knowledge of the basis of the defence challenge would have been based on what they could glean from defence production 2.
Meeting with Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart to discuss the defence production
11.70. The arrival of the defence production and the disclosure of the defence position prompted a further meeting between Mr Murphy, Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart. It was at this point that Mr Stewart became aware that the challenge was to the identification and not the planting of the mark.131
11.71. The attendees' respective recollections about various aspects of this meeting differ.
11.72. There is agreement as to the location of the meeting and the attendees. The meeting took place in a court room at the High Court of Justiciary at Saltmarket in Glasgow.132 Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart met with Mr Murphy. Ms McBride did not attend.
11.73. There is disagreement over the date of the meeting. Mr Murphy said that the meeting took place before the trial began. The trial started on Wednesday 21 April. Mr Stewart's evidence began on Tuesday 4 May. Mr Stewart said that he was not told about the defence experts' opinions until about a day or two before he was due to give evidence133 although at other times he said that the meeting was before the trial.134
11.74. There was disagreement about the duration of the meeting. Mr Murphy was unable to say how long this meeting lasted but he was certain that it lasted longer than ten minutes. The SCRO officers were there for quite some time.135 Mr MacPherson said that there was a brief meeting before the case regarding the fact that there was an exp137 Mr Murphy's statement to the Mackay enquiry dated 6 September 2000,136 said that they spent the best part of an afternoon in discussions at the High Court. Mr Stewart accepted that Mr Murphy's recollection in this statement could be more accurate.137
11.75. There is disagreement about the extent of examination of and discussion about the defence production. Mr Murphy remembered the SCRO officers arriving with magnifying equipment "on feet" and he sat with Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart as they went through a process of placing the acetates over the images and gave him their comments.138 This is consistent with a review of defence production 2. Responding to Mr Stewart's evidence that the meeting was brief and that he did not have an opportunity to study the production in detail, Mr Murphy explained that the whole point of bringing the SCRO officers to the High Court was so that they could examine the defence production and it was a matter for them how long they needed to spend with them. He was not the expert in this context and the idea was that they would spend as long as required and then go through any points with him.139
11.76. Mr MacPherson did not recall a discussion about the basis for the defence's opinion evidence but remembered being shown Mr Wertheim's enlargement of mark Y7.140 Mr Stewart remembered being shown a booklet with a couple of photographs and vinyl or acetate overlays but not being given time to examine it.141 This is again consistent with being shown defence production 2. Mr Stewart said that they were briefly shown the defence productions but were not given an opportunity to examine them in detail. They asked if they could have time to examine this material and Mr Murphy said that he had to give it straight back to the defence.142 He did not remember examining the defence materials in detail.143 They did not carry out an examination of the production.144 Mr Stewart expected to be given a further opportunity to consider the defence productions. He could not remember if he sought a further opportunity or whether the matter was further discussed with Mr Murphy.145 In an ideal world he would have taken the production away and examined it.146 Mr Stewart accepted that he could be wrong, that he did have an opportunity to examine the production but that he did not remember having an opportunity to do so. It was possible that Mr Murphy's recollection was better than his.147
11.77. There was some agreement about the substance of the discussion. Mr Murphy found Mr Stewart and Mr MacPherson to be fairly confident that they could maintain their position. They were critical of the approach taken by Mr Wertheim.148 Mr Murphy said that the SCRO officers expressed concerns at the use of the acetate tracings of the ridges. It also appeared to the SCRO officers that Y7 had been damaged, which suggested to them that Mr Wertheim may have lacked expertise in handling productions.149 This, for the reasons explained above, was a suggestion without proper foundation. Mr MacPherson accepted that Mr Murphy could be right in saying that they discussed whether or not it was appropriate to use a tracing process on acetate and that reference was made to striations on the image that Mr Wertheim had used.150
11.78. Mr Stewart did say, however, that he was not asked for any advice by Mr Murphy about the case. He could not remember any discussions about how the fingerprint evidence was to be addressed.151 Mr MacPherson said that there was no discussion as to the best way to present his evidence.152 Mr Stewart could not remember asking for guidance from the Crown as to how he should handle the position, and he assumed that the Crown would give guidance if required.153
11.79. Mr Murphy's position was that there had been discussions as regards the way in which fingerprint evidence was to be presented.154 He noted that the transcript of the trial shows a lengthy part of Mr Stewart's evidence consisted of a "tutorial" on fingerprints. In fairness to Mr Stewart and Mr MacPherson that may have derived more from the first meeting on 30 March before the defence challenge emerged.
