Introduction
22.1. This chapter gives an overview of the relevant working practices and procedures of SCRO1 in 1997. By way of background information it begins by describing the possible results from examination of marks, and the distinction between volume crime and special cases.
22.2. The working arrangements are then outlined with particular reference to the associated documentation and the chapter concludes with a note about the availability of written procedures.
Results of examination of marks
22.3. The principal findings that SCRO could make were: 'fragmentary and insufficient', 'identification', 'elimination' and 'negative'. Such findings had to be verified, that is checked by one or more other fingerprint examiner.
Fragmentary and insufficient
22.4. When marks from a crime scene were received, an examiner would check the documentation and then assess which marks were 'fragmentary and insufficient' ('ins').2 The examiner would assess whether a mark was good enough to allow comparison.3 If he considered that it contained insufficient detail to allow for comparison or if it suffered from considerable distortion or superimposition or lacked clarity, or a combination of these factors, it would be termed 'fragmentary and insufficient' and set to one side. This would happen with some marks straight away and they would not be compared with known prints. Other marks might be deemed 'fragmentary and insufficient' only after an attempt at comparison.4
22.5. The conclusion that a mark was 'fragmentary and insufficient' as at 1997 required the confirmation of two experts. This was later reduced to one.5
Identification
22.6. An identification or 'ident' was made when a mark was compared to the fingerprint form of a suspect and identified as having been made by the suspect. In 1997, identifications had to be separately determined by four fingerprint examiners.6
22.7. Other bureaux required only three officers to make an identification. The additional officer was in place as an extra safety measure and also to allow for two experts to be on holiday at any one time and still have substitute witnesses to provide corroborated evidence of the identification in court.7 Mr Mackenzie understood that it was a higher requirement than most other bureaux in the UK who used three. After the HMICS 2000 review of the fingerprint bureau this requirement was reduced to three.8
Elimination
22.8. Eliminations (or 'elims') were marks identified as having been made by persons who had reason to be at the locus or persons who were not suspects, such as police officers who had attended there. In 1997 two fingerprint examiners were required to make an elimination. After 1997 but before 2002 one examiner was required to make an elimination.9
Negative
22.9. A 'negative' finding was made when a mark was compared to a person's prints and it was determined that that person did not make the mark. In 1997 a negative finding had to be made by two examiners.10 This was later revised to one examiner.11 None of SCRO's worksheets had a field for recording negative findings in respect of a mark.
Volume crime cases and special cases
22.10. Fingerprint work was documented on a range of forms, worksheets and other papers.12 The documentation and processes differed according to whether the case was a volume crime case or a special case.
22.11. Special cases were the most serious crimes such as murder or rape. Volume cases were crimes such as house-breaking or motor crime. Special cases tended to differ from average volume crime cases as more crime scene marks would be submitted to the bureau.13 The process involved in dealing with volume crime cases was set out for the Inquiry in witness statements14 and is not considered further as the murder of Miss Ross came within the category of a special case.
22.12. From 1994 the bureau was organised into six geographical teams. Special cases, such as murders, were allocated to the relevant geographical team. Prior to this, special cases were dealt with by a dedicated team staffed by the more experienced experts who, according to Mr Stewart, "by the benefit of their greater operational experience were able to carry out comparisons at a faster pace than their less experienced colleagues and hopefully to a higher standard of accuracy."15
22.13. Special cases were resource intensive. Mr Stewart said that they had to be processed quickly and accurately as "everyone wishes to see serious crimes resolved quickly" but examiners took as long as was required and were taught to work properly; that is to say, "professionally and with integrity".16
22.14. When a new case came in it would be assigned to one of the examiners in the relevant team. When the Marion Ross case came in Mr MacPherson was asked to take it on, assisted by Mr Geddes. In a case like this with a large number of marks other experts would assist.17
Working Arrangements
The receipt of marks
22.15. The fingerprint bureau would receive bundles of photographs of marks from the Identification Bureau. As mentioned in Chapter 19, these would be photographs of both 'impressions' ('imps') and 'lifts', each with an individual 'identifier' (e.g. Y7, QI2) which was then used in the paperwork at SCRO.
Documentation: lack of sufficient audit trail
22.16. The documentation used by SCRO fingerprint examiners is now described but it should be highlighted at the outset that the documentation gives a less than complete audit trail of the work undertaken.
