STATEMENT OF WITNESS

STATEMENT OF: Samuel Jeffrey Logan Head of Bureau

Name Rank
AGE OF WITNESS (If over 18 enter "over 18"): over 18
To be completed I declare that this statement consisting of S’ page, signed by me is true to the best of
when the statement knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence qt a prelimir
has been written enquiry or at the trial of any person, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated i
anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.

Dated this io day of 3>£g£.^Si£^ -looT-

SIGNA TURE OF MEMBER by whom

statement was recorded or received

PRINT NAME IN CAPS

I am the Head of the PSNI Fingerprint Bureau and ha ye successfully completed

fingerprint training courses to advanced level. I am registered on the National

Register of Fingerprint Experts (Registration Number 1167) as an expert in friction

ridge detail identification.

I have been engaged for more than 16 years in the comparison and identification o

persons by means of friction ridge detail and I have never known the friction ridge

detail of different persons to be the same.

On 13 November 2007 Detective Constable G McMurran gave me a copy of a

statement signed by Alan Bayle dated 4 September 2007 and a second statement

signed by him on 21 September 2007. I also received a statement signed by

Inspector George Glass dated 6 April 1992. Both statements refer to the find of a

coffee jar type IED. This was given NIFSL number 2071/91 and fingerprint reference

number 470/91B. A photographic album relating to the find was also given to me by

n 38/36
 . ...mt-miUN PAGE Page 2 of

STATEMENT OF: Samuel Jeffrey Logan

D/Con McMurran. This has reference number H1476/91.I have examined both

statements and the photographs provided.

I have also checked the register in the F'”''" —

and have concluded the following; the incident happened on the 5 May 1991 and

the device was received into the Bureau on 14 May 1991. Examination was

completed on 17 May 1991 and the items collected on 17 May 1991 by an officer

with the initials TG.

The register shows that the device 'tYJ .

consisted of a coffee jar, white plastic tube and sellotape. . Exhibit 12 consisted of a

grey plastic tube, top, wires, 2x batteries, cardboard and sellotape. The register is

initialled to indicate Constable D Carser carried out the examination.

The treatments used in examination were Superglue and Bristol Black. No

fingerprints were found but Constable Carser has indicated that glove marks were

visible.

In his statement Mr Bayle raises a number of questions about the evidence given by

Inspector Glass and about the chemical treatments used to examine the exhibits.

From the information on the SEU register it is clear that a number of treatment

। nese include Superglue and Bristol Black. These

would tend to be used on hard, non porous surfaces and, from my experience of

working in the Bureau, would routinely have been used to examine all the items

ex^^tecm^^ is made;pfhpw these twp

items vyere examined this is not altogether unusual as detailed note ’

However, I can conclude that the sellotape was examined as Constable Carser has
 ö I h I tivifcN I (JUN I INUATION PAGE Page 3 of 5

STATEMENT OF: Samuel Jeffrey Logan

indicated in the notes that glove marks were visible on the tape. It should also be

remembered that any treatments used to examine the underside of the tape would

reveal the fingerprints of the person or persons who manufactured the device.

Simple handling would not allow someone to put their fingerprints on the underside

of the tape.

Mr Bayle also raised concerns as to how the device was examined. As can be seen

from the photographs taken at the crime scene, the device had already been

dismantled by the Army Technical Officer. The device would then have been taken

to NIFSL where the explosives and detonator would have been removed and further

treatment taken place. Only after this would the remains of the device have been

sent to the Bureau. Normal practice at the time would have been for the device to be

striped down and each part of it examined. Given that Constable Carser does state

that glove marks were found on the tape it would tndicate that this item was

examined in accordance with Bureau Policy. The fact that no chemical that is

normally used to examine tape, such as Gentian Violet, is mentioned in the SEU

register is not an indication that it was not used. Indeed, given the nature of item

being examined, it is highly unlikely that Gentain Violet was not used.

In Mr Bayle's statement of 4 September 2007 he makes a number of comments

both in relation to the evidence given by Inspector Glass and examination methods

in the Bureau.

In section 3 of the statement dated 4 September 2007 he refers to Q. 1080 and

expresses concern at Inspector Glass’s comments on finding fingerprints on the

glass jar. I am unsure as to what Inspector Glass is referring to in this section of his

38/36a
11/03 SIGNA TURE OF WITNESS
 O I AM CJ VILLI* I I II* v/ri I iwi* •/

STATEMENT OF: Samuel Jeffrey Logan

evidence but I would assume that he is talking about the jar as he examined it i.e.

after it had been dismantled and stripped down.

In the same section Mr Bayle refers to Q. 1081 where Inspector Glass quotes

figures relating to the numbers of fingerprints found at crime scenes. I have no idea

where these figures originate from but would agree that just because an item is

handled, it is no guarantee that fingerprints will be found on it.

In Q. 1102 Inspector Glass comments on sticky tape and how it is rare to find

fingerprints on it. While I am not aware of the context of this question, it may be that

Inspector Glass is referring to the increased forensic awareness of terrorists in the

early 1990’s. By this time it was extremely rare to find fingerprints on tape as

terrorists were aware that captured devices were being striped down and examined.

In his conclusion on the same statement Mr Bayle asks the question whether the

police experts used the correct techniques in examining the device. In light of the

information in the SEU Register and my own experience in the SEU I believe the

correct methods of examination were used. In particular the SEU Register clearly

shows that the tape was examined.

In the final part of the conclusion he states that anyone handling the device would

have left their fingerprints, glove marks or fibres, on the tape. This is not the case. It

is the shiny side of the tape that would be in contact with the handler of the device -

any marks found under the tape would most likely have been put there by the bomb

maker.

In his second statement dated 21 September 2007 Mr Bayle outlines the procedures

that he would have expected to take place in the examination of this device. As I ?

have previously stated the SEU Register confirms that the tape was examined and

38/36a
11/03 SIGNATURE OF WITNESS
 STATEMENT OF: Samuel Jeffrey Logan

Gentian Violet was the treatment used at that time to examine tape. Therefore I am

confident that that tape was examined with negative result.

In the penultimate paragraph of this statement he states that he would have

expected fingerprints to be found if the sticky side of the tapeJiad been facing on

the outside. However, there is no indication that the tape on the device was facing to

the outside. This would be completely at odds with the way coffee jar devices were

constructed.

In the final line of this statement he says he finds it significant that no ridge detail

was found on this coffee jar. Again I am unsure what Mr Bayle means when he says

he finds this quite significant but I can say that terrorists had become much more

forensically aware by the early 1990’s and the fact that no fingerprints were found

on this device is not unusual. In 1992 alone I personally examined 14 coffee jar

devices and found imprints on none of them.

In conclusion I believe that the SEU Register confirms that the device was examined

in accordance with best practice at the time and that the tape was examined. The

fact that no fingerprints were found on the device is not unusual. It is also not

unusual for an item to be handled by an individual and that it em then test negative

for fingerprints when examined.

38/36 a
11/03 SIGNATURE OF WITNESS