Mr Murphy's decision not to seek an adjournment
11.80. The defence production was late and possibly lodged after the statutory time limit. The trial had already been adjourned once. Mr Murphy said that the Crown would not normally object to the late production of expert materials if they knew that they were expected.155 It was always open to the Crown to seek an adjournment of the trial.
11.81. Lord Boyd had no recollection of being consulted after the defence intimated to Mr Murphy that the nature of the defence was going to change and was going to change to a suggestion of misidentification. There would have been no need for Mr Murphy to consult with him. Save for cases of murder or rape, once the case had passed to an advocate depute, it was that depute's responsibility to take the decisions in relation to it. If the advocate depute had consulted with two of the four fingerprint examiners and was led to believe that they were confident of their ability to meet the challenge Lord Boyd would have had no concerns about the advocate depute proceeding with the trial.156 It was understandable that the Crown would nonetheless proceed to trial when experts disagreed. Experts often disagree with each other. It was highly unusual to have a challenge of this nature to a fingerprint, but it was not unusual to have experts disagreeing and it then became a matter for the jury.157
11.82. Mr Murphy did not seek an adjournment and, instead, decided to get on with the trial.158 A number of factors informed his judgment. Mr Murphy was mindful that the trial had been adjourned once already and in fairness to the accused she was entitled to have the matter resolved within a reasonable time. All parties were ready for the trial and he could see no reason for further delay.159 One reason for seeking an adjournment would have been to obtain an opinion from an additional expert to support the SCRO position.160 Mr Murphy did not consider that necessary because the SCRO examiners were confident of their opinion and, in any event, Mr Murphy was not in favour of conducting cases where a large number of competing witnesses were presented to the jury.161 Another reason for adjournment would have been to give the SCRO officers sufficient time to consider the position but, again, the fact that the SCRO officers appeared confident in their own views after having seen defence production 2 would have given him no reason to seek an adjournment for this purpose. The SCRO officers had already had time to consider the position and the process then would have been to ask them to provide any further thoughts that they had prior to cross-examination of the defence experts. This was not urgent: the agreed position with the defence was that all of the logging officers would be called to give evidence first, and it was going to take a reasonable time to reach the defence experts.162
Non-disclosure of relevant factors
11.83. One factor that had influenced Mr Murphy was that Mr Stewart and Mr MacPherson appeared confident in their opinion. Mr Murphy was asked to elaborate:
"How did that come across to you?
A. Well, they had identified the 16 points. My understanding was that the four SCRO people (bearing in mind under the procedures four people would have looked at it) had in fact identified amongst the four of them more than 16 points; in other words, it was not the same 16 points necessarily, although they had agreed on examples for the preparation of the court materials and that, therefore, they were very confident that the bottom half section, bottom third really, of the mark Y7 which was substantially free of pressure damage had given them material on which they could make an accurate identification."163
11.84. There was nothing in the Precognition to alert Mr Murphy to the fact that other SCRO examiners had not found 16 points. Equally, while one of those officers (Mr Foley) was on the witness list there was nothing to alert Mr Murphy to the fact that he had even had any involvement with Y7.164
11.85. Image quality came to be an issue at the trial. As noted in chapter 9, the Inquiry heard evidence of concerns that SCRO examiners had at the time about the quality of charted enlargements. Mr Murphy was aware that the charted enlargements were intended to be only illustrative165 but no one advised Mr Murphy that there was any inaccuracy or defect in quality in the images. Had that been raised with him he would have been concerned because he would have been setting himself up for a fall by using images that were inadequate.166
Citations
11.86. All four SCRO signatories to the reports on Y7, (Mr MacPherson, Mr Stewart, Ms McBride and Mr McKenna) were cited to attend court. This was unusual and came about late, probably in response to the change in the defence position.