Documents from the Identification Bureau
22.17. Two principal documents accompanied the bundles of photographs: Form 13B and the marks worksheet.
Form 13B
22.18. Form 13B for a series of marks had information completed by scene of crime officers (SOCOs). DB_0251 is the set of Form 13Bs for the Marion Ross murder investigation. Each Form 13B was in triplicate and the Identification Bureau kept the bottom sheet as a copy and passed the other two sheets to SCRO.18 The Form 13B was a "means of communicating instructions and information to the Fingerprint Bureau".19 It was a brief document that included elementary information: a note of the crime reference number, the crime, the locus, and the names of the SOCOs who found the marks in question. There were fields for noting where the articles were examined and where the marks were found, and for listing any 'eliminations' required or suspects.
The marks worksheet
22.19. The marks worksheet also came from the Identification Bureau and included information they provided. DB_0003 is the worksheet for the Marion Ross murder investigation. It listed the marks individually, with a brief description of where each was found and the date of the Identification Bureau's examination. Mr MacPherson indicated that the information about where a mark was found was useful to SCRO's work. It would, in some cases, help a fingerprint expert work out which digit had made the mark.20 SCRO would complete the worksheet by noting against a mark the date they received it, and then the result of the examination of it. The worksheet does not record the date of the examination, the examiners who had worked with the mark or the basis upon which any particular conclusion was reached.
The receipt of prints
22.20. SCRO prepared elimination worksheets21 and suspect worksheets22 listing the names of persons against whose prints marks in a case were to be compared. The names were provided by the police. Suspect worksheets would list suspects in a case. Elimination worksheets would list other persons such as police officers and civilians. These sheets did not show results of comparisons but did at least record the initials of the first examiner and a checker with the relevant dates.
22.21. It was the job of the police investigators to produce elimination prints for SCRO.23 They would take elimination prints of persons who had legitimate access to a scene of crime or had come into contact with articles to be eliminated from an inquiry, and supply these ten-print forms to the bureau.24
The examiners' process in brief
22.22. Normally SCRO did not see the item on which the mark had been found and examiners compared prints with photographs of marks. There were some exceptions. Mr Geddes told the Inquiry that sometimes it was helpful to see the article on which the mark was left to orientate the mark25 and, as mentioned in chapter 4, two of the SCRO staff viewed Y7 and other marks at the crime scene.
22.23. Marks were generally worked on in bundles, which reduced in size as a determination for each mark was made since, when they were determined, the marks were put in the appropriate 'crystal bag' (a 'see-through' envelope which could be written on) for fragmentary and insufficient, eliminated as, identified as etc. 26
22.24. The first step would be to decide, where possible, which marks in a bundle were fragmentary and insufficient and they were removed from the bundle of photographs and placed in their own 'crystal bag' to be second checked by another expert. Once checked, the 'fragmentary and insufficient' result would be marked on the marks worksheet in the result column.27
22.25. The next step would be to compare the remaining marks in the bundle to the prints. An examiner would take a bundle of marks, and look at the elimination sheets to see whose prints were to be checked against those marks.28
22.26. Taking the elimination worksheet CO_0198 as an example, the names of persons to be compared are listed against columns indicating bundles of marks, such as Y7 to V9. These columns then divide into further columns, headed 'Comp' and 'Date' and 'Check' and 'Date'. A fingerprint examiner would take the bundle, bundle Y7 to V9, and compare the outstanding marks in this bundle against the fingerprint form of one of the persons listed, as an example DC Wallace. The examiner would then initial the 'Comp' column and insert the date in the 'Date' column.
22.27. A second examiner would then take the bundle of marks Y7 to V9 and compare them to the fingerprint form for DC Wallace. If he agreed with the conclusion he would initial and date the 'Check' and 'Date' columns and the photograph of that mark would be removed from the bundle.29
22.28. The next examiner would pick up the remainder of the bundle and would know that the bundle had been compared against DC Wallace. He would go on to compare the remaining marks against the prints of another person on the list.
22.29. The consequence of this method of working was that the bundle as a whole (in the case of bundle Y7 to V9 a total of 50 marks)30 was not checked against each and every person named on the list but it is not possible to tell from the elimination worksheet which specific marks the examiners checked against any particular individual.
