25.1. This chapter addresses the question: did Ms McKie make the mark Y7? In this chapter, the fingerprint evidence that emerged at the Inquiry is set out, and my conclusions on the evidence are given together with my overall determination on all of the evidence.
25.2. After preliminary observations the summary of the oral and written evidence that follows is in a number of sections.
25.3. Given the overlap in the points relied upon by those who matched Y7 to Ms McKie and those who disagreed, the account begins with the seventeen points which SCRO found, in the lower part of the mark, and includes the evidence of others in relation to those points and the areas in which they were marked. Table 3 indicates the numbering used by SCRO and others. Oral evidence was not taken on differences that witnesses mentioned in the lower part of the mark except insofar as they were the same as, or in the vicinity of, the features SCRO had marked.
Table 3: Y7 - numbering of points used by SCRO and others
|SCRO||Mr Grigg||Mr Zeelenberg||Mr Wertheim (areas)|
25.4. The mark and print, as charted by SCRO,1 are shown in figures 8 and 9 respectively at 50% of their original size. SCRO's seventeen points are considered in two sections. The features in the SCRO charting were numbered clockwise but it was more convenient to address them by reference to examiners' starting points. SCRO points 9 and 1-7 are considered in Section 1 and the remaining SCRO points 8 and 10-17 in Section 2. My conclusions on individual points are noted.
25.5. In Section 3 additional chartings, using images not available to SCRO at the time of the initial identification, by Mr MacPherson, Mr Swann and Mr Mackenzie are considered, these chartings being relevant to the separate question whether the identification of Y7 can be substantiated by reference to any source materials that were not available to SCRO when the mark was first identified.
25.6. Section 4 is my assessment of the evidence on the lower part of the mark.
25.7. Section 5 considers evidence on the upper part of the mark, in particular a feature that has come to be known as the Rosetta characteristic, and broader questions of movement and whether or not the mark was the product of a single touch.
25.8. Section 6 contains my overall determination on whether Ms McKie made the mark Y7.
Section 1: SCRO points 9 and 1 - 7
25.9. Witnesses spoke of looking for "a target area of characteristics"2 or "it does need a clear starting point to begin a comparison and that will generally be a clear group of features in a particular position within the print which can be easily found on the control print."3
25.10. A suitable point of reference from which to start is SCRO 9, and then to continue with other points to its right.
25.11. Mr MacPherson believed that when he carried out his initial examination it was the bifurcation SCRO 9 and adjacent features that caught his eye4 and he also found the strongest features to the right of the core which became SCRO points 3, 4 and 5.5
25.12. SCRO 9 was also Mr Swann's clearest starting point and he worked to the right of it6 indicating "I usually sort of home in on what is called the centre core of the pattern. On here the pattern is not very clear¿ and the most significant feature that I homed in on is what you referred to earlier on as the banana-shape bifurcation in the centre core going downwards."7 Mr Mackenzie also recalled that his target area and starting point was from the core area out to the right.8
25.13. Points 9 and 1-7 were presented by SCRO as eight bifurcations in the bottom area of the mark and appearing to be almost in a row.
SCRO Point 9
25.14. During the Inquiry SCRO 9 was variously described as a "humpback bridge"9 or having a "banana shape". In the print it is a bifurcation downwards just above the core with a distinctive rising curve on the right or topmost ridge as it leaves the bifurcation. It is towards the bottom left of the image of Y7.
25.15. Most witnesses agreed that there was a matching bifurcation in mark and print, though there were some differences of view.
25.16. Mr Zeelenberg did not agree, questioning whether the shapes in the mark and print corresponded.10
25.17. Mr Grigg initially saw point 9 as two parallel curving ridges11 until he was shown the Kent image12 and then he accepted that this image demonstrated more clearly that it was a bifurcation. He remarked "It is possible that if one referred to this print one would make a different interpretation."13
25.18. In Phase 2 of the comparative exercise Mr McGregor noted it could be said to be within tolerance "at a push".14
25.19. SCRO 9 was in Mr Wertheim's area 6. He said that on a stand alone basis it was within tolerance.15 However he had three possible interpretations16 including a possible ridge ending between SCRO 8 and 9.17 The one in which he placed the most confidence in 1999 was that it was a bifurcation with ridge ending beneath18 and this was the opinion advanced by him at Ms McKie's trial.19
25.20. Conclusion: The overwhelming evidence, with which I agree, is that SCRO 9 is a matching bifurcation in mark and print.
SCRO Point 1
25.21. SCRO saw a bifurcation in the bottom right-hand corner of the mark and in the plain impression of Ms McKie's print towards the right edge mid-way down.
25.22. Views differed. Was there an observable characteristic in the mark? If present, was it near the edge? If it was, what were the implications of this? There was also a difference of view as to whether the feature was a ridge ending or bifurcation.
25.23. Mr MacPherson drew it as a bifurcation down in FI_2810.05.20
25.24. In Phase 2 of the comparative exercise Mr McGregor called it a "speculative point" and Mr Grigg said the bifurcation indicated by SCRO on the print could not be seen on Y7.21
25.25. Mr Wertheim's original working notes22 recorded "no feature observed - on edge of print (in smudge?)." When he studied the image under higher magnification he was able to see a clear point in this location which was open to interpretation as either a ridge ending or a bifurcation. While he could not disagree with the proposition that a bifurcation was present his preferred view was that the point was unreliable because it was at the edge of the mark and lacked clarity.23 Mr MacPherson disagreed with Mr Wertheim that this was at the edge of the impression. A green line on FI_2810.07 drawn by Mr MacPherson showed the edge, as he saw it, further to the right.
25.26. Mr Zeelenberg saw "similarish" features in mark and print.24 In his Phase 2 response25 he said there was a bifurcation "similar by location and type". Mr MacPherson, when he was shown Mr Zeelenberg's slide of point 1 as a ridge ending,26 adhered to the view that it was a bifurcation but accepted that a ridge ending was a tenable interpretation.27
25.27. Mr Swann had not marked a feature in his charting HO_0104. In his Phase 2 response he agreed with SCRO that there was a bifurcation although in referring to the copy charting that he produced to the Inquiry28 he viewed it as a ridge ending.29 The transcript recorded Mr MacPherson, when addressing Mr Swann's ridge ending interpretation, as having said "So there is an event in that area, a feature in that area. Whether it is a bifurcation or a ridge ending (shrugged)."30
25.28. Mr Mackenzie also saw it as a ridge ending. It was point 5 in his Tulliallan presentation where he described it as a ridge ending upwards.31 It appeared to be at the edge of the enlargement of the "original form" that he used.32 In his PowerPoint presentation33 it was slide 7 and drawn as a ridge ending.34
25.29. Conclusion: Although close to the edge of the mark the point can be seen. I find it impossible to determine whether it is a ridge ending or a bifurcation. I consider it to be an 'event' that is open to either interpretation.
SCRO Point 2
25.30. In the print this is a bifurcation in the same ridge that ends at SCRO 15. It is drawn in FI_2810.05 (Mr MacPherson). The dispute was whether a bifurcation existed in the mark.
25.32. Mr Grigg, Mr Zeelenberg and Mr Wertheim all saw continuous ridges. In his Phase 2 response Mr McGregor said the ridge was broken and fragmented on the mark and did not split in two.
25.33. Mr Grigg in his Phase 2 contribution said the bifurcation in the print did not appear on the mark and noted, in commenting on Mr Wertheim's relevant area (area 12), that he observed a continuous ridge in Y7.37
25.34. Mr Zeelenberg drew a continuous ridge in the mark and said the bifurcation was absent.38
25.35. Mr Wertheim's interpretation, when looking at image FI_2209.14, was continuous, straight ridges adjacent to point 2 in the mark and no evidence of a bifurcation. His original working notes recorded a ridge ending in Ms McKie's print compared with a "smooth ridge, ridge bulge, or short ridge (in smudge?)" in the mark and a conclusion that the point was out of tolerance. In commenting on Mr Swann's evidence relative to Mr Kent's image he still saw nothing in the mark.39
25.36. Mr Leadbetter at Phase 240 in commenting on Mr Wertheim's observations on area 12 said "too close to the edge of Y7. Should not be regarded seriously as a feature." In the same Phase commenting on SCRO's contribution, he confirmed SCRO's feature as present.
25.37. Mr MacPherson at Phase 2 said Mr Wertheim had misinterpreted area 12 in indicating straight ridges.41 During his oral evidence when he drew the feature on Mr Wertheim's charting42 he observed that the left leg was very thin but said the Inquiry should be able to see the underlying detail that he had drawn.43
25.38. Conclusion: Two different interpretations of SCRO 2 have been advanced, one that it is a bifurcation and the other that it is a continuous ridge. The faint line, described by Mr MacPherson as forming a bifurcation, can be seen in the mark. It is so faint and different in shape to the bifurcation seen in the print that I cannot exclude the alternative interpretation of a continuous ridge. I find therefore that the point is inconclusive.
SCRO Point 3
25.39. In the print SCRO 3 is a bifurcation about half way out to the right from the core. Most witnesses agreed there was a matching bifurcation in the mark. There were some differences of view.
25.40. It was Mr Mackenzie's point 10 and he described44 and drew it as a ridge ending.45 It was Mr Swann's point 5.46 He agreed with the SCRO feature47 seeing it as a ridge ending or bifurcation.48 The transcript reads: "Q: That lower feature, would that be again a bifurcation? A: Yes, a bifurcation. Well, it is debatable, bifurcation, ridge ending. One can never be absolutely certain."
25.41. Mr Grigg in his charting at Phase 1 to show points of difference (FI_0168A) did not match SCRO 3 in mark and print. He did not see them as a pair. In Y7 SCRO 3 was his point 7, a bifurcation. In the print his point 7 referred to SCRO 4.
25.42. Mr Wertheim in his original working notes described the features in mark and print as outside tolerance. But at Ms McKie's trial and in his evidence to the Inquiry he accepted them as a matching bifurcation in mark and print.49
25.43. Mr Zeelenberg questioned whether the shapes of the bifurcations in the mark and print corresponded.50 Mr Halliday, in commenting at Phase 2 on Mr Zeelenberg's Phase 1 contribution, took the view that the difference was due to distortion by pressure.51 Mr Zeelenberg's point was not pursued with Mr MacPherson, preference being given by Counsel to the Inquiry to Mr Wertheim's acceptance of a match.52
25.44. Conclusion: The overwhelming evidence, with which I agree, is that SCRO 3 is a matching bifurcation in mark and print.
SCRO Point 4
25.45. In the print SCRO 4 could be a ridge ending or a bifurcation depending on the impression used. The comparative exercise was based on a plain impression of Ms McKie's left thumb print and there it appears to be a bifurcation. In the rolled impression from the same elimination ten-print form dated 6 February 1997 it appears to be a ridge ending.53 It also appears to be a ridge ending in two other, different, rolled impressions. One is in Production 189,54 which was prepared by SCRO following examination of the fingerprints in Production 187,55 the prints taken when Ms McKie was arrested on 6 March 1998. The other is in a charting prepared by Mr Mackenzie56 where the impression is labelled as being from the print form taken on 18 February 1997.
25.46. If it is a bifurcation, SCRO 4 in the print is formed by the right ridge turning in and joining the left leg, with the left leg continuing up to the point that is SCRO 5. SCRO 5 is a second bifurcation so the ridge structure of SCRO 4 and SCRO 5 resembles two steps.
25.47. In the mark there is a gap between the right and left ridges at SCRO 4. If it is to be taken to be a bifurcation the question is how that gap is filled and whether the resulting shape is the same as the step in the print.
25.48. SCRO saw it as a bifurcation. Mr MacPherson drew it in FI_2810.13 but the step is not seen possibly due to his use of the mouse when drawing the detail during the Inquiry hearing.
25.50. Mr Mackenzie saw a ridge ending upwards on both mark and print.59
25.51. In his Phase 2 contribution, written under reference to the comparative exercise materials, Mr Swann saw SCRO 4 as a ridge ending in both mark and print.60 His evidence at the Inquiry hearings was given under reference to the Kent image and is consistent with SCRO 4 being either a ridge ending or a bifurcation.61
25.52. Mr Grigg doubted if what he described as a shoulder shape in the print at this point was present in the mark. He could not see on the mark the "double step" he saw on the print (SCRO 4 and 5) as they were not the same: "the features are different. They appear in a different order and they are different types, but they have a superficial similarity and could easily be confused with each other." He rejected SCRO's interpretation.62
25.53. Mr Wertheim thought the point had a stronger appearance of a ridge ending though he could not be absolute. He considered that if it was a bifurcation the shape of the "stair steps" was "all wrong".63
25.54. Mr Zeelenberg was concerned that the ridge detail did not match. In the mark he saw a symmetrical bifurcation with a small interruption. If there was a disconnection (i.e. a ridge ending) it was the left leg that was disconnected. In the print the left leg was straight and the right leg could be a ridge ending or could form a bifurcation "when it bends to the left line." Having referred to other prints, Mr Zeelenberg's view was that it was truly a ridge ending.64
25.55. Conclusion: In the print there is ambiguity whether SCRO 4 is a ridge ending or a bifurcation. In the mark also the point requires interpretation and different interpretations were offered. These interpretations cannot be considered in isolation from witnesses' interpretations of other points in the immediate vicinity. Taking the point in isolation, it appears to be a ridge ending. If a ridge ending, in the mark it is on the left of the continuing ridge, not on the right of the continuing ridge as it is in the print. If it is a bifurcation then I agree that the shape does not correspond with the shape in the print. Therefore I do not consider this point to be reliable.
