page 1 1 Friday, 26th June 2009 2 (10.15 am) 3 ALISTER GEDDES (sworn) 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Take a seat please, Mr Geddes, and if we 5 could just have your full names. 6 A. Alister Geddes. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 8 Examined by MR MOYNIHAN 9 Q. Good morning, Mr Geddes. 10 A. Good morning. 11 Q. You have, in fact, been very patient with us. You have 12 provided three statements to the Inquiry; is that 13 correct? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. The first one was a comprehensive statement where you 16 addressed the documents the Inquiry team made available 17 to you at that time. 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. The second statement was a supplementary statement when 20 the Inquiry team brought to you some additional 21 documents that had been disclosed to us and you were 22 asked to comment on those? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. Then, finally, the third statement you were asked 25 specifically to address current practice, the page 2 1 non-numeric system? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. By reference to Y7? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. You have had a chance, as other witnesses have, to study 6 your three statements? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. And to sign them? 9 A. Yes, I've signed them, yes. 10 Q. And at least until we look at some of the detail of it, 11 you are content with the accuracy of those statements? 12 A. Yes, more or less, yes. 13 Q. As we progress, please feel free if there's something 14 that we alight upon when you're giving evidence that's 15 incorrect in your statement, just feel free to correct 16 your statement, because that's what we're interested in, 17 your up-to-date recollection of events. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. If I could begin, please, with the topic of numeric and 20 non-numeric, I'm probably more interested in trying to 21 find out how you as a fingerprint practitioner look at 22 fingerprints so we will begin just by looking at the 23 legal framework and then coming back. 24 As I understand it, what you say in paragraph 20 of 25 your original statement was that the non-numeric page 3 1 standard was, in effect, a superimposition upon 2 fingerprint practitioners for court purposes. It was 3 not in fact the way that they operated? 4 A. The non-numeric system? 5 Q. No, sorry -- I apologise. The numeric system was an 6 added requirement, additional requirement, for court 7 purposes; it was not the way that you worked? 8 A. My understanding of the 1953 -- when the national 9 standard was implemented -- was it was an administrative 10 standard for the presentation of a crime scene mark at 11 court. At no time, as far as I'm aware, indicated that 12 that was the way a Fingerprint Examiner would effect an 13 identification. 14 The way I operated, the way I was trained to operate 15 and still operate, I would come to a conclusion of 16 identity before the 16. The 16-point standard infers 17 that we sit and point count, that you would sit and go 18 1, 2, 3, get to 16 and suddenly we have an 19 identification. That's not the case. It's never been 20 the case. You take the whole print; you glean as much 21 information as you can. We use what we refer to as 22 Level 2 detail to effect and demonstrate an 23 identification. The Level 2 detail I believe you've 24 heard already is the ridge characteristics, the ridge 25 endings and the bifurcations. page 4 1 Much has been made of Level 3 detail under the term 2 ridge-ology where you have ridge width, you have pores. 3 All that information equally is as unique as the ridge 4 characteristics but the downside of Level 3 detail is 5 that it's not always shown in the crime scene mark, 6 equally it's not always shown on the ten-print forms. 7 So Level 2 detail is what we use to effect and 8 determine identification but at the initial analysis 9 stage, we take in all detail. We do not ignore any 10 detail because our training dictates all detail is 11 unique and must be taken into account. 12 Q. At the time of the events in 1997 that we are primarily 13 investigating the Scottish Criminal Record Office was 14 based in Glasgow? 15 A. That's correct -- Pitt Street. 16 Q. And was one of a number of bureaux in Scotland? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. Now with the Scottish Police Services Authority is there 19 a unified structure around Fingerprint Officers? 20 A. A unifying structure in respect of ...? 21 Q. You are all now part of one single organisation? 22 A. We're part of the Scottish Police Services Authority, 23 the Forensic Service comes under that authority. You 24 have the Glasgow Division, Edinburgh and Dundee. 25 Q. What I want to move to -- and that's very helpful page 5 1 because there are three divisions you say: Glasgow, 2 Edinburgh and Dundee? 3 A. (Nodded) 4 Q. You have told us in particular in your second 5 supplementary statement -- do you have your statement 6 with you? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Your second supplementary statement, paragraph 10, very 9 neatly encapsulated in the first sentence: 10 "In analysis of prints using the non-numeric 11 standard we do not do anything differently now." 12 That's correct? 13 A. That's correct, yes. 14 Q. In fact, what I wanted to do was to look to the end of 15 that paragraph because there might be a thought that 16 that's what happens in the Glasgow Division so what one 17 would be interested in is what the national approach is. 18 You go on to say, three lines up from the bottom of 19 page 3 of that statement: 20 "In the run-up to the introduction of the 21 non-numeric system I recall attending a seminar on the 22 subject in [you believe] Kircaldy to put across that 23 Fingerprint Experts would not be doing anything 24 different in relation to the comparison of marks simply 25 in relation to presentation in court." page 6 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. So do I take it from that presentation at Kircaldy that, 3 as you understand it, the position that the change from 4 numeric to non-numeric did not affect nationally the way 5 Scottish Fingerprint Officers analysed marks, it simply 6 affected the way they related that to the court process? 7 A. Yes, that was my understanding. There was a 8 cross-section of experts there from all bureaux within 9 Scotland. We had an initial seminar where everyone took 10 part and then we were split up into groups to discuss 11 matters that had arisen. But the whole drive was that 12 everybody accepted how we conduct our analysis and how 13 to effect an identification remains the same. There is 14 no change. The only change is how we present that as 15 evidence in court. 16 Q. That's very clear. The other point of detail I wanted 17 you to address is when we're looking at Level 2 detail 18 you have told us about. Paragraph 6 of your second 19 supplementary statement which you still have there in 20 front of you is very helpful in this regard. Page 2 of 21 the document. 22 You tell us that in looking at Level 2 detail, you 23 in effect are taught to distill it into two 24 characteristics and the two characteristics are 25 bifurcations and ridge endings? page 7 1 A. That's correct. There are a lot of permutations of 2 those characteristics. Francis Galton initially 3 recognised I believe it was five, you had independent 4 ridges, islands, more or less the same thing, you had 5 lakes, closures. The terminology is sometimes different 6 but when you break down those actual characteristics, 7 they are either made up of two ridge endings or they're 8 made up of two bifurcations or a bifurcation and a ridge 9 ending or whatever. So there are various permutations 10 but at the core of it all is the fact that it's a ridge 11 ending or a bifurcation. 12 Q. Forgive me, I will try to be as clear as I can whether I 13 am talking about 1997 or today when I am examining you 14 so I will be switching between the two and if you are in 15 any doubt about the time-frame I'm talking about please 16 indicate because I may overlook to give you that detail. 17 What I want to do in looking at paragraph 6 is to 18 start by looking at 1997 when you were working under the 19 numeric standard and, as you have explained, this would 20 simply be how your identification could be carried 21 forward into court. 22 I understand that at that time, barring some 23 exceptional circumstances such as a dire case, apart 24 from some exceptional circumstances, a Fingerprint 25 Officer would require to identify 16 points in sequence page 8 1 and agreement and no points in disagreement before the 2 lawyers would take that as an identification into court. 3 That is correct? 4 A. That's correct, yes. 5 Q. What you very helpfully indicated is something that I 6 discussed yesterday with Sheriff Murphy -- I don't know 7 if you heard yesterday's examination? 8 A. I did, yes. 9 Q. That there is, at least if one looks at the matter 10 worldwide, there would seem to be a difference in 11 approach to the interpretation of characteristics so 12 that some official reports have suggested that a lake, 13 which is the -- if I hold up my hands, simply, as you 14 would say, the meeting of two bifurcations to form a 15 either a circle or an oval shape? 16 A. That's correct, yes. 17 Q. You would recognise that if you were point counting as 18 two, the conjunction of two bifurcations? 19 A. That's correct, yes. 20 Q. Whereas some might regard that as simply one feature, a 21 lake? 22 A. That's correct, yes. 23 Q. Similarly, if one has a ridge that is short enough it 24 might be described as an island? 25 A. That's correct. page 9 1 Q. And some practitioners, again looking at the matter 2 worldwide, would regard that island as itself a 3 distinctive characteristic or one characteristic? 4 A. That's correct, yes. 5 Q. Whereas the practice that you are speaking to here is 6 that could also be regarded as two ridge endings? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. In fact, the practice, at least as it was applied in 9 Scotland, tended in fact to maximise the numbers because 10 a lake was recognised as two characteristics, not one, 11 and an island regarded as two characteristics, not one? 12 A. That's correct but what's important to understand is the 13 relationship between the characteristics. It's not 14 enough to point count. You have to understand if, for 15 instance, you find a ridge ending and a ridge count of 16 three out to the right you find an island, it's the 17 relationship between the two that's important. It's not 18 technically the volume that you have that effects the 19 identification, it's when you have these ridge 20 characteristics occurring in sequence and agreement. 21 It's the pattern that the ridge characteristics form. 22 That pattern's formed in the womb, remains constant 23 throughout life, is unique to that individual. 24 So when you have that arrangement, it's the 25 arrangement that affects the identification. It's not page 10 1 merely because, as I said, earlier 1, 2, 3, to 16, I've 2 got an ident or I'm counting that lake as one or two, 3 it's the relationship between the characteristics that's 4 important. 5 Q. If I can, I will try as best I can to explain to you how 6 I am looking at it. In 1997, just looking at the 7 16-point standard, if I understand correctly it's legal 8 basis in 1953, as you say in your statement, there had 9 been a meeting convened by the Home Office, a UK 10 meeting, expressing concern that if a high enough 11 threshold was not set -- as we would recognise it, a 12 quality assurance measure -- if a high enough threshold 13 were not set then it might result in challenges to 14 fingerprint evidence in court which could undermine the 15 credibility of the science. 16 Am I correct in my understanding? 17 A. Yes. I believe that was the catalyst behind it. If you 18 put it into context at the time, in 1892 the first 19 Fingerprint Bureau was formed in Argentina. In 1901 New 20 Scotland Yard formed the first fingerprint bureau. In 21 1933 you finally had the Glasgow Bureau, so examiners 22 throughout the length and breadth of the world have been 23 coming to conclusions of identity regardless of the 24 numeric threshold. 25 Now my understanding of the 1953, the catalyst was page 11 1 in the United Kingdom at the time there were experts one 2 week going in with 8, next week 10, 12, whatever. There 3 was no consistency as perceived by the Home Office and 4 the Crown Prosecution Service. 5 To me what that demonstrated in respect of those 6 organisations was the lack of understanding of the 7 science of fingerprints. So to me the catalyst was they 8 wanted it safeguarded and the way they safeguarded it 9 was, "Let's put the threshold as high as we can and that 10 should minimise challenges". It was foisted upon the 11 fingerprint community, as far as I understand it, 12 because there was no scientific basis for it. There was 13 no reasoning behind it other than a corrie-fisted 14 attempt to try to minimise challenges. 15 Q. As I have already acknowledged with Sheriff Murphy, my 16 understanding is that the derivation of 16 points as the 17 standard reflected a misunderstanding of a chart 18 produced by Bertillon that may in fact itself have been 19 a fraud in some respects? 20 A. Yes, it was proven to be fabricated. You obviously had 21 an initial identification system that was based on 22 measurements and human nature as it is, he didn't want 23 to see this new science take over from his baby, more or 24 less. It was his system, it was his baby more or less 25 for want of a better description, he formed it, he got page 12 1 it in place, it was successful to a certain extent and 2 then the fingerprints came along and he saw -- 3 Q. If I interrupt you, if I may have misheard you or failed 4 to hear you properly. What was Bertillon's baby? 5 A. The system of measurements. He decided that each 6 individual was unique. 7 Q. Skull measurements and -- 8 A. Skull measurements and tip to finger and all these sort 9 of things. It was successful to a certain extent within 10 the context of that time because before that all you had 11 was a police officer going to the local prison and 12 having the prisoners walk around in the hope that he 13 identified somebody who had been there before. So in 14 the context of the time it was a good system. When 15 fingerprints came along, it was going to supersede 16 Bertillon's system. So he fabricated a particular crime 17 scene mark to make it look as if there was similarities 18 between two different individuals, two donors, and it 19 wasn't found until much later that he had actually 20 fabricated that mark. 21 Q. As you say, a crude measurement for simply saying we 22 require 16 characteristics fails to give due regard to 23 the science. If I understand it correctly, there are 24 two different propositions here. First of all, there is 25 the biological fact that no two individuals' page 13 1 fingerprints are the same. Correct? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. And, secondly, that even for any one individual no two 4 fingers, the tips of, the fingerprints on no two digits 5 are the same? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. So that fingerprints are, therefore, a very powerful way 8 of differentiating between one individual and another? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. But the question that then underlies -- and this is a 11 separate question -- is because crime scene marks can be 12 partial and they can come into a situation in which 13 there's an element of distortion or disturbance by the 14 background surface so you are making an inaccurate or 15 incomplete comparison between a known print and an 16 unknown print. 17 It may help that you are nodding from time to 18 time -- 19 A. Sorry, that's correct. 20 Q. Normal court discipline still applies here if you could 21 utter the word "yes" or "no" as appropriate -- feel free 22 to say no. 23 The question then is, in comparing a mark, the 24 question is: what combination of characteristics found 25 in an unknown mark is sufficient to enable you, as a page 14 1 Fingerprint Officer, to conclude that that combination 2 is indicative of a unique identification with a known 3 individual? That's the key question. 4 A. Combination -- well, you start from your initial 5 analysis of the print and you're looking to orientate 6 your print. Can you see a pattern? The first thing the 7 ridge fold forms is a pattern, a recognisable pattern of 8 whorls, arches, loops and there's obviously variables in 9 those patterns but those are the three core groups. Can 10 you decipher a pattern? If you can, that obviously 11 reduces your search. 