At this point, DI Wilson came to the front to thank former DI McCreadie for his input, then asked that Dr MacLeod bring them up to date with the forensic results.

Rhona had managed a few words with Bill before McCreadie’s talk, so he was aware where they were with regard to the forensic evidence. She hadn’t intended mentioning the pregnancy story, but now that it was out in the open, she decided as she approached the front to explain their subsequent findings.

Rhona began by outlining their difficulties in extracting recognizable DNA because of the acidic nature of the burial site, and the length of time the body had been there. Then she described how it had been achieved via the petrous part of the temporal bone in the skull, and their eventual match with the buccal swabs from Robert and Jean, Mary’s siblings.

‘So this is Mary McIntyre’s body we are dealing with. As to a possible and discernible pregnancy,’ Rhona said, ‘the acidic nature of the bog means that bones tend to be leached away and, of course, the very fragile nature of any foetal remains would be challenging to find should they actually survive.

‘The first bone to form is the clavicle, or collar bone, and by week eleven of pregnancy it has become tiny but recognizable. We found no evidence of a foetal clavicle at the post-mortem examination.’

McNab came in then. ‘But she could have been less than eleven weeks pregnant, and we would never know that from the remains?’

‘We have no definitive proof of an early-stage pregnancy, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t one,’ she confirmed. ‘However, it can’t be proved either way.’

Rhona now moved on to the clothing.

‘First of all, the dress has not yet been identified as the one worn by Mary. Neither of her siblings could confirm this. Also, the dress buried with the victim was of a smaller size than would have comfortably fitted Mary.

‘We are still working with the clothing. However,’ Rhona indicated the screen display, ‘as of now we have isolated one source of DNA from the dress, identified as an unknown female. So not the victim. An explanation for this could be that at the time of Mary’s disappearance, money was scarce, and confirmation outfits were often shared between friends and family. Again, Mary’s siblings could not confirm whether the dress she wore on that day had been bought new or borrowed.

‘We retrieved a cigarette butt from the grave, the DNA of which was compared to the database and found no match. Neither did the fingerprint retrieved from the plastic bag, suggesting whoever was involved hasn’t been arrested since the database was up and running.

‘I can confirm that Dr Jen Mackie is working with soil deposits found on the shoes, which may help pinpoint where the girl whose outfit it was last walked. Finally, we believe Mary wasn’t killed at the locus, and was already naked when transported to the moor.’