SCRO Point 5
25.56. This is a bifurcation downwards in the print. The ridge that continues up from SCRO 4 curves to the left and stops at the point where it joins the adjacent ridge.
25.57. As noted above, in the print, and considering SCRO 4 as a bifurcation, the ridge structure of SCRO 4 and SCRO 5 resembles two steps.
25.58. In the mark at SCRO 5 there is a gap between the top of the ridge continuing up and the adjacent ridge on either side. Different interpretations were suggested.
25.59. In his Phase 2 contribution Mr Swann saw SCRO 5 as a bifurcation65 and in his evidence at the Inquiry hearings he indicated the relevant feature in the Kent image saying that it was either a ridge ending or a bifurcation.66 Mr Zeelenberg took it to be a ridge ending.67 Both Mr Grigg and Mr Wertheim considered that it could be either a ridge ending or a bifurcation. Mr Mackenzie marked it as a bifurcation downwards.68
25.60. In order for there to be a match at SCRO 5 including a match in relative ridge counts not only has there to be a bifurcation but that bifurcation has to be formed by the ridge that ascends from SCRO 4 joining the ridge to its left. Mr MacPherson viewed it in this way when studying the comparative exercise image,69 though he observed that the connecting ridge was "very faint".70
25.61. This was point 3 in Mr Grigg's charting.71 He considered it to be a bifurcation in the print but a ridge ending in the mark.72 He accepted that it was possible to assess the features as matching if considered in isolation.73 Taken as a bifurcation joined to the ridge to the left74 there was a consistency of ridge counts to the core in mark and print, but he considered that it could as easily be joined to the ridge to the right in which case not only was the step shape absent but the ridge counts to other points were out of sequence.75
25.62. Mr Wertheim drew it as a ridge ending76 or a bifurcation.77 The latter is drawn to match Ms McKie's print. His oral evidence was primarily by reference to FI_2209.16. His view was that the ridges that formed SCRO 4 and SCRO 5 could be drawn as joined together in such a way as to produce a configuration that roughly matched but that that was to "shoe horn" them to fit.78 In the print each of the two bifurcations was formed by the right-hand ridge turning to the left. As he drew SCRO 4 and 5, he connected the ridges by the yellow lines. In the case of the upper bifurcation at SCRO 5 he drew the right ridge turning to the left but for the lower SCRO 4 it was the left ridge that he saw turning to the right to form the bifurcation. The ridge paths did not match and failed to reproduce the characteristic step formation in the print.
25.63. Conclusion: I am unable to say if SCRO 5 is a bifurcation or a ridge ending. I accept that it is an 'event' but the nature of the event is uncertain. Taken in conjunction with SCRO 4 I do not see the same step formation in the print reproduced in the mark.
SCRO Point 6
25.64. In order to follow the detail of the discussion among the witnesses it is necessary to introduce common references for the critical ridges. This section of the mark is in figure 10.
25.65. In the print SCRO 6 is a bifurcation formed by ridges C and D, one intervening ridge (B) to the left of SCRO 5 (the left leg of which is A) - see figure 11. Mr Wertheim described it as "a clear bifurcation, symmetrical, even, very gradual, the ridges on both sides straight, the bifurcation opening downward."79
25.66. In the mark the ridge corresponding to the left leg of SCRO 5 is again labelled A. To the left of that there are two short lengths of ridge (B and C) that come into contact with a blotch half way up ridge A. For a match, ridge B must be part of an intervening ridge that continues above the blotch. Also, ridge C would have to be viewed as part of a bifurcation formed by connection to the ridge which is next left (ridge D).
25.67. In understanding the evidence of Mr MacPherson, nothing turns on the precise location of the dot for SCRO 6 in the SCRO charting FI_0167A because Mr MacPherson's evidence was that it could have been positioned higher up ridge C.80 The crux of his evidence was that there was a bifurcation formed by ridges C and D and that is how he drew it in FI_2810.14. He explained that he saw evidence of pressure in the area of SCRO points 1-981 and he accepted that there might be the appearance of a ridge ending at SCRO 6 (i.e. ridge C in figure 10) but in his opinion the ridge continued, though it was "very, very faint".82 When looking at the comparative exercise materials83 Mr MacPherson was asked by Counsel to the Inquiry about the blotch and said there was a thickening of the ridge (ridge C) which produced an apparent connection to the right, "but actually it is joined to the left-hand ridge" (i.e. ridge D).84 He agreed that it was an area of interpretation and judgment that might produce an alternative view by other experts.85
25.68. In his Phase 2 contribution Mr Swann agreed SCRO 6 as a matching bifurcation in mark and print and he discussed this point by reference to the Kent image during the hearing.86 Mr Mackenzie, too, agreed matching bifurcations.87
25.69. Mr Leadbetter preferred to avoid the area which included SCRO 6 because he felt that the ridge flow in the mark in that area was "not natural".88
25.70. The location of Mr Grigg's point 2 is the same as SCRO's point 6 in mark and print if allowance is made for a fractional difference in the positioning of the dots either side of ridge C in the mark.89 In his Phase 1 contribution Mr Grigg characterised his point 2 as a bifurcation and in his evidence at the hearing he was consequently prepared to accept that this was a point in common between him and SCRO.90 That is in conflict with his Phase 2 response to the SCRO charting, in which he disputed SCRO 6 on the basis that this was a ridge ending in the mark.91
25.71. Mr Wertheim's evidence is best followed by reference to his drawing of area 3 in his Phase 1 text.92 His focus was on the ridge detail that he circled in yellow, which is ridge B in figure 10. He said that ridge B could be either a ridge ending or a bifurcation. On either of those interpretations ridge B differs from the corresponding characteristic in the print, which is a continuing ridge, and therefore Mr Wertheim cited this as a point of difference between mark and print.
25.72. Looking in closer detail at Mr Wertheim's interpretation as a bifurcation, he was referring to the possibility that there is one formed by ridges B and C, whereas Mr MacPherson saw it as a connection between ridges C and D. If the bifurcation is understood to be one formed by ridges B and C there would be a discrepancy in ridge counts relative to SCRO 5 because, for the ridge counts in mark and print to be the same, ridge B has to be an intervening ridge and not part of a bifurcation. Mr Macpherson's alternative location of the bifurcation at ridges C and D does produce a consistency in ridge counts but Mr Wertheim argued that a bifurcation in that location was highly improbable and unreliable because it required an almost 90° connection between ridges C and D.93 His conclusion was that this was a wrong interpretation of the ridge detail.94 As drawn by Mr MacPherson in FI_2810.14 the suggested bifurcation has a more natural curvature and not the 90° connection assumed by Mr Wertheim.
25.73. Turning to Mr Zeelenberg, the relevant passage in evidence is his discussion of his point of difference 5. This was assumed to be the same as SCRO 6 and that assumption is correct in relation to the print but not in the mark. In the mark his point 5 is on ridge B at the top of the blotch, whereas for SCRO the dot for point 6 is on the left side of ridge C. However, that does not detract from the need to address his point of difference 5 on its merits.
25.74. Mr Zeelenberg illustrated his point of difference 5 in slide 42.95 His interpretation was that, in the mark, ridge B is a ridge ending and ridge C a continuing ridge; the point of difference being that in the print it is ridge B that is the continuing (or intervening) ridge.
25.75. That interpretation is dependent on the judgment that it is ridge C that links to the ridge structure above the blotch. It is possible, by a small adjustment to the alignment of the yellow dots in slide 42, to suggest that it is ridge B that links up.96
25.76. Conclusion: SCRO 6 has to be considered in the context of ridges A-D in figure 10. The ridge details in the mark have been shown to be open to a number of different interpretations and I find none of them to be convincing. As a result I regard the point as being inconclusive.
SCRO Point 7
25.77. SCRO 7 is a bifurcation in the print to the right of the core on the lower end of the left ridge forming part of the bifurcation SCRO 9. In the mark SCRO 7 is very near the bottom left.
25.78. The dispute was whether a bifurcation was present in the mark.
25.79. Mr MacPherson drew the point in FI_2810.17 with a blue line to show where he saw the edge of the mark and it was also in his FI_2910.04. It was point 17 in Mr Mackenzie's CO_0059 and slide 19.97
25.80. Mr Grigg, Mr Zeelenberg and Mr Wertheim all said there was no bifurcation in the mark.
25.81. Mr Zeelenberg said that in the mark there was "some noise" in this area, and that the point had been teased out. Even if there could be considered to be a bifurcation, the ridge count to point 6 was out.98
25.82. Mr Wertheim's problem with SCRO's interpretation was that the point was on the very edge of the impression, if one ridge was reliable the other ridge was so faint as to be unreliable, and he saw no sign of the ridges on either side deviating to accommodate a bifurcation.99 On being shown the Kent image100 Mr Grigg and Mr Wertheim still saw no bifurcation; Mr Grigg saw evidence of the ridge moving to the side to accommodate a bifurcation101 but Mr Wertheim did not. Mr Wertheim saw a shadow between two ridges but said that was true on other areas of the mark.102
25.83. Mr McGregor said there was no clear indication of the feature in the mark,103 and Mr Leadbetter, in commenting on Mr Grigg's point of difference in this location, said that the feature did not exist on Y7.104
25.84. It was marked as point 10 in Mr Swann's charting HO_0104, a charting that used the Kent image of Y7. In that charting Mr Swann marked two other points (8 and 9) which were even closer to the edge of the impression. At Phase 2, when studying a copy of the comparative exercise material as charted by Mr Wertheim, Mr Swann had said of SCRO 7 and an adjacent bifurcation: "Both bifurcations are present if good clear mark is examined - I cannot see them on this copy of Y7."105 He agreed SCRO point 7 when looking at the SCRO charting both by reference to the copy provided to him at Phase 2106 and also the original of that charting shown to him during the hearing.107 Looking to the original of the SCRO charting he said that he saw "a faint ridge coming up between the two limbs of the banana bifurcation."108
25.85. Conclusion: SCRO 7 is very close to the edge of the mark and while I accept that there appears to be an event it is so indistinct as to be indecipherable.
Commentary on SCRO points 1 - 7 and 9
25.86. In the conclusions reached in this Section SCRO points 9 and 3 are found to be a match. When examined on their own, points 1 and 5 are either ridge endings or bifurcations and point 2 a bifurcation or a continuous ridge, and the remaining three points are unreliable. The pattern of points 4 and 5 when taken together is not reproduced in the print.
25.87. Underlying these individual conclusions there is a broader theme relating to the reliability of the 'similarities' as viewed by SCRO. Two of the eight characteristics, points 1 and 7, are on the edge of the impression and there is reason to doubt that the detail in that area of the mark has sufficient quality to be reliable. For the rest, there was a measure of agreement among the witnesses that a number of ridge characteristics in Y7 corresponded approximately to ridge characteristics in the left thumb print of Ms McKie, but there were differences of view as to the correct interpretation of the characteristics as ridge endings or bifurcations.
25.88. To take SCRO 6 as an example, this could be interpreted as a ridge ending or a bifurcation; and, if a bifurcation, it could be one where the bifurcation is between ridges B and C or C and D in figure 10. Commenting specifically on SCRO 6 Mr MacPherson agreed that it was an area of interpretation and judgment that might produce an alternative view by other experts.109 This is significant because the rival interpretations are not marginal differences, each consistent with identification. On the contrary, only one (a bifurcation at ridges C and D) is consistent with identification, the remainder being potentially a ground for exclusion.
25.89. SCRO 6 is not an isolated exception in that regard. For all of the eight characteristics one or more of the contradictors disputed the match. There was no consensus regarding the proper interpretation of these features among those witnesses who agreed the mark was made by Ms McKie. Neither was there a consensus as to precise characterisation among those who said it was not her mark. This is a reflection of the lack of clarity of the detail in the mark.
Section 2: SCRO points 8 and 10 - 17
The core area
25.90. Views differed about the core area. While some witnesses marked features there, others chose not to do so. Mr Grigg said the ridge flow particularly around the core was a little indistinct and he started a few ridges up to be clear of that before looking for features.110
25.91. Mr Leadbetter said "I have steered clear of marking points around the core area. A lot of other people have gone into that area. My impression is that there is something wrong with the natural ridge flow around the core area so I avoided going there." 111
25.92. SCRO point 8, one of the nine points considered in this Section, is in the core area.
SCRO Point 8
25.93. SCRO 8 in the print may be described as an upcoming ridge ending with an intervening (recurving) ridge lying between it and SCRO 9. In the mark it is in the bottom left section towards the edge.
25.94. Mr Wertheim's original notes112 recorded the possibility, within tolerance, of an up-thrusting rod beneath the recurving ridge.113 His manuscript drawing of area 5 of the mark assumes that very fine detail can be discerned because he drew, as part of the intervening recurving ridge, a small enclosure which is not in the print and so was one of his points of difference.114
25.97. There is a slight difference between Mr Mackenzie and the SCRO charting. For Mr Mackenzie the corresponding detail was numbered 21 and in slide 12 of his presentation.119 He marked the ridge ending lower and to the right of the position marked in the SCRO charting.120
25.98. Mr MacPherson drew the feature on FI_2810.17 (in light blue) and on FI_2910.01 and FI_2910.02 as a ridge ending with a small gap before the recurving ridge and added information about other ridge features in the vicinity by reference to his supplementary chartings (see Section 3).121
25.99. Conclusion: This point is in an area of the mark described by some witnesses as being so unreliable that it should be avoided. Those who take a contrary view differ as to its exact position and nature. The unreliability of the area together with the lack of consistency among those who are advancing the existence of the point and my own examination leave me unconvinced as to the presence of SCRO 8 in the mark.