12 To go to Level 2 detail and the ridge path, the 13 actual ridge characteristics themselves, you're looking 14 to see their placement, you're looking to see the rarity 15 of a particular characteristic. As you said earlier, in 16 Glasgow we deal with ridge endings and bifurcations but, 17 as I said, there's many permutations and combinations of 18 those two particular ridge characteristics. So you're 19 looking to recognise what you have. You're looking to 20 see the location of those within the crime scene mark 21 and, again, you're looking at all the detail within that 22 mark. So if there's pores available, if there's 23 particular something unusual about the actual makeup of 24 the ridge itself you've got to take all that into 25 consideration. You're going to glean that information page 15 1 first of all. If you have sufficient volume of 2 characteristics there that would enable you to progress 3 that to the comparison stage, then you should have what 4 I would refer to maybe a cluster of characteristics. 5 You're looking for something that are close by to each 6 other in the relevant area that obviously occurs in the 7 known print. 8 So if you have a lake, a ridge count down, you have 9 a ridge ending, a ridge count of three up, you have a 10 bifurcation, then you're going to use that as a 11 particular target group and you will look for that in 12 the known print. You're then going to work out from 13 your target group you are going to work in all various 14 directions that the known print allows you and your 15 unknown print allows you to do to see if they are all in 16 sequence and agreement and that's the crux of the 17 analysis is sequence and agreement. It's irrelevant if 18 you count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. It has to be in see 19 consequence and agreement. 20 Q. Correct. Now, when I say correct, by in agreement 21 simply means that the two characteristics are present in 22 the known and unknown? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. In sequence means that they are separated, each 25 characteristic, one from the next by the same number of page 16 1 intermediate ridges? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Before I take up what you have been saying just now, go 4 back to 1997 though. The lawyers maybe even the civil 5 servants in the Home Office have imposed this artificial 6 standard upon fingerprint practitioners. If I reduce it 7 to this very simple elementary approach: a fingerprint 8 practitioner comes to court with a table that has 16 9 features on it, highlighted, an enlargement produced, 16 10 features highlighted. Of those features or included in 11 those features is a lake and an island. The way that 12 practice worked in Scotland in 1997 is that included in 13 the total of 16 would be 2 characteristics for the lake, 14 ie 2 bifurcations? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. And for the island two ridge endings? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. Whereas other practitioners elsewhere in the world might 19 say the lake should not count as two, it should count as 20 one? 21 A. That's correct, yes. 22 Q. And the island similarly should not count as two but 23 should count as one? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. Therefore, the count, if my arithmetic is correct and I page 17 1 don't have enough fingers and thumbs, would reduce from 2 16 down to 14? 3 A. It's a possibility, yes, uh-huh. 4 Q. We'd need to check the arithmetic. In that way, a 5 lawyer cross-examining might produce a situation in 6 which the Fingerprint Officer is, dependent on the 7 interpretation of lakes and islands, is either able or 8 unable to meet what was thought to be the legal standard 9 of 16 points? 10 A. It would be down, as far as I'm concerned, it would be 11 down to the Fingerprint Examiner to examine or to fully 12 explain that the 16-point standard does not effect 13 identification. It's the sequence and agreement of the 14 ridge characteristics found by the examiner on initial 15 analysis and comparison, that is what effects 16 identification. 17 Q. So, in effect, what it comes to is the Fingerprint 18 Examiner would require to do, as has happened, to move 19 from the numeric to the non-numeric approach to justify 20 his identification? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Don't take any steer from me in relation to the next 23 question because I do not know the answer: in relation 24 to the interpretation of the characteristics in 1997, a 25 lake has two points and an island has two, do you know page 18 1 if there was a difference in practice between Scotland 2 and England in relation to that? 3 A. Well, as you're aware I was sitting in the public 4 gallery yesterday when I heard that and that's the first 5 I've ever heard of it. The only bureau that I was 6 firmly aware that definitely did carry out that was 7 practice was the Netherlands. 8 Q. And this is why I do declare I don't know the answer but 9 we have some English practitioners coming to give 10 evidence so they will be asked. 11 So, as far as you would understand, only in the 12 Netherlands, to your knowledge, was the practice to 13 regard each of these features as one point, not two? 14 A. That's correct, yes. 15 Q. Thank you very much. That helps. We will come back to 16 some of the other points that you were talking about in 17 that helpful more general explanation a bit further on. 18 One of the reasons for asking you to give a 19 supplementary statement was really a very simple point. 20 When we come to look at Y7 in 1997 you personally 21 detected only 10 characteristics in sequence and 22 agreement between the mark and Ms McKie's left thumb 23 print? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. And despite having a demonstration from Mr Macpherson of page 19 1 the additional characteristics that enabled him to 2 conclude there were 16, you personally were unpersuaded? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. And you adhered to your view that there were only 10? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. However, even though you could not meet the standard for 7 court purposes at that time, you yourself were still of 8 the opinion that the mark Y7 did indeed match Shirley 9 McKie's fingerprint? 10 A. Yes, I was satisfied that I had identified Y7 to the 11 left thumb of Shirley McKie. 12 Q. You will have heard because you have heard much of the 13 evidence there has been here, whether, when you say you 14 were satisfied, to what degree of probability were you 15 satisfied? Can you express the degree of satisfaction 16 in terms of a probability? 17 A. I don't deal with probability. If I'm signing ownership 18 of a mark to an individual, I have to ensure that what 19 I've done is correct. There's absolutely no way that 20 I'm going to assign ownership of a mark from a crime 21 scene to a particular individual without being fully 22 satisfied that the process I've carried out was correct, 23 that the detail I've interpreted is correct and, 24 therefore, I have an identification. 25 Q. Forgive me, if you don't think this way just please page 20 1 indicate but with some of the other witnesses I've asked 2 if it means the same as an identification that you are 3 100 per cent certain. Is that what you mean by being 4 fully satisfied, you are 100 per cent certain? 5 A. If I'm assigning ownership of a crime scene mark to an 6 individual I'm 100 per cent satisfied, certain, 7 100 per cent certain that that's that individual. 8 Q. That is what I mean by probability, the degree of 9 certainty is 100 per cent? 10 A. Yes, yes. 11 Q. And you may -- it certainly made an impression me at the 12 time when I was listening to it -- did you hear Sheriff 13 Gilchrist's evidence? 14 A. I did, yes. 15 Q. Because what he spoke about was that fingerprint 16 practitioners seem to speak only in a sense of two 17 levels. They were either 100 per cent satisfied or, the 18 way that matters worked back then, in effect, it was 19 zero. They would not bring forward evidence of 20 identity. Is it as simple as that? 21 A. Well, the understanding I got from Mr Gilchrist's 22 evidence was in relation to the 16-point standard. Now, 23 as I've said, we come to a conclusion of identity before 24 then. We do not point count to effect identification. 25 You mentioned dire and crucials earlier as a rare page 21 1 occurrence when a crime scene mark from a serious crime 2 could be presented at court regardless of the numerical 3 threshold but we also had a policy in our bureau of 4 strong suspicions. The terminology is slightly 5 misleading. What that meant was in volume crime if we 6 had come to an identification that fell below the 7 national standard in our bureau we were still 8 100 per cent certain we had an identity. So 9 we informed, I believe we went to the Divisional 10 Commander in the form of Criminal Intelligence under 11 that banner but the official term we would use was 12 "strong suspicion". All it meant was here's an 13 identification, chances are the Procurator Fiscal won't 14 allow it because it falls below the 1953 16-point 15 standard, but we have signed it as an identification 16 because we're fully satisfied. 17 Q. Again this perhaps has meaning to me as a lawyer 18 listening to Sheriff Gilchrist and I put it to you for 19 your comment: if I change the type of evidence and look 20 at simply identification of two individuals by facial 21 characteristics or build, you will be aware that the 22 court will take evidence not only of an individual to 23 say, "I do identify. I'm 100 per cent certain Mr Geddes 24 was the man sitting opposite me on that Friday"; you're 25 aware of that type of evidence? page 22 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Equally, the court will have evidence from individuals 3 who will say, "I can't be 100 per cent certain but that 4 individual did resemble Mr Geddes", and they will 5 describe some characteristics that they recollect that 6 are common to Mr Geddes and the individual they saw, so 7 that the court will accept evidence of identification, 8 literally recognition by one person of another that's 9 not complete, it's partial recognition. 10 If I understand it correctly, and change it back to 11 fingerprints, you as a fingerprint practitioner do not 12 practice in that way. You either make the complete 13 identification or you proffer no evidence at all? 14 A. Considering the basis of the use of fingerprints as a 15 means of personal identification is firmly rooted in the 16 scientific conclusions of uniqueness and permanence. I 17 would suggest that we are duty-bound to be fully 18 satisfied that we have assigned ownership of that mark. 19 I would be most uncomfortable going to court and saying, 20 "Well, maybe, you know, there's four or five there, it 21 could be. You know, there's a nice wee pattern there. 22 It might be. It's consistent with but I'm not wholly 23 satisfied". That just would not sit comfortably with me 24 at all. It either is or it isn't and to me that's the 25 only identifications that should be leaving the page 23 1 Fingerprint Bureau. 2 Q. That is actually very helpful for me. 3 If I move on again with the same topic to a slightly 4 different angle and I am now coming to today: in 5 arriving at your conclusion that there is a unique 6 identification between the known and the unknown marks, 7 does the number of characteristics in common enter your 8 thought processes at all? I accept you're not counting, 9 you're not trying to meet some artificial threshold but 10 does the number of points in agreement enter into your 11 mental processes at all? 12 A. I have to say it doesn't. The term that we -- I think 13 the official term we use now is sufficient volume 14 because each mark is unique and each mark should be 15 taken on its own merit. 16 The pattern itself could help towards 17 identification. It doesn't give an identification but 18 it helps. If it's an unusual pattern taking that into 19 combination with the ridge characteristics themselves, 20 is there a cluster of unusual characteristics there? Is 21 there a combination of a bifurcation and a ridge ending 22 in close proximity. The rarity of the type of 23 characteristic will play a major role in, for instance, 24 if at the end and you presenting for court and it 25 transpires you've identified on seven or eight, that page 24 1 identification will be as a result of increased 2 uniqueness, if that's possible, because of the type and 3 the rarity of the characteristics and also the pattern 4 itself. 5 So I wouldn't -- I personally do not count at all. 6 It's sufficient volume and that only occurs after you've 7 worked your way through your target group, everything's 8 occurring in sequence and agreement, and then you know 9 you have identification. It's an irrelevance how many 10 characteristics are there. 11 Q. Let's try to look at it again. You have used some of 12 exactly the same terms that you used earlier that I 13 would want to explore with you, but if I understand what 14 you're saying, tied in with what you said in your 15 supplementary statement, the reason for asking you these 16 questions is you're one of the few individuals, if not 17 the only individual, I can ask this next question. You 18 are someone who studied Y7 at the time under the 19 16-point standard. You now still practice as a 20 fingerprint practitioner giving evidence in the Scottish 21 courts? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. Therefore, you're one of the few, if not the only 24 witness, I can ask this: if you had been looking at Y7 25 in 1997 with the freedom of operating under the page 25 1 non-numeric standard, even though you recognised only 2 10 points, I understand that you would have been 3 prepared to give evidence, if this had been permitted of 4 you at that time under the non-numeric system, you would 5 have been prepared to give evidence that you were 6 100 per cent certain that Y7 was indeed the mark of 7 Ms McKie? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. And, therefore, had the non-numeric system prevailed at 10 that time, you would have been a signatory or could have 11 been a signatory to a report that Y7 was indeed 12 Ms McKie's fingerprint? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. In a way, that very neatly encapsulates some of what 15 we've been talking about this morning, that the change 16 from one system to the other does not affect the way 17 fingerprint practitioners practise but it does change 18 the relationship between their findings and evidence in 19 court. 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. What I want to do then is look more closely from the 22 point of view of today, this non-numeric -- I find 23 myself sometimes saying system as I just did a few 24 minutes ago and I sometimes speak of a standard. 25 If I use "standard" in the sense of an objective page 26 1 measure, one can see that the numeric system had 2 a standard because the standard was 16 points in 3 sequence and agreement with no points of unexplained 4 difference so it was, therefore, an objective standard. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. With the non-numeric approach, is there an objective 7 standard? 8 A. It's individual responsibility. Where it emanates from 9 is your training and your knowledge, the grounding that 10 you have and basic training that enables you to observe 11 and interpret the data disclosed by the print. 12 An objective standard? You're taking all the detail 13 that is there, you're utilising your experience and your 14 knowledge and you're interpreting that detail. So 15 there's individual responsibility to ensure that what 16 you are doing is adequate, is accurate. 17 Fingerprint identification relies on its uniqueness 18 and permanence, it relies on the individual 19 practitioners. So I would suggest that the standard, 20 whether you take a numerical threshold as a standard, I 21 don't see that as applicable but it's down to the 22 practitioner and then the bureau as a whole has a 23 responsibility to ensure that the work that leaves is 24 adequately checked, quality assured and it's made sure 25 that all processes and procedures have been adhered to. page 27 1 Q. If I can play that back to you just the way I might 2 suggest it is put is a distinction between two different 3 things. First of all, would you accept, therefore, that 4 the individual -- that the conclusion of an individual 5 practitioner is ultimately a subjective judgment of that 6 individual? 