11.87. Ms McBride said that it was not normal procedure for four fingerprint experts to be cited for a court case.167 Usually, as Mr Crowe explained, only one fingerprint examiner witness would be cited for the Crown in the absence of challenge from the defence given the provisions of section 280 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.168
11.88. Mr MacPherson, Mr Stewart and Ms McBride were all included in the list of witnesses in the indictment,169 though Ms McBride recalled that she was not actually cited to attend the trial until the last minute.170 She could not recall when she was cited but it was either close to the trial or after the trial had begun. She said she was cited after Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart had met Mr Murphy.171
11.89. Mr McKenna was not on the original list of witnesses. His recollection was that he was cited a week before the trial started172 but he did not give evidence because he was ill.173 He was added to the list of witnesses by a section 67 notice174 which also added six promotional magazines as productions with a view to the examination of Mr Wertheim.175 The Crown Office file contains a handwritten note176 with an instruction for the section 67 notice as "urgent Monday a.m.". It is initialled and ticked, apparently indicating that the instruction had been carried out, with a date "19/4/99" (the Monday before the trial began). The terms of the note indicate that the instruction may have been drafted on Friday 16 April, which again would be consistent with responding to a defence position intimated at about that date.
Steps taken at SCRO after the pre-trial meeting with Mr Murphy
11.90. Mr MacPherson could not recollect returning to the SCRO office and discussing the challenge with anyone.177 Mr Stewart went back to SCRO intent on seeking guidance. He wanted to discuss the matter with Mr Dunbar (his line manager), whom failing Mr Mackenzie. Neither was available and he told the superintendent in charge of the bureau (Mr Gorman) that there was to be a challenge to the identification in the hope that he would be given guidance but he received none. They were left more or less to their own devices: "It seemed to be it was a unique situation, nobody knew how to handle it and that was it."178
11.91. Mr McKenna stated that at some point he attended a meeting with Mr Hogg, Mr MacPherson, Ms McBride and Mr Stewart. It was a two minute meeting at which Mr Hogg explained that Mr Wertheim and Mr Grieve were to be the defence experts.179 Mr Stewart had no recollection of this meeting.180
11.92. Ms McBride's position was that she only became aware of the challenge to the identification during the trial and she did not see defence production 2 before it was put to her in the witness box.181
11.93. Mr Dunbar would have expected to have been informed about the issue when it arose182 but he first became aware of the challenge during the trial, as a result of an article in the Daily Record.183 Mr Dunbar said that he remembered speaking to the experts involved once the challenge to the identification had been disclosed. He said the experts were surprised at the challenge.
11.94. Mr Mackenzie similarly appears to have learned of the challenge first from a newspaper report. Nobody came to speak to him about the challenge at that time.184
Other enquiries instructed by Mr Murphy
11.95. Mr Murphy did not think that Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart had heard of Mr Wertheim. Mr Murphy was uncertain about the status of Mr Wertheim in the United States and he asked his junior, Mr Dennis, who had been an attorney in San Diego, to make informal enquiries. Information was received from the office of the District Attorney in San Diego as to the background of Mr Wertheim to the effect that he was a recognised expert.185
Discussions with Mr Kent
11.96. Mr Murphy met with Mr Kent before the trial. Mr Kent mentioned a case in England where a fingerprint had been successfully challenged and that fingerprints were routinely challenged in the United States, a matter about which Mr Murphy was aware.186
11.97. Mr Kent also spoke about the move away from the 16-point standard. He said that one of the people in the United States that the Home Office had consulted was Mr Grieve, the defence witness, and Mr Murphy was led to understand that he had "a very high formidable degree of expertise in the question of fingerprint identification".187
11.98. Mr Kent also expressed concerns about the potential effect of the case on confidence in fingerprint evidence.188
Mr Murphy's awareness of other defence experts
11.99. Mrs Greaves was aware of Mr Swann's involvement before the trial. She said that in the lead up to the trial she had a conversation with Ms McCracken of Levy & McRae from which she understood that Mr Swann had confirmed the identification. This was possibly around March 1999.189 She was not activel190 and would, therefore, have been unaware of the possible significance of confirmation by Mr Swann. Ms Climie did not know about Mr Swann's involvement.191
11.100. At some point before the start of the trial Mr Murphy became aware that other defence experts may have looked at the mark and confirmed SCRO's findings.192 This is discussed in Chapter 15. He did not seek to adjourn the trial to carry out further investigation with a view to leading any of these defence experts as a witness. Mr Murphy explained that this would have faced difficulties. At that stage the law was not certain as to the propriety of leading a defence witness when the defence had elected not to use the witness.193 Whilst Mr Murphy accepted that evidence that Mr Swann supported the Crown case would have strengthened it, he noted that the American experts' evidence would have been the same and it would not have "completely changed the landscape".194 In this regard Mr Murphy was correct.