SCRO Points 10 and 11
25.100. In the print these are two opposing bifurcations at the left and right ends respectively of an enclosure which was referred to as "the lake".
25.101. The corresponding location in the mark is close to the left edge of the impression, a little above the core. The focus of dispute was whether, given the location, any features could be observed in the mark, and if features could be observed whether they matched. Mr MacPherson maintained that these two bifurcations were on the mark. His oral evidence on these points was by reference to his new chartings.122
25.102. Mr Mackenzie was prepared to agree these points123 but they did not form part of any of his chartings because he took the view that they fell close to his fault-line or area of disturbance in the mark.
25.104. The contradictors (Mr Wertheim, Mr Grigg and Mr Zeelenberg) all said that the lake could not be seen in the mark. Mr Grigg said SCRO 10 was on the edge of the mark and no feature was visible.126 Mr Zeelenberg said SCRO 10 was "a point teased out. It is simply non-existent." He could not see SCRO 11.127 Referring to SCRO points 11, 12 and 13, he said "it is simply the mark does not have the quality. These are points that are simply teased out. In the absence of point 11 in the mark I call it a discrepancy. The others are simply non-existent or non-provable."128
25.105. Mr Leadbetter, who worked on a Wertheim image of the mark, did not include either of these points on his chart129 as he chose not to work in this area.130 In his Phase 2 response to the SCRO charting he agreed point 11 but said that he was unable to discern point 10 clearly enough to confirm it, an observation that should be read in the context of a general reservation expressed by him about the quality of the image in the comparative exercise materials.131
25.106. Mr Grigg132 and Mr Wertheim133 both favoured the interpretation that there was an "open field of parallel ridges" in this part of the mark. Mr Grigg's overall conclusion about SCRO 10-13 was that the points were not present on the mark,134 even under reference to the Kent image: "there is no indication again of that ridge flow opening out to make a lake or for the ridges to diverge to make space for a lake."135
25.107. Commenting on Mr Swann's evidence (his Phase 2 comments on Mr Wertheim's Phase 1) relative to the Kent image136 Mr Wertheim said that the Kent image "does appear to have a crisper focus than the original image used by SCRO¿or any of us in the first instance."137 He saw how Mr Swann might see an island (sic) if he studied the inked print first but maintained that "if I were to interpret that without reference to the inked print, my interpretation would be that the safest interpretation is a straight ridge." Mr Zeelenberg said that the system of ridges could not be seen138 but, in contrast, in slide 60139 he drew ridge flow associated with SCRO 11.
25.108. Mr MacPherson's basic objection to the observations of Mr Wertheim, Mr Zeelenberg, and Mr Grigg was that their interpretations were flawed because they were based on continuous ridge flow. The "determination that movement is not present in the mark Y7 is wrong."140
25.109. Conclusion: SCRO 10 is said by some witnesses to be observable close to the edge of the mark. I do not see it nor do I see SCRO 11 in the mark.
SCRO Points 12 and 13
25.110. In the print these appear as the left and right ends respectively of a short incipient ridge or island immediately to the right of the lake (SCRO 10 and 11).
25.112. In Phase 2 Mr McGregor143 did not see these features in the mark. Mr Leadbetter, in commenting on Mr Wertheim's observations about his area 7 (which is in the vicinity of SCRO 11-13), said he could not see points 12 and 13 clearly enough to confirm them "due to the lack of clarity presented in the illustration provided."144
25.113. Neither of these points had featured in Mr Mackenzie's charting but he agreed with them in his Phase 2 response, subject to the qualification that they were near his fault-line.145 Mr Swann similarly had not included them in his own charting but was prepared to accept them as matching.146
25.114. Mr MacPherson's explanation was that the feature was an island (rather than an incipient) because it included a pore and he drew it twice.147 In the print the points 12 and 13 are marked close to the right side of the lake, if not in contact with it. In Mr MacPherson's drawings the island is marked closer to the ridge above and he attributed this variation to pressure.148
25.115. Conclusion: It has not been demonstrated to me that either of these points, SCRO 12 and 13, exists in the mark.
SCRO Point 14
25.116. SCRO saw an upwards ending ridge in the print and in the mark a few ridges above and to the right of SCRO 9.149
25.117. In Phase 1 of the comparative exercise, both Mr Zeelenberg and Mr Wertheim saw this in the print but not in the mark. Mr Wertheim saw a nearby ridge ending in the print (which he said could be a bifurcation) and a bifurcation in that location in the mark. Mr Grigg showed a bifurcation in the print at this location. His point 5 and SCRO 14 are not the same in the mark. He looked without success for the corresponding feature in Y7 to the left of where SCRO mark their ridge ending 14.150
25.118. In oral evidence Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg said that in the print it could be either a ridge ending or a bifurcation. In either case it did not match the mark which was seen by them as having a field of continuous ridges.151 Mr Grigg said there was plain ridge flow on the mark which was easy to trace.152 However the point he indicated by the purple arrow in the image of the mark in FI_2909.15 does not correspond to the ridge detail that SCRO pointed to as SCRO 14.
25.119. This was another point that Mr Leadbetter said in his Phase 2 response to the SCRO charting that he was unable to discern clearly due to the quality.153 Mr Mackenzie did not include it in his charting because of proximity to his fault-line but was prepared to agree it.154 Mr Swann had marked it as point 16 in his chart HO_0104 and adhered to that.
25.120. Mr MacPherson had said that Mr Grigg's interpretation was wrong because he had made no allowance for movement.155 In considering Mr Wertheim's and Mr Grigg's field of open ridges above SCRO 9, he drew the ridge structure in FI_2910.12 and that showed a pronounced gap between the ridge ending and the ridge immediately below, more pronounced than the gap, if any, in the print.156
25.121. Conclusion: I do not see a characteristic in the mark in this area that is either a ridge ending or a bifurcation. I prefer the interpretation of the area in which the point SCRO 14 has been marked as forming part of a field of continuous ridges.
SCRO Points 15 and 16
25.122. These points came to be known as "the handshake": two overlapping ridge endings in the print. Mr Zeelenberg called it a "deviated break"157 and Mr Wertheim "two ridge endings that overlap" and taper in opposite directions.158 This was his area 11.
25.123. Neither was marked in the chart that Mr Swann sent to Mr Kent.159 Mr Mackenzie included these as his points 1 and 2 in his charting.160 Mr Leadbetter agreed both points in his Phase 2 response to the SCRO charting.161
25.124. In the comparative exercise Mr Wertheim saw a ridge break in the print but a bifurcation in the mark and this contrast was the basis of his difference 11.162 In oral evidence, he said that there was a clear point in the mark at the position indicated by SCRO 15 but he was undecided whether it was a ridge ending or a bifurcation: 163 "I am not going to get married to any of these interpretations. The image is just not clear enough to be certain."164 His conclusion on SCRO 15 is not entirely clear but on balance it is possible to understand him as accepting SCRO 15 as a matching point.165 His evidence on SCRO 16 was more definitive: he saw no reliable evidence of that point in the mark.166
25.125. Mr Zeelenberg also agreed that SCRO 15 was present in the mark. He saw an upwards ending ridge in both mark and print.167 He disputed that SCRO 16 was present in the mark.
25.126. Mr Zeelenberg's charting of the print168 showed two continuous ridges marked with green dots to either side of points 15 and 16. The ridges ending in points 15 and 16 were marked by yellow dots sandwiched between the two green ridges.
25.127. In discussing these points with particular reference to this charting Mr MacPherson169 agreed that that was an accurate depiction of the print. He saw an ascending ridge and a descending ridge in the mark and said there was no doubt about it.170 Mr Zeelenberg's view was that only one of those yellow ridges (the one ending in SCRO 15) was present in the mark, again as shown in slide 49. Mr MacPherson said that the ridge down to 16 was affected by movement171 and compression of ridges172 and in one passage of his evidence he said that that ridge was not present due to movement.173 In other evidence he said that the ridge was observable to the lay person,174 but it was very thin, "quite watery";175 and he drew it in FI_2810.09.
25.128. Mr Grigg did not discuss any feature in this vicinity in Phase 1 of the comparative exercise. In Phase 2 he said that SCRO 16 was not present on the mark, that at SCRO 15 the ridge appeared to bifurcate, and, in commenting on Mr Wertheim's area 11 he said "Y7 is indistinct in this area but ridge tracing differs from print with additional ridge ending in print."176
25.130. Conclusion: SCRO 15 can be seen in the mark but I cannot see SCRO 16.
SCRO Point 17
25.131. SCRO 17 is out of the clockwise sequence, as it was the number the Inquiry gave to the characteristic originally numbered 10 in the SCRO Production 189 for Ms McKie's trial.
25.132. In the print it is a bifurcation above the lake (SCRO 10 and 11). The question is whether a feature may be observed in the mark.
25.133. In SCRO's charting of the mark179 point 17 is at the very left edge of the impression, to the left of SCRO 12 and 13.
25.134. In Phase 2 Mr Grigg180 and Mr McGregor181 said that no feature was visible in the mark and Mr Zeelenberg said that the assumed event was outside the contour of the mark (at best at the outer edge) and that as far as the ridges were visible there was no narrowing in the flow indicating an ending ridge or bifurcation.182 Mr Wertheim also considered that there was no reliable evidence for it.183
25.136. Mr Mackenzie did not originally use the point because it was near his fault-line but he was clear that it was present, not on the edge of the mark as others said but fractionally in from the edge. He drew the bifurcation and where he saw the edge in FI_0110.13.186
25.137. Conclusion: SCRO 17 is placed very close to the edge of the mark and although it may be an event I am doubtful if it exists.
Commentary on SCRO points 8 and 10 - 17
25.138. The contradictors spoke with one voice in saying that neither the lake (SCRO 10 and 11) nor the incipient ridge (SCRO 12 and 13) could be seen in the mark. The mark did not have sufficient clarity for the observation of such detail. They also questioned whether SCRO 17 could be observed. Mr Mackenzie while prepared to agree SCRO points 10, 11, 12, 13 and 17 did not include them in his original chartings because of their proximity to his fault-line.
25.139. My conclusions in this Section are that the points in the arc from SCRO 17 and 10/11 in the left of the mark to SCRO 16 on the right, with the exception of SCRO 15, are not observable in the mark.
Section 3: Additional material
Mr MacPherson's supplementary charting
25.140. Mr MacPherson's evidence was not confined to the comparative exercise materials. He also supported the identification by reference to additional chartings that he prepared using other source materials: the Kent image of the mark187 and the rolled impression of the print in Mr Swann's chart M188 that he printed out on his home computer.189
25.141. Neither of these sources was available to SCRO in February 1997.190 This evidence is accordingly germane to the second question in paragraph 10 in Chapter 24: can the identification of the marks be substantiated by reference to any other source materials?
25.142. Mr MacPherson recognised that this comparison was not based on the best evidence. The best image of the mark, for him, would have been one derived from the original negative,191 and that is the image used in the comparative exercise. As for the print, Mr Swann's chart M is a copy of a blue inked rolled impression192 sent to Mr Swann by Levy & McRae in March 1999.193 Mr MacPherson had not studied the blue inked original prior to giving evidence194 and when it was shown to him during the hearing he accepted that it suffered from patchiness of detail.195
25.143. Study of the copy of the Kent image used by Mr MacPherson196 shows that in this image there is a faint hint that the ridge at SCRO 5 in the mark is tending to the left, which would support the SCRO interpretation of a bifurcation in that position. However at SCRO 6 the faint markings above ridge C in figure 10 are tending to the right (i.e. towards ridge B), which would detract from the SCRO interpretation.
25.144. The copy image of the print197 that Mr MacPherson used also introduced a complication in relation to the lake (SCRO 10/11). Mr MacPherson drew attention to "damage to the ridge" evident in the print,198 a break in the lower ridge that Mr MacPherson said was also present in the mark.199 Counsel to the Inquiry described the break as resembling a channel dug out from the lakeside.200 It was to be seen in the original of chart M but Mr MacPherson did not know if that break was shown in any of the other impressions of Ms McKie's left thumb.201
25.145. Given that the rolled impression of Ms McKie's left thumb print dated from March 1999 one possibility could be that it reflected damage to Ms McKie's finger after she gave her earlier prints. If this is the case the comparison between mark and print is not like for like. This possibility need not be explored further because Mr MacPherson's hypothesis was that the damage (i.e. the break) was also present in the mark.
25.146. The damage is not to be seen in the comparative exercise images of the mark or the print and when asked to draw the ridge structure of the lake (on the high resolution scan of the SCRO Phase 1 charting displayed on screen in the hearings202 ) Mr MacPherson drew unbroken ridges to top and bottom.203
25.147. Conclusion: Such is the quality of the images that Mr MacPherson was able to provide in his additional chartings that I have reservations about placing reliance on the additional detail contained in them.