7 A. That's correct, yes. 8 Q. However, what you're indicating is that there can be 9 quality assurance processes built around that subjective 10 judgment? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. And we will need to look at the two separately? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. So if I can please just spell out this question of the 15 subjective judgment, you have used some terms which I 16 might suggest are relative terms. You used the term a 17 sufficient volume and by relative what I mean is that 18 begs the question: what is sufficient? And you are not 19 able to point me to a particular quantitative measure of 20 the sufficiency of the volume? 21 A. I would have to say show me the mark. 22 Q. And what would be sufficient may vary, depending on the 23 particular mark? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. Similarly, you have said there is something unusual, page 28 1 again relative. Is there any set measure of what is 2 usual and what is unusual in a combination in a 3 fingerprint? 4 A. If we take, for example, the patterns formed by the 5 ridge flow, I gave you three core groups, whorls, arches 6 and loops. There are many variables. An arch itself is 7 basically just a bump in the ridge but that can be a 8 higher bump; it can be a lower bump; it could be a 9 tented arch. So there's so many different variables in 10 that. 11 So the whorl itself can have what we refer to 12 composites, accidentals, twin loops. It encapsulates 13 many differences in that particular core group and some 14 are rarer than others. 15 They did studies earlier on that the loop pattern is 16 the more regularly, I think if everybody looked at the 17 palms of their hands they could probably all say, "I've 18 got five loops, six loops", or whatever. That's the one 19 that most regularly occurs. So if you take, for 20 instance -- when I say unusual, if you take, for 21 instance, the whorls the various permutations of them 22 that would tend to be an unusual -- you may get an 23 unusual pattern in that respect and, taken in 24 combination with the ridge characteristics present, the 25 weight of evidence in that would lead me to page 29 1 identification. 2 Q. So what you have indicated is that at first level detail 3 there is some other whorls, historically some 4 statistical research about the incidence of whorls or 5 loops or features of that sort in fingerprints? 6 A. Yes, I said earlier that fingerprints, the scientific 7 basis of fingerprints, that came from other areas. That 8 came from biology and embryology and the study of 9 foetuses in the womb, et cetera, that sort of scientific 10 research and I believe early on they were looking at 11 comparisons between the formation of the friction ridges 12 and genetic factors, et cetera. So within that, they 13 did research on the frequency of particular patterns. 14 Q. That's first level detail? 15 A. First level detail, yes. 16 Q. The other and the third term you had used, you have 17 spoken of sufficient volume, something unusual. The 18 third term you used was the rarity of a particular 19 detail? 20 A. (Nodded) 21 Q. Are you aware of statistical work done on the rarity of 22 second level detail? 23 A. I can only go by my own experience. I can only go by 24 the empirical experience of the fingerprint community as 25 a whole. As I say, in Glasgow we reduced it to the page 30 1 ridge endings and bifurcations, as I said, but there's 2 many permutations of that. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any difference -- what I have in 4 mind is, for example, I'm told that in the eastern part 5 of the world you don't get very many people who are 6 rhesus negative in blood grouping as compared to the 7 western hemisphere. Is there any difference of that 8 sort that you would find, say, from Asia, 9 characteristics are less common there or ...? 10 A. I wouldn't like to comment. There was studies done, as 11 I said, in respect of the genetics, I believe very early 12 on, relating to racial differences between individuals 13 from different countries, et cetera. As to if there was 14 anything made of that, I prefer to keep it simple. 15 Every fingerprint is unique to the individual. The 16 pattern formed is permanent throughout life until 17 decomposition after death. That's enough for me. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: You haven't noticed anything of that sort? 19 A. I can't say that I have, no. 20 MR MOYNIHAN: Mr Geddes, what I am just trying to 21 understand, and we maybe now just got to the point with 22 the phraseology that you have used, when it comes to 23 rarity of combinations of second level detail, the way 24 you would explain rarity would be based on your own 25 empirical person experience based on number of years of page 31 1 examining fingerprints? 2 A. Yes, first of all, yes. 3 Q. You could, therefore, if I asked you from the point of 4 view of presenting your evidence in court, you could not 5 point me to literature that would tell me that a 6 particular combination would occur in a certain 7 proportion of the community? 8 A. No, no. The way the ridges are formed, they are formed 9 within the womb at 6 to 24 weeks gestation of the foetus 10 and there's so many genetic and environmental factors 11 that influence that. The pattern formed by the ridges 12 can't be reproduced. It's scientifically proven. It's 13 the one thing the scientists agree with us on. That's 14 proven beyond all doubt: it's unique to the individual. 15 Q. As an individual who carries out work in the criminal 16 justice system the work that you do is a preliminary to 17 presentation of evidence in court. 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. Therefore, if I follow the theory through to its 20 ultimate conclusion, the object of the exercise is not 21 for you to reach a conclusion for your own purposes, the 22 object to the exercise is to reach a conclusion which 23 is, first of all, sufficiently verifiable that the court 24 can attach weight to it, correct? 25 A. Correct. page 32 1 Q. And, secondly, sufficiently persuasive that the judge 2 sitting alone or a jury will accept that the opinion you 3 express is indeed correct? 4 A. Well, first and foremost within the bureau we're taught 5 it's the result that's important. They don't specify 6 identification. A negative result is as equally 7 important as an identified result. What's important 8 within the bureau is that we are consistent and 9 accurate. 10 When it comes to court presentation, the court 11 requests, "Did you get a result on this case", obviously 12 they have been informed by the DO, "Yes". 13 "Can you provide a report on that." All I do is 14 document my conclusions. What the court makes of that 15 is entirely down to the court. 16 Now, the standard that's foisted upon us then, 17 including the charted enlargement, we have to provide a 18 charted enlargement merely to demonstrate how we came to 19 our conclusion, so that came from the courts. 20 So the court requests that we document our 21 conclusions and provide them but, ultimately, what they 22 make of our results is entirely down to the court. 23 Q. If this is a matter of which you have no experience, 24 just let me know. What I am looking to see is what the 25 training is that's given to you about what the criminal page 33 1 justice system might expect of you. At the most 2 elementary level, the criminal justice system might say 3 a fingerprint practitioner, authorised under the 4 Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, can express an 5 opinion, can either say yes or no to identification and 6 that is sufficient and the court will accept that 7 conclusion without question. That's one possibility. 8 The other possibility is that the criminal justice 9 system might say the fingerprint practitioner is an 10 expert but he is like any other expert witness; he 11 requires not only to express an opinion but to 12 demonstrate to the person who is reaching the factual 13 conclusion how he's arrived at that in order to persuade 14 the fact-finder that that opinion is reliable and should 15 dictate the guilt or innocence of the accused. 16 What is it that you are trained as the object, the 17 end result of your exercise? Is it simply to say yes or 18 no to identification or is it to go further and to 19 demonstrate and persuade to a jury, if necessary, the 20 correctness of the opinion you have formed? 21 A. My training, certainly -- what we as examiners deliver 22 to the court is expert opinion evidence. So the main 23 criticism that you alluded to earlier regarding 24 fingerprints as a means of personal identification 25 arises from a comparison of distorted or smudged crime page 34 1 scene marks against known prints. How can we interpret 2 that detail to a sufficient degree of accuracy that I 3 can call identification? 4 So, in training you have to have the knowledge and 5 experience to, first of all, observe that data, 6 interpret that data and be able to come to a conclusion. 7 It would be useless if you were incapable of 8 demonstrating and articulating in the proper field, at 9 court. Ultimately, the bureau -- there's individual 10 responsibility on the practitioner to ensure what they 11 are doing is accurate and correct. There's 12 responsibility on the bureau to ensure that relevant 13 processes and procedures are in place to ensure the 14 accuracy of that and to ensure what leaves the bureau is 15 consistent and accurate. But ultimately there's 16 responsibility on the court to test that evidence. 17 Now, obviously, if you cite me to appear, like 18 today, I have to be able to articulate what I did; I 19 have to be able to demonstrate what I did and if I can't 20 do that then I'm as well not being there. I'm no use to 21 the court and I'm certainly no use to my bureau. 22 Q. Plainly in this particular case we're dealing with the 23 McKie trial in part, where there was a dispute between 24 fingerprint practitioners about the identification of a 25 mark and I appreciate you did not give evidence at that page 35 1 trial. 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Have you ever given evidence in any trial in which there 4 has been a dispute in relation to your evidence as to 5 identification? 6 A. I haven't, no. The one case that I was involved in 7 where there was a dispute on the identification of a 8 mark that I did was the Alexander Sutherland case where 9 it all came to light after -- to let you understand, 10 there was a case where there was a break-in into a 11 builders' yard and there was initial theft took place. 12 However, the initial break-in left the gates open so the 13 local natives came in and had a ball on the JCBs, 14 et cetera, to the extent there was three-quarters of a 15 million pounds' worth of damage. So there was a lot of 16 accused in that case but obviously, ultimately, they 17 were looking to get the initial crime of break-in dealt 18 with rather than vandalism. 19 One of the accused that I provided evidence against, 20 the Procurator Fiscal, the Crown prosecution, didn't 21 lead that evidence against him. It transpired later on 22 that Alan Bale had been called as an independent expert 23 and had checked my enlargement of a palm-print and had 24 said that it was erroneous. 25 He then asked, I believe it was John McLeod and Gary page 36 1 Dempster, to confirm and verify his allegations which 2 apparently they duly did and they went to the media. 3 So I haven't given evidence in court where I was 4 ultimately challenged to a mis-identification but one of 5 the cases that was presented as evidence to court, 6 although I didn't do it personally was ultimately 7 challenged by those three individuals. The end result 8 was that my bureau had the case sent out to New Scotland 9 Yard to be reviewed and all identifications were found 10 to be sound. And that's the only -- obviously, apart 11 from Y7 and QI2 -- that's the only case where I can say 12 that I've been challenged as to my evidence presented at 13 court. 14 Q. As you say, what actually happened in that case was that 15 the Procurator Fiscal backed off from leading that 16 evidence. So how the dispute among the various 17 Fingerprint Officers would have played out in court, one 18 simply does not know? 19 A. No, they chose not to lead the evidence against that 20 individual. I don't think they were looking to take him 21 to court. 22 Q. If we move away from the question of subjective judgment 23 and move then to the question of quality assurance 24 surrounding the system and, again, if I start in 1997 25 and then we'll pick up today as well. page 37 1 Starting in 1997, I have come upon -- you will be 2 familiar with an acronym ACE-V? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Was that the acronym for the technique of examination 5 that applied in 1997? 6 A. I think we called it common sense at the time. Analysis 7 Comparison Evaluation Verification. It is a formulised 8 approach. I think it's a good approach. It's based on 9 a scientific methodology and it encapsulates basically 10 what we do but it's basically an evolution of what we 11 actually did. Common sense dictates you look at the 12 unknown print first, glean as much information from that 13 before you ultimately go your comparison. Then 14 obviously once you carry out your comparison, you're 15 going to come to a conclusion or evaluation and, to 16 ensure that that process has been done consistently and 17 accurately, you have to have verification, you have to 18 have the mark checked. So in a form we did do it. It 19 was done in 1997. It's more formulised now. 20 Q. So it's common, as many things have done in politically 21 correct modern days to have an acronym attached to it as 22 ACE-V, you simply say it could be quite simply expressed 23 as common sense? 24 A. That's the way I would look at it. 25 Q. What want to do then is forget about the acronym and page 38 1 just look at the way things were working in 1997. I am 2 particularly interested in the verification stage to 3 begin with. 4 In 1997 I understand that the practice in Scotland 5 was if there were to be an identification, for example 6 of a suspect, the verification would be that four 7 fingerprint practitioners would look at the known and 8 the unknown marks? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. For verification, was it the understanding in 1997 that 11 those four officers would act independently of each 12 other? 13 A. There's an individual responsibility for the examiner to 14 ensure that they're fully satisfied with what they have 15 before them. Now, it depends on what you term 16 "independent". We obviously worked in the same bureau, 17 worked in the same office. It's not a huge area. We 18 obviously know who's or potentially know who first 19 checked the identification. 20 I don't see how having a professional discussion 21 could potentially limit the perceived independence of an 22 analysis. Each individual -- once you've done your 23 training and you have met all the suitable criteria and 24 you are qualified, then you are a professional examiner. 25 You are a Fingerprint Examiner and you are duty-bound to page 39 1 ensure that what you do is correct, consistent and 2 accurate. It's irrelevant who sees it before or if 3 Hugh Macpherson approaches me and says, "Could you 4 verify that?" It would be a case of, "Yes, I'll have a 5 look". It's not a case of, "Yes, I'll verify it because 6 it's you, pal". It doesn't work like that. You have an 7 individual responsibility to ensure what you do is 8 consistent and accurate. 9 Q. I take your point and you very helpful introduced the 10 topic for me by saying what is meant by "independent". 11 Plainly, on one end of the scale, full independence 12 would be that each practitioner looks at the known and 13 the unknown marks with no knowledge of whether they are 14 the first or the last person to look, no knowledge as to 15 the identity of anyone who may have looked at it before, 16 and no knowledge as to the conclusion that anyone might 17 have formed. That's, in a sense, full independence. 18 A. But then I can say to you how would I test the 19 conclusion? How do I ensure that the adequate processes 20 have been in place if I'm a verifier? As a verifier, I 21 am not just merely testing that the conclusion is 22 correct, I want to make sure that the relevant area, 23 that the procedures have been in place, that the 24 processes have been carried out properly. I want to 25 ensure -- I want to test the conclusion. Is it page 40 1 identifiable? I want to ensure, first of all, well, 2 have they made the correct decision for sufficient 3 volume of characteristics first of all to enable 4 progression to comparison. 