Introduction
24.1. This chapter outlines the approach that I adopted to focus the evidence regarding the competing opinions of the fingerprint examiners in relation to the marks of interest to the Inquiry.
The Inquiry's task
24.2. My interest was in the marks Y7, QI2, QD2, QE2, QL2 and XF,1 and of these Y7 and QI2 (Ross) in particular.
24.3. A number of difficulties arose in addressing the evidence concerning the identification of the marks. This was not only due to the substantial number of fingerprint practitioners who had already expressed opinions, particularly in relation to Y7, but also to the fact that they had expressed those opinions using different combinations of source materials of varying quality with the consequence that their findings were not directly comparable.
24.4. A further problem was how to ensure that the Inquiry was appropriately informed in relation to this specialist subject matter. For the reason given in the Preface, I decided not to appoint an assessor. Also, so many practitioners around the world had already put on record their opinions on Y7 that I did not look for any additional opinions about the mark Y7. The question was: how could I put myself in a position to assess the evidence?
24.5. The Inquiry was an inquisitorial process, operating within a statutory framework, and the practical issue was to focus the evidence, bearing in mind the need for due economy while acting fairly towards those involved.
Addressing the task
24.6. Resolving the means by which that objective could be achieved proved time-consuming and demanding.
24.7. An early proposal to obtain the assistance of Professor Champod of the University of Lausanne, as the Inquiry's expert witness, was not acceptable to all core participants. Having taken their views into account, I decided that expert assistance should be obtained from more than one source.2 A 'technical review' was put in train in which a number of experts, including Professor Champod, were to be asked to examine the existing material with a view to identifying for the Inquiry the specific areas in dispute. Finding experts who were willing to assist the Inquiry and who were acceptable to all core participants proved difficult, but eventually the relevant documentary evidence was made available to three individuals by means of an electronic database.3
24.8. Soon after the third of these individuals began work, the Inquiry was advised by the other two contributors that the task was fraught with difficulties due to a number of complications including the difference in source material used, the difference in visual presentation styles, the quality of detail recorded on some of the images being insufficient for review purposes and, in most instances, the absence of working notes making it impossible to reconstruct the thought processes which led the experts to their conclusions. In light of this, the exercise was brought to an end and the strategy was reconsidered.4
24.9. At this point the process that became known as 'the comparative exercise' emerged as the only practical approach to the shaping of the opinion evidence phase of the oral hearings.
The questions to be considered
24.10. Two distinct questions arise for consideration:
24.11. Image selection can be a critical variable in fingerprint comparison work and because there can be a subjective element to the judgment of what the 'best' image is it was not to be expected that there would be consensus among the fingerprint examiners in relation to the selection of any one image for each mark to be used in evidence. However, my view was that unless all of the examiners studied the same image it could not be known whether the defining issues derived from (a) the comparative quality of the images studied, (b) differences of opinion as to the observation and interpretation of ridge detail or (c) a combination of both. The first issue was to ascertain which ridge details in mark and print required scrutiny and what the nature of the dispute was concerning each of those details.
The constraints in the comparative exercise
24.12. The comparative exercise focussed primarily on the marks Y7 and QI2 Ross. Four of the marks attributed to Mr Asbury were not included in the comparative exercise: QD2 (the mark found on the banknote) and QE2, QI2 Asbury and QL2 (found on the tin). XF, the mark found on a Christmas gift tag in the living room of Miss Ross's house and identified as the right forefinger of David Asbury, which had not been contested, was included in Phase 1 of the exercise, on a precautionary basis, for reassurance that there was no dubiety over its identification.5
24.13. The comparative exercise was a constrained exercise devised by the Inquiry team for the purposes of the Inquiry. The constraints related to (1) the source materials used, (2) the level of participation of the various fingerprint examiners and (3) the tasks that the participants were asked to undertake.
24.14. I decided that standardised source materials (both for the marks and the prints) should be used to facilitate analysis of the competing opinions of the witnesses on a like-for-like basis.