Prioritisation
22.30. The fingerprint examiners would prioritise their work.
22.31. Mr Mackenzie said that the officer would always note where marks were retrieved from and would give priority to certain marks such as those at the point of entry to a crime scene.31
22.32. As a general rule, eliminations were given priority so as to reduce the number of marks to compare against suspects and search on the AFR system. In the case of a murder at the victim's home many marks would be eliminated as marks of the deceased, police officers, scene of crime officers, members of the family etc. By focussing on such eliminations the aim was to isolate marks that might be significant.32
22.33. In the Marion Ross case in the initial stages all the fingerprints were from elimination forms, as there were no suspects at that time. By the end of the case over 160 elimination forms had been received for comparison, which was a large number.33
22.34. Input was received from the police as to priorities.34 The critical relationship was between the senior investigating officer (SIO) and the principal fingerprint officer in charge of the case at SCRO. Mr Stewart said that normal practice was that in a first discussion with the SIO he would tell you who lived at the house where the crime had been committed and SCRO would start with those people so that they could whittle down the outstanding marks to make the best and most efficient use of resources.35
22.35. The SIO would set the priorities for SCRO for example which marks and which persons were of particular interest. A critical part of case management was a regular dialogue with the SIO, which would often take place daily.36 Where there was a significant volume of marks, comparison work had to be prioritised which was an iterative process involving the SIO who would specify marks or persons of particular interest to the investigation. These would change as the investigation progressed.37
22.36. Mr Geddes understood the re-organisation of the Glasgow bureau into geographical teams to have been associated with a desire to increase communication between police officers and fingerprint experts. It was intended to encourage information flow as police would be able to speak about cases with someone familiar with their division.38
22.37. The work carried out by the fingerprint experts was subject to the demands of the police officer in charge of the case who requested comparisons. The experts did not make the decision about what they were to compare, they were always subject to instruction.39
22.38. It was normal for the senior member of the team to play an active part in the comparison work. The Marion Ross case was Mr Geddes's first "huge" special case. Staff worked split shifts but if he and Mr MacPherson were on duty together and the police had indicated that particular marks were to be given priority Mr MacPherson would take the lead and examine them first.40
'Phoning out' results to police during the investigation
22.39. In contrast to volume cases, where the Form 13B would be used to report the results to the police when the fingerprint examiners had finished, in special cases Mr MacPherson said that once a positive identification had gone round four experts it would come back to the first expert who made the comparison. He would then pass on the result of the identification by telephone to either the SIO or the incident room for the case.41
22.40. Negative results were also phoned out. Mr Geddes said: "If I had a pound for every time I phoned out a negative result to a police officer and was met with the answer, 'No, it has got to be him.' 'I am sorry, it is not.' 'Well, it has got to be. We have got CCTV evidence.' 'Well, I am sorry, it does not match.' One week you could be the hero, the next week you are just a useless lab rat. That is how it goes. Unless the detail disclosed in the mark matches that of their potential red-hot suspect, it is not going to be [an] ident."42
Diary pages
22.41. At the time there were diary pages in special cases. DB_0002 are the diary pages for the Marion Ross case. Diary pages could be used for recording conversations with police officers though there was no obligation to do so. Some team leaders would record conversations with the SIO, others would not.43 Any other information a team leader felt relevant could be recorded on the diary page. 44 In some cases it was used to record findings.45
22.42. Mr Dunbar said that the diary page started out as a contact sheet and the one in this case was used mostly for phone calls, which was normal at that time. To get an overview of a case, one would need to look at the elimination sheets, the marks worksheet and the diary pages.46
22.43. Later diary pages evolved to contain any information about the case47 and to be signed.48
The recording of results
22.44. As mentioned above when marks were identified or marked insufficient etc they were placed in 'crystal bags', with separate crystal bags for 'insufficient', 'ident', 'elim'. There would be a crystal bag for each identified or eliminated person.49
22.45. Also as mentioned, it is not possible to tell from the elimination worksheet which specific mark in any bundle had been checked against any particular individual.
22.46. Once the relevant checks had been carried out, the results of the examination of each mark would be recorded on the marks worksheet but that gave no more than the category of conclusion: fragmentary and insufficient, identified as made by a specific person or eliminated to a person. A mark that remained outstanding would have no entry against it.50
22.47. The marks worksheet did not record who reached the conclusion on a mark, the date the conclusion was reached or any reasoning for the conclusion.