5 I have to test the conclusion as a verifier. So how 6 would I do that if every case I receive is a blank 7 envelope with data inside? As an operational bureau, 8 that is just not functional at all. 9 If I give you an example, the last case I did was -- 10 my tenure at the Serious Crime Unit came to an end at 11 the beginning of this month and I've been transferred to 12 volume crime, but my last case that I did at the Serious 13 Crime Unit involved 94 photographs of A4 documents. 14 Now, there were various documents but if you understand 15 documentation, everybody and their brother touches the 16 documentation. That resulted in excess of 600 crime 17 scene marks. Of 520 I managed to eliminate 8, I managed 18 to identify in 2 cold identifications -- 19 Q. You managed to identify, sorry? 20 A. Two what we refer to as cold identifications. It 21 basically means I assessed particular crime scenes 22 marks, input them on our computerised system and they 23 came back with potential candidates, 2 of which I 24 managed to identify. 25 So two identifications and over 500 marks page 41 1 eliminated. So in an ideal would for independence those 2 94 documents have to be blank before being passed on to 3 get verified. It took me weeks and weeks to go through 4 that case. Efficiency and effectiveness just would not 5 exist in an operational bureau if everything has to be 6 done blind, if everything has to be -- who checks the 7 independence? Who makes sure that what goes in that 8 envelope is completely blank? The amount of manpower 9 that would be required to ensure that, to me, isn't 10 functional. 11 Q. In 1997, looking at 1997 practice, what actually 12 happened was that a mark, having been -- first of all, 13 we exclude, we deal with something you have very 14 helpfully given me a terminology for a discussion I was 15 having earlier on with Mr Padden and Mr Foley. First of 16 all, the crime scene mark has to pass an admission 17 standard, in a sense. It has to have sufficient detail 18 in it to be capable of comparison? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. I think you use the term the mark has to be of perhaps 21 it should be comparable quality? 22 A. It has to have sufficient volume of characteristics that 23 would enable it to progress to the comparison phase. 24 Q. Will you accept from me as a convenient shorthand that 25 the mark has to be of comparable quality; is that page 42 1 something we could use? 2 A. I accept that, yes. 3 Q. So let's just assume that's out of the way, the mark is 4 comparable quality. So a first individual, let's 5 personalise it in this case because it makes the 6 conversation easier. Mr Macpherson has assessed the 7 mark as being comparable quality, he's gone along and 8 compared it against a series of eliminations and he's 9 arrived at a conclusion on Y7 that Ms McKie is the 10 individual whose print this is. So he's arrived at that 11 conclusion. 12 He would then go to a second checker. I understand 13 in this case it happens to be you? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. So, first of all, the fact that he approaches you as the 16 second person, the first checker, first of all, you 17 would know that he has made an identification? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. Secondly, obviously, it's him who has made it. He's not 20 acting as the messenger? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. And I accept in this particular case that you were 23 unmoved but in 1997 there could be a discussion between 24 the first two examiners as to the conclusion to be 25 reached. page 43 1 A. Oh, yes, yes. 2 Q. So, therefore, the independence that emerges or that's 3 brought into play is no more than the qualifications and 4 the judgments of the individual and, indeed, his 5 preparedness to stand by his own conclusion, come what 6 may? 7 A. When you say "come what may", it's down to individual 8 responsibility to ensure that the processes that they 9 adopt are consistent and accurate and there's individual 10 responsibility to ensure that I can effectively 11 demonstrate and articulate what I did. 12 When I'm standing in the box, I've not got Hugh 13 Macpherson working me from the back saying, "Tell them 14 this, tell them that". I'm here to stand on my own two 15 feet and whether that is viewed as "come what may, you 16 will defend", if I am satisfied with my initial 17 analysis, if I am satisfied with the detail disclosed in 18 both that there's identification, it's not "come what 19 may"; it's my professional opinion. 20 Q. You may, in fact, in your answer there have provided an 21 encapsulation or very short way of looking at this. 22 Independence, the factor of independence that you are 23 speaking of, you have used the phrase on a number of 24 occasions, really boils down to the personal 25 responsibility of the individual practitioner. That's page 44 1 the independence factor that's in play in this 2 identification process; is that correct? 3 A. I would have to say that is correct, yes. 4 Q. If I move from 1997 to today, you may recollect that 5 your colleague, Mr Padden, spoke of there having been an 6 intention at some stage to have a degree on anonymity in 7 the process? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I understand that in 10 fact due to the manpower consideration that you have 11 mentioned that anonymity does not, in fact, occur. Some 12 paperwork is passed round that would enable you if you 13 are, for example, the second examiner to know that 14 someone, Mr Foley perhaps, has preceded you, has arrived 15 at a conclusion and has identified not only one 16 individual but for that one individual has identified 17 one digit, for example, a left thumb? 18 A. That's correct. Anonymity procedure was actually 19 brought in while Deputy Head, Robert Mackenzie, and 20 Quality Assurance Officer, Alan Dunbar, were still 21 practising in the bureau and it was unworkable. They 22 managed to get a degree of practices in place but nobody 23 was happy with it. To be perfectly honest, I understand 24 what you're referring to as independent but I take it as 25 a blatant affront to my professional integrity that I'm page 45 1 influenced by anybody. I will do what I do, what I'm 2 trained to do, I will come to a conclusion and I'm quite 3 happy to demonstrate and articulate that conclusion. 4 Basically, what's in place now again it's another 5 example of a more formalised approach but, in essence, 6 what is done now is what was done in 1997. First and 7 second checker, quite capable of having a discussion if 8 needs be. You know -- Mr Padden looked at a form that 9 accompanies the case, which is quite correct. It's 10 basically an office procedure. It's stamped as to the 11 date the first examiner has seen, the second examiner, 12 but enclosed in that envelope is all the case reference 13 papers and photographs. So it's essentially the same 14 process as what was in place in 1997. 15 Q. I am not trying to be confrontational hence why I was 16 avoiding a pejorative term such as integrity. I have 17 accepted without question and I'm grateful to have used 18 what is, in fact, a less confrontational term personal 19 responsibility but really that's what this independence 20 comes down to is the integrity and the personal 21 responsibility of the individual practitioner? 22 A. I believe I said that in one of my statements, that when 23 discussing the formulisation of the current forensic 24 services in Glasgow we now have standard operating 25 procedures. Each time has standard operating procedures page 46 1 relevant to their teams. The bureau as a whole for, 2 obviously, all aspects of bureau life there are standard 3 operating procedures. So, in essence, we are well 4 covered with processes and procedures, which is as it 5 should be. 6 However, the implication -- for those procedures and 7 processes to be conducted properly, it all comes down to 8 the integrity of the staff. It all comes down to the 9 ethics of the individual. Procedures can be abused, 10 like anything else. So the integrity and the ethics of 11 the staff has to be borne at in training, it has to be 12 emphasised the importance of what you're doing. So, 13 yes, it does come down to individual responsibility. 14 Q. What I want to do before we stop for the mid-morning 15 break is just to pick up something I heard you to say. 16 During the verification stage, even today 17 discussions could take place between two examiners? 18 A. You can have discussions between two examiners and you 19 can also have a formulised process known as facilitated 20 discussions. I think it was alluded to previously, 21 where, you know, two experts could have 14, one expert 22 might have 16. How do you progress? You're discussing 23 how do we, I think the phrase was used "tease out the 24 points" -- beyond belief that one on me but never 25 mind -- the same could happen today but it's to do with page 47 1 sufficient volume of characteristics in sequence and 2 agreement. I may decide I'm willing to take this to 3 court and speak to it. The second expert may come along 4 and say, "I'm not disputing that identification. I'm 5 just not wholly comfortable there's sufficient volume of 6 characteristics there". So there is forum for 7 discussion and there is an official formalised procedure 8 known as facilitated discussion. 9 Q. I am very grateful to you. That was exactly the sort of 10 situation I was trying to envisage either with Mr Padden 11 or Mr Foley when I discussed this. 12 The first examiner will have, in this example, 13 certified something as an identification. The second 14 examiner verifying that might, as you say, be in a 15 position where he says, "I'm not going to say it's not 16 an identification, but I'm not yet myself persuaded that 17 there is sufficient volume". 18 Would that play out as an informal discussion 19 between the two practitioners or would it always enter 20 into this formal process of a managed structure of 21 facilitated discussion? 22 A. You would initially approach the first examiner and the 23 chances are you would utilise the comparator and ask 24 them to demonstrate the identification. 25 One of the ways -- you don't walk out the page 48 1 classroom -- you walk out the classroom qualified as an 2 examiner but the classroom is not able to replicate 3 every conceivable avenue you might have to go down in 4 your fingerprint comparison process. That comes with 5 experience. 6 One of the ways that you develop your experience and 7 you develop your professionalism is engaging in 8 conversations with your fellow examiners and, in my 9 opinion, one of the best ways, if you are struggling 10 with an identification, if, yes, I see characteristics 11 in sequential agreement, I'm not disputing 12 identification, but I still don't have that feeling 13 there's sufficient volume in there for me to present at 14 court. So you enter into a discussion. You ask the 15 examiner to demonstrate. They should be able to, like I 16 said earlier, they should be able to demonstrate and 17 articulate what they did, how they did it. That should 18 resonate with the second examiner they should then -- it 19 should maybe then give them food for thought, for want 20 of a better phrase, that they will then return to their 21 own examination and attempt to see, they work in the 22 same areas as if they were working in different areas, 23 and attempt to satisfy themselves that there 24 is sufficient volume there for identification. 25 If they can't come to an agreement, then the option page 49 1 is open for a facilitated discussion. 2 Q. If I can reduce it down to a nutshell: two practitioners 3 might even today, in a sense, adjourn to the comparator 4 screen and if the first identifier is able to 5 demonstrate to the satisfaction of the second examiner 6 that there is indeed sufficient volume, then the second 7 examiner would agree with the identification and there 8 would be no need to convene a facilitated meeting. The 9 matter will just end at an informal, in a sense, private 10 conversation between the two examiners. 11 A. It would be a private conversation but it would be 12 documented in the diary page that the conversation had 13 taken place. 14 Q. So you would record in a diary page the fact that that 15 conversation had occurred? 16 A. Oh, yes. 17 MR MOYNIHAN: Perhaps that would be a good point to adjourn. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: We will adjourn until 11.50. 19 (11.33 am) 20 (A short break) 21 (11.52 am) 22 MR MOYNIHAN: Mr Geddes, I want just to complete the 23 question of the -- I have written down here "ACE-V" and 24 maybe I should just write "common sense". 25 I want to complete the discussion of that by looking page 50 1 at a particular part of what you have discussed in your 2 first statement in connection with facilitated 3 discussions. If I could ask you please to locate your 4 first statement, if you have it with you, and to look at 5 paragraph 113 in that statement. 6 A. Okay. 7 Q. In paragraph 113, you talk about a practice at some 8 stage if officers had a difference of opinion about the 9 numbers present in a mark the lower of the two numbers 10 would be accepted. 11 Was that a practice at one point in time? 12 A. The facilitated discussions refer to sufficiency of 13 volume of characteristics to enable identification. If 14 one examiner felt there was sufficient to progress and 15 another examiner was not confident that there was 16 sufficient there to progress as an ident and at the 17 initial stage when they approached the first examiner 18 they couldn't resolve whatever issues they had, it went 19 to a facilitated discussion. It would be oversaw by a 20 member of the Quality Assurance Team to ensure that both 21 sides were able to articulate what their difficulties 22 were and to ensure that each side was heard properly, 23 each was given a voice, basically. But if there was 24 still no resolving, then the practice was that if one 25 examiner felt it was not sufficient, then they went with page 51 1 the lowest denominator and, therefore, the mark was not 2 progressed and the identification process stopped there. 3 Q. So is this at the preliminary stage of what I have been 4 using as the shorthand, whether the mark is of 5 comparable quality or not? 6 A. No, it's -- after the first examiner has decided that 7 they're quite happy to assign ownership of that crime 8 scene mark to a particular individual, 100 per cent 9 certain on it, it's then went for the second check and 10 that particular examiner has felt there wasn't 11 sufficient volume, they were totally confident that 12 there was sufficient volume there to progress to an 13 ident, they've had the initial discussion and haven't 14 resolved whatever issues the second examiner obviously 15 had and it's then proceeded to the facilitated 16 discussion. 17 Now, up until quite recently, at the facilitated 18 discussion it was merely to ensure that both sides felt 19 as if they had had their say. Whatever the difficulties 20 that were pointed out, those were documented, they were 21 written up in the diary page. If they couldn't resolve 22 at that stage, then I believe the term was director's 23 ruling was invoked. Basically, they went with the 24 lowest denominator and the identification process 25 stopped on that particular mark. page 52 1 Q. So if the facilitated discussion took place and for 2 simplicity's sake we are talking of the first two 3 examiners, just for ease of simplicity, the facilitated 4 discussion takes place and the two examiners still 5 remain of a different opinion, then the process would 6 stop there? 7 A. Yes, the identification process would stop. 8 Q. So there's no question under that practice of the second 9 examiner being side-lined and others being called in? 10 A. Well, that's where the change has arisen. That was the 11 policy then. I was actually involved in a facilitated 12 discussion and I had a placed a paper to the Quality 13 Assurance Team, initially the onus was on the examiner 14 to prove the identification. So if the facilitated 15 discussion took place, the chances are the examiner 16 would have been asked to mark up the identification. 17 You could have progressed to photographic enlargements 18 where the examiner was asked to mark up what they saw. 19 I felt the ownership was spread evenly between the two 20 examiners that there should be -- the second examiner 21 should be able to demonstrate whatever issues they had 22 with a particular identification. 