Mr Swann's chartings
25.148. Reference has already been made to the charting that Mr Swann sent to Mr Kent.204 Mr Swann produced other charts in the form of mounted photographs in both the original format and in a PowerPoint presentation.205 These charts used the Kent image of Y7206 and a variety of impressions of Ms McKie's left thumb:
25.149. The plain and rolled impressions used by Mr Swann came from the prints sent to him by Levy & McRae in March 1999210 and the Daily Mail reproduction dates from 2000. Since those impressions were not available to SCRO when Y7 was first identified these charts are relevant to the second question. Mr Swann argued that there was a need for the Inquiry to consider a rolled impression of the thumbprint.211 I will give consideration to his chartings of the tip and the Rosetta later in this chapter but in the present context it is necessary to address chart O, which relates to the lower section.
25.150. The introduction of a rolled impression does not add to the preceding discussion because the ridge detail in the lower section of the print is reproduced in the plain impression that was used in the comparative exercise. The significance of the rolled impression lies in the fact that it shows detail towards the tip which is not reproduced in the plain impression used in the comparative exercise. I have studied the comparison in chart O and it does not affect the conclusions that I have already formed. There are critical characteristics common to both Mr Swann's chart O and the SCRO charting, with the corresponding numbers given in the table below.
Table 4: Y7 - SCRO points and Mr Swann's chart O
|SCRO numbering||Chart O|
25.151. For those characteristics the key question is the proper interpretation of the mark. In discussing those points I have already taken into account the Kent image, as well as the comparative exercise image, and study of the former does not alter my conclusions.
Mr Mackenzie's third level detail presentation
25.152. Mr Mackenzie explained that in 1997 third level detail did not have the prominence in fingerprint comparison work that it came to have after courses given by Mr Ashbaugh in 1999.212 He included an illustration of matching third level detail in his presentation to the Inquiry.213 The source materials that he used were internet copies of mark and print.
25.153. Mr Zeelenberg commented on Mr Mackenzie's reliance on third level detail, noting the lack of correspondence of second level detail in the area being examined and also that the images used lacked the requisite quality for a third level detail analysis.214
25.154. The limitations of third level detail are discussed in Chapter 35.215 It would be at best a doubtful exercise applied to Y7 because of the lack of clarity of the level two detail even in original source materials. Its value is further diminished when the exercise is based on reproductions of internet images where complications arise in relation to the provenance of the reproductions. For this reason I am unable to attach weight to the third level detail presentation in this instance.
Section 4: Assessment - the lower part of the mark
25.155. This was the area in which SCRO found the points in sequence and agreement on which they based their identification.
25.156. I recognise that fingerprint examiners reach their conclusions on the basis of actual size images of marks and prints, which I have not studied. The images presented during the hearing were a means of illustrating to the fact-finder, in this case me as the Inquiry panel, the observations, interpretations and conclusions of the fingerprint witnesses. In reaching my own conclusions I have relied not simply on what I did or did not observe in enlarged images on computer screens in the hearings, but more particularly on the evidence of expert witnesses as to whether points were or were not observable by them.
25.157. I accept that in this area there is a line of characteristics that suggest some similarity in mark and print: a potential total of eight 'matching' characteristics, SCRO 1-7 and 9, framed by SCRO 1 to the right and SCRO 9 to the left with SCRO 3 in the middle. Taking these eight points alone, if SCRO were right in their overall conclusion they must be correct about each of these points. In considering whether or not they are correct it is necessary to reflect on the lack of consistency of interpretation of the type of the characteristics.
25.158. A warning bell was sounded by Mr Mackenzie's alternative interpretation of three of the points, SCRO 1, 3 and 4. It is significant that even those who agree the identification were inconsistent in their interpretations. This is indicative of a lack of clarity of the ridge detail in the mark resulting in various examiners applying wider tolerances during their analysis and, ultimately, their evaluation of the mark.
25.159. SCRO points 4-6 were the real challenges.
25.160. The ridge structure in the section of the mark around SCRO 4-6 is incomplete and affected by blotching, making the necessity for interpretation all the greater. Using Professor Champod's concept of tolerances,216 these points, particularly when viewed in the setting of SCRO 15, 3 and 9, could have been considered to match applying a wide tolerance to allow for the gaps and blotches in the mark. The concern is that the interpretation of the ambiguities of ridge detail in the mark is being resolved by reverse reasoning,217 using the detail in the print to interpret the mark which inevitably leads to an interpretation of the mark to fit the print.
25.161. Although there was consensus that SCRO 5 and 6 are bifurcations in the print, the appearance of SCRO 4 varies as between the plain and the rolled print of Ms McKie. On the evidence before me, I did not consider that SCRO 4 was a match either as a ridge ending or as a bifurcation. SCRO 5 appears in the mark as simply a ridge ending separated from adjacent ridges to right and left. To match the print it must connect to the ridge to the left but, if anything, it is leaning to the right. Moreover I found that the pattern of SCRO 4 and 5 did not match as between mark and print.
25.162. For SCRO 6 to match there must be one intervening ridge (B) to the left of SCRO 5 then a bifurcation formed by the next ridge to the left (C) itself connecting to its neighbour to the left (D). In the mark the various ridges are affected by a blotch, and there were many competing interpretations of this area, such that I found the point unreliable.
25.163. The differences of opinion, even among witnesses who otherwise arrived at the same conclusion, is of concern because the conclusion of a unique identity between mark and print is dependent, not on the coincident occurrence of a number of ambiguous 'events', but on the precise concurrence of a number of matching specific ridge characteristics.
25.164. The case against identification of the mark Y7 as having been made by Ms McKie is summarised in the evidence of Mr Grigg. He, like others, accepts that because ridge detail does not have consistency on deposition, it is possible to some extent to engage in reverse reasoning and to construe the ridge detail in a mark in light of the corresponding detail in the print, but his conclusion was that that could not be justified in the case of Y7. The context of this was his evidence that there was an inconsistency in ridge counts relative to SCRO 5. The suggestion was put to him that the ridge counts could be reconciled if SCRO 5 was drawn as a bifurcation to the left. Initially he accepted this before correcting himself and explaining that his ridge counts assumed the bifurcation going to the right.
25.165. The consequent exploration of the limits of "flip-flopping", that is to say construing the mark in light of the print, produced this answer: "It is always easy to confuse a ridge ending and bifurcation. They can appear interchangeable at times depending upon a number of factors but you have to look at every characteristic within the totality of all the other characteristics and when there are so many characteristics which do not agree in their position and sequence, it becomes futile to move one or two because you do not affect the overall comparison. It is easier and much more honest to say this does not fit in the sequence of the whole fingerprint."218
25.166. It is acceptable to apply a degree of tolerance and some reverse reasoning provided that the reliability of the result is assessed at the evaluation stage. An examiner (and, for that matter a fact-finder) may similarly excuse an inconsistency in the reproduction of a ridge ending as a bifurcation and vice versa because, due to distortion, there may not be a precise match between corresponding minutiae even in different impressions known to come from the same fingerprint. That said, there are limits because of the paradox that applying a wide degree of tolerance to a mark of poor quality increases the risk of an adventitious match, particularly if reverse reasoning is applied to interpret the ambiguous 'events' in the mark to fit the clearer detail in the print.219
25.167. I could have taken the view that certain of the 'events' in the lower section of the mark are similar within an acceptable degree of tolerance. That might be said of SCRO 1 and 2, and possibly 7, and I accept SCRO 3 and 9. Thereafter, however, it became progressively more difficult to accept the SCRO interpretations and I consider that, as Mr Grigg indicated, a time is reached when the total number of points that have had to be treated as being an 'event' and interpreted in a particular way is such that it is no longer possible to arrive at a reliable conclusion. Added to that, of the other nine points that SCRO relied upon, I was satisfied as to the presence of one only, SCRO 15.
25.168. SCRO identified Y7 as having been made by Ms McKie on the basis of the lower part of the mark. I consider that the lower part cannot be relied upon for this identification. There are too many points which cannot be demonstrated, and too many others which call for a series of interpretations that I do not find persuasive.
Section 5: The upper part of the mark, the Rosetta characteristic, movement
25.169. SCRO had discounted the upper part of the mark in their original identification. At the trial in HMA v McKie Mr Wertheim had testified that there were points of difference in the upper part of the mark which necessitated a finding of exclusion. His evidence was based on his chartings in defence production 2 using his own image of Y7 and prints that he had taken from Ms McKie. In his chartings he circled four points in the mark that he said were not present in the print220 and a further four points in the print that were not in the mark.221
25.170. In Phase 1 of the comparative exercise Mr Grigg, Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg all showed points of difference in the upper part of the mark.
25.171. Others took a different view. Mr Leadbetter marked matching features in the upper part of the mark, which he considered clearer with less distortion than other areas.222 Mr Swann also charted matching features in the upper part of the mark in his charts M and N.223
25.172. The differences of opinion about this part of the mark can be focussed by considering the particular feature which has come to be called the Rosetta characteristic.
Definition of 'difference'
25.173. As is discussed more fully in Chapter 35, the discussion of potential points of 'difference' can be clouded by lack of consistency in terminology. To take an example, Mr Swann has argued that the Rosetta is not a 'point of difference' because he has been able to demonstrate in his chart N that it is a set of matching characteristics.224 The critical issue is not the choice of language but, rather, the substance of the arguments in support of the rival contentions that the Rosetta is a characteristic which is either (a) consistent or (b) inconsistent with identification. For consistency I have adopted the simplest, generic definition of a 'point of difference' as embracing any lack of exact correspondence between mark and print.225 So defined, a 'point of difference' is not necessarily inconsistent with an identification. Whether it is or not depends on the reason for the difference.
The Rosetta characteristic: description
25.174. The ridge characteristic in the mark that Mr Berry first named 'the Rosetta characteristic' is indicated in figure 12. This is a particularly distinctive feature, likened by Mr Swann to the front of a 125 train and by Mr Dunbar to a "hawk-eye". The characteristic may best be viewed as a combination of three features. Firstly, there is an upper ridge which descends suddenly at an angle and either forms a bifurcation or a ridge ending in close proximity to the lower ridge. Secondly, there is evidence of a slight gap in the lower ridge. Thirdly, above and to the front of the upper ridge there is a small parallel ridge or dot.
25.175. The Rosetta characteristic was one of the four points that Mr Wertheim said were present in the mark but not in the print in defence production 2.226 By the definition that I am adopting it qualifies as being at least a potential 'point of difference'. It is unclear from the evidence of Mr Swann when he first studied the top part of the mark in detail227 but he said that the Rosetta was one of a number of points that initially could not be "brought in to line with the print" he had.228 These points were "unresolved" when he prepared the charting that he sent to Mr Kent in July 1999229 but had been resolved by the date of his meeting with Mr Gilchrist in June 2001.230 The catalyst was Mr Berry's explanation of the Rosetta,231 with Mr Swann subsequently also resolving the eight characteristics towards the tip in his chart M.
25.176. Mr Berry's explanation of the Rosetta is to be seen in a paper that he published in December 2002.232 It followed his study of a copy of Ms McKie's left thumb print reproduced in the Daily Mail of 24 October 2000.233 He described the reproduced print in the newspaper as "excellent¿a copy of a copy admittedly but nevertheless very clear." He explained that the Rosetta was an "extremely unusual bifurcation" and said that it was to be seen in the copy of Ms McKie's print in a location displaced by 66° relative to its position in the mark. As for the cause of that displacement, he considered that when Y7 was imprinted "extreme movement caused the upper part of the mark, at core level, to move drastically to the left causing distortion."
25.177. Unfortunately, Mr Berry was unable to participate in the Inquiry hearings due to illness. He had given evidence to the Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament supportive of the identification of Y7. Two of his chartings were included in Mr Swann's chart D234 and Mr Berry signed some of Mr Swann's charts: charts A, B, C, G and K.235 He subsequently provided a statement to the Inquiry dated 10 August 2011 confirming that he had formed the definitive opinion that Y7 was the mark of Ms McKie.236 Mr Berry's theory that 66° of movement explains the Rosetta was adopted by Mr Swann and explored during his evidence at the Inquiry hearing. I shall accordingly discuss that theory in the context of a review of Mr Swann's evidence and not address Mr Berry separately.
The significance of multiple touches and movement
25.178. If Y7 was made by a single touch with no movement, it was common ground among all the witnesses (with the possible exception of Mr Leadbetter) that the presence of the Rosetta characteristic was inconsistent with Ms McKie as the donor because it was a feature of the mark that was not to be found in the corresponding place in Ms McKie's print.
Phase 1 contributions of Mr Wertheim, Mr Zeelenberg and Mr Grigg
25.179. In their Phase 1 contributions each of Mr Wertheim,237 Mr Zeelenberg238 and Mr Grigg239 excluded a double touch and expressed the opinion that Y7 was a single impression with continuous ridge flow, only Mr Zeelenberg adding the qualification that there was the possibility of some kind of slippage.
25.180. All three cited the Rosetta characteristic as a point of difference.
25.181. In Mr Wertheim's charting it was his area of difference 9,240 explained as a bifurcation in the mark, the nearest equivalent to which, in the print, was a ridge ending going in the opposite direction.
25.182. For Mr Grigg the reference was to his point 4.241 He explained that the Rosetta (described as a ridge ending) was one of the first things that he noted in the mark because it stood out as the first feature above the core, separated from it by a distinctive open field of ridges.242 It was not present in the print.243
25.183. Mr Zeelenberg marked the Rosetta as his point of difference 11.244 His slide 46, to which he spoke in evidence,245 showed his depiction of the ridge flows, with the Rosetta as a ridge ending to the right in the mark and the nearest equivalents in the print being ridge endings to the left.