22.48. There was no prescribed practice for recording the identities of the examiners involved.51 Mr Stewart would note the names of experts who had identified or eliminated marks on a sheet of A4.52 In some cases examiners would initial or sign the comparator screen and that detail would be recorded in due course on the back of the photograph of the mark and Mr Foley said that the final checker would record the initials of the examiners on the photograph53 but there were ad hoc variations to even this arrangement, as is evident from Y7.
22.49. There is a tracking log on the reverse of the image of Y7 (PS_0002h) recording the initials of Mr MacPherson, Mr Stewart, Ms McBride and Mr McKenna. Ms McBride wrote the first three sets of initials and the word "glass" to record that she had examined it under glass. She explained that she put this particular note on the back of the photograph because she was working on another case and had not (at least by then) signed any of the paperwork in the Marion Ross case and wanted to remember that this was the particular mark that she had seen.54
22.50. There is also a list of initials on the back of the photograph of QI2 (DB_0001h). But for the fact that his initials are on the back of this image there would have been no record of the fact that Mr Bruce had been one of the verifiers of both QI2 Ross and QI2 Asbury and he has no independent recollection of his contact with those marks. However, because the initials record no more than the fact that he had some involvement there is no contemporaneous documentation to assist the resolution of the dispute between Mr Bruce and Mr MacPherson as to whether Mr Bruce observed 16 points of identity in QI2 Ross (as Mr MacPherson maintained)55 or only 12 (Mr Bruce).56
Case envelopes
22.51. Case envelopes were prepared at the beginning of a special case and were used for storing miscellaneous documents received or created during an investigation. They were pre-printed with tables on the outside for recording of information57 but witnesses indicated that they were not well suited to special cases.58 They were small (about A5 size), and the envelope often did not contain enough space for all the necessary information especially in a big case.59
22.52. The information regarding the results of comparisons and other details was entered on the case envelope at the end of the case, normally by the officer in charge of the case in SCRO.60 The envelope was dated at this stage, and it was signed, normally by the four fingerprint examiners who had made the majority of the identifications in the case. The signing officers would not necessarily have been the examiners who first identified all the marks listed on the case envelope but they would only sign if they agreed with such identifications. This meant that an examiner might have had to examine any marks he or she had not already seen during a case's progress.61 Conversely, not every officer who had initially identified or verified the marks would sign the case envelope; for example, Mr Bruce did not sign the case envelope for QI2 Ross.62
22.53. There was a number of case envelopes for the Marion Ross investigation. The principal one (DB_0529), which records the marks identified as made by Mr Asbury and also QI2 Ross, contains no independent detail about the examination of the marks and simply contains a cross-reference to the photographs and worksheets.
End of case letter
22.54. In volume crime cases part of Form 13B was used to report findings to the police once work was complete. In the majority of special cases, due to the number of marks, comparisons and searches involved, an 'end-of-case' letter was sent to the SIO. This recorded "the fate of every mark" and it would also intimate the number of suspects compared and the number of persons compared from elimination fingerprint forms. The end of case letter would be signed by the Head of SCRO but would be prepared by others for him.
22.55. In this case it is SG_0383. It was prepared by Mr MacPherson.63 It sets out no more than the conclusion for each mark and does not contain any detail.
Written Procedures in 1997
22.56. Mr MacPherson recalled that when he started in the bureau in 1970 a handbook gave an indication of procedure but in 1997, although there were written procedures, there was no complete procedures manual.64 Quality Assurance started in 1994 but he could not recall when a manual was introduced.65
22.57. Mr Dunbar, the head of quality assurance at the time, said that while SCRO practised and adhered to policies of quality assurance they did not have a recognised quality assurance position nor structured manuals and written procedures in the way they evolved after 1997.66 There were two handbooks on classification but they were historical and less relevant by the 1990s. Flow charts had been put together in 1992 based on the written procedures in place at that time. Some teams had memoranda outlining current practice within that team. In late 1997 the bureau started developing these procedures into a manual, which was the start of its review to work towards ISO accreditation.67 Each team also had a briefing book, and team leaders were responsible for keeping it up to date and making sure team members read it regularly. During the process of ISO accreditation in 2000, Mr Dunbar reviewed all historic and superseded instructions and compiled a set of up-to-date written procedures.68
1. Using 'SCRO' as shorthand for the Glasgow fingerprint bureau
2. FI_0055 para 43 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson and FI_0046 para 47 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
3. FI_0055 para 44 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
4. FI_0036 para 63 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
5. FI_0036 para 64 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
6. FI_0039 para 26 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
7. FI_0053 para 68 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Dunbar
8. FI_0046 para 49 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
9. FI_0039 para 27 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride. Current requirements are discussed in Chapter 36.