23 Now, on the comparator, obviously, that's not saved. 24 You can have your discussion, at the end of the 25 discussion the screen is wiped clean for the next page 53 1 examiner to come along, whatever. There is only two or 2 three of these in the bureau so we can't hog the 3 comparators. So the data's not saved; it's wiped clean. 4 I felt it would be best practice to have both examiners 5 to document what they considered was a correct 6 identification or what they considered were issues 7 arising from that comparison and that was the reason I 8 was at the meeting with the Quality Assurance Team. 9 They told me they'd read my paper. They were happy for 10 that to be potentially implemented. As to whether it 11 has or not, I'm not strictly 100 per cent on that. 12 But at that meeting they told me that the director's 13 ruling had now been done away with. They didn't go with 14 the lowest denominator. 15 The Unit Manager is a fingerprint practitioner and 16 it ultimately goes to the Unit Manager now and the Unit 17 Manager has the option of putting the glass on it and 18 forming her own opinion on it. She has the option of 19 merely taking the data presented by the first examiner 20 or the data presented by the second examiner and coming 21 to a conclusion on what avenue to take or, ultimately, 22 she can then -- she can send the data to A Other 23 qualified examiner and ask them what their opinion is. 24 Ultimately, the decision rests with the examiner. 25 So the first part we were talking about, it went to page 54 1 the lowest common denominator then, yes, you were right, 2 they couldn't then go to another examiner, but that 3 option has been brought back in. The option is there 4 now but, ultimately, its the Unit Manager's decision to 5 decide whether or not that case goes to another examiner 6 for their opinion. 7 Q. Do I take it that this departure from the lowest common 8 denominator, the director's rule, is a very recent 9 development? 10 A. Well, I have said there the Tuesday prior to that 11 statement so it must have been the beginning of the 12 year. I think it was February I gave my first 13 statement. So it would be turn of the year anyway. 14 Q. Because it is sufficiently recent you may not know the 15 answer to the next question, in which case we can ask 16 others. 17 If, for example, a facilitated discussion has 18 occurred and the second examiner, the one who is 19 doubtful, has remained doubtful and the second examiner 20 is going to drop out would that still be documented? 21 A. Oh, yes, yes. 22 Q. How would the eventually report for court be presented 23 in that situation? Do you know? 24 A. I'm not entirely sure, no. 25 Q. You look a bit puzzled or, in fact, sceptical in the page 55 1 answer you have given. Are you interested in knowing 2 from a professional point of view -- genuinely 3 interested in knowing from a professional point of view? 4 A. Yes. Ultimately the Crown Prosecution requires to have 5 all information relating to the fingerprint process. I 6 think what has to be borne in mind is that, even if the 7 Unit Manager ultimately decides on asking another 8 examiner for an opinion and they concur with the 9 identification, in which case it would go to the final 10 verification phase and you would -- it would ultimately 11 be left to another examiner to have a look at, you would 12 have the three examiners necessary to speak to that in 13 court but what has to be borne in mind is the second, 14 who, as you say, has now been pushed to the side, they 15 didn't dispute the identification. They expressed a 16 lack of confidence in sufficient volume being present 17 there. 18 If they dispute the identification that's a whole 19 different ballgame. It stops there and then and 20 straight to Quality Assurance. If you are looking at an 21 unknown print and a known mark and you are saying they 22 are identical and the next examiner comes along and 23 says, no, they're not, that's a different procedure. 24 Q. What interests me is we're talking about a verification 25 process, a verification of what we had reached agreement page 56 1 about before the adjournment is a subjective judgment? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. A subjective judgment on things about how relative, 4 about sufficient volume, for example. Here you have, 5 everyone who's involved in this process is eminently 6 well-qualified to reach an opinion and here we have one 7 individual who is saying, "I doubt that there is 8 sufficient volume". So, therefore, he is doubting, is 9 he not, that there is present there sufficiently common 10 characteristics to admit of the conclusion to 100 11 per cent accuracy that that mark is uniquely 12 individualised to one only person on the planet and that 13 is the accused or some other third party and it's a 14 verification process. 15 If it's going to court, is it not legitimate for all 16 those involved to know that one eminently qualified 17 individual has had doubts whether there is sufficient to 18 admit of the conclusion that that mark can be 19 individualised uniquely, for example, to an accused? 20 A. I wouldn't have a problem with the court knowing that 21 because, ultimately, you have individual examiners who 22 are willing to speak to it. It could be down to 23 experience, it could be down to interpretation, it could 24 be down to many factors. The ultimate factor for me is 25 they are not disputing the identification; they have page 57 1 found characteristics that occur in sequence and 2 agreement but what they are disputing is there's 3 sufficient volume for them to be wholly confident to the 4 exclusion of all others. 5 Q. I am interested in your choice of language. You say 6 that the doubter is not disputing the identification. 7 What you mean by that, surely, is that the doubter is 8 not saying it is a mis-identification. He is not saying 9 that. However, he is saying, "I cannot identify that as 10 uniquely the fingerprint of the accused". 11 A. Well, as you said yourself, it is a subjective opinion. 12 It is based on knowledge, training and experience and it 13 is down to the individual to be able to observe and 14 interpret that evidence. I wouldn't have a problem with 15 it being known in court that an individual examiner had 16 failed to conclude that it was a 100 per cent 17 identification. 18 As I said, the ultimate test of expert opinion 19 evidence is the court. It's down to the court to ensure 20 that the examiners who are speaking to it can 21 demonstrate it, can articulate it and their credibility 22 is such that that is accepted. 23 Q. As I said, I may have been incorrect in my reading of 24 your phrase when I understood you to be demonstrating a 25 degree of scepticism in relation to this change in page 58 1 practice from the director's rule, but are you 2 comfortable with the director's rule, that the lowest 3 common denominator having been dropped, as you would 4 understand it, in the practices of the bureau? 5 A. Comfortable with that being dropped because, ultimately, 6 it's down to the individual examiner. If they are happy 7 with that identification and if A Other examiner is able 8 to concur with that, then all right. 9 But you're saying should the courts be aware of 10 someone who is not 100 per cent confident. Should the 11 court's be prevented from hearing there is eminently 12 qualified fingerprint examiners who are willing to speak 13 to that as an identification. Ultimately, it is a 14 subjective opinion; it is based on knowledge, experience 15 and training and it is down to the individual observing 16 and interpreting that detail accurately and 17 consistently. 18 Q. Do you know if there is any procedure in place to ensure 19 that the prosecution authorities and the defence are 20 alerted to the fact that an individual has expressed 21 doubts and has been dropped out of the chain of 22 verification as a result? 23 A. I can't speak to that, no. As it's a recent change, I 24 couldn't be 100 per cent sure if that was the case or 25 not. page 59 1 Q. I'm grateful to you because that marks the point where I 2 will leave that because I can take that up with others 3 later. 4 If I move on then to another aspect, again, a fairly 5 generalised topic, and it relates to the manner in which 6 the identification exercise is carried out and relates 7 to the question of the use of the comparator screen. 8 We have a situation in which, again, a first 9 individual has made an identification. The first 10 examiner has made an identification and I would 11 understand, as you say, that the first examiner will 12 look at the mark itself, study it, then effect a 13 comparison with the known print? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. The process, if I understand it correctly, is the first 16 examiner will look at the two, the mark and the print, 17 under glass, that's using linen glasses? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. Then if there is any doubt that, for example, about, in 20 1997, counting the characteristics or today any 21 uncertainty, the first examiner might look at the matter 22 on the comparator screen? 23 A. Yes, the comparator is an aid to comparison. 24 Q. You may recollect that I asked your colleagues, 25 Mr Padden and Mr Foley, about the second, third and page 60 1 fourth persons involved and I come to refer to them as 2 the second, third and fourth checkers. 3 A. Correct, yes. 4 Q. My impression from their evidence was that they said 5 that it would be the case in practice that the second, 6 third and fourth person might first see the mark on the 7 comparator screen? 8 A. That's possible, yes. 9 Q. You say that's possible. That does occur in practice? 10 A. It does, yes. 11 Q. Equally, it may be that a second, third or fourth 12 checker might be satisfied by looking at the mark only 13 on the comparator screen without removing it to study 14 under glass? 15 A. They could do, yes. 16 Q. That has happened in the past? 17 A. That has happened, yes. 18 Q. Could that still happen today in practice? 19 A. Well, ultimately, as I said, first off, the comparator 20 is an aid to the comparison process. Nowadays the 21 comparator is still there but the examiner has the 22 option to use it if they so desire. There's no -- for 23 instance, if I go and mark it up on a screen and then 24 request a second check of that that doesn't happen. If 25 go to the comparator and satisfied myself I have page 61 1 identification it's all removed from the comparator and 2 returned to the case envelope. There's no indication 3 that I have actually utilised the comparator. So the 4 next individual is under -- doesn't know how I've come 5 to my conclusion. 6 Q. That's the point I was wanting to clarify with you. In 7 1997, it might be that successive individuals asked to 8 verify the original identification might view the mark 9 on the comparator screen? 10 A. Yes, yes. 11 Q. Whereas today are you indicating that that just never 12 happens? 13 A. It may happen, when we spoke earlier about initial 14 discussion between the first and second examiner, the 15 second examiner could request the first one to 16 illustrate it on the comparator for them. But 17 ultimately if the first examiner's satisfied with their 18 conclusion, then it's documented in the diary page but 19 the second examiner doesn't know whether they have 20 conducted that by a combination of under the linen glass 21 or on the comparator. 22 Q. If I can put it this way, if I am understanding you 23 correctly: when a first examiner concludes his 24 examination, he completes the diary page, he puts the 25 diary page, the photograph and the ten-print form in an page 62 1 envelope and it's that envelope that is passed to the 2 second examiner? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. So that you don't have, therefore, under that system a 5 situation in which successive individuals would simply 6 come along and see the mark and the ten-print form ready 7 mounted on a comparator screen. 8 The system is quite different now? 9 A. It is. 10 Q. However, as you have correctly said, repeating what you 11 told me earlier, it may be that there is a discussion 12 between two or perhaps even more individuals around a 13 comparator screen? 14 A. Currently? 15 Q. Currently. Later -- 16 A. Well, the facilitated discussion may involve two or more 17 individuals but initially the two examiners would have a 18 professional discussion at the comparator -- 19 potentially. 20 Q. If I can just then make it quite clear in relation to 21 the marks that we are interested in, first of all, if I 22 show you XF, and that is CO1987. I think you may have 23 seen this in the course of the Inquiry. This is the 24 original marked up image of XF with some writing on the 25 image page and then writing on the back. page 63 1 So far as this particular image is concerned, there 2 are two identifications -- no, sorry. I have confused 3 it with QI2. 4 So far as XF is concerned there is the word "screen" 5 in the right-hand side, there are then initials 6 underneath that and I understand the initials to be 7 Mr Macpherson, yourself, Mr McKenna and now, we 8 understand, Mr Padden? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. So far as your initials are concerned, are those 11 initials written by you or are they in the hand of 12 somebody else? 13 A. No, they will be my initials, yes. 14 Q. So we have seen in fact in this particular instance you 15 have personally written your initials on the photograph? 16 A. I can't recall physically doing it but it certainly 17 resembles my initials. It certainly represents my 18 involvement with that process. 19 Q. The word "screen" being there, do you recognise the 20 handwriting of the word "screen"? Is that 21 Mr Macpherson, you, Mr McKenna or Mr Padden? 22 A. It looks like Mr Macpherson's. 23 Q. The use of the word "screen" means that at some stage in 24 the process this image has been studying on a comparator 25 screen? page 64 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. Do you leave open the possibility that you might, in 3 fact, have viewed XF only on the comparator screen and 4 not studied it under glass? 5 A. I think the important thing to remember is that I would 6 only initial or sign if I was fully satisfied with 7 identification. So as to what I physically done and 8 whether it was on the comparator or whether it was a 9 combination of the both I can't recall. But I have 10 endorsed that as an appropriate identification and 11 that's what's important. 12 Q. But is it at least possible that you would have arrived 13 at that conclusion by studying only on the comparator 14 screen? 15 A. It's possible. 16 Q. And while we are still looking at that particular issue, 17 if I can bring up the other image, which is QI2 which is 18 DB0001. We will simply speed through to the third page 19 to begin with. Stop there. 20 There's a mention of bags or crystal bags. Is this 21 a crystal bag? 22 A. That's a crystal bag yes. 23 Q. Or at least a photograph of one and it says: 24 "QI2, part of identified as the deceased." 25 Then it has Mr Macpherson's initials. page 65 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. What was the practice about use of these bags? 3 A. It just merely held the relevant photographs. You would 4 receive a bundle of photographs in and your initial 5 practice with the photographs was to decide what was 6 fragmentary and insufficient. So the idea is to reduce 7 your initial bundle of crime scene marks to a manageable 8 level if possible. So your first port of call is 9 fragmentary and insufficient, what photographs don't 10 contain sufficient volume that enable you to progress to 11 the comparison phase they would be removed and contained 12 in a crystal bag like that and highlighted. For 13 instance, if they came from A to Z, a bundle A to Z, it 14 would be highlighted A to Z, fragmentary and 15 insufficient marks. 16 Any marks that were subsequently eliminated or 17 identified they would be removed from what would be 18 known as the outstanding bundle and you would have 19 crystal bags marked with "eliminated as", whatever, 20 "identified as", whatever, and ultimately you had one 21 bag that was the outstanding marks. 22 Q. If we then go on to the next page, page 4, and bring up 23 page 4 and page 5 side-by-side. 24 Do you recognise this as the image of QI2? 25 A. Yes. page 66 1 Q. On this occasion it's the reverse where there is detail 2 written of those who have been involved. 3 "Deceased's on screen, 31/01/97", with initials 4 below and then: 5 "Accused's on screen", same date, initials below. 