Introduction
20.1. The Inquiry asked Dr Bleay to examine the door-frame and the tin to see if any current method could assist in retrieving any better or new images of the marks. He proposed an examination strategy and recommended techniques that could be applied1 and he was instructed to proceed.
20.2. Dr Bleay provided a number of reports which included a summary of the examinations carried out.2 The techniques did not yield any additional detail in the marks of interest to the Inquiry.3
The tin
Dr Bleay's investigations
20.3. Dr Bleay examined the tin to ascertain whether additional ridge detail could be found in the mark QI2 or to produce a better image of it. His efforts were unsuccessful. The mark was examined under normal lighting conditions, using Quaser in the blue/violet region of the spectrum4 and other wavelength ranges, using laser techniques5 and ultraviolet imaging.6 Re-dyeing of the tin was also considered but not carried out because it was unlikely to produce a useful result given the background fluorescence.7
20.4. During laser examination Dr Bleay found, and photographed, regions of ridge detail on the bottom of the tin where no coloured printing was present but advised that none of these regions would be considered sufficiently large for labelling and that they might have already been visible during Quaser examination.8
20.5. Examination of the inside of the tin revealed some fragments of ridge detail. These were gel lifted and photographed. While it might have been possible to swab the interior of the tin for DNA this approach was not pursued because a DNA profile of Miss Ross was not available for comparison and it was known that the tin was in Mr Asbury's possession.9
20.6. Ultraviolet imaging of the exterior of the tin produced (1) a possible enhancement of the image of an existing mark (QJ2), and disclosure of (2) a further mark just below the label for QJ2 and (3) a very faint mark near to QG2.10 Dr Bleay suggested that the first two might benefit from re-examination by a fingerprint expert.11
Marks on the tin: PSNI comparison
20.7. The Inquiry asked PSNI to examine (1) the new image of QJ2, (2) the mark below it and (3) the gel lift from inside the tin.
20.8. PSNI were initially given life-size images of the first two marks and submitted a report dated 30 October 2009.12 At a later date they were also given enlargements of the images of these marks and life-size images and enlargements of the third mark and they provided a second report dated 26 November 2009.13
20.9. The life-size photographs of the gel lift were addressed in the report dated 26 November 2009 and were judged to have insufficient ridge detail for comparison.15
The door-frame
20.10. Dr Bleay examined the door-frame using laser and Quaser techniques to ascertain if any additional ridge detail could be revealed for marks Y7 and Z7. He was unable to enhance the ridge detail.16
20.11. Examination of the door-frame using a bright white LED light source revealed four areas of ridge detail some of which had been noted during the initial examination but none of which, Dr Bleay indicated, was sufficient to have been labelled.17 He provided photographic images and illustrated these areas in a report.18
20.12. Dr Bleay considered that there would be no benefit pursuing additional chemical treatment of Y7 for fingerprint development because the visible mark represented the full extent of the contact surface.19
20.13. With COPFS approval, Dr Bleay did apply a process involving wet powder suspension to the remainder of the door-frame. This process had not previously been applied to the exhibit. Several areas of additional ridge detail were revealed during this treatment and a series of photographs taken.20 Two examiners at the Metropolitan Police examined those areas of ridge detail which the Metropolitan Police assessed as suitable for comparison, namely the ridge detail in three photographs labelled 70, 73 and 74, comparing them against the prints of Ms McKie, Mr Asbury and Mr Gray. The examiners concluded that the areas of ridge detail in the photographs were not made by any of these individuals.21
Y7 - DNA
20.14. Dr Bleay raised the possibility of DNA recovery from Y7 and advised that a DNA expert should be consulted.22
20.15. Advice was taken from Andrew McDonald of Cellmark Forensic Services, a laboratory accredited for such work. From the outset it was recognised that there was a risk of contamination when Ms McKie had visited the house and viewed Y7 on 14 and 18 February 1997 and when a label bearing her signature was attached to the door-frame on the second occasion.23 The advice received confirmed that there was a number of practical problems. Firstly, swabbing for DNA would result in the destruction of the mark. Secondly, the chances of extracting a profile (full or partial) were said to be very low for a number of reasons: the small amount of DNA usually in fingerprints, the number of different treatments that had been applied to the door and the mark, the length of time since the mark was deposited (DNA degrades over time) and the conditions in which the door-frame had been kept during this time (which could have caused damage to any DNA which may have been present). Thirdly, even if DNA were to be found, it could not be said whether it came from the mark and not the underlying material.