10. FI_0039 para 29 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
11. FI_0036 para 65 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
12. FI_0046 para 42ff Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
13. FI_0046 paras 45-46 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie and FI_0039 para 42ff Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride
14. e.g. FI_0036 para 40ff Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
15. FI_0036 paras 34, 35, 252 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart where he also speaks to the re-formation of the team from 1998 or 1999.
16. FI_0036 para 75 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
17. FI_0055 paras 34, 40, 48 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
18. Mr MacNeil 12 June pages 1-4
19. FI_0056 para 4 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Mr MacPherson
20. FI_0056 para 7 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Mr MacPherson
21. e.g. CO_1446
22. e.g. CO_0198
23. FI_0068 para 86 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McAllister
24. In some investigations (but not this one) ten-print forms were already in SCRO's possession and did not arrive as a result of the investigation in question (in which case a check was made to ensure they were legally held by SCRO) - FI_0036 para 192 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart.
25. FI_0031 para 87 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes
26. DB_0001h pdf page 3 - a crystal bag, Mr Geddes 26 June page 64ff
27. FI_0056 para 9 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Mr MacPherson
28. e.g. FI_0031 paras 34-36 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes
29. FI_0036 para 83 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
30. See DB_0003
31. FI_0046 para 84 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
32. FI_0036 paras 66, 78 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
33. FI_0055 paras 49-51 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
34. Mr Geddes 26 June page 76
35. Mr Stewart 5 November page 57
36. FI_0036 paras 72-73 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
37. FI_0036 para 77 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
38. FI_0031 para 16 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes
39. FI_0036 para 38 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
40. Mr Geddes 26 June pages 74-77
41. FI_0055 paras 58-60 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson
42. Mr Geddes 26 June page 81
43. FI_0036 paras 88, 93 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
44. FI_0036 para 88 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart, FI_0056 paras 91-92 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Mr MacPherson and Mr MacPherson 27 October pages 83-84
45. FI_0054 para 57 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna
46. FI_0053 paras 63, 230-234 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Dunbar
47. FI_0053 para 233 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Dunbar
48. FI_0054 para 57 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr McKenna
49. FI_0040 para 16 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Ms McBride, FI_0047 para 10 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Mr Mackenzie and FI_0031 para 49 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Geddes
50. FI_0056 paras 5-11 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Mr MacPherson and FI_0036 para 81 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
51. Mr Stewart 5 November page 49
52. FI_0036 para 93 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
53. FI_0051 para 50 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Foley
54. FI_0036 paras 81, 85 Inquiry Witness Statement of Ms McBride and Ms McBride 6 November page 120ff
55. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 31ff
56. Mr Bruce 9 July pages 154-164 and FI_0015 para 11 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Bruce
57. FI_0056 para 125 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Mr MacPherson
58. FI_0056 para 124 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Mr MacPherson
59. Mr Stewart 5 November page 66
60. Mr MacPherson explained the detail of the information given on a case envelope at paras 101ff of FI_0056 his Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) and Mr Stewart at paras 46-50 of FI_0036 his Inquiry Witness Statement.
61. FI_0036 para 90 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart and FI_0056 para 111 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Mr MacPherson
62. DB_0529
63. FI_0056 paras 30-31 Inquiry Witness Statement (Supp.) of Mr MacPherson and FI_0036 para 197 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Stewart
64. FI_0055 para 38 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr MacPherson and Mr MacPherson 3 November page 59
65. Mr MacPherson 3 November pages 59-60 and FI_0046 para 42 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
66. Mr Dunbar 6 October page 110
67. See Chapter 40
68. FI_0053 paras 93-98 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Dunbar