By Brian Smith and Grant Smith

TENSIONS BETWEEN Tayside Police and forensic scientists in the latter stages of the investigation into the death of Elizabeth McCabe emerged in evidence at the High Court in Edinburgh yesterday.

James Dunlop (55), a forensic scientist who is now head of biology at the Scottish Police Laboratories in Dundee, agreed there were issues about the handling of productions before they were sent to Forensic Science Services (FSS) in Wetherby for the more sensitive new “low copy number” DNA testing.

There was also a problem with detectives asking staff at Dundee for their opinion on results returned.

Mr Dunlop said he was asked for his advice on preparation and examination of various articles which might be destined for the low copy number DNA testing—whether that should be in Dundee or at FSS in Yorkshire.

He told officers then leading the investigation the labs in Dundee were not accredited for the new technique and, rather than expose the articles to further contamination in Dundee, it was his opinion they should be taken south.

Cross examined by Mark Stewart QC for Mr Simpson, he agreed his advice was not followed; but when Mr Stewart suggested this was due to “financial implications,” he said he was not aware of the reason for the decision.

His staff were then involved in devising a system to minimise the risk of contamination, leading to all the articles associated with Elizabeth McCabe being examined in one room and those associated with the accused being examined in another room.

However, the following day, some articles were examined in the room where those associated with the other person had been dealt with the day before, and so had to be excluded from the material sent south.

He was then shown an Email from the Dundee lab head raising concerns about officers asking forensic scientists in Dundee for their opinion of the results.

It was pointed out the Dundee staff were neither trained nor qualified in the new technique and asking forensic scientists to give an opinion on areas outwith their field of expertise undermined the laboratory and ultimately the whole criminal justice system.

Mr Dunlop said he was working at the Strathclyde Police laboratories in Glasgow in 1980 and at that time they carried out work for Scottish police forces including Tayside.

On March 11 he received a number of items from the then head of the identification branch in Dundee, Detective Inspector William Coyne.

A control blood sample from Elizabeth McCabe was grouped by analysing it and typing it by a particular enzyme, the method in use at that time.

A vaginal swab from Elizabeth was also analysed and examined for seminal material. Mr Dunlop told the court human sperm was identified.

The swab also contained secretions that returned the same result as the reference sample from Elizabeth’s blood—a type carried by 1.6% of the population.

They also examined pants, a jacket and tights found behind a boundary wall near the entrance to Camperdown Park and all returned a negative result for seminal material.

Mr Dunlop agreed with Advocate Depute Alex Prentice there are more sophisticated techniques now available.

Tapings were taken from a jersey found draped over Elizabeth’s head where she lay in Templeton Woods.

This was also done with other articles of clothing in case extraneous fibres or hair could be matched when a suspect was identified. The jersey was also examined for seminal material, with a negative result.

Mr Dunlop told the court he could no longer remember this particular examination, having dealt with thousands of articles over the years.

The condition of the jersey at the time he examined it would be recorded in his original notes but he had not seen them since the day they were compiled.

He agreed with Mr Prentice that there would be no reason for him to cut the garment in the course of his examination. Neither would he need to tear it or damage it in any way.

A single hair found in Elizabeth’s right hand at post mortem was similar in colour and microscopic examination showed similar characteristics to her own hair.

He said he was also asked to look at the vegetation samples taken from the site where the body was found.

Norway spruce needles, which were in abundance at the site, were also found in the boot of a Triumph 2000 car the identification branch examined.

The Ford Cortina taxi, owned and operated by the accused, produced a piece of plant commonly used as decoration by florists. Nothing of significance was found among the vacuumings from those two cars and others the identification branch had examined.

In 1996, when he was working for Tayside Police, Mr Dunlop was asked by Detective Sergeant Craig Suttie to examine a swab from the Elizabeth McCabe case to look for DNA evidence. He told the court DNA testing had not been possible in 1980, coming to Scotland in the early 1990s.

He explained differences in DNA samples could be used to distinguish between different individuals.

Referring to his lab report from 1996 into the vaginal swab taken from Miss McCabe, he said it was clear it had been examined before. His fresh test found a large number of human sperm present.