Commentary
11.101. The defence position changed dramatically when Mr Wertheim examined the mark on 24 March 1999. That was less than three weeks before the start of the sitting of the High Court when the trial was scheduled to take place. From that point both prosecution and defence were dealing with a situation that was unique, at least in Scotland.
11.102. Mr Murphy cannot be criticised for failing to seek an adjournment. He understood the SCRO examiners, Mr Stewart and Mr MacPherson, to be confident of their opinion and they gave him no reason to suppose that more time was required to prepare. In any event, given that the trial had already been adjourned once and that Ms McKie had been placed on petition for more than one year there was a public interest in proceeding with the trial without further delay.
11.103. Equally, there can be no criticism of the Crown failing to instruct an external review of the fingerprint evidence at that stage. The conflict among the fingerprint examiners for the prosecution and the defence was a matter for the jury.
11.104. It is doubtful whether Mr Wertheim's two written reports were disclosed to the Crown but defence production 2 was disclosed and Mr Findlay gave Mr Murphy reasonable notice of the defence challenge. It was unfortunate that Ms McBride was not given an opportunity to study the defence production before she gave evidence. Even though Mr Stewart and Mr MacPherson did see it, in retrospect to call them to a court room at short notice to review defence production 2 gave them a less than ideal opportunity to study what, in reality, was a highly sophisticated illustration. Again, there is no criticism of Mr Murphy because he was working under a time constraint and the SCRO examiners remained 100% confident as to their position. In the light of that, it is not surprising that he did not instruct that any further work be done by them or any of their colleagues.
11.105. It is unlikely that, even with the benefit of more time to prepare, the SCRO witnesses would have been able to present their evidence in a more effective manner. The SCRO examiners were ill-prepared to meet the challenge. Fingerprint evidence having been for so long treated as routine evidence the SCRO examiners had neither the training nor the experience to equip them to justify their opinions. Mr Dunbar and Mr Mackenzie did have recent experience of giving evidence in a case where fingerprint evidence was disputed, R v McNamee,195 but circumstance prevented Mr Stewart from obtaining any guidance from them. In reality the scenario presented in the McKie case by late March 1999 was, for Scotland, unprecedented.
11.106. Lessons have to be learned from these weaknesses in presentational skills but that does not detract from the more fundamental concern that with hindsight, in light of my conclusion in Chapter 25, it can be seen that the problem lay in the erroneous identification of Y7 by the SCRO examiners and not in any lack of adequate opportunity to consider and respond to the defence evidence.
1. SG_0409
2. ST_0006h
3. Then named Cardwell
4. ST_0004h
5. SG_0396
6. DB_0012h
7. DB_0009h
8. DB_0011h
9. By reference to a form in the name of Shirley Cardwell (D.C.)
10. CO_0003 pdf page 29
11. CO_1318; see Chapter 13 para 66
12. See Chapter 9 para 41
13. CO_3439 (and see Chapter 10 para 62)
14. FI_0036 para 244 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie and FI_0055 para 167 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
15. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 115ff and Mr Stewart 5 November page 106ff
16. Mr MacPherson had suggested this might have been the case, FI_0055 para 167 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson.