24.15. In order to keep the exercise within manageable bounds I decided that only a representative selection of witnesses would be asked to participate and even those who were participating were assigned two different levels of participation. A limited number of contributors were invited to participate in Phase 1, which was intended to establish the principal ridge characteristics, both those said to be similar and those said to be different, which would require to be considered. In Phase 2 the Phase 1 contributions were circulated for comment both by the Phase 1 contributors and a wider pool of fingerprint practitioners in order to obtain a good understanding of the competing points of view of examiners on each side of the argument.
24.16. None of the participants was asked to undertake the conventional ACE-V6 comparison of the materials. Since each of the participants had expressed an opinion on the marks (or was at least thought to have done so)7 it would have been unduly artificial to have asked them to carry out an ACE comparison as if they were looking at the marks and prints for the first time. Instead, the SCRO examiners were asked to highlight points of similarity, while the contradictors were asked to highlight points of difference.
Implementation
24.17. Counsel to the Inquiry, Mr Moynihan Q.C., discussed the proposal for the exercise with Mr Pugh, Director of Forensic Services at the Metropolitan Police, and Mr Pugh agreed to make personnel and imaging facilities available for the exercise.
Selection of source materials
24.18. When the possibility of such an exercise was first mooted at the procedural hearing in November 20088 it was anticipated that there would be potential difficulty in relation to the selection of images to be used. In the event, the images proved to be self-selecting. Given that the first objective was to address the question whether the SCRO examiners had correctly identified the relevant marks, it made sense to conduct that exercise by reference to the materials that they used when first identifying the marks.
24.19. With the exception of the fingerprint forms for Mr Asbury (which were relevant to XF), the Inquiry had the originals of that material plus the negatives of the photographic images for Y7 and QI2 Ross. The Inquiry was able to obtain a range of reproductions of the original materials from the photographic laboratory of the University of Westminster with the assistance of Dr Bleay, and the Metropolitan Police also provided high resolution copies scanned from the originals.
24.20. Given that the first objective was to determine whether the SCRO examiners had correctly identified the relevant marks, I decided to give them the opportunity to select the particular reproduction images of the marks to be used for Phase 1.
24.21. In relation to the prints:
24.22. The Inquiry team, assisted by the Metropolitan Police, compiled the packs of materials which included a DVD of the images. With their assistance the Inquiry was able to accommodate witness preferences as to the form in which some material was provided (wet photography or digital) without prejudicing the objective which was, so far as possible, to have the witnesses express their evidence by reference to common source materials.20
Phase 1
24.23. The Phase 1 contributors were the four SCRO examiners who had signed the court productions (Mr MacPherson, Mr Stewart, Ms McBride and Mr McKenna), and Mr Grigg, Mr MacLeod, Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg. Mr MacLeod, Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg had all expressed their disagreement with the identifications of Y7 and QI2 Ross.21 Mr Grigg had disagreed with the identification of Y7 but had not previously carried out a comparison of QI2.22
24.24. The comparative exercise in relation to XF was of limited scope. The Inquiry asked the Phase 1 contributors whether they agreed the identification. The exercise was more intensive in relation to Y7 and QI2 Ross. Contributors were asked to do chartings and also to provide specified information relating to their examinations, including the characterisation of the ridge details highlighted in their charts.
24.25. In relation to Y7 the SCRO examiners were asked to reproduce jointly the points of similarity to which they had referred in the original charted enlargements (Court Productions 152,23 18024 and 18925 ), a combined total of 17 points. The SCRO numbering of points on the charted enlargement for Y7 in Production 189 differed from that in Productions 152 and 180. Point 14 on those productions was not marked on Production 189, while point 10 on it was not marked on the other two.26 To avoid confusion, on the charting for the comparative exercise the points were numbered as in the two earlier Productions, 152 and 180, with the point that was unique to the later Production 189 being number 17. The numbering of the SCRO points can be reconciled by referring to table 1.