6 Your initials appear so far as deceased's is 7 concerned as the third set? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. And so far as the accused on screen is concerned, the 10 second set? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. Would this be in your own handwriting that you 13 initialled the photograph? 14 A. It doesn't appear to be, no. 15 Q. That does not? 16 A. No, no. 17 Q. We have understood that the practice could be -- correct 18 me if I'm wrong -- that individuals who have viewed a 19 mark on a comparator screen would initial the comparator 20 screen at the end of their comparison and then at the 21 end of the identification process someone would write on 22 the back of the photograph to transpose from the 23 comparator screen to a permanent record the initials of 24 those who had been involved in the process. That was 25 a practice? page 67 1 A. That's correct, yes. 2 Q. From the order, if one accepts that the order is 3 contemporaneous and accurate, might imply that the order 4 of examiners was different for the two different 5 individuals? 6 A. It certainly infers that, yes, that the order was 7 different. 8 Q. Again, the narrative above the initials is: 9 "Deceased's on screen, accused's on screen." 10 The use of the term "on screen" means that the 11 comparator has been involved in part of that process? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Again, do you have a recollection of whether you viewed 14 QI2 only on the comparator without studying it under 15 glass or is it you are uncertain about that? 16 A. I couldn't actually recollect. I mean, the option is 17 there. The screen could be marked up, an individual 18 could come along, see what's on the screen, wipe it off 19 take the mark off, go away to their desk, come back 20 again and mark it up once they were happy. I couldn't 21 recollect as to whether I signed it only on the 22 comparator or used a combination of both. 23 Q. So, again, because there was a practice at that time 24 where a second, third or fourth checker might only look 25 at a mark on the comparator it is possible that you page 68 1 personally only viewed this mark on the comparator? 2 A. It's a possibility. 3 Q. The second part of this I wanted to ask you about picks 4 up something you have just said. 5 As a second, third or fourth checker of an 6 identification of something that's already mounted on 7 the comparator screen, you might arrive with somebody 8 else's markings already on the screen. 9 A. That's correct, yes. 10 Q. And you would see what that individual has marked? 11 A. You could, yes. 12 Q. But you would wipe it off? 13 A. Well, it's incumbent on the individual to ensure that 14 they can actually satisfy themselves that identification 15 is present. 16 Q. Again, taking without question what you said earlier on, 17 that the second, third and fourth checkers have 18 professional integrity and personal responsibility, they 19 are not going to accept something just simply because 20 someone else has reached that view. Why is it necessary 21 for them to actually wipe the screen? Why can't they 22 just view with integrity what their colleague has 23 already done and verify, very precisely verify, what the 24 first checker has done; in other words, to confirm that 25 in 1997 his 16 points are indeed in sequence and page 69 1 agreement? 2 A. Do you mean the first checker illustrates it on the 3 comparator, leaves their markings up and the second 4 checker comes along and merely agrees with those 5 particular markings? 6 Q. What I mean by first checker, I've used the first person 7 as the original identifier. The second, third and 8 fourth are verifying. They are the checkers. 9 What I mean is the first person has identified and 10 have marked up on the screen the 16 points he has found 11 or she has found that have enabled them to reach the 12 conclusion it's an identification. 13 The second person comes along to verify that, finds 14 the markings on the screen. Now, as I've said, I'm not 15 in any way questioning the integrity of the individual 16 or the personal responsibility of the individual, that 17 individual is going to look at this properly and 18 responsibly? 19 A. Okay. 20 Q. But what is wrong with the person who has that 21 independence and integrity and responsibility, what is 22 wrong with him studying the 16 points marked by the 23 identifier directly to verify the opinion that the first 24 person has reached? 25 A. Quite simply some are more -- less heavy-handed with a page 70 1 felt tip pen than others. Ultimately, what you are 2 marking on the screen is what you see as the location of 3 particular ridge characteristics. Sometimes that can be 4 obliterated by a felt tip pen. You have to ensure that 5 what's there does actually exist. So you could go 6 through each individual mark or mark of the felt tip pen 7 that's been placed, if you can satisfy yourself by all 8 means. Personally, no, I'd rather wipe it off and 9 ensure that the characteristics that they're 10 highlighting with the marker pen do actually exist. 11 Q. So when you say as a second checker you can see the 12 markings of the first person, does that simply come to 13 no more than this: that they are visually present? 14 A. Well, in the opinion of the first examiner that's what 15 they considered necessary to demonstrate an 16 identification. So that's what they see. Ultimately, 17 it's down to the checker to test that. Is that there? 18 That's what I said earlier. 19 You spoke about anonymity and blind comparisons. 20 Ultimately, it's not just verify and the conclusion, you 21 have to test and make sure everything is there. You are 22 testing, ultimately, to disprove. Is it there? 23 Q. When you say that someone can see the markings, was 24 there a practice where the second, third or fourth 25 checker, when they observed markings, to study them at page 71 1 all? 2 A. Well, the markings would be there so you could look at 3 them and decide, oh, they are they working in that 4 particular area or working in that area but, ultimately, 5 it should be wiped clean and the individual carries out 6 their own analysis and comparison. 7 If they are comfortable on the comparator then by 8 all means carry on. If not, remove it and take it to 9 the desk and carry out the comparison there. 10 Q. Do I take it then form what you said that the second -- 11 again, we'll keep it simple -- the first identifier has 12 made markings on the screen, the second identifier comes 13 along and the markings are still there, the second 14 examiner can still study and would study the markings at 15 least to the level of deciding that the first examiner 16 has worked, for example, on a particular corner of the 17 mark? 18 A. Yes, that's a possibility, yes. 19 Q. You say it's a possibility. Did that actually happen in 20 practice? 21 A. Well, take, for instance, the discussions Hugh 22 Macpherson and I had over the markings up on the 23 comparator. We certainly had discussions over 24 particular areas that he was using, over the particular 25 detail that he was observing and interpreting. But page 72 1 ultimately that had no bearing upon -- unless I can 2 replicate it, unless I can satisfy myself that the 3 detail that Mr Macpherson has observed and interpreted 4 that I could do it to the same sufficient level of 5 confidence, it's immaterial what he marks up. So unless 6 I can satisfy myself it makes no difference. 7 It might lead to the fact that, "Oh, Hugh, you are 8 working over there. I never considered that area", or 9 whatever, along those lines, "I'll have a look at that". 10 Q. I am leaving aside the fact that you say that this would 11 not in fact influence you. What I am actually trying to 12 establish is what the practice was. We will leave for a 13 separate discussion what influence it may or may not 14 have had on individuals. I just want to know what the 15 practice was. 16 A. I could encapsulate that straightforward for you: there 17 was no laid out practice for operating the comparator. 18 You either signed the screen, you could sign the back of 19 the photograph, the individual could sign the back of 20 the photograph after seeing who had all signed the 21 screen, you could go up to the screen, you could sign it 22 on the screen, you could take it off the screen, go back 23 to your desk and satisfy yourself, return to the screen, 24 mark it up. There was no laid-down specific practice 25 relating to the comparator. The comparator was and page 73 1 always has been an aid to comparison. 2 Q. The one variable I was interested in was missed in that 3 long list of possibilities. The markings that had been 4 put there by the first examiner could be used by the 5 successive examiners for whatever purposes they might 6 wish. Some may not use them at all and may wipe them 7 immediately, others may study them to more or less 8 effect as part of their verification process? 9 A. Well, I can only speak from personal experience and I 10 would ultimately test what was on that comparator to 11 ensure I could actually see what they could see and I 12 could justify what was there. I can't speak for any 13 other examiner. 14 Q. What you say is you would ultimately do that. I am 15 looking at the intermediate stage. You might actually, 16 as part of your exercise, start with the markings of 17 your predecessor, at the very least, to get a clue as to 18 the area of the mark that he was working on? 19 A. Yes, you could study what was there, first of all. 20 Q. That's fine. 21 The final point I wanted to ask about, not the final 22 point for you but the final point before I pass over to 23 Miss Jones because she has limited time, if there is no 24 objection to this, the final point before I come to the 25 specifics of Y7, is something that you mention in page 74 1 paragraph 60 of your original statement. Perhaps if you 2 could look at paragraph 60 of your original statement. 3 A. Okay. 4 Q. What you say in paragraph 60 is that Hugh Macpherson and 5 you were the two examiners dedicated to the fingerprint 6 side of the Marion Ross case. 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. It's the next sentence that interests me: 9 "In such investigations it was normal for the most 10 senior member of the team to play an active part in the 11 examination of the marks." 12 Is that correct? 13 A. That's correct, yes. 14 Q. Is it the case that the senior man -- that's 15 Mr Macpherson, he was the senior man? 16 A. He was, yes. 17 Q. Was it the case that he would be the person who would 18 view first the marks that were potentially significant? 19 A. Not as a rule, no. If Mr Macpherson was available, as I 20 said, he played an active role in the fingerprint 21 comparisons, obviously. If he was available then he 22 would ultimately, could potentially first check. 23 Q. Because what it goes on to say is: 24 "Of course, we worked split shifts but assuming Hugh 25 was on duty and was not committed to other work ..." so, page 75 1 in other words, assuming that you are actually both 2 available to do the particular task, working together 3 what you say is: 4 "It would be normal for him to be the first to 5 examine potentially significant marks and to decide 6 whether there was sufficient detail within the marks for 7 an identification." 8 Is that, in fact, the case? He would be the first 9 to examine marks that were potentially significant? 10 A. If he was available, yes, he could do, yes. What I was 11 trying to say there was that Hugh was an active -- these 12 statements were in relation to questions sent to me. So 13 what I was trying to convey was Hugh and I were 14 dedicated fingerprint personnel. Although he was the 15 Principal Fingerprint Officer, he wasn't merely doing 16 liaison work or paperwork, et cetera. He had an active 17 role to play in the fingerprint comparisons. 18 So ultimately if, yes, the police highlighted 19 specific marks and said, "We'd like these done", then if 20 he was available then, yes, he would do it. That's 21 merely all I was saying. It wasn't the fact, "Well, 22 here's a potentially significant mark. Hugh's not in. 23 We'd better wait until he comes in at 12 or comes in 24 tomorrow, case doesn't move until Mr Macpherson's 25 available to view a mark". No, that's not -- I can see page 76 1 where you're coming from with what's said there but 2 that's not what took place. 3 Q. Maybe in fact you haven't seen where I'm coming from. 4 First of all, I accept the implication of what you say. 5 The structure of the answers reflects the questions you 6 were asked by the person who took the statement; so 7 that's why I want to just give you a chance to comment 8 because maybe my perspective is slightly different. 9 I take your point that you're not going to simply 10 await Mr Macpherson if he's not in the office. You have 11 also, I think, incidentally answered one of the points I 12 had because the sentence when it says that 13 "Mr Macpherson would view potentially significant marks" 14 had left me to ask how would anybody know that a mark 15 was potentially significant and you have I think given 16 the answer that you might receive some information from 17 the police -- 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. -- if a particular mark was significant? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. So there would be external information that would come 22 in that would identify -- sorry, I will avoid the word 23 "identify" -- that would focus on particular marks as a 24 priority? 25 A. That's correct, yes. page 77 1 Q. If I understand it correctly -- and this is the key 2 point I wanted to ask -- if you and Mr Macpherson were 3 present at the same time and both take up that police 4 request simultaneously, it would be normal, would it, 5 that Mr Macpherson would be the first? He would precede 6 you in carrying out the identification? 7 A. Yes, if we were both on shift that day, if we were both 8 free, then Mr Macpherson would take the lead as Senior 9 Fingerprint Examiner on that case. 10 Q. Was that not just personal to him, was that the practice 11 within the bureau generally that the senior person 12 responsible for the case, if available, would be the 13 first to examine marks that were potentially 14 significant? 15 A. I wouldn't say it was practice. I mean, that was the 16 first huge special case I'd actually worked on. So, no, 17 I wouldn't say it was practice. 18 Hugh Macpherson's a hand-on examiner. He likes to 19 get involved in the fingerprint comparisons, quite 20 rightly so, and if we were both on there's nothing 21 untoward of the Senior Examiner taking the lead in 22 carrying out the initial first check. 23 Q. What about today under the working arrangements today? 24 Is there any practice or regularity for the senior 25 person who's involved in the examination to be the first page 78 1 to examine marks of significance? 2 A. Well, the procedure has changed in respect that at that 3 time there was no Serious Crime Unit at the Fingerprint 4 Bureau. That unit had been done away with and the teams 5 have been split up to have geographical 6 responsibility -- well, for specific geographical 7 areas -- and that included all crimes. 8 So, for instance, I was at Team 4 which 9 geographically responsibility for R Division, U Division 10 and X Division and Dumfries and Galloway and that 11 included all crimes. Prior to that being implemented, 12 we did have what was known at the time as a Special Case 13 Section and a Document Fraud Section. That was all done 14 away with and all cases were amalgamated to a specific 15 team. 16 So in that respect we had Mr Macpherson as Lead 17 Examiner. Ultimately today we have the Serious Crime 18 Unit which deals specifically with serious crimes that 19 are brought into the bureau. 20 Q. Are you aware of any frequency with which it may be that 21 the more senior person in the office involved in the 22 case was the first to compare particular marks of 23 significance? 24 A. Frequency? No, I couldn't. I couldn't hazard a guess 25 as to frequency. If you were hands-on and get involved page 79 1 in the case, then ultimately chances are you could be 2 first to check the marks. There was no laid down 3 practice: Hugh Macpherson was Senior Examiner, he will 4 first check marks; Alister Geddes may come later. There 5 was nothing like that. 6 Q. If I conclude this particular topic and then it may be a 7 point for me to sort of pass over. 8 In relation to identifying marks as potentially 9 significant, could you have, please, form 13B which is 10 DB0251. This is the form as we understand that relates 11 to the batch that includes the mark QI2. 