An incomplete DNA profile was obtained. He said this was not unusual and in old material the DNA could deteriorate.

He said, “A DNA profile is composed of a series of peaks on a graph. The differing position of those peaks allows differences between people to be determined.”

Mr Dunlop told the jury that in this case the profile would fit only one in every 170 white Scots.

He was also asked about a pubic hair sample taken from the deceased. Again an incomplete DNA profile was obtained, similar to that from the swab.

He said it appeared that the DNA from the swab had come from Elizabeth McCabe herself, even though there was clearly sperm present too.

At the time of the test, the DNA system being used did not allow scientists to distinguish between male and female.

Mr Prentice asked him if he recalled also tests being carried out on a canvas bank bag. This bag had been obtained from an address in Newtyle in 1980.

Mr Dunlop said that a colleague had carried out the examination. Referring to her notes he explained that the front and back of the bag had tested positive for semen. The bag was then put back in its packaging and returned to the production store.

Mr Prentice asked him if care had been taken in the handling of productions.

The witness replied, “I would say so. We had to ensure they were in a secure room and I would expect that any change in the custody of productions would be recorded on the appropriate form.”

Asked if he later became aware items relating to the McCabe case had gone missing, Mr Dunlop said that in 2004 the lab was searched for a pair of tights, pants and the bank bag.

The lab had been “turned inside out” in a bid to trace them but with no success.

Cross-examined by Mr Stewart, Mr Dunlop agreed that using the technology of the time, only one result was recorded from the enzyme testing.

He said there are ten types within the enzyme classification system and it was possible for one type to mask another under that categorisation system.

In Elizabeth McCabe’s case, her type could mask someone else with an identical type or two other related types.

Mr Stewart referred Mr Dunlop to analysis carried out on behalf of the defence on saliva samples taken from Vincent Simpson which produced results, using enzyme analysis, of two different types that would not be masked.

Mr Stewart argued that if none of the types said to come from Vincent Simpson were detected in the original analysis of the swab from Elizabeth McCabe, that meant it could not be Vincent Simpson who produced the semen found on that swab.

Mr Dunlop said that was one possibility. He suggested seminal material could have degraded or otherwise been absent to explain why a clear distinction between Elizabeth’s secretions and other material was not present.

Mr Dunlop also said evidence from the case may have been stored in an old mansion house—Seymour Lodge—in Dundee for a time in the 1990s when older material was transferred there.

“I can’t say for certain that the productions that we are talking about were transferred there but that’s a possibility,” Mr Dunlop said.

Mr Stewart put it to him that there should be a clear paper trail to show the movement, storage and handling of police evidence.

The witness responded, “Chain of custody records are an important part of the process.”

Mr Stewart said the chain of paper work in this case should be available now.

Mr Dunlop replied, “If the correct procedures had been adhered to, yes.”

Counsel put it to him that there had been a complete breakdown in this case.

“There are a number of productions that were looked for and were not found,” Mr Dunlop said.

He said a search team carried out inquiries at police headquarters and other outlying offices.

He was unable to confirm or deny Mr Stewart’s contention that the case evidence was stored alongside Christmas decorations at Seymour Lodge. Nor could he confirm or deny some productions were once used as a training aid.

Mr Dunlop said that at the time items were transferred to Seymour Lodge a list was drawn up. That list was no longer available.

He was asked if officers involved ever ignored normal procedures for submitting productions to the forensic lab by handing them directly to him. Mr Dunlop said he could not recall that happening.

Mr Dunlop was asked if he was aware of a request for what Mr Stewart described as “a complete lock-down” of the laboratories at police headquarters.

Mr Dunlop said he understood there was a request for such a search over a weekend when the department was not working.

Mr Stewart suggested the officer was refused permission to carry out the search because of resource implications. Mr Dunlop said he was not aware of that.

Mr Stewart continued, reading from a report by the officer, which said, “During my involvement as search officer regarding Operation Trinity, it has been problematic, resources have been sporadic and I have not been offered any degree of continuity.”

Mr Dunlop was not familiar with the comment.

The trial continues.