20.16. I decided not to proceed because swabbing would result in destruction of the mark, the chance of extracting a profile was said to be remote and if obtained the weight that could have been given to it would have been limited because of the opportunity for contamination.
Crown Office informed
20.17. The Inquiry passed Dr Bleay's reports and the material concerning the additional ridge detail to Crown Office because of any possible relevance to the investigation into the murder of Miss Ross. COPFS informed the Inquiry that they had instructed SPSA to examine the additional marks; that the results of the SPSA examinations of the door-frame were consistent with the findings of the Metropolitan Police; and that the results of the SPSA examinations on the tin were consistent with those of PSNI except that the SPSA examiners found that mark QJ2 was suitable for comparison purposes and compared it with the prints of Miss Ross and Mr Asbury with a negative result.24
20.18. COPFS made available to the Inquiry25 a copy of the report they had received from SPSA.26 Two experts had examined each of: the ridge detail inside the tin, mark QJ2 on the outside of the tin, the mark beneath QJ2, and the impressions on photographs 70, 73 and 74 on the door-frame. Those impressions considered suitable for comparison were checked against the prints of Miss Ross and Mr Asbury (in the case of the tin), and Miss Ross, Mr Asbury, Ms McKie and Mr Gray (in the case of the door-frame) with a negative result and one of the examiners also searched four of the impressions on Ident 1, the automated fingerprint recognition system, with negative results.
20.19. Subsequently COPFS informed the Inquiry that further investigations into these marks had been instructed.27 On completion of the work COPFS reported that the marks remained unidentified. COPFS observed, and Dr Bleay has agreed, that it cannot be determined whether the additional marks found on the door-frame were present at the time of the original investigation or deposited in subsequent handling of the exhibit.
20.20. COPFS made the same comment about the new marks found on the tin.28 Dr Bleay has informed the Inquiry that, as far as the tin is concerned, he had applied different techniques to provide better contrast between the background and the marks that had been developed at the time of the original treatment with superglue. He had not applied a new development process and therefore it was unlikely that the marks were the result of subsequent handling. The Inquiry has not pursued that matter further because the consensus is that, whenever these marks on the tin were deposited, they have not been identified.
1. EA_0067
2. EA_0089
3. EA_0069 pdf page 9
4. EA_0089 pdf page 22
5. EA_0089 pdf page 22
6. EA_0067 pdf pages 20-21, EA_0069 pdf pages 6 and 9 and EA_0089 pdf pages 22-23 and 35-36
7. EA_0069 pdf page 9 and EA_0089 pdf page 23
8. EA_0069 pdf page 6
9. EA_0090 pdf pages 11-16
10. EA_0068 pdf page 5
11. EA_0090 pdf page 15
12. NI_0012
13. NI_0011
14. DB_0003 pdf page 25
15. NI_0011
16. EA_0069 pdf page 5 and EA_0089 pdf page 7
17. EA_0069 pdf page 4
18. EA_0069 pdf pages 12 and 13, Figures 1-4
19. EA_0089 pdf page 7 and EA_0090 pdf page 1
20. EA_0068 pdf pages 5-6 and EA_0089 pdf page 7
21. MP_0010 and MP_0011
22. EA_0068 pdf page 10
23. See Chapter 7
24. CO_4510
25. CO_4517
26. CO_4519
27. CO_4513
28. CO_4526