Forensic investigation into Omagh bombing was 'efficient', inquiry hears

A forensic science expert has told the Omagh Bombing Inquiry that the forensic investigation into the bombing was "efficient".

Professor Angela Gallop told the hearing that the scientific investigation into that scale of bombing is "extremely complex".

Twenty-nine people, including a woman pregnant with twins, died in the bombing in the County Tyrone town on 15 August 1998 - the biggest single atrocity in the Troubles.

The bombing came less than three months after the people of Northern Ireland had voted yes to the Good Friday Agreement.

The inquiry, which opened last year with 14 days of testimony from bereaved families and survivors, was established to determine if it could have been prevented by UK state authorities.

The "bulk" of the investigation in 1998 was carried out by the Forensic Science Agency Northern Ireland (FSANI), with additional work carried out at facilities in England and Wales.

The inquiry heard about the staffing of the FSANI laboratory in Belfast in 1998.

It was outlined how in the period after the 1994 ceasefire there was a scale back of resources with staff redeployed into different parts of the laboratory.

There were fewer bomb attacks which meant that resources at FSANI were used elsewhere.

But after the breakdown of the ceasefire, there was only one staff member moved back.

The hearing heard that in 1996 there were nine bomb attacks, increasing to 65 attacks in 1997 and in 1998 there were 76 cases needing forensic investigations.

At the time of the Omagh bomb, there was only one on-call explosives scientist at the laboratory who was on leave meaning other scientists had to step into his place.

Prof Gallop said that in forensics the initial work is key.

"It's really important to have a forensic plan so that you do the right things at the right time".

The forensic scientist who attended the scene in Omagh did not follow a formal investigation strategy but Prof Gallop said his approach was "very common at the time even for complex scenes" and that she did not criticise the approach.

"He was an extremely experienced explosive scientist so I think he did as well as anybody could possibly have done in relation to the scene examination".

She said that by the standard of today the role he carried out was "spread too thin" but back then would be "not uncommon".

"The examination appears to have been dealt with efficiently and uncovered critical evidence and the explosive device was identified at a relatively early stage in what were by any standards very difficult circumstances."

Following an RUC review, a new forensics team structure was implemented in 2000 and it "re-energised" the investigation.

The evolution of forensic science at that time meant that new techniques were also becoming available.

The hearing heard that in 1998 fingerprints and intelligence were the two principle means in which criminals in a criminal trial were identified.

But within two years DNA, fibre and fingerprint forensics had become useful in police investigations.

However, that was of limited use in the Omagh investigations as the way evidence had been gathered and handled to 1998 standards lead to a risk of contamination.

Prof Gallop said the use of the technique was suggested for Omagh "when many of the examinations of suitable items had already been carried out" and "it was too late for these risks to be mitigated in relation to these items".