25.184. In Phase 2 of the comparative exercise these views were criticised. For example, Mr Mackenzie, in commenting on Mr Zeelenberg's analysis, said Mr Zeelenberg had completely failed to recognise that "the mark is in more than one piece, severely distorted, swivelled and rotated" which "renders his analysis useless."246
25.185. Although Mr Kent did not claim to be qualified to comment on the identity of fingerprints, his evidence247 was of interest because of his related experience.248 He heard the evidence given by Mr Wertheim at the trial in HMA v McKie and Mr Kent was concerned that the differences in the top part of the mark might not be relevant because they might not be connected to the lower part of the mark.249
25.186. He examined Y7 on the door-frame at his place of work in 1998. His observation on receiving the exhibit was that Y7 was not a clear continuous fingerprint and that it gave the impression of two areas of rather different density. He considered it was not the product of a single touch, but a double touch, two superimposed marks or one mark with movement, possibly with a change of pressure which could account for the change in density.250 Having spent a lot of time looking at latent marks Y7 had struck him as being not a typical fingerprint made by a single finger touch. "Even at a superficial glance it was obvious that¿the central area was not readable."251 He considered that his view had been borne out by an experiment he had conducted with fingerprint experts.252
25.187. He thought that most people would interpret the phrase "double touch" as being the same finger touching twice, but it was not impossible that it was actually two separate fingerprints fortuitously coinciding.253
25.188. That coincides with the evidence that Ms McBride gave at the trial in HMA v McKie. She said that the upper part may not have been made by the same "author"; or it may have been made by the same author and dragged or pushed.254
25.189. Mr Wertheim maintained his view that it was a single touch when asked to comment on Mr Kent's evidence.255
25.190. The Inquiry did not explore the possibility that Y7 may be the fortuitous combination of two separate fingerprints. The principal explanation advanced by those who identified Y7 as the mark of Ms McKie was that the upper and lower parts were the product of some movement and not the fortuitous combination of two separate prints.
Patterns of movement
25.191. That said, there was no clear consensus among those who identified mark Y7 as that of Ms McKie.
25.192. SCRO's position, as indicated in Phase 1 of the comparative exercise,256 was that there was movement and/or superimposition in the mark. Y7 was one thumb impression with line(s) of movement above SCRO 14-16 or a double touch with two or more lines of superimposition/movement. The movement was "above points 14, 15 and 16 in the middle and to the right of the upper half of the mark."
25.193. As will be examined more fully below, Mr Mackenzie considered that there was both movement and multiple touches.
25.194. Mr Leadbetter was "pretty certain it is a single touch. It has not occurred to me at any point it should be other than that."257
25.195. Mr Swann's preferred interpretation was "it's all one touch but with slight pulling round when it's moved because of whatever."258 Mr Swann did not commit himself to any one specific explanation to account for the movement of the Rosetta characteristic and more generally that is true of the other witnesses who supported the identification, including Mr Mackenzie.
Approach adopted to consider the Rosetta characteristic
25.196. Given that those who support the identification are divided on the question whether the mark is a single touch or the product of multiple touches I have not considered it to be necessary to resolve that question. I shall proceed to look more specifically at the merits of the particular explanations advanced by each of the witnesses.
25.197. Having considered their evidence, it appears that the theories of those who support the identification are inferences from two premises: that the Rosetta characteristic, as seen in the mark, is a distinctively shaped feature; and that a correspondingly shaped feature can be seen in the print, though in a different location. From these two propositions they infer that this feature must have been transposed by some mechanism or another during deposition.
25.198. The first question is whether there is reliable evidence that the same distinctively shaped feature is present in mark and print. Only if that question is answered in the affirmative does the secondary question arise: whether there is a plausible explanation for how that feature may have been transposed.
The presence of the Rosetta characteristic in the print
25.199. Mr Dunbar observed that the Rosetta takes on a slightly different appearance depending on the particular image being viewed.259 Those who seek to support the presence of the Rosetta in the print do so by reference to sources other than the comparative exercise materials.
25.200. While Mr Berry has argued that it is necessary to study a rolled impression of the left thumbprint,260 there is a conflict between him and Mr Swann and Mr Zeelenberg as to whether the Daily Mail print was rolled (Mr Berry) or plain (Mr Swann and Mr Zeelenberg).261 The argument is that a rolled impression will contain more surface area than a plain impression but there was evidence that the plain impression available to SCRO in February 1997 (used in the comparative exercise) did include the section of print in which the Rosetta is said to be located.
25.201. Both Mr Swann262 and Mr Mackenzie263 said that the position of the Rosetta characteristic was at the point numbered 14 in Mr Zeelenberg's charting of the comparative exercise image of Ms McKie's print.264 The point numbered 14 is towards the right-hand edge of that image of the print and is to be contrasted with the position of the Rosetta in the mid-left of the mark.
25.202. In the mark the Rosetta is the distinctively shaped characteristic or combination of characteristics highlighted in figure 12. The feature at point 14 in the comparative exercise image of the print is not distinctive. On the contrary, it is no more than an ordinary ridge ending. The dot or small parallel ridge is absent and there is no gap in the ridge below to correspond, for example, to that indicated as Mr Mackenzie's points 39 and 40 (two ridge endings) in CO_0059.265
25.203. The comparative exercise materials are, accordingly, at variance with the founding premise of those who identify the mark because the first question (which is whether there is reliable evidence that the same distinctively shaped feature is present in mark and print) has to be answered in the negative.
25.204. As with the evidence on other parts of the mark, the Inquiry benefited from the views expressed by witnesses on the very specific detail that they observed, and interpreted, on mark and print. As by their nature these are the opinions of those expert witnesses, the narrative that follows is an analysis of their evidence, not a criticism of any of them or their evidence.
25.205. Mr Mackenzie's presentation that is now CO_0059 contains a total of 45 level 2 and level 3 details that are said to match, the Rosetta being number 38. This presentation covers both the lower and upper sections of the mark266 and Mr Mackenzie reached his own opinion on the mark as a whole independently of Mr Berry and before he was aware of Mr Berry's 66° theory.267
25.206. All of the points are plotted on one image of the mark,268 but he used two different copies of the print to plot the corresponding characteristics in Ms McKie's left thumbprint.
25.207. The first copy of the print is a reproduction of the plain print from the Strathclyde Police fingerprint form dated 18 February 1997 (not the form dated 6 February 1997 used in the comparative exercise). Points 1-30 are plotted on that copy image in pdf page 13 of his presentation.
25.208. The second copy of the print that he used was an internet copy reproduced on pdf page 17. Mr Mackenzie indicated269 that his points 31-45 were only on the internet image and he explained "this area was not available to me on the police elimination form."270
25.209. The fifteen points, points 31-45, were plotted in three groups on three separate copies of the internet image: points 31 and 32 on pdf page 27, points 33-37 on pdf page 29, and points 38-45 on pdf page 33.
25.210. Because all forty five points were not reproduced in a single image of the print, neither the relationship of these points to one another nor the pattern of movement that would have had to occur was patent.
25.211. Three observations may be made.
25.212. The first concerns the extent to which the compilation of 45 points is the product of recourse to the different images of the print. Looking to the charting of the image of the mark on pdf page 12, the points 29-32 appear as two pairs of incipients either side of the same ridge. Given their close proximity all four points might be expected to appear in the image taken from the police prints dated 18 February 1997 on pdf page 13. In fact only 29 and 30 are to be seen in that copy of the print. Points 31 and 32 are only evident on the internet copy and were marked on pdf page 27 (just to the right of circled but unnumbered 29 and 30).
25.213. The internet image is a copy and one that Mr Mackenzie acknowledged has evidence of a line of damage271 running close to the Rosetta characteristic. Adjacent to this line of damage there is an obvious feature, a crescent shape, near the Rosetta that is not seen in any other impression of the print. This indicates that the line of damage, including the crescent, is (on the assumption that there was no intervening damage to the thumb) an artefact of the digital copying of the image, either on the internet or in Mr Mackenzie's downloading. The presence of damage in the image does undermine its reliability, particularly where it is being used to demonstrate the presence of a distinctive characteristic which is absent from the comparative exercise print, an image of known provenance.
25.214. The second observation is that close examination of the images discloses that Mr Mackenzie observed duplication of ridge detail in the mark. Each of the points 26 (bifurcation to the right), 27 (ridge ending to the right), and 28 (bifurcation to the right) in the print are said to have been reproduced twice in the mark, being points 26 and 43, 27 and 44, and 28 and 41.272
25.215. The fact that Mr Mackenzie found duplication of points would be consistent with his opinion that the mark is the product of multiple touches273 but this leads to the third observation which concerns the pattern of movement necessary to produce the distribution of points in Mr Mackenzie's chartings.
25.216. Mr Zeelenberg sought to explore the possible movement visually. He reproduced (in what is set out in figure 13) Mr Mackenzie's points on a single copy of the internet image of the print and on a copy of the mark,274 clustering the points in five groups labelled A-E. Mr Mackenzie accepted that the depiction was "roughly right."275 The Rosetta is point 38 and is in cluster B.
25.217. This is a graphic illustration of the complex pattern of movement assumed by Mr Mackenzie's charting.
25.218. As Mr Zeelenberg put it when he first displayed the graphic: "The dislocation of island B is very obvious."276 Mr Mackenzie considered that the explanation for "leapfrogging" of cluster B lay in movement and multiple touches.277 He considered that the top section of the mark was in itself the product of more than one touch,278 with the result that Y7 as a whole must have been made by at least three touches.
25.219. Mr Swann had marked 18 points in the charting he sent to Mr Kent in July 1999 on which he remarked:
"After a lot of thought and time this is one of those marks where the more you look at it you either become more convinced that it is identical or you can say that, because of the detail not in agreement, it cannot be so.
My view is that because of the number of characteristics in agreement I cannot say it is not identical, but if a view was taken that because of the areas of dissimilarity, I could well see it being referred to as 'inconclusive'.
18 points marked, some strong and others, weak.
My feeling is that it is identical in view of the number of points in agreement. Having said this there has been movement, distortion and possibly a further impression involved."279
25.220. He explained that these remarks were made at a time before he resolved to his satisfaction the top of the mark.280 He adopted Mr Berry's explanation of the Rosetta in the December 2002 paper.281 In addition, in his evidence he also sought to provide an explanation for other observable characteristics at the tip of the mark, three of which Mr Wertheim had included in the four points of difference highlighted by green circles in defence production 2.282
25.221. Mr Swann made a presentation283 and spoke to a total of 32 matching points using a number of chartings based on a combination of source materials available to him.284 These were the Kent image of the mark285 and three different impressions of the print: (1) a blue inked plain impression was used for his points 1-16 in chart D; (2) a blue inked rolled impression was used for the eight points at the tip shown in chart M; and (3) the Daily Mail image was used for the Rosetta and the other details shown in chart N. Chart O, already discussed in Section 3 above, contained an alternative charting, using the rolled impression, of 16 points in the lower part of Y7.
25.222. He explained that he used the blue inked rolled impression in chart M because the points at the tip did not appear on either of the other two plain impressions. He had marked the Rosetta in that rolled impression in chart E but in his evidence he used the Daily Mail image in chart N "simply because it [the Rosetta] appears far more clearly on that Daily Mail thumbprint than it does on these [i.e. the blue inked prints], unfortunately." He said that he would rather have used the inked original prints adding: "It is on these but it is not in the same clarity¿"286
25.223. Like Mr Mackenzie, Mr Swann did not produce a single charting displaying all 32 points. Instead, he relied on a montage. This was because he could not bring all 32 points into a consistent alignment on any one image.
"I cannot bring the Rosetta in association with those characteristics at the tip [i.e. chart M] because of the movement of the mark and the pressure applied, ridges have been cramped together or something has happened which has caused this difference in the counting procedure. So, therefore, as far as the marks at the tip are concerned they stand alone. The Rosetta characteristic, as you can see on the top right, can be brought into line with the centre core of the pattern but not the top ones. Something has happened in the mid-section of the mark towards the tip which has caused this, well, coming together of ridges, if you would, merging, because of the pressure and the twisting and the movement. So that is why it is not mentioned. That is why the Rosetta is not on that one."287
25.224. Mr Swann's opinion is that the Rosetta "is not a 'point' in the singular, it consists of seven points or ridge characteristics in agreement, particularly unique characteristics with one area of 'poroscopy'"288 and is "a positive identification in isolation."289 The reference to 'poroscopy' brings in third level detail: the cluster of pores highlighted as point 8 in chart N.290
25.225. Two separate matters require to be considered:
25.226. Although Mr Swann adopted Mr Berry's theory that the Rosetta had moved 66° he could not give an account of the precise movement of hand and finger that would produce that result. The task was complicated by the fact that there was an inconsistency in ridge counts relative to the other points at the tip shown in chart M, which might suggest that a single movement cannot explain the differential distribution of all of the points in the mark.
25.227. The passage quoted from Mr Swann's oral evidence refers to a merging of ridges.291 He expanded upon that in a supplementary statement dated 29 July 2011 in which he referred to "the strong wide ridge structure leading to the tip of the crime scene mark" as evidence of the pressure and movement that had taken place when Y7 was deposited.292 The reference to physical evidence of movement within the mark itself is not entirely consistent with the evidence that Mr Swann gave at the hearing because he accepted that looking at Y7 alone (even the Kent image) there was no apparent sign or evidence of distortion.293 Mr Swann was unable to cite any peer reviewed article that supported his argument that twisting could have produced the distribution of points assumed by him without leaving any evidence of distortion.294 As discussed in Chapter 35,295 an article drawn to the attention of the Inquiry provides some support for Mr Swann in suggesting that a turning movement can produce differential movement of minutiae, such as the points in chart M, but that is qualified by the expectation that there will be "visible clues" of such movement having occurred.
