Indeed. Russell is just a name given to either the Daily Record and/or Linsday. If the normal story is accurate, it would appear someone at the Daily Record, possibly the photo editor Allen, wrote the name Kevin Russell on the back of the photo before sending it to Linsday. Presumably that was the name given to the Daily Record with the photos.
Re. the backstory, the
Daily Record not running the story, the "missing" photos/ negatives and the claimed witnesses not coming forward; this is a bit of conjecture: Conjecture is rightly frowned upon here, so I'll call it a hypothesis

:
(1) The Calvine photo is a deliberate hoax by at least one unidentified person, possibly including a young man working locally as per the original claim.
(2) Although it wasn't documented in the file in the National Archives, the Ministry of Defence conclusions about the photo (diamond not identified, plane(s) probably Harrier, no Harriers in that area at that time) and the photographic materials are returned to the
Record.
The MoD notifies the civil servant assisting the junior minister responsible for the RAF, primarily so he isn't "ambushed" by any questions if the
Record runs the story- the minister not knowing (or, it might be implied, caring) about claims of an unidentified aircraft over Scotland might not be "good optics" politically. Copies are forwarded to two other departments. There is no record that they had any interest.
(3) Someone at the
Record (maybe Andy Allen, who knows) contacts the photographer (or at least the person whose contact details they have): Can they go over the story again? Are they
sure about the date, time and location? ("Yes".)
"-Ah, but we asked the Ministry of Defence, they say there
weren't any Harriers in the area."
The photographer is on the spot and can't give a ready explanation. Mention of the Ministry of Defence sounds like the picture- and the photographer- might get a bit more official attention than was intended, and now he's worried.
His hesitation and/or confused/ insufficient reply speak volumes to the newspaper man, who has years of experience dealing with unsolicited submissions and claims, true and otherwise, from members of the public. Every week, if not most days.
The newspaper guy says words to the effect of
"We can't run this. We're not in the business of deceiving the Scottish people. If one of our competitors runs this, we'll be duty-bound to share what we know. If you want this stuff back, send an SAE",
and hangs up.
(4) The photographer/ claimant is under the firm impression that his hoax has been rumbled, and doesn't like the idea of officialdom being involved. He wishes he hadn't bothered.
He is unaware (or doesn't care by this time) that the diamond in the photo hasn't itself been debunked, and hasn't the experience to realise that the MoD is extremely unlikely to have
any ongoing interest in him whatsoever.
He doesn't claim the photos, which after a couple of weeks or so are binned.
If he became aware of renewed interest in the photo in more recent years-
The Sun newspaper story 0f 20 October 2020, a Channel 5 TV show- he might have considered coming forward, but perhaps had a (probably baseless) belief that
The Daily Record or MoD would announce that the Calvine photo was a known hoax, and had reasons for not wanting to be associated with a hoax.