Table 1: Y7 - SCRO points in Production 152 (used for comparative exercise) and Production 189
| Production 152 | Corresponding number in Production 189 |
|---|---|
| 1 | Same |
| 2 | Same |
| 3 | Same |
| 4 | Same |
| 5 | 14 |
| 6 | 5 |
| 7 | 6 |
| 8 | 7 |
| 9 | 8 |
| 10 | 9 |
| 11 | Same |
| 12 | Same |
| 13 | Same |
| 14 | Not in 189 |
| 15 | Same |
| 16 | Same |
| Character in 189 alone | |
| 17 | 10 |
24.26. For QI2 Ross the SCRO examiners were also asked to reproduce jointly the 16 points indicated in the charted enlargement, Production 99.27 Since the original reports were a joint exercise it was sufficient that the Inquiry had one common reproduction of those points.
24.27. Each of Mr Grigg, Mr MacLeod, Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg was asked to chart the principal differences between the mark and the print on which he relied in relation to both Y7 and QI2 Ross. They were asked to do so without reference to each other and without reference to the SCRO charting.
Phase 2
24.28. When the Inquiry received the Phase 1 contributions, the Metropolitan Police prepared master volumes and the Inquiry issued these for the Phase 2 contributions. The exercise at Phase 2 was essentially to comment on the charted enlargements prepared in Phase 1 with their accompanying material. Those who contributed at Phase 1 had an opportunity to comment on what had been prepared by the other Phase 1 contributors. In addition, a number of other fingerprint examiners were invited to comment on the Phase 1 contributions. No chartings were produced at Phase 2; the contributions were textual only.
24.29. At Phase 2 the four SCRO contributors at Phase 1 had an opportunity to comment individually. Mr Stewart submitted a Phase 2 response for QI2 but not for Y7.28
24.30. The additional witnesses invited to contribute at Phase 2 were Mr Bayle, Mr Gary Dempster, Mr Dunbar, Mr Halliday (Y7 only), Mr Leadbetter, Mr Mackenzie, Mr McGregor and Mr Swann.
24.31. The involvement of Mr Dunbar, Mr Halliday, Mr Mackenzie and Mr Swann has been discussed in Part 1 of this Report. Mr Swann had examined QI2 out of professional interest at some time prior to the Justice 1 Committee inquiry.29 Mr Bayle had appeared on Frontline Scotland30 disputing the identifications of Y7 as Ms McKie's mark and QI2 as Miss Ross's. Mr Leadbetter, an independent fingerprint expert, had identified Y7 as Ms McKie's when he was provided with materials from Mr Wertheim in around 2000.31 He had not previously examined QI2.
24.32. Mr McGregor and Mr Dempster were fingerprint examiners in the Aberdeen bureau who, along with another colleague, were the authors of the Aberdeen report, a report from 2005 disputing the identification of Y7 as Ms McKie's.32 A further report disputing the identification of QI2 as Miss Ross's was also produced by the same authors.33 Mr Dempster and Mr Dunbar did not provide contributions.
The comparative exercise material
24.33. The materials supplied for the comparative exercise and the contributions received, with their Inquiry references, are noted in Appendix 8.
24.34. Additional images of the Phase 1 chartings were prepared by scanning them at higher resolution and electronically resizing them so that the chartings from two contributors could be displayed simultaneously during the Inquiry hearings. The Inquiry references for these digital images had a suffix 'A' to ensure the correct version was displayed.34
Table 2: Y7 and QI2 Ross - Phase 1 Chartings used at the hearings
| Y7 Charting | QI2 Charting | |
|---|---|---|
| SCRO | FI_0167A | FI_0166A |
| Mr Grigg | FI_ 0168A | FI_0169A |
| Mr Wertheim | FI_0164A | FI_0165A |
| Mr Zeelenberg | FI_0170A | FI_0171A |
| Mr MacLeod | FI_0162A | FI_0163A |
Analysis of the comparative exercise and its use at Inquiry hearings
24.35. Counsel to the Inquiry analysed the Phase 1 and Phase 2 responses in preparation for the second set of Inquiry hearings, and the analysis was published.35
24.36. Mr MacLeod's chartings appeared to be more a reproduction of the SCRO's points of similarity than an indication of points of difference and for that reason I have disregarded his evidence. As for the remaining Phase 1 contributions for Y7 and QI2, the analysis disclosed a measure of consistency in relation to the principal features in the marks and prints that were being pin-pointed by the various contributors but substantial dispute as to whether those features were in agreement or were differences.