25.228. The reference to "the strong wide ridge structure" requires separate consideration.296 Absent any evidence of movement in the mark itself, Mr Swann's theory concerning the Rosetta would be the inferential argument summarised in paragraph 197, which assumes the reliability of the reproduction of the print in the Daily Mail. One can find what Mr Swann indicated as the corresponding feature in the rolled impression297 but Mr Swann did not seek to support his opinion by reference to the rolled impression because his view was that the Rosetta appeared far more clearly in that Daily Mail thumbprint.298
25.229. Mr Swann presented the Rosetta characteristic as a combination of the eight elements (including third level detail) in chart N, but to begin with attention can focus on three of the points: his point numbered 3, which is the ridge that slopes down at an angle of 128°; point 7, the bottom tip of that ridge; and point 4, the dot or parallel ridge ("the little island ridge or dot to the right-hand side of the downward slope of the Rosetta").299
25.230. In the Daily Mail image the ridge below the sloping ridge (i.e. point 3) has a gap in it to the left of the tip (point 7) of the sloping ridge. Mr Swann said that that gap might just be where the ink had not taken, in other words, an artefact of the fingerprinting process.300 On the left side of the gap is a claw shape, which Mr Swann said was an enlarged pore.301 There was, accordingly, one feature which he considered might be an artefact and a second which he suggested was a genuine ridge detail in the print.
25.231. The proposition that the gap is merely an artefact of the image is in conflict with one interpretation advanced by Mr Leadbetter, which will be discussed below. It is also in conflict with the evidence that Mr Mackenzie gave relative to the internet copy image in his presentation. Mr Mackenzie marked the two sides of that gap as his points 39 and 40 (two ridge endings) and said that those points were replicated in the mark, as shown on the adjacent page of that presentation.302
25.232. Both Mr Swann and Mr Mackenzie were giving evidence relative to different copy images which may explain the difference of opinion between them. Nonetheless, Mr Swann confirmed that the comparative exercise image contained neither the gap nor the enlarged pore303 and, as for the "dot",304 he said that there was something very faint to the side and observed: "...I take the point you are making, but you get these differences on - when I say differences I am not talking about different ridge characteristics, I am talking about the different ¿ gaps, closures, call them what you will - all over a print."305
25.234. In Mr Leadbetter's opinion, Y7 was affected in three ways: "distortion, caused by slippage or movement when it was deposited; excessive pressure causing some of the ridges to compress; and it is approximately 60°/70° out of normal orientation."308
25.235. His chartings of Y7 were very different from all the other available chartings because he deliberately avoided the ridge detail near the core of the mark where the other experts tended to concentrate.309
25.236. He marked fourteen features in agreement in his chart 11 but it became evident that his points 13 and 14 were in different locations as between the mark and the print. In the print, points 13 and 14 were to the right of SCRO 3 but in the mark point 14 was to the left of SCRO 3 and point 13 was on the ridge coming up from SCRO 3.310 These two points appeared to be five ridges to the left311 of where they were shown in the print. Mr Leadbetter was unable to explain that ridge count discrepancy other than to suggest that the ridges were "not naturally flowing".312
25.237. Mr Leadbetter's presentation contains a number of chartings with a range of interpretations of the Rosetta, including characterisation of it as either a bifurcation or a ridge ending and variations in relation to the location of the dot and the structure of the lower ridge.
25.238. In chart 11 he marked the Rosetta as his point 1 and the associated dot as 9. In referring to this chart he described it as a bifurcation. In chart 12 there were two chartings. In the charting on the left ("chart 12 left") the Rosetta was 2 and the dot 1. In the charting on the right ("chart 12 right") the Rosetta was 6 and the dot 7. In both of these chartings the Rosetta was described as a ridge ending. Mr Leadbetter explained "it is clearer here as a ridge ending because the enlargement I believe is different to the one on the previous chart." He had purposely marked the charts differently "to show that features can be unstable and can appear to be different."313
25.239. Mr Leadbetter was not consistent in his placement of the dot. In the mark it was a short line above and parallel to the sloping ridge of the Rosetta but in his drawings in chart 12 he represented it as a dot to the right of the Rosetta. He accepted that this was a different location but said that the difference was infinitesimal.314
25.240. As for the variations in interpretation of the lower ridge, it is appropriate to consider the two hand drawings on chart 12. In the drawing on the left the Rosetta was point 2 and the ridge immediately beneath it was drawn as a plain ridge with no break or other feature. In chart 12 right, the Rosetta was numbered 6 and the ridge below it was shown as containing a break with an enlarged pore (point 4) on the left side of the break.
25.241. The interpretation of a genuine break in the structure of the lower ridge was consistent with the evidence of Mr Mackenzie.315 Both seemed to see a thickening of the ridge ending to the left side of the break, with Mr Leadbetter interpreting it as an enlarged pore, and Mr Mackenzie as two incipients.316 The alternative presentation with the lower ridge unbroken is, on the other hand, consistent with the evidence of Mr Swann.
25.242. For completeness it should be noted that Mr Leadbetter explained that he did not normally do drawings317 but thought they might be of extra assistance and illustrate different features that he considered as matching. This may explain a possible error in the placement of the enlarged pore in chart 12 right. In the print there was no intervening ridge between the Rosetta (6) and the pore (4) but in the mark the enlarged pore (4) was placed on a ridge separated from the Rosetta by one intervening ridge. Mr Leadbetter accepted that the pore should perhaps have been at point 9 in the mark.318
25.243. That possible error is immaterial. The more pertinent fact is neither the break nor the pore is evident in the comparative exercise image of the print. Asked whether, in that image, the Rosetta "appears just to have the pattern of one of any number of ridge endings in this fingerprint", Mr Leadbetter replied: "Yes."319
25.244. Mr Wertheim discounted a twisting movement as on his ridge count there would have to be not only a rotation through 66° but a jumping of three or four ridges. He thought the mark was a single touch. But if it was a double touch then when the thumb was lifted and moved through 66° it was touched again three or four ridges further out with perfect alignment of the ridges in the second touch and the first touch and no criss-crossing and no overlap. This he could not accept.320
25.245. Mr Grigg321 considered that Y7 was a single mark, with the closing of the furrows above the core probably indicating movement, a slight rolling action, as the thumb was placed on the surface, and variations in the thickness of ridges being due to differential pressure.
25.246. Mr Zeelenberg reviewed the presentations of Mr Mackenzie,322 Mr Swann323 and Mr Leadbetter,324 and prepared slides showing the displacement of ridges during different degrees of movement of a finger325 and also, more specifically, the pattern of criss-crossing ridge flow that he would have expected to see had the Rosetta moved through 66° of rotation.326 His thesis327 was that had such movement occurred there should have been visible evidence of it in the mark and he highlighted Mr Swann's admission that he had not seen evidence of distortion in the mark itself.328
25.247. Mr Kent referred to areas of different density in the mark which suggested to him that it was more than one touch.329 As already noted, in a later submission Mr Swann has referred to "the strong wide ridge structure leading to the tip of the crime scene mark" as evidence of the pressure and movement that had taken place when Y7 was deposited.330 As discussed in Chapter 35, Mr Zeelenberg drew attention to an article which emphasises that some physical 'clues' ought to be observable in the mark if it has been distorted by movement. Mr Zeelenberg acknowledged a number of structural properties in the mark, including thickness of the lines indicative of high pressure at the tip.331 His evidence would suggest that a number of alternative explanations may be tenable, including Y7 being the product of more than one touch, but he videoed an experiment to show the pattern of ridge distortion that can occur when a finger tilts during a single contact and used that to support his opinion that there was nothing in the ridge flow in the mark Y7 inconsistent with the view that it could be the product of a single contact. He also advanced this pragmatic argument:
"We have to keep in mind this is a very, very tiny print. It is smaller than a 5 pence coin. It is 18 mm and it is really very, very small. So to place two things on top of that without noticing that would be almost impossible."332
25.249. Mr Stewart indicated335 that "from memory there were two reasons I did not spend a lot of time in the upper part of the mark: there appeared to be a lot of movement and distortion, and at that time the candidate fingerprint form I had did not show a lot of the upper area of the mark." He said that he would have excluded the top from his comparison process because there were "considerable signs of movement, superimposition, maybe even a double touch" and he would have worked with whatever area of the mark he deemed was viable. He thought that the Daily Mail image of Ms McKie's thumb print, in which Mr Berry found the Rosetta characteristic, showed an area that "we never had the opportunity to work with."336
25.250. Mr McKenna also said that the form he saw "did not disclose that area."337 The enlargement of the thumb print of Ms McKie in the book of photographs prepared for her trial (Production 189) was a rolled impression338 but he did not recall whether the use of the rolled impression had made any difference to his approach or enabled him to see any parts of the mark he had not seen previously.339
25.251. Ms McBride spoke about the top of the mark twice during her oral evidence.340 She said that in looking at the whole mark initially she had to understand "why the top was sloping the other way." She considered that the mark was "not a continuous print", that "it was broken and that it was moved at the top"341 and so she focussed on the bottom part. "The top part of the mark was not required for the identification. I could see that it was moved¿it was deemed that the top part was insufficient for our purposes at that point."342 "There was not going to be sixteen in sequence and agreement in any part of the mark that I could see at the top."343 "There was sufficient detail below that¿to effect an identification to the 16-point standard."344
25.252. Two propositions run together in Ms McBride's evidence. Firstly, she appears to have addressed the top of the mark as a possible source of identical points but decided not to work with that section because there were too few characteristics there to establish identity. Secondly, insofar as she addressed the Rosetta as a potential point of difference, she discounted it by the generalisation that the mark as a whole was broken and the top part had moved.
SCRO: Mr MacPherson
25.253. As indicated earlier, by agreement Mr MacPherson was the SCRO witness who gave oral evidence on the detail of the comparison of Y7.345 He was firm in his view that Mr Zeelenberg's interpretation was wrong because Mr Zeelenberg took "no cognisance of any movement".346
25.254. The charting in Production 152 had used a plain impression and the charting in Production 189 used a rolled.347 Other than resulting in a minor variation in the 16 points used to illustrate the comparison, Mr MacPherson did not suggest any substantive difference between the two prints.348
25.255. At Ms McKie's trial Mr MacPherson had indicated that he discounted the upper part of the mark as fragmentary and insufficient for comparison.349
25.256. In his evidence to the Inquiry Mr MacPherson said on a number of occasions that the top half of the mark was fragmentary and insufficient, though he acknowledged that there were some observable characteristics in that section. The Rosetta was one of them and there were some other points to the outer top right of the mark. He said "It is not that I ignored the characteristics but they were not differences because of movement."350 He accepted that at that time he did not search for an explanation of the pattern of movement because he dismissed the whole of the upper part as fragmentary and insufficient.351
25.257. As far as he could remember, on the elimination form that he had originally studied the Rosetta "was at the very edge of the print and because of pressure etc the Rosetta or the dot may not have been recorded."352 His evidence coincided with that of Mr Mackenzie and Mr Swann that the original position of the Rosetta in the print was at point 14 in Mr Zeelenberg's charting which used what Mr MacPherson was referring to as 'the elimination form' (i.e. the print in the comparative exercise materials). Given that that charting was based on the print of 6 February 1997 available to Mr MacPherson when he first made his identification, the point was there to be observed in the print at that time. He agreed however that he did not make an association then.353
25.258. At the Inquiry he said that he could count the ridges from the core to the Rosetta but not beyond because of the presence of a blob in the middle of the mark. For that reason he approached the Rosetta in his evidence as a point in isolation.354 The consequence was that Mr MacPherson's evidence proceeded on the basis that the mark was the product of perhaps three touches. He thought that the lower area was the product of a single touch355 and suggested that there had been two touches at the top:356 one producing the Rosetta and the other affecting at least some of the remaining points on the top right. He did not commit himself as to the precise sequence of the contacts.
25.259. Dealing specifically with the Rosetta, he confirmed that there was a difference in ridge count as between mark and print.357 The Rosetta was a point that was not in sequence and agreement.358 Movement was the reason cited for the difference in ridge count. He thought that the thumb had lifted and turned.359
25.260. Mr MacPherson sought to illustrate the movement.360 He gave these reasons for surmising that there had been movement in Y7: "there is destruction of the ridges; there is what I would call the no-go area, you go into it and you cannot tell how the ridges come out of that area and there also is a discrepancy in the ridge count between the mark and the known impression."361
25.261. He initially "roughly" mapped the line of movement between top and bottom by the same L-shaped line in FI_2710.08362 and FI_ 2810.09.363 In the second image the line is drawn on Mr Swann's chart M and enables a direct comparison with Mr Swann's evidence. In chart M Mr Swann identified the eight characteristics in the upper right of the print that, in his opinion, moved relative to the characteristics in the bottom half. If the line of movement lies where it was originally drawn by Mr MacPherson those points would be outside the area of movement. When that was put to Mr MacPherson he redrew his suggested line of movement in FI_2810.10,364 but even as redrawn that left two of Mr Swann's points outside the area of movement. Accepting the inconsistency of interpretation Mr MacPherson said: "If the mark has been placed on, as I said, with two touches above my line, maybe Mr Swann's characteristics may come into alignment. But that was my difficulty I had at the time with the mark Y7. I was not sure about the top of the mark so I did not use it."365
Commentary on the upper part of the mark
25.262. The Rosetta is not in the same position relative to the core in mark and print. It is, therefore, a point of 'difference' in the upper part of the mark. The question is whether there is a satisfactory explanation for it consistent with a finding of identification.