17. This was a suggestion from Mr Stewart at Ms McKie's trial, SG_0526 pdf page 41
18. DB_0004
19. FI_0036 para 241 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
20. FI_0078 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Wilson
21. CO_0345 pdf page 13 at paragraphs 6.43-6.46
22. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 117 and Mr Stewart 5 November page 111
23. DB_0008h - in the name of Shirley Cardwell
24. CO_0201
25. CO_2632
26. FI_0181 para 54 Inquiry Witness Statement (Part 1) of Mr McKie and FI_0149 para 8 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Swann - see chapter 10 para 82
27. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice1/papers-06/peterswannforweb.pdf, page 4
28. DB_0676
29. His letter dated 21 August 1998 at page 8 of the documents on http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice1/papers-06/peterswannforweb.pdf
30. LM_0092
31. FI_0149 para 9 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Swann
32. LM_0095 page 2
33. LM_0096
34. FI_0181 para 27 Inquiry Witness Statement (Part 1) of Mr McKie
35. LM_0100
36. LM_0070
37. DB_0004
38. LM_0072
39. CO_3441, CO_3446 and CO_3514
40. CO_3522
41. FI_0149 para 10 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Swann and http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice1/papers-06/peterswannforweb.pdf, pages 17 and 18
42. Mr Swann 22 October pages 59-60, 67 and Mr Swann 27 November page 4
43. FI_0149 para 10 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Swann
44. Mr Swann 27 November pages 6-10
45. TS_0019
46. Mr Swann 22 October pages 72-74
47. Mr Swann 22 October pages 66, 72-74
48. Mr Swann 22 October pages 52-53
49. Mr Swann 22 October page 55
50. Mr Swann 21 October page 7; and see FI_0149 page 5 (para 10) Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Swann
51. Mr Swann 22 October page 66
52. Mr Swann 27 November page 4
53. Mr Swann 22 October pages 56-57
54. FI_0149 para 10 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Swann
55. Mr Swann 22 October pages 56, 63-64 and Mr Swann 27 November page 5
56. FI_0149 para 11 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Swann
57. Mr Swann 22 October page 70
58. FI_0149 para 12 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Swann
59. FI_0200 para 8 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Findlay
60. CO_4448
61. CO_4447
62. CO_4473
63. TS_0009 and FI_0149 para 14 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Swann
64. TS_0010
65. Mr Swann 21 October pages 12-13
66. Mr Swann 27 November page 5
67. FI_0181 para 24 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKie
68. CO_2219 pdf pages 16-17
69. FI_0181 paras 24 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKie
70. DB_0703
71 SG_0363
72. FI_0071 page 17 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McKie
73. SG_0283
74. SG_0285
75. FI_0149 para 15 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Swann
76. DB_0699
77. DB_0704
78. FI_0181 paras 29-31 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKie
79. FI_0118 pdf page 5 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Wertheim
80. FI_0118 pdf page 5 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Wertheim
81. Mr Wertheim 22 September page 76
82. FI_0118 pdf page 24ff Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Wertheim
83. FI_0118 pdf page 6 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Wertheim
84. FI_0118 pdf page 6 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Wertheim
85. FI_0118 pdf page 6 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Wertheim
86. FI_0118 pdf page 6 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Wertheim. CO_1017 Mackay enquiry statement of Mr Grieve records that he examined the mark and print and confirmed to Mr Wertheim that Y7 was not made by Ms McKie and then met with Mr Findlay on 28 March 1999. Mr Grieve then continued his examination and thereafter provided a written report to Ms McCracken.
87. CO_2219 pdf page 17
88. Mr Wertheim 22 September page 80
89. Mr Wertheim 22 September page 81
90. FI_0055 para 172 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson and FI_0031 para 137 Mr Wertheim Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
91. Dr Bleay 16 November pages 135-137 and EA_0067 pdf page 5
92. FI_0082 para 38 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Sheppard
93. Mr Sheppard 8 July page 23
94. At that time "trials were organised in two week sittings with perhaps six or eight cases", Sheriff Murphy 25 June page 2.
95. Sheriff Murphy 25 June page 162
96. Sheriff Murphy 25 June pages 1-2
97. Sheriff Murphy 25 June page 6
98. Sheriff Murphy 25 June page 3
99. Mrs Greaves 1 July page 54
100. Sheriff Murphy 25 June pages 18-24
101. Sheriff Murphy 25 June page 86; see chapter 10
102. Sheriff Murphy 25 June pages 100-101
103. FI_0070 paras 3-4 Inquiry Witness Statement of Sheriff Murphy
104. Mr Findlay knew of Mr Wertheim's view on 26 March, so it is possible that he would have disclosed the broad nature of the challenge before 30 March.