24.37. The concentration of the dispute on a limited number of points influenced the conduct of the hearings. The discussion could centre largely on the list of features for each mark as numbered by SCRO. Given the need for due economy a representative sample of the opposing views could be taken and, with the agreement of core participants, not all of those who had the same conclusion were called to give oral evidence. Of those who did give oral evidence not all needed to do so on all the points. Some would give oral evidence only on limited points and others would not give oral evidence on points in the marks, but on various other matters.
Criticism of the comparative exercise materials
24.38. The deployment of the standard materials in the comparative exercise was inevitably a compromise as I sought to balance my various responsibilities including progressing and focussing the Inquiry's programme of hearings. Some witnesses (including Mr Wertheim and Mr Swann) questioned whether the materials selected for the comparative exercise were the clearest available or the most relevant.
24.39. For example, Mr Swann's opinion was that the images used were "generally inferior" 36 and, for Y7, he preferred a reproduction of an image taken by Mr Kent.37
24.40. Mr Swann38 and Mr Berry39 were also critical of the selection of a plain impression of Ms McKie's left thumb for the comparative exercise for Y7. They argued that a rolled impression should have been included.
24.41. The argument for the inclusion of a rolled impression has to be seen in context:
24.42. Picking up that last point, it was not envisaged that the comparative exercise would be the exclusive source of material for the debate among the examiners. It was only one aspect of the evidence considered during the hearings. Witnesses could, and did, speak to other materials: different images of the marks (including a Kent image of Y7)57 and a variety of fingerprint impressions for Ms McKie, both plain and rolled. The extent to which a range of materials came to be used is evident from Chapter 25. For example, where witnesses addressed the Kent image of Y7, as opposed to the Strathclyde Police image of the mark that was used in the comparative exercise, that is stated by referring to the 'Kent image' in summarising the evidence on the relevant point.
The witnesses at the hearings
24.43. It was agreed that to avoid duplication on the part of SCRO Mr MacPherson alone of the four signatories to the court reports would give oral evidence on the full detail of the comparison of Y7 and QI2. Mr Stewart, Ms McBride and Mr McKenna gave oral evidence on a limited range of matters.
24.44. Mr Mackenzie, Mr Zeelenberg and Mr Wertheim also gave oral evidence on the full detail of the comparison of Y7 and QI2. More selective evidence was led relative to both marks from Mr Grigg and Mr Swann. Mr Leadbetter's evidence at the hearings was confined to Y7 because he had not studied QI2 before the commencement of the Inquiry.
The materials considered
24.45. Some witnesses began their oral evidence with presentations they had prepared:
24.46. Mr Zeelenberg's presentation was based on digital copies of the comparative exercise materials but the other witnesses used a variety of source materials.
24.47. Mr Mackenzie's presentation in relation to Y7 was largely based on his Tulliallan presentation, which used a number of source materials.58 In relation to QI2 the source material was primarily the charting that he had prepared for Mr Gilchrist's investigation59 and associated transparencies.60 The further chartings that he prepared specifically for the Inquiry hearings61 were, at his election, prepared using a copy of the image that he had used in the charting for the Gilchrist investigation. That charting contained 29 points and during the hearing he referred to an additional two, giving a total of 31 points in sequence and agreement.
24.48. Mr Swann prepared a number of chartings of both Y7 and QI2.
24.49. Mr Leadbetter prepared chartings specifically for the Inquiry68 and provided the original charts and a digital presentation of them.69 His source materials included a photographic original of the print of Ms McKie sent to him by Mr Wertheim that he understood was the image reproduced in the Daily Mail.70
24.50. The Inquiry also had the original Y7 exhibit that Mr Wertheim prepared for Ms McKie's trial (defence production 2),71 which used an image of Y7 and an impression of Ms McKie's print both taken by Mr Wertheim.
24.51. During the hearings, the Inquiry displayed the images digitally on screens. To address the risk that a witness might consider a digital image to be of inferior quality, photographic originals were available at the hearings for reference and were consulted by witnesses as required.