25.263. Mr Kent's proposition that the top part of the mark might not be connected with the lower part was not one advanced by those who supported the identification. Having discounted the upper part of the mark initially, SCRO, Mr Mackenzie and Mr Swann all put an emphasis on trying to make the case for the upper part of the mark having been made by the same person as the lower, whom they considered to be Ms McKie.
25.264. As Mr Dunbar observed, the assumed 'Rosetta' or 'hawk-eye' takes on a slightly different appearance depending on the particular image being viewed.366 Mr Mackenzie and Mr Swann both relied on a number of different images. On the evidence of Mr Pugh367 and Professor Champod368 such an approach may be justified in some circumstances, for example where the mark is deposited on a surface with sections in contrasting colours.369 But even then they envisage that first generation images will be used. Mr Mackenzie used an internet copy of a print containing obvious damage in close proximity to the Rosetta. Mr Swann did have access to original impressions of Ms McKie's print370 and used one of them as the base for his chart M. But this is the impression the reliability of which is undermined by the 'damage' that suggests a trench emerging from the lake, SCRO 10 and 11, not present in other images. That said, the Rosetta is not marked on chart M. Mr Swann continued to use the copy in the Daily Mail.371
25.265. I have identified two different questions:
25.266. At least part of the area where it is suggested that the Rosetta is to be found in the print was to be seen in the plain print available to SCRO (i.e. the part corresponding to point 14 in Mr Zeelenberg's charting) but the appearance of the ridge in that print is not consistent with the distinctive shape of the Rosetta in the mark. In that print all that is to be seen is a plain ridge ending like many others in the print. There is no satisfactory explanation of the Rosetta to be found in the prints available to SCRO.
25.267. The evidence of Mr Swann and Mr Mackenzie relates to the second question. There is an argument that explanations based on secondary copies (either the image in the Daily Mail relied on by Mr Swann or the internet image downloaded by Mr Mackenzie) would be inadmissible in court because the provenance of the copy could not be proved.372 Even if admissible, the question is what weight ought properly to be placed on such material. Image quality is a critical variable in fingerprint comparison work. I do not regard it as appropriate to attach weight to what are, at best, secondary copies for critical detail of features that are not to be observed in images of known provenance, such as the comparative exercise materials.
25.268. There are additional reasons for not accepting the evidence of Mr Mackenzie, Mr Swann and Mr Leadbetter.
25.269. As has been discussed in paragraphs 230-232 and 237-243 above, Mr Swann, Mr Mackenzie and Mr Leadbetter were at variance in relation to matters of fine detail including whether or not there was a genuine ridge break in the ridge below the sloping ridge of the Rosetta. Such variances do call into question the reliability of the fine detail in the source materials relied upon. Third level detail (such as the cluster of pores at point 8 in Mr Swann's chart N) has to be approached with caution373 and I cannot place reliance on it here when there is such a conflict among the witnesses on related matters of a similar level of detail.
25.270. Mr Swann did use original source materials in his chart M, which charts eight characteristics at the tip of the rolled impression and the Kent image. He argued that this was a "stand alone identification", only eight characteristics in agreement being required for a positive identification.374 I am unable to accept this.
25.271. Mr Leadbetter also used an original image but his chartings contained alternative explanations of what may be taken to be ambiguous features. The ambiguity related to the contrasting depictions of the Rosetta in chart 12 right and left. In some images there is a gap in the structure of the lower ridge. Such a gap can be construed as merely an incomplete reproduction in the impression of the true ridge structure, and therefore of no significance in the analysis. That was Mr Swann's primary position in relation to this particular gap375 and would be consistent with Mr Leadbetter's drawing in chart 12 left as an unbroken ridge. Alternatively, a gap in an impression can be construed as a genuine break in the ridge feature, such as two opposing ridge endings. That was Mr Mackenzie's interpretation, his points 39 and 40 being two ridge endings either side of that gap.376 Mr Leadbetter's alternative drawing in chart 12 right shows the gap but not even that analysis is fully consistent with the opinion of Mr Mackenzie because the furthest that Mr Leadbetter went was that there was an enlarged pore (his point 4) on the left side of the gap. Mr Swann too spoke to the pore in that position.377 A pore is a level 3 detail and is therefore not the same as Mr Mackenzie's interpretation of two ridge endings (level 2 details). The ambiguity clearly highlighted by Mr Leadbetter's two contrasting drawings suggests that the reliability of these various interpretations is open to doubt and ultimately the fact is that in the control image, the comparative exercise copy of Ms McKie's print, the distinctive configuration is absent.
25.272. The conclusion of Mr Wertheim, Mr Zeelenberg and Mr Grigg could be accepted on the simple basis that the comparative exercise image of the print contains no equivalent to the distinctive Rosetta characteristic.
25.273. Even if were to be accepted, under reference to secondary images of Ms McKie's print, that the Rosetta is present in the print, the inconsistency in ridge count referred to by both Mr Wertheim and Mr MacPherson still justifies the conclusion that the Rosetta is a point of difference.
25.274. This difference cannot be accounted for by adopting the circular argument that if sixteen points378 in sequence and agreement are found in another section of the mark there is a unique match and therefore any difference elsewhere must be explicable.379
25.275. Equally, the difference in ridge counts cannot be satisfactorily explained by a generalised explanation of 'movement'. Allowance must also be made for the fact that neither Mr Mackenzie nor Mr Swann could bring all four of Mr Wertheim's points380 into alignment. On the contrary, Mr Swann accepted that there remained a ridge count discrepancy between the Rosetta and the outer points, requiring him to produce two separate chartings (M and N). The implication of that is that it must be envisaged that the mark Y7 is the product of a minimum of three touches producing the pattern of distribution illustrated by Mr Zeelenberg in figure 13 above. No explanation has been advanced to show how multiple touches could have produced such a complex pattern of distribution, including some characteristics appearing to leapfrog, without leaving any tell tale signs of criss-crossing of ridges.
25.276. There are contrasts in the appearance of some parts of the mark when viewed in its natural state on the door-frame381 but Mr Zeelenberg sought to demonstrate by reference to his video clips that variations in ridge flow can occur in a rolling single contact and the precise configuration of the mark has been explained by the contradictors down to the level of detail that the peculiar shape of the right edge is attributable to the contours of a groove in the wood. 382 There is force in the pragmatic argument advanced by Mr Zeelenberg that it is unlikely that more than one touch will have been combined in such a small mark without leaving unambiguous evidence.383
25.277. The conclusion must be that Mr Wertheim's four points of difference in the top section of the mark, including the Rosetta, have not been explained satisfactorily either by reference to materials available to SCRO or by reference to any other materials. It has not been established that the upper part of the mark was made by Ms McKie.
Section 6: Y7 findings
25.278. This chapter has addressed the question: did Ms McKie make the mark Y7?
25.279. Looking to the fingerprint evidence in isolation, I have accepted that at most six of the points relied upon by SCRO bear a degree of similarity: SCRO points 1, 2, 3, 7, 9384 and 15.385 Independently of any issue regarding the Rosetta that would have been an inadequate number to have supported a finding of identification in 1997. The fact that there remains no satisfactory explanation of the Rosetta reinforces the conclusion that SCRO were in error in identifying Y7 as having been made by Ms McKie judged by (1) the standard of the day and (2) the source materials then available to them.
25.280. I have taken into account a variety of additional source materials not available to SCRO in 1997 and also the evidence on third level detail, which represents an advance in the methodology of fingerprint comparison work since 1997, but I have not found any persuasive evidence to alter my conclusion.
25.281. I am also mindful that since 1997 the 16-point standard has been abandoned in Scotland in favour of the non-numeric approach. A conclusion that one could not find as many as 16 points in sequence and agreement would not have been determinative after 2006. However, I could not accept a non-numeric finding of identification because the number of level two characteristics that might be in agreement is small, such level three detail as has been mentioned is unreliable and the Rosetta is an unexplained difference.
25.282. That gives my conclusion on the fingerprint evidence in isolation but, as with any source of evidence, it ought properly to be assessed in the light of the evidence as a whole. The absence of any evidence that Ms McKie went beyond the porch at the entrance to the house386 has to be factored in. That is consistent with a conclusion that the mark was not made by her.
25.283. Having reviewed the evidence as a whole my conclusion is that the mark Y7 was misidentified and was not made by Ms McKie.
1. FI_0167A SCRO Phase 1 Comparative Exercise Enlargement of Y7
2. Mr Mackenzie 29 September page 27ff
3. Mr Grigg 29 September page 10
4. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 41-42
5. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 44-45
6. Mr Swann 21 October pages 44-49, FI_2110.03 and FI_2110.04
7. Mr Swann 21 October page 44
8. Mr Mackenzie 1 October page 49
9. Mr Mackenzie 27 October page 50
10. FI_0134 Mr Zeelenberg Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
11. e.g. FI_2909.09
13. Mr Grigg 29 September pages 60-63, 78-79
14. FI_0129 Mr McGregor Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
15. Mr Wertheim 23 September pages 27-28
17. FI_0130 Mr Wertheim Phase 1 Comparative Exercise, Mr Wertheim 23 September pages 25-26, 28-30 and FI_2309.06
18. Mr Wertheim 23 September pages 29-30
19. Mr Wertheim 23 September page 31
20. See the reader's guide for the numbering system for such 'captured images'.
21. FI_0126 Mr Grigg Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
22. March 1999; FI_0118 pdf page 31 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Wertheim
23. Mr Wertheim 22 September page 122 and FI_2209.10
24. Described as his point 2 in FI_0099 Mr Zeelenberg Phase 1 Comparative Exercise and AZ_0061 slide 49
25. FI_0134 Mr Zeelenberg Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
26. AZ_0061 slide 49
27. Mr MacPherson 28 October page 70
29. Mr Swann 22 October page 61
30. Mr MacPherson 28 October page 76
31. CO_0059 pdf pages 12-14
32. CO_0059 pdf page 13 - the image of the print. Mr Mackenzie explained that the images used on these were based on the original mark Y7 from Strathclyde Police and an original police elimination form which he thought gave the clearest impression - Mr Mackenzie 30 September page 74.
34. Mr Mackenzie 30 September page 69
35. CO_0059 pdf pages 12-14 and TC_0024 slide 8
37. FI_0126 Mr Grigg Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
38. AZ_0061 slide 49 (his point 19)
39. Mr Wertheim 23 September page 55ff and FI_2309.10
40. FI_0138 Mr Leadbetter Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
41. FI_0173 Mr MacPherson Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
43. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 67-68
44. CO_0059 pdf pages 12-14
45. TC_0024 slide 12 and Mr Mackenzie 30 September pages 71-72
47. Mr Swann 21 October page 106
48. Mr Swann 21 October page 48 and numbered as 2 in FI_2110.04
49. Mr Wertheim 22 September page 91
50. AZ_0061 slide 40
51. FI_0146 Mr Halliday Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
52. Mr MacPherson 28 October page 107
56. SG_0373h - a charting Mr Mackenzie was asked by the Scottish Executive's solicitors to mark up in connection with Ms McKie's Court of Session civil case (FI_0046 para 278 Inquiry Witness Statement of Mr Mackenzie).
57. FI_0129 Mr McGregor Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
58. The others were points 5 and 9.
59. CO_0059 pdf pages 12-14 (his point 12) and Mr Mackenzie 30 September page 72
60. FI_0145 pdf page 10 Mr Swann Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
61. Mr Swann 21 October pages 45-46 and point numbered 3 in FI_2110.03
62. Mr Grigg 29 September pages 36ff, 86-87, 89-90, FI_0168A Mr Grigg Phase 1 Comparative Exercise Enlargement of Y7 and FI_2909.18
64. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October pages 34-35
65. FI_0145 pdf page 10 Mr Swann Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
66. Mr Swann 21 October pages 45-46 and point 1 in FI_2110.03
67. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 35
68. Mr Mackenzie 30 September page 72
69. His evidence on a separate charting produced during the hearing is considered in Section 3 below
70. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 109-110 and FI_2810.13
71. FI_0168A Mr Grigg Phase 1 Comparative Exercise Enlargement of Y7
72. Mr Grigg 29 September page 36
73. Mr Grigg 29 September page 74
75. Mr Grigg 29 September page 72
77. FI_2209.18 (where he was discussing SCRO 4, 5 and 6)
78. Mr Wertheim 22 September pages 145-146
79. Mr Wertheim 22 September page 149
80. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 111-112
81. Mr MacPherson 28 October page 108
82. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 108, 111-112
83. Mr MacPherson's evidence relative to the charting produced at the hearing is considered in Section 3.
84. Mr MacPherson 28 October page 113
85. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 113-114
86. FI_0145 pdf page 10 Mr Swann Phase 2 Comparative Exercise, Mr Swann 21 October pages 45-46 and point 2 in FI_2110.03
87. FI_0140 pdf page 6 Mr Mackenzie Phase 2 Comparative Exercise and point 14 in CO_0059
88. Mr Leadbetter 23 October pages 67-68, FI_2310.05 and FI_2310.06
89. Mr Grigg 29 September page 75
90. Mr Grigg 29 September page 75
91. FI_0126 pdf page 9 Mr Grigg Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
92. FI_0130 pdf page 18 Mr Wertheim Phase 1 Comparative Exercise
93. The approximately horizontal red line within the oval in his drawing in FI_2209.18.
94. Mr Wertheim 22 September page 157
95. AZ_0061 slide 42 and Mr Zeelenberg 7 October pages 35-36
96. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 123-130
97. CO_0059 pdf page 20
98. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 44 and AZ_0061 slide 57
99. Mr Wertheim 23 September page 10
101. Mr Grigg 29 September pages 79-80
102. Mr Wertheim 23 September pages 54-55
103. FI_0129 pdf page 10 Mr McGregor Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
104. FI_0138 pdf page 12 Mr Leadbetter Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
105. FI_0145 pdf page 4 Mr Swann Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
106. FI_0145 pdf page 10 Mr Swann Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
107. Mr Swann 21 October page 96ff
108. Mr Swann 21 October page 100
109. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 113-114
110. Mr Grigg 29 September pages 34-35
111. Mr Leadbetter 23 October page 66
112. FI_0118 pdf page 33 Inquiry Witness Statement of Pat Wertheim
113. Mr Wertheim 23 September pages 22-23
114. FI_0130 Mr Wertheim Phase 1 Comparative Exercise
115. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October pages 44-45 and AZ_0061 slide 59
116. FI_0134 Mr Zeelenberg Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
117. FI_0126 Mr Grigg Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
118. FI_0129 Mr McGregor Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
119. CO_0059 pdf page 13
120. FI_0167A SCRO Phase 1 Comparative Exercise Enlargement of Y7
121. Mr MacPherson 29 October page 11ff
122. Mr MacPherson 27 October pages 154, 160
123. FI_0140 pages 6-7 Mr Mackenzie Phase 2 Comparative Exercise and Mr Mackenzie 1 October pages 121-124
125. FI_0145 Mr Swann Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
126. FI_0126 pdf page 9 Mr Grigg Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
127. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October pages 45-46
128. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 46
129. TS_0005 slide 28 and FI_2310.02
130. Mr Leadbetter 23 October page 67ff
131. FI_0138 pdf pages 18-19 Mr Leadbetter Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
132. Mr Grigg 29 September page 46ff
133. Mr Wertheim 23 September pages 35-42 and FI_2309.08
134. Mr Grigg 29 September page 67
135. Mr Grigg 29 September pages 80-81
137. Mr Wertheim 23 September page 52ff
138. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 46
139. AZ_0061 slide 60
140. FI_0173 Mr MacPherson Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
141. Mr Wertheim 23 September pages 36-37, 42-44 and Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 46ff
142. Mr Grigg 29 September pages 66-67, even by reference to the Kent image pages 80-81
143. FI_0129 Mr McGregor Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
144. FI_0138 pdf page 19 Mr Leadbetter Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
145. FI_0140 pdf pages 6-7 Mr Mackenzie Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
146. FI_0145 pdf page 10 Mr Swann Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
147. FI_2910.09 and FI_2910.10
148. Mr MacPherson 29 October pages 40-41
149. Point 14 was not included in Production 189
151. Mr Wertheim 23 September pages 48-51, FI_2309.09, Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 38ff and AZ_0061 slide 45
152. Mr Grigg 29 September page 67ff
153. FI_0138 pdf page 19 Mr Leadbetter Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
154. FI_0140 Mr Mackenzie Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
155. FI_0173 Mr MacPherson Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
156. Mr MacPherson 29 October page 38ff
157. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 41
158. Mr Wertheim 22 September page 127
161. FI_0138 pdf page 19 Mr Leadbetter Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
162. FI_0123 Mr Wertheim Phase 1 Comparative Exercise
163. Mr Wertheim 22 September page 121ff and FI_2209.09
164. Mr Wertheim 22 September pages 138-139
165. Mr Wertheim 22 September pages 126-133 (particularly at pages 130-131)
166. Mr Wertheim 22 September pages 130-131
167. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 41 and AZ_0061 slide 49
168. AZ_0061 slide 49
169. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 55-86
170. Mr MacPherson 28 October page 65
171. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 57-58
172. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 77-78
173. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 83-84
174. Mr MacPherson 28 October page 58
175. Mr MacPherson 28 October page 81
176. FI_0126 pdf page 4 Mr Grigg Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
177. FI_0129 Mr McGregor Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
178. FI_0146 Mr Halliday Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
179. FI_0167A SCRO Phase 1 Comparative Exercise Enlargement of Y7
180. FI_0126 Mr Grigg Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
181. FI_0129 Mr McGregor Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
182. FI_0134 Mr Zeelenberg Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
183. Mr Wertheim 23 September pages 45-47
184. Mr MacPherson 29 October pages 42-43
186. Mr Mackenzie 1 October pages 124-129
187. TC_2310.01 and TC_2310.03
188. TC_2310.02 and TC_2310.04
189. Mr MacPherson 27 October pages 159-165 at 165
190. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 165
191. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 22-23
194. Mr MacPherson 28 October page 23
195. Mr MacPherson 28 October page 35
196. TC_2310.01 and TC_2310.03
197. TC_2310.02 and TC_2310.04
198. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 154
199. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 160
200. e.g. 28 October page 33
201. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 162
202. FI_0167A SCRO Phase 1 Comparative Exercise Enlargement of Y7
206. Mr Swann 21 October page 53
207. Those on the right were prepared by Mr Berry.
208. Mr Swann 21 October pages 53-54
209. Mr Swann 21 October pages 52-54
211. See Chapter 24
212. Mr Mackenzie 30 September page 25
213. Mr Mackenzie 30 September pages 109-120, CO_0059 pdf pages 41-48, TC_0024 slides 36-43 and TC_0019
214. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October, pages 51-55 and AZ_0061 slides 72-78
215. From para 101
216. Professor Champod 25 November pages 109-112; and see Chapter 28 para 44ff
217. See Chapter 28 para 50ff
218. Mr Grigg 29 September page 96
219. See Chapter 35 para 56ff
220. DB_0172h pdf page 8
221. DB_0172h pdf page 4
222. Mr Leadbetter 23 October page 67
224. TS_0054 pages 1-2; see also TS_0053 pages 66 and 73 and Mr Swann 21 October pages 31-32
225. See Chapter 35 para 21
226. DB_0172h pdf page 8
227. Mr Swann 22 October page 101ff
228. Mr Swann 21 October pages 27-28
229. Mr Swann 21 October page 27ff
230. Mr Swann 21 October page 17ff
231. Mr Swann 22 October pages 117 and 123
235. TS_0003 and TS_0004 (the signatures are on the back of the original mountings and are not reproduced in these copies)
237. FI_0123 pdf page 3 Mr Wertheim Phase 1 Comparative Exercise
238. FI_0099 pdf page 5 Mr Zeelenberg Phase 1 Comparative Exercise
239. FI_0104 pdf page 3 Mr Grigg Phase 1 Comparative Exercise
240. FI_0164A Mr Wertheim Phase 1 Comparative Exercise Enlargement of Y7
241. FI_0104 Mr Grigg Phase 1 Comparative Exercise
242. Mr Grigg 29 September pages 34-35
243. FI_0104 Mr Grigg Phase 1 Comparative Exercise
244. FI_0099 Mr Zeelenberg Phase 1 Comparative Exercise
245. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 39 and AZ_0061 slide 46
246. FI_0140 Mr Mackenzie Phase 2 Comparative Exercise
247. Mr Kent 7 July
248. e.g. Mr Kent 7 July pages 120-121
249. Mr Kent 7 July page 152
250. Mr Kent 7 July pages 81ff, 123ff
251. Mr Kent 7 July page 125
252. Mr Kent 7 July page 87ff
253. Mr Kent 7 July page 82
254. SG_0528 pdf pages 23, 45-46
255. Mr Wertheim 23 September pages 77-81 and Mr Wertheim 24 September pages 86-87
256. FI_0106 SCRO Phase 1 Comparative Exercise
257. Mr Leadbetter 23 October page 79
258. Mr Swann 21 October pages 58-59
259. Mr Dunbar 6 October pages 65-66
261. See Chapter 24 para 41
262. Mr Swann 21 October page 62
263. Mr Mackenzie 30 September page 123
264. FI_0170A Mr Zeelenberg Phase 1 Comparative Exercise Enlargement of Y7
265. CO_0059 pdf pages 32-33
266. Mr Mackenzie 30 September page 77ff
267. Mr Mackenzie 30 September pages 78-79 and 89-90
268. CO_0059 pdf page 12
269. CO_0059 pdf pages 14-15
270. Mr Mackenzie 30 September page 89
271. CO_0059 pdf page 19 and Mr Mackenzie 30 September page 58ff
272. Mr Mackenzie 30 September pages 108-109 and 1 October page 17; and AZ_0061 slides 81 and 82
273. Mr Mackenzie 30 September pages 108-109
274. AZ_0061 slide 84
275. Mr Mackenzie 1 October page 62 and AZ_0061 slide 89
276. AZ_0007 pdf page 3
277. Mr Mackenzie 1 October pages 19ff and 58ff
278. Mr Mackenzie 30 September page 74 and 1 October page 64ff
280. Mr Swann 21 October pages 30-31
282. DB_0172h pdf page 8
284. Mr Swann 21 October pages 51-56
286. Mr Swann 21 October page 54
287. Mr Swann 21 October pages 55-56 and TS_0053 page 72 para 15
288. TS_0053 page 73 para 17
289. TS_0053 page 66 para 2
290. TS_0004 slide 15
291. Para 223 above; see also TS_0053 page 72
292. TS_0053 page 66ff, the specific passage being at para 15 on page 72
293. Mr Swann 22 October pages 113 and 122ff
294. Mr Swann 22 October pages 127-128
295. See Chapter 35 para 65ff
296. See para 247 below
297. Mr Swann 21 October page 55; see chart E
298. See para 222 above
299. Mr Swann 21 October pages 84-85
300. Mr Swann 21 October page 89
301. Mr Swann 21 October page 90
302. CO_0059 pdf page 33 and pdf page 32
303. Mr Swann 21 October page 91
304. His point 4 in Chart N
305. Mr Swann 21 October page 92
307. As mentioned earlier in the chapter, he understood this photograph to be the image reproduced in the Daily Mail.
308. TS_0005 slide 28 and Mr Leadbetter 23 October page 34
309. Mr Leadbetter 23 October pages 66-67
310. TS_0005 slide 28
311. Mr Leadbetter 23 October pages 75-77
312. Mr Leadbetter 23 October pages 78-79
313. Mr Leadbetter 23 October page 37
314. Mr Leadbetter 23 October pages 88-89
315. Mr Mackenzie's points 39 and 40 on CO_0059 pdf page 33
316. Mr Mackenzie's points 31 and 32 on CO_0059 pdf page 27
317. Mr Leadbetter 23 October page 38
318. Mr Leadbetter 23 October pages 89-91
319. Mr Leadbetter 23 October page 87
320. Mr Wertheim 23 September pages 76-77
321. Mr Grigg 29 September pages 24-27
322. AZ_0061 slides 63-90, 116
323. AZ_0061 slides 99-111
324. AZ_0061 slides 124-132
325. AZ_0061 slides 108-109
326. AZ_0061 slide 102
327. Set out more fully in Chapter 35 para 65ff.
328. See para 227 above
329. Para 185ff above
330. TS_0053 page 66ff the specific passage being at para 15 on page 72
331. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 25 ff and AZ_0061 from slide 24
332. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 27 and AZ_0061 slide 26
333. Mr Stewart 5 November page 84ff
334. Mr McKenna 6 November page 32
335. Mr Stewart 5 November page 84
336. Mr Stewart 5 November page 85
337. Mr McKenna 6 November page 32
338. From the form taken on 6 March 1998. See Chapter 24 para 21
339. Mr McKenna 6 November page 44
340. Ms McBride 6 November pages 128-132, 143-149
341. Ms McBride 6 November pages 127-128
342. Ms McBride 6 November page 131
343. Ms McBride 6 November page 144
344. Ms McBride 6 November page 146
345. Mr MacPherson 27 October pages 139-140, 144-151, 157-158 and Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 84-107
346. Mr MacPherson 28 October page 107
347. Chapter 24 para 21
348. Mr MacPherson 27 October pages 121-123
349. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 148
350. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 140
351. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 148
352. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 148
353. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 150
354. Mr MacPherson 28 October page 98
355. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 86-87
356. Mr MacPherson 28 October page 93
357. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 100-101
358. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 146
359. Mr MacPherson 27 October page 158
360. Mr MacPherson 28 October page 98ff
361. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 101-102 and FI_2810.12
362. Mr MacPherson 27 October pages 157-158
363. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 83-86
364. Mr MacPherson 28 October pages 91-95
365. Mr MacPherson 28 October page 95
366. Mr Dunbar 6 October pages 65-66
367. Mr Pugh 24 November pages 126-127
368. Professor Champod 25 November page 53
369. See example given by Professor Champod in ED_0005 page 31
371. TS_0004 Chart N
372. See Chapter 30 para 12ff
373. See Chapter 35 para 101ff
374. TS_0054 pages 2 and 4
375. Mr Swann 21 October page 89
376. CO_0059 pdf page 33
377. Mr Swann 21 October page 90
378. Or eight, in the case of Mr Swann's chart M.
379. Mr MacPherson 27 October pages 146-149
380. Para 169 above
381. See Chapter 1
382. See Chapter 1
383. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 27 and AZ_0061 slide 26
384. Para 167 above
385. Para 139 above
386. See Chapter 14