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Would this be the type of information that might come 14 into the bureau that would identify that batch of marks 15 as potentially significant? 16 A. Yes, you could receive information on the form 13. 17 Obviously the SOCOs who would have been at the actual 18 locus of the crime would have knowledge from the Senior 19 Investigating Officer, et cetera. So you could 20 potentially receive information on the form 13. It was 21 more often than not the inquiry team would have a 22 liaison officer who would be phoning in. They would 23 have a productions officer. If it was a particularly 24 large case with a volume of eliminations, et cetera, 25 then that officer would be coming in and out the office page 80 1 with the eliminations to pass on, et cetera. 2 Q. I take your point that form 13B simply serves as an 3 illustration. The information that identifies a 4 particular mark as potentially significant could come 5 from a variety of sources and come through a variety of 6 means? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. However, just looking at this as an illustration with a 9 piece of information like this coming in, "ident 10 required for deceased", is that the type of information 11 coming in that might result in Mr Macpherson being the 12 first to check that particular batch? 13 A. Well, it's certainly highlighting the deceased as to be 14 the first individual to be prioritised to be compared 15 against those particular marks and, yes, that could have 16 resulted in Mr Macpherson -- I would have received that 17 form 13B possibly and I would have highlighted it to 18 Mr Macpherson as Senior Examiner that this information 19 is contained in it and it may have resulted in a phone 20 call to the inquiry team -- I can't recall that as yet 21 today -- but ultimately all that's asking us for a 22 prioritisation of the deceased against those marks. 23 Q. I am not going to go over those sort of questions 24 because you have been very clear that you regard as an 25 attack on your integrity the suggestion that anyone page 81 1 might construe that as an instruction to Fingerprint 2 Officers to arrive at a certain conclusion. 3 A. Oh, you could certainly have sinister connotations 4 attached to it. I mean, "ident required" certainly 5 reads as an instruction but ultimately the examiner can 6 only go by the detail disclosed in the mark and if that 7 matches the deceased, then you will have ident. If it 8 doesn't, then you won't. 9 I mean, much has been made of this. If I had a 10 pound for every time I phoned out a negative result to a 11 police officer and was met with the answer, "No, it's 12 got to be him". "I'm sorry, it's not". "Well, it's 13 got to be. We've got CCTV evidence". "Well, I'm sorry, 14 it doesn't match". One week you could be the hero: the 15 next week you're just a useless lab rat. That's how it 16 goes. Unless the detail disclosed in the mark matches 17 that of their potential red-hot suspect, it's not going 18 to be ident. 19 Q. I am not going to attack your integrity at all, but what 20 I want to do is simply to see this as an example of the 21 type of information that from your perspective the type 22 of information that may come in from the police or from 23 other sources that enables the Fingerprint Officers to 24 prioritise their work. 25 A. That's correct. page 82 1 Q. And you would be read nothing more into it than that? 2 A. No, to me it would only result in the deceased being 3 first checked against those particular marks. 4 MR MOYNIHAN: Sir, I'm not, I think, going to conclude on a 5 point that would enable Miss Jones to question Mr Geddes 6 and I know she has limited availability. So this would 7 be an appropriate point to allow her to intervene if 8 that's acceptable. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Miss Jones, I gather you have difficulties 10 this afternoon so I am quite content, if it is questions 11 about the evidence that has been given to date by this 12 witness -- 13 MISS JONES: Yes, sir. It's really about practice and 14 procedure at SCRO and I'm grateful for my learned friend 15 allowing me to ask questions at this stage. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 17 Cross-examined by MISS JONES 18 Q. Mr Geddes, you talked a bit about the structure of SCRO 19 and the SPSA and the Serious Crime Squad and Volume 20 Crime Squad that's now been introduced. 21 In terms of shift patterns and the number of experts 22 that would work at any one time, can you tell us briefly 23 about what shifts there are and how many experts would 24 be on at any one time? 25 A. In current practice? page 83 1 Q. Yes. 2 A. Ultimately, no. It would be a guesstimate because 3 currently I work night shift. There's a Special Case 4 Unit and there's teams -- I think there's six teams 5 altogether, variously made up of between five or six 6 officers. 7 As to the shift patterns, as I say, I myself is 8 night shift, there's constant day shift and there's 9 various vagaries amongst the shift pattern system. 10 Q. Even if you could just tell us how many -- are you on 11 constant night shift? 12 A. I'm a constant night shift, yes. 13 Q. How many people work with you on that shift? 14 A. The vast majority of the time just myself. 15 Q. I'm just interested to compare the practice you can tell 16 us about now with the practice that might go on during 17 the day in terms of interaction with other experts. But 18 your position is that you work constant night shift and 19 you generally would be on just by yourself. So 20 you would leave your notes and diary entries for 21 colleagues coming in the next day? 22 A. That's correct, yes. 23 Q. You were also asked about the change from numeric to 24 non-numeric and about the numbers of people who, if you 25 like, transferred over to the new system. I don't know page 84 1 if you are able to tell us how much experts who worked 2 under the numeric system now also work under the 3 non-numeric system? 4 A. All experts that work for the forensic services of the 5 SPSA operate under the non-numeric system. 6 Q. Are you able to say how many have been there since 2006? 7 A. I couldn't, no. Sorry. 8 Q. Okay. 9 The next question I wanted to ask you about was 10 what's the called the dire and crucial rule. I don't 11 know if you are able to tell us how often that was used 12 where a legal agent said a dire and crucial applies in 13 this occasion and therefore less than 16 points are 14 acceptable. 15 A. Unfortunately, I'm not a member of management so I don't 16 have access to those particular statistics. Ultimately, 17 the procedure was in place for it to be used by the 18 Crown Prosecution Service, as was the strong suspicion, 19 the 10 in 10s. As to how often they were used, sorry, I 20 couldn't say. 21 Q. You were asked about the number of bureaux and I think 22 you said there were three bureaux: Glasgow, Edinburgh 23 and Dundee. Is there also one in Aberdeen? 24 A. Aberdeen, sorry, yes. Forensic services there. 25 Q. You mentioned the strong suspicion concept, if you like. page 85 1 Do you know if that's something that only applied in the 2 Glasgow Bureau or applied across Scotland? 3 A. Oh, I couldn't say. My experience was it was there and 4 ultimately I worked in the Glasgow Bureau. I would have 5 assumed that it was the same throughout Scotland as we 6 were ultimately the Scottish Fingerprint Service. So I 7 would assume, but I couldn't say for definite. 8 Q. And you've only ever worked in the Glasgow Bureau? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. Moving on to the questions you were asked about level of 11 certainty required, if you like, of whether a 12 fingerprint was a match or not, just asking you to 13 expand on that a bit, when going through that process 14 are you talking about degrees of probability or are you 15 talking about certainty? Does the question of 16 probability come into it at all when you're making an 17 assessment? 18 A. No. I'm going by the detail disclosed by the mark. I'm 19 working on the scientific basis of uniqueness and 20 permanence and I am applying my knowledge and experience 21 to interpret the detail disclosed in the mark with the 22 detail disclosed in the print. If the detail occurs in 23 sequence and agreement, then I have identification. I 24 don't deal with probability. 25 I assign ownership or I don't. I don't say "could page 86 1 be that person". Ultimately if I say it could be that 2 person, someone else could say, "Well, it might not be 3 that person". I'd have to accept that. But I wouldn't 4 progress that. I wouldn't give that as a result. If I 5 couldn't satisfy myself that I had an identification, I 6 wouldn't progress it. 7 Q. Thank you. 8 You also gave some evidence about informal 9 discussions that take place between colleagues about 10 marks. Do I take it from your earlier evidence, on the 11 basis that you only work alone, you yourself wouldn't be 12 involved in those informal discussions? 13 A. Yes, I could be involved in the discussions because 14 ultimately I would have to come in and speak to whatever 15 the issue was. I'm not in a cocoon. I'm merely in the 16 same bureau. So I have to show some form of come and go 17 and if there was an issue with a particular 18 identification, whether I'm the first checker or the 19 first examiner or whatever, then I'll have to meet with 20 my fellow colleague and try and resolve whatever issues 21 have been raised. 22 Q. Is that then part of standard operating procedures or is 23 that a practice, if I can differentiate the two to you, 24 in the Glasgow office? 25 A. It's a standard operating procedure, as far as I'm page 87 1 aware. The initial discussion takes place between the 2 two officers in an attempt to resolve any issues that 3 have arose. Ultimately, it's documented in the diary 4 page and if they can't resolve it, then it goes straight 5 to quality assurance who will instigate a 6 facilitated discussion. 7 Q. Is that process called QID? You've heard of a process 8 called QID, which I think is questioned identification? 9 A. Never heard of it. 10 Q. You have not heard of it? 11 A. No. 12 Q. The other question I wanted to ask you was about the 13 evidence you gave about the director's rule. Is that 14 part of standard operating procedures? 15 A. As far as I was led to believe from the Quality 16 Assurance Team, the director's ruling no longer exists. 17 Q. When was that taken away then? Do you know -- 18 A. As I explained to Mr Moynihan, it was the week before I 19 gave my statement -- which ultimately would have been 20 February I believe, beginning of February -- I had a 21 meeting with the Quality Assurance Team and they gave me 22 that information. 23 Q. Thank you. 24 You gave some evidence about the use of the 25 comparator machine and one person using it after the page 88 1 other. Is there a standard operating procedure for use 2 of comparator machines now? 3 A. As I explained, the comparator is merely an aid to 4 comparison and ultimately subsequent checkers don't know 5 if the individual has utilised that. It's merely an aid 6 to comparison. The conclusion is documented in the 7 diary page and is passed on. 8 Q. Then finally, just going back to the issue of quality 9 assurance, are you familiar with what specific quality 10 assurance measures are in place now in SPSA? 11 A. In relation to my work I would like to think I'm 12 up-to-date, yes. 13 Q. Can you tell us a bit about your knowledge of the 14 quality assurance procedures that are in place now? 15 A. In respect of what? 16 Q. Of the identification of fingerprints in general. I 17 think you told us -- certainly in your statement you've 18 explained about the almost examination every year that 19 takes place of individuals to ensure they meet the 20 required standard. 21 A. Sorry, you'll need to refer me back to that. 22 Q. Am I right in saying that there is some kind of 23 assessment every year -- 24 A. Oh, yes, yes. We have Collaborative Testing Services of 25 America provide competency tests for the experts within page 89 1 the bureau. These are oversaw by the Quality Assurance 2 Team, but it's an anonymity procedure in respect of 3 outwith the bureau. The bureau receive the results and 4 the individuals are informed as to how they've done in 5 the test. 6 There's also continual professional development 7 courses, which go on at various times throughout the 8 year. Various aspects are looked at on these courses 9 and that involves all bureaux throughout the SPSA 10 service (so there's an intermingling from Aberdeen, 11 Dundee, Glasgow) and that goes on obviously throughout 12 the year as well. 13 Q. Do you know if the assessments that you have told us 14 about are carried out in any other jurisdictions; if 15 they are carried out in England, for instance? I don't 16 know if you are able to tell us that. 17 A. I couldn't say for certain, sorry. 18 Q. Dip sampling: are you aware of the dip sampling 19 procedure? 20 A. Yes, dip sampling does take place with the Quality 21 Assurance Team. Yes, there's also internal and external 22 audits. The bureau is ISO accredited and subjected to 23 internal audits carried out by individuals within the 24 bureau and ultimately by external audits carried out by 25 people recommended by the ISO. page 90 1 Q. Are you able to tell us what percentage of 2 identifications are dip sampled? 3 A. I couldn't say. You would have to ask the Quality 4 Assurance Team. 5 Q. Just finally clarifying the question of where there 6 is -- I don't use the word "dispute" in the technical 7 sense, but if there is discussion about the 8 identification of a print, I think you talked about the 9 informal discussion and then a QID process. 10 Am I right in saying that there is another stage to 11 that, that if it's not resolved at that stage it will 12 immediately leave the bureau. Is that right? 13 A. Are we referring to disputed identifications or ones 14 that are not sufficient volume to progress? 15 Q. Let's work with the latter first. If there's not 16 sufficient volume to progress, what happens? 17 A. My understanding is that the Unit Manager will 18 ultimately make the decision. The Unit Manager, as a 19 practising Fingerprint Officer, can either view the data 20 themselves or they can view the data provided by the two 21 individuals concerned or ultimately she can give to 22 another examiner. 23 As to whether that's within our bureau or within the 24 SPSA Forensic Services as a whole, I wouldn't like to 25 say for definite. I would imagine it would include the page 91 1 SPSA Forensic Services as a whole. The question of ID 2 procedure, as far as I can recollect, if there was a 3 suspected mis-identification, then it would go to a 4 panel of Fingerprint Experts and whether that was drawn 5 from -- well, I would assume it would be drawn from 6 outwith the bureau. Whether it was drawn from within 7 the Forensic Services of SPSA, again, I couldn't say for 8 definite. 9 MS JONES: Thank you. That is all I have. Thank you very 10 much. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm mot sure whether you would like to 12 resume. 13 MR MOYNIHAN: I can, sir, and just take up the time until 14 1.00 if that is convenient. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 16 Examined by MR MOYNIHAN (continued) 17 Q. Mr Geddes, if I resume, we have been talking about 18 photographs. I just wanted to move on now to the 19 recording of matters in the case envelope. 20 You said that in your own statement at paragraph 77, 21 your original one, that the recording of initials on the 22 photograph is not that significant as far as you are 23 concerned? 24 A. No, ultimately it's merely a tracking record. If I 25 could put it into context, ultimately what's on the case page 92 1 envelope the Fingerprint Examiner sends a case envelope 2 what's been identified as documented on the front -- 3 well, was back in '97 -- documented on the front of the 4 case envelope. 5 If you're dealing with the volume crime, the SOCO 6 can be quite specific on marks that they are going to 7 retrieve from that particular crime. For instance, if 8 it's a house break-in, they are going to ask 9 legitimate questions, point of entry, did they get in, 10 did the perpetrator touch anything, did anything move? 11 They are going to try and narrow the parameters of what 12 they are ultimately going to try and retrieve 13 finger-marks from. So in volume crime, you're only 14 possibly going to have 5/10 photographs contained in the 15 case envelope. So you could actually complete -- the 16 first examiner could complete all work necessary before 17 passing on and would ultimately just sign up the case 18 envelope. 