Digital marked-up images
24.52. Computer software was available during the hearings to permit witnesses to 'mark up' the images that were displayed on screen in order to pin-point precisely the characteristic that was being referred to or to illustrate the interpretation of any detail. The images were captured and given a number by reference to the date of hearing and the transcript of evidence contains a cross-reference to the relevant captured image.72 These captured images became an indispensable resource, enabling witnesses to comment directly on each other's analysis.
My deliberations
24.53. In reaching my conclusions I have considered the full range of evidence both in the context of the comparative exercise materials and the other source materials to which the various witnesses referred.
24.54. I have considered both questions in paragraph 10 above, that is to say, not only whether the SCRO examiners were justified in the conclusions that they reached on the basis of the source materials available to them at the time of their initial findings but also whether the identifications can be upheld relative to any of the other source materials that the various witnesses drew to my attention.
24.55. In ordinary litigation, civil and criminal, there can be emphasis placed on the need for 'independence' on the part of an individual before he can be regarded as an 'expert witness' qualified to express an opinion on which the court can rely. In the case of Gage v HMA the appeal court expressed the view that a witness compromised his position as an 'expert witness' as a result of remarks that he had made in a television programme.73 Some witnesses here have been involved in television programmes and in other media pieces on the case and evidence has been taken in a number of contexts, including the Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament. In that respect this case is extraordinary and because the purpose of the Inquiry includes, in part, resolving the debate among the experts who have openly declared their opinions it is necessary to consider all of the evidence on its merits.
24.56. Issues were raised about some of the witnesses.74 These include criticism on behalf of the SCRO officers of Mr Zeelenberg for his conversations with Mr Mackenzie and Mr Dunbar during and after the meeting at Tulliallan. That is addressed in Chapter 16. Those officers have also criticised Mr Wertheim for erroneously challenging the authenticity of the mark XF. Those matters are collateral to the technical dispute about the identification of the marks Y7 and QI2 Ross. Both the meeting at Tulliallan and the questioning of the authenticity of XF occurred after Mr Zeelenberg and Mr Wertheim were on record as disputing Y7. I am entirely satisfied that despite the unfortunate history to this matter all of the witnesses on both sides of this hotly and at times bitterly contested dispute were doing their best to assist the Inquiry by explaining their reasoning for the opinions that they held. There is no justification to regard any one of them as unreliable. In any event, my determination does not depend on the reliability of any of the individuals.
24.57. It is all too easy to see the examiners as falling into two broad camps, those who identify marks Y7 and QI2 Ross, and those who contradict them. On that view, it could be thought that the decision is one that calls simply for assessment of the relative credibility and reliability of the proponents in each camp. That does not do justice to the sophistication of the debate. There are contrasts on matters of detail among examiners within each 'camp', let alone between the two 'camps'. It is not simply a question of declaring a winner between the two 'camps'. The decision calls for a close analysis of the competing evidence on a point by point basis.
24.58. I had the benefit of a comprehensive tutorial from the witnesses as a whole, all of whom are acknowledged experts with many years of experience. I have sought to apply that combined teaching in reaching my own conclusions on the marks.
Questions relating to fingerprint methodology
24.59. As noted in paragraph 37, analysis of the comparative exercise contributions enabled me to narrow down the matters that required to be discussed. Not every dispute among the witnesses was explored.
24.60. For example, there was a dispute whether Y7 was an impression from a thumb and, if so, whether it was the right or left thumb.
24.61. The question whether Y7 is truly an impression of a left thumb was an incidental dispute. The substantive argument was whether (a) SCRO had correctly identified points in agreement in the lower part of the mark, (b) there were points of difference between mark and print and (3) there was a satisfactory explanation for any points of difference.
24.62. In Chapter 35 I discuss the five questions that a fingerprint examiner must consider when carrying out a comparison, which are equally relevant to my own assessment of the evidence.
24.63. The quality of the source materials has to be addressed not only in relation to the comparative exercise materials but also in relation to the other materials that the witnesses relied upon.