105. Sheriff Murphy 25 June pages 180-181
106. Sheriff Murphy 25 June page 18
107. FI_0070 para 4 Inquiry Witness Statement of Sheriff Murphy
108. Mr Stewart 5 November pages 131-132
109. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 125
110. Sheriff Murphy 25 June page 10
111. LM_0105
112. DB_0167
113. DB_0168
114. LM_0106
115. LM_0107
116. CO_1464
117. DB_0012h
118. See Chapter 12
119. DB_0172h
120. The significance of this thumb print is discussed in Chapter 25.
121. CO_4464
122. CO_4467
123. Sheriff Murphy 25 June pages 11-12
124. CO_2036
125. Sheriff Murphy 25 June page 183
126. CO_2036
127. Sheriff Murphy 25 June pages 30-31 and DB_0172h
128. FI_0070 para 7 Inquiry Witness Statement of Sheriff Murphy
129. Sheriff Murphy 25 June page 32
130. CO_4444
131. FI_0036 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
132. Mr Stewart 5 November page 79, Sheriff Murphy 25 June pages 32-33 and FI_0070 para 7 Inquiry Witness Statement of Sheriff Murphy
133. Mr Stewart 5 November page 88
134. Mr Stewart 5 November page 132
135. Sheriff Murphy 25 June pages 32-34
136. CO_2036
137. Mr Stewart 5 November pages 180-182
138. Sheriff Murphy 25 June pages 32-34 and FI_0070 para 7 Inquiry Witness Statement of Sheriff Murphy
139. Sheriff Murphy 25 June pages 143-144
140. FI_0055 para 172 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
141. Mr Stewart 5 November page 87
142. Mr Stewart 5 November pages 79, 141-142
143. Mr Stewart 5 November page 88
144. Mr Stewart 5 November pages 79, 86-91
145. Mr Stewart 5 November pages 145-146
146. Mr Stewart 5 November page 152
147. Mr Stewart 5 November pages 177-178
148. Sheriff Murphy 25 June pages 37-39
149. Sheriff Murphy 25 June page 38
150. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 127
151. FI_0036 paras 55-56 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
152. FI_0055 para 172 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
153. Mr Stewart 5 November page 147
154. Sheriff Murphy 25 June pages 144-145
155. Sheriff Murphy 25 June page 34
156. Lord Boyd of Duncansby 10 November pages 30-31
157. Lord Boyd of Duncansby 10 November pages 29-32
158. FI_0070 para 8 Inquiry Witness Statement of Sheriff Murphy
159. Sheriff Murphy 25 June page 36 and FI_0070 para 2 Inquiry Witness Statement of Sheriff Murphy
160. Sheriff Murphy 25 June pages 24-25
161. FI_0070 para 8 Inquiry Witness Statement of Sheriff Murphy
162. Sheriff Murphy 25 June pages 34-35
163. Mr Murphy 25 June pages 39-40
164. See chapter 10 paras 101-103
165. FI_0070 para 5 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Murphy
166. FI_0070 para 6 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Murphy and Mr Murphy 25 June pages 125-127
167. Ms McBride 6 November page 81
168. Sheriff Crowe 2 July page 64
169. CO_4484
170. Ms McBride 6 November pages 105-106
171. Ms McBride 6 November pages 182-183
172. Mr McKenna 6 November page 60
173. Mr McKenna 6 November page 58
174. CO_4446
175. They appear to be the publications mentioned in CO_4467
176. CO_4463
177. Mr MacPherson 3 November pages 88-90
178. Mr Stewart 5 November pages 146-150
179. FI_0054 para 123 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna and Mr McKenna 6 November pages 58-59
180. Mr Stewart 5 November page 184
181. Ms McBride 6 November pages 185-187 and 11 November page 128ff; and FI_0039 para 137 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
182. Mr Dunbar 6 October page 83
183. Mr Dunbar 6 October pages 151 and 164
184. Mr Mackenzie 1 October pages 103-104
185. Sheriff Murphy 25 June page 40
186. FI_0070 para 10 Inquiry Witness Statement of Sheriff Murphy
187. Sheriff Murphy 25 June page 91
188. Sheriff Murphy 25 June page 90
189. Mrs Greaves 1 July pages 100-102, 113 and 119-120 (in FI_0038 para 19 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mrs Greaves it was dated one year earlier)
190. FI_0038 para 18 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mrs Greaves
191. Ms Climie 2 July pages 107-108
192. Sheriff Murphy 25 June page 169
193. Sheriff Murphy 25 June pages 170-172
194. Sheriff Murphy 25 June pages 173-174
195. See Chapter 31