24.64. In relation to the second question, the Inquiry heard differences of opinion as to whether with their training and expertise fingerprint examiners can on occasions see something clearly that a lay person cannot see.88 The observability of certain of the characteristics relied upon by SCRO in relation to both Y7 and QI2 Ross was in issue but in a more refined form because the dispute was among the fingerprint examiners as to what they could observe with trained eyes.
24.65. Question 3 has two inter-related dimensions to it. The first concerns the level of tolerance that is being applied during the examination. The second relates to the proper characterisation of observed ridge detail as either a ridge ending or a bifurcation. Both derive from the fact that examiners require to work with 'degraded' impressions.
24.66. Fingerprint examiners require to make allowances for differences in appearance ('within source variations') that can occur when the same finger makes a number of impressions. That allowance is termed 'tolerance' and is critical to the distinction between 'within source variations' (which can be consistent with identity) and 'between source variations' (which are indicative of exclusion).
24.67. The degree of tolerance90 being applied is not measurable but some insight is gained by contrasting the findings of each examiner in relation to specific features in the impressions. Ridge detail in an impression can be incomplete giving rise to an ambiguity whether the characteristic is properly a ridge ending or a bifurcation. In addition, because ridge characteristics do not necessarily reproduce identically in separate impressions, it is possible for a ridge ending to reproduce as a bifurcation and vice versa. Examiners may agree that there is an observable feature (generically termed an 'event') in the same location in mark and print but whether they are prepared to commit themselves as to its specific type (i.e. a ridge ending or a bifurcation) calls for the application of judgment and is influenced by the examiner's personal tolerance for differences in appearance. Variations in interpretation are an outward sign of lack of clarity in ridge detailing and an indication that consideration has to be given to the appropriateness of the degree of tolerance that has been applied.
24.68. The second reason for paying close attention to variations in the interpretation of each observed 'event' is that operating to wider tolerances can also be associated with reverse reasoning, where the examiner uses the clearer detail in the print to resolve an ambiguity in the mark.91 Using reverse reasoning to resolve an ambiguity in the mark in a manner consistent with the print carries the danger of producing an adventitious match not properly supported by proper analysis of the mark.
24.69. Question 4 concerns the treatment of differences between mark and print. This calls for ascertainment of the 'differences' that require consideration, and ultimately for assessment of the reasons advanced to explain those differences.
24.70. Question 5 has to be approached from two perspectives. Firstly, there was the standard that the SCRO examiners were required to work to at the time for an identification for court purposes, which was the 16-point standard. Secondly, there is the contemporary non-numeric approach to sufficiency to be considered. Subsumed within each is the question whether the more overt reliance on third level detail since 1997 assists in supporting the identification.
1. See Chapter 1
2. Chairman's Decision on Specialist Assistance for the Inquiry dated 3 February 2009. Letter to core participants dated 17 March 2009.
3. Letter to core participants dated 17 March 2009. The three were Christophe Champod, Professor of Forensic Science, University of Lausanne, Switzerland; Mr Martyn Annetts, the Fingerprint Bureau, Directorate of Forensic Services, the Metropolitan Police, London; and Mr David Goodwin, owner/director Fingerprint Associates Ltd, Northamptonshire, formerly Head of Fingerprint Services, Northamptonshire Police. Style letter of instruction - FI_0187
4. FI_0189 - letter to Mr Annetts dated 22 April 2009 and MP_0003 his report by letter dated 24 April 2009; FI_0188 - letter to Mr Goodwin dated 22 April 2009; and FI_0218 - letter to Professor Champod dated 22 April 2009 and ED_0003 his report dated 28 September 2009.
5. See Chapter 1
6. See Chapter 36
7. It turned out that Mr Grigg and Mr Leadbetter had not previously examined QI2.
8. Counsel to the Inquiry, transcript of procedural hearing, 21 November 2008 page 13
9. QI2 - DB_0001h and Y7 - PS_0002h
10. DB_0001h
11. ST_0004h
12. SG_0409
13. ST_0006h
14. DB_0012h
15. Mr MacPherson 27 October pages 121-123
16. See Chapter 11 para 4
17. DB_0142h
18. SG_0377
19. SG_0131
20. For example the SCRO witnesses asked to be provided with wet photography images prepared to the scale of enlargements that they used in 1997. Two of the contradictors (Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg) expressed a preference to work from digital images.
21. Re Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg and Y7 see Chapter 12 and 13. Mr Wertheim had examined QI2 in 2000 at the request of Mr Asbury's defence team - FI_0118 pdf pages 6-7, 54-59 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Wertheim. Mr MacLeod had prepared a report on QI2 Ross for the Scottish Executive in 2005 in connection with Ms McKie's civil case - SG_0704 (see Chapter 17) and Mr Zeelenberg had examined it in 2006 in connection with that case - FI_0115 paras 98-100 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Zeelenberg.
22. Mr Grigg reviewed the identification of Y7, but not QI2, at the National Training Centre, Durham in 2000 - FI_0081 paras12ff, 79 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Grigg and Mr Grigg 29 September pages 21-22.
23. ST_0006h
24. DB_0011h
25. DB_0012h
26. Mr MacPherson and Mr Stewart both identified the differences in evidence in chief at Ms McKie's trial.
27. CO_0207h and SG_0131
28. Mr Stewart 5 November pages 136-137
29. FI_0149 pdf page 36 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Swann and Mr Swann 21 October pages 114-115
30. See Chapter 13
31. FI_0148 page 1 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Leadbetter
32. CO_0002
33. DB_0651
34. For more on 'A', and also 'h', documents see Appendix 6 and the reader's guide.
35. FI_0180
36. FI_0149 pdf page 37 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Swann
37. e.g. FI_0145 pdf page 12 Mr Swann Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
38. e.g. FI_0149 pages 32 and 37 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Swann
39. TS_0055 pages 3 and 5-6
40. ST_0006h
41. See Chapter 11 paras 24-26
42. MP_0012
43. TS_0009
44. TS_0010
45. HO_0104
46. Mr Swann 21 October pages 14-15 and image FI_2110.01, FI_0149 page 30 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Swann
47. TS_0004 slide 15
48. TS_0008
49. 'Strabismus' reproduced in e.g. TS_0055 from page 29 at page 33
50. TS_0053 page 56 para 9 and see Mr Swann 21 October page 54
51. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 78 and AZ_0061 slide 116
52. TS_0004 slide 14
53. Mr Swann 21 October page 27ff
54. TS_0053 pages 71-72
55. Mr Swann 21 October page 33
56. TS_0054 para 5
57. TS_0006 - a photograph taken by Mr Kent on 17 March 1998 (see CO_0296)
58. CO_0059 is a pdf version of the illustrated booklet which Mr Mackenzie distributed at the hearings, based on the Tulliallan presentation, and most of the 'captured images' during his oral evidence were from CO_0059.
59. CO_2005h
60. CO_2004h
61. TC_0211.01-TC_0211.10
62. HO_0104
63. Mr Swann 21 October pages 14-16
64. Mr Swann 21 October page 53ff
65. TS_0010
66. TS_0008
67. Mr Swann 21 October pages 115-117
68. Mr Leadbetter 23 October page 82
69. TS_0005
70. Mr Leadbetter 23 October page 80
71. DB_0172h
72. See reader's guide
73. [2011] HCJAC 40 and 2011 SCL 645 paras 19 & 20
74. See also Chapter 40 para 104
75. See Chapter 6 para 14
76. See Chapter 6 para 37
77. See Chapter 7 paras 166 and 173
78. FI_0099 Mr Zeelenberg Phase 1 Comparative Exercise
79. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 25
80. See Chapter 16
81. FI_0046 para 219 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie
82. CO_0050 page 11
83. CO_0050 page 11
84. CO_0050 page 16
85. Mr Zeelenberg 8 October pages 12-14
86. FI_0118 section 11 para 26 (pdf page 74) Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Wertheim
87. CO_0032
88. FI_0082 para 50 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Sheppard
89. Mr Logan 16 November page 71
90. See Chapter 28 para 44ff
91. See Chapter 28 para 50