19 If you have a special case (for instance, the murder 20 at 43 Irvine Road) there was over 400 photographs 21 receive. If you are able to identify to get a -- 22 whether it's from information received that you have 23 prioritised the comparison of that mark and you are able 24 to identify, then it's professionally incumbent on you, 25 I would suggest, to get that checked, verified and page 93 1 phoned out. 2 So one way of doing that is to isolate the mark from 3 the whole case envelope procedure if you're using the 4 comparator. Ultimately if you pass it round manually, 5 you're merely looking to get that mark checked, signed 6 up and phoned out. So you put the initials on the back 7 of the photograph merely as a tracking record: yes, that 8 mark has been seen by these experts, these experts are 9 satisfied that it's an identification, you can phone 10 out. 11 Q. If we're looking at XF, we must be clear when you say 12 what's recorded in the photograph's not that directly 13 relevant, you would accept that XF having been phoned 14 out following the writing on the back of that 15 photograph, Mr Asbury was detained and held in custody 16 in part as a result of that identification? 17 A. That decision's ultimately for the police to make. 18 They've asked us -- or I don't know specifically if they 19 did in that particular mark -- but they've asked us to 20 prioritise a mark, we prioritise it, we come to a 21 conclusion on it, we pass it on. If ultimately the 22 police decide "We're going to act on that", then that's 23 their decision to take. 24 Q. The case envelope, if we just look at that, is DB0529. 25 As you've said, this is literally a white envelope, is page 94 1 it? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. That would contain the identified marks which are listed 4 in the first table on the right-hand side under the very 5 helpful description "marks identified". 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. Then beneath it will be the initials or, sorry, the 8 signature of Mr Macpherson with the date of 9 14th March 1997? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. Might that be the date on which he is entering up the 12 detail on the envelope or do you not know? 13 A. I would assume if he's dated that as 14th March 1997 14 that's when he physically sat down to complete the case 15 envelope. 16 Q. Then a number of individuals sign and you are the second 17 one who signs below "checked by"? 18 A. Well, third I believe. In the third place, yes. 19 Q. I apologise. That's my lack of clarity. You're the 20 second one in the line "checked by". 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Mr Stewart's the first, then yourself followed by 23 Mr McKenna? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. Then we understand there are initials of others below page 95 1 that perhaps those of Ms McBride? 2 A. It certainly looks like it, yes. 3 Q. That then gives a total of five signatures on that 4 envelope. Four are required for court. Can you explain 5 why there would be five signatures on this particular 6 envelope? 7 A. Ultimately at the end of the case there may have been 8 marks I wasn't involved in. I'm not too sure. It may 9 be to do with Y7 that Fiona McBride was asked to sign 10 the envelope if she was the checker on Y7. 11 Q. The fact is Y7 -- if you take a quick glance -- unless I 12 missed something, Y7 is not included in that list? 13 A. Not in that list, no, but see worksheets or letter and 14 that gives you the full information regarding the case. 15 Q. And therefore may it be, just picking up what you said, 16 that when it came to the writing of the court reports 17 that of the five you were the one that dropped out 18 because you were the one that was in fact unable to 19 attain the court standard on Y7? 20 A. That would be correct. 21 MR MOYNIHAN: Sir, that would be an appropriate point to 22 stop. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: We will resume then at 1.50 and we will 24 finish today at 3.15. 25 (1.00 pm) page 96 1 (Luncheon Adjournment) 2 (1.50 pm) 3 MR MOYNIHAN: Mr Geddes, what I would like to do is turn to 4 a completely different topic and that is Y7 itself and 5 begin by looking at paragraphs 90 and 91 of your 6 original statement. 7 What this relates to is the visit that you had to 8 Miss Ross' house. The date I understand to have been 9 17th January 1997. 10 A. I'd have to concede that. I don't know. I can't 11 recollect, I'm sorry. 12 Q. If you take the date from me, it's not the precise date 13 I'm interested in it's more that you were there and what 14 you observed that is of interest to me. 15 You were there with Mr Macpherson? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. I understand you were primarily there to view another 18 mark, a mark on a chair? 19 A. Yes. There was a particular mark that was proving 20 difficult to orientate and assess accurately. The 21 suspicion was, where it was placed it was potentially 22 known to belong to the deceased but we just couldn't get 23 it and Mr Macpherson had in mind it would be of benefit 24 to see it in situ, how it was placed to see if that 25 would assist in furthering orientation and the page 97 1 assessment. 2 Q. I understand that that was the primary reason but you 3 did also view Y7 on that occasion. 4 A. I did take note of it, yes. 5 Q. Was it one of the marks that you were interested in 6 viewing on site or was it simply an incidental 7 observation of it? 8 A. No, it wasn't -- I don't remember it being part of the 9 specific marks that we had in mind to look at. If I 10 recall, Y7 had, as far as I was aware, came as a result 11 of a second examination. I obviously listened to the 12 SOCOs' accounts that may be different, but my 13 understanding -- if I could take it, the body was found 14 in close proximity to the bathroom. In a serious crime 15 the SOCOs will go in and basically dust everywhere in 16 the house because it's a serious crime. But the marks 17 that were close to where the body was found would be 18 more likely to be prioritised, I would suggest for 19 obvious reasons, because obviously the body was found 20 there, you would expect there would be a chance that 21 that was where the final act was committed. So 22 impressions nearby would have significant value. 23 Y7 as it states, basically we had been through six 24 or seven times through the alphabet of marks. We'd 25 received marks from the bathroom. Y7 came from the page 98 1 doorframe and the police were excited about its 2 potential, should I say. So Y7 was noted at the time 3 but it was more to do with this particular piece of, I 4 think it was palm that we were having difficulty in 5 assessing. 6 Q. More to do with this piece of? 7 A. Piece of palmer impression. 8 Q. On the chair? 9 A. On the chair. I can't remember the specific mark 10 details but ... 11 Q. What you said in paragraph 90 of your statement is that 12 you could see it was potentially going to be a thumb 13 print, correct? 14 A. That's correct, yes. 15 Q. But then in paragraph 91: 16 "The visit did not confirm it was a left or a right 17 thumb that had made Y7." 18 Is that your recollection? 19 A. Yes. Just going by the area that it was disclosed 20 indicated that it could potentially be a thumb. That by 21 no means meant that I ruled out any other digit. One 22 aspect of fingerprint comparison, you can't take 23 anything for granted. Depending on the particular 24 article that a mark's deposited on, a middle finger 25 could equally look like a thumb print. So you can't page 99 1 rule anything out for definite until you actually assign 2 ownership of that particular mark. 3 Q. I appreciate that by being definite -- again, we will 4 come back to the standard of 100 per cent certainty, 5 would that be correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. When you viewed the print Y7 at the scene, did you have 8 at least an impression or an inclination towards it 9 being on one hand rather than the other? 10 A. No, no. I couldn't differentiate whether it was going 11 to be a left hand or a right hand, or a left thumb or a 12 right thumb. 13 Q. I wonder if we could have up on screen please a document 14 that has been drawn to my attention by being included in 15 a file by Mr McKie and it is a statement that at least 16 bears your name to the Scottish Parliament Justice 1 17 Committee. 18 Sir, there is a copy to the side for you to view. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 20 MR MOYNIHAN: This bears to be a written submission by you 21 to the Scottish Parliament Justice 1 Committee. 22 Do you remember writing in a statement to the 23 Justice 1 Committee. 24 A. Yes. I've got a copy here. 25 Q. Do you have your own original one? page 100 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. If you use your own original one so that we can just 3 cross-check, what I'm interested in on the screen, if 4 it's clear enough for everyone to see, is the second 5 paragraph: 6 "During the course of the case ..." 7 Do you see that on screen? 8 A. Yes, yes. 9 Q. If you could check your original, did you submit to the 10 Scottish Parliament as a written submission by you -- 11 I'll read from the screen you read your original: 12 "During the course of the case Mr Macpherson and 13 myself were given the opportunity to visit the crime 14 scene. This was not an unusual occurrence when dealing 15 with a serious crime and was in fact the second occasion 16 that I had cause to visit a crime scene during an 17 investigation." 18 Thus far, that's what you wrote? 19 A. Yes, that's accurate. 20 Q. "In this instance there were a couple of marks proving 21 difficult to confidently orientate and assess and it was 22 felt that seeing these marks in situ would prove 23 beneficial." 24 Is that correct? 25 A. Yes, yes. page 101 1 Q. "One of these marks was on a chair and another was Y7 on 2 the doorframe." 3 That's what you've written? 4 A. Yes, that's correct, yes. 5 Q. "The visit was illuminating with the mark on the chair 6 now able to be correctly orientated and Y7 being 7 properly assessed as a left thumb." 8 Is that what you have written? 9 A. It is, yes, it's accurate, yes. I've got the copy here, 10 yes. 11 Q. My reason for asking you now about this statement, it 12 would be in the course of 2006; would that be correct? 13 A. That's correct, yes. 14 Q. As I read that, that suggests that the orientation of Y7 15 was one, albeit only one of two, but one of the reasons 16 for the visit to the house? 17 A. Well, as I say, it was highlighted as being significant 18 at the time so it was certainly noted at the locus. 19 Q. What you have written is that: 20 "There were a couple of marks proving difficult to 21 confidently to orientate and assess and it was felt that 22 seeing these marks in situ would prove beneficial." 23 So it sounds as if when you left Glasgow to go to 24 Kilmarnock, one of the things that was on your agenda 25 for that day was to look at Y7; is that correct? page 102 1 A. Well, as I've accepted Y7 was certainly noted at the 2 time. The one mark that I do remember was the palm 3 impression. Y7 was highlighted as being of significance 4 to the inquiry. So we noted it on where it was 5 positioned and where it was on the doorframe. 6 Q. What you said here is: 7 "The visit was illuminating with the mark on the 8 chair now able to be correctly orientated", I am not 9 concerned about the mark on the chair: 10 "The visit was illuminating", and you say: 11 "Y7 being properly assessed as a left thumb." 12 Now your recollection today is that you're unable to 13 determine which hand Y7 could be attributed to? 14 A. Certainly my recollection was that I couldn't, on my 15 initial analysis I couldn't exclude looking at either 16 right or left and I was looking at right and left and, 17 ultimately, I couldn't disclose it as any other digit 18 either. The potential was to me it was going to be a 19 thumb print. It certainly gave all the indications that 20 it was going to be a thumb print but I couldn't exclude 21 either/or in my initial analysis and comparison. 22 Q. Obviously, I for one won't criticise anyone whose memory 23 has faded over time in relation to this matter but here 24 we have you writing to the Scottish Parliament something 25 which is, do you accept, at least on the face of it, page 103 1 requiring explanation as being different from your 2 recollection today which you seem to have told the 3 Scottish Parliament that you were able to determine that 4 it was a left thumb at that visit. 5 A. That's certainly how it reads and I have my copy here 6 and I'll have to concede that fact. But my recollection 7 is I couldn't differentiate as to what, a right thumb, 8 left thumb or whatever digit. As I say, it gave all the 9 potential of possibly being a thumb print but I couldn't 10 differentiate. 11 Q. Can you offer any explanation for why you have that 12 recollection today, whereas you've written a positive 13 statement in 2006? 14 A. Well, there's been a lot going on in this particular 15 case and I have to say the Scottish Parliamentary 16 Inquiry came as a result of the Scottish Executive 17 settling with Shirley McKie and I had hoped that I could 18 get to the civil hearing. I had been cited by both 19 Depute Brown and the Scottish Executive to appear. So I 20 was fully prepared to be there and to answer any queries 21 or any problems with my involvement in that case. 22 When they settled, I was denied that. I wasn't able 23 to get to court under oath and give my evidence. 24 There's a lot of anger going on and I was deeply angered 25 by many of the allegations that have been laid at my page 104 1 door. So whether I have been more definite in trying to 2 ensure that I would be taken to Justice 1 and have an 3 opportunity to give my side of the story in front of the 4 cameras, in front of whoever necessary, that may be in 5 the context that it was given but certainly my 6 recollection is I couldn't differentiate between whether 7 it was a left or a right thumb at the locus. That comes 8 as about of your comparison and analysis. 9 Q. The other question that interests me in relation to this 10 whole question of Y7 and anyone who viewed it on the 11 doorframe in it's original location is whether any 12 inference might be drawn as to whether the person who 13 deposited it was looking into the bathroom at the time 14 that it was deposited or standing in the bathroom 15 looking out into the hall. 16 A. My knowledge, training and experience, all is to do with 17 orientation of marks. I could not give any indication 18 as to body alignment or whatever relating to the 19 deposition of a particular mark. I just wouldn't go 20 there. 21 Q. The reason why I'm interested in that is if there be any 22 question about whether it's a right hand or a left hand, 23 which you said there was some question about, one might 24 actually look at the manner in which the print was 25 located on the door to think whether it would be page 105 1 physical possible for someone to put their right hand or 2 a left hand in that particular location. 3 A. It may seem a reasonable thing to do to try and 4 ascertain how it was placed, but I'm not a witness to 5 how it was deposited. I can only draw on my knowledge 6 and experience relating to finger-marks and I can only 7 draw on the detail disclosed by the print. I would hate 8 to get into a scenario where I was speculating as to 9 whether an individual was peering in a bathroom, coming 10 out a bathroom or hanging from a window ledge or not 11 hanging from a window ledge. I just wouldn't go there. 12 Q. What then do you mean when you say you were trying to 13 get a better impression of the orientation of the mark? 14 A. Well, in particular reference to the palmer impression. 15 It's obviously a fragmented -- 16 Q. Sorry, as I said earlier I'm not interested in the 17 chair. 18 A. Well, I think it's relevant if you're asking how we 19 would come to see things in situ, how that would help 20 illuminate anything. 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. I'm merely using it as an example. Palmers are 23 fragmentary so you've got a very small area of friction 24 ridge palm skin to compare so there are certain 25 indicators that may narrow your parameters of your page 106 1 search and if you're able to see it in situ, to see how 2 it was placed, sometimes that can help narrow those 3 parameters of your search and you can have a more 4 accurate comparison carried out. 5 Sometimes it's like looking for a needle in a 6 haystack, sometimes you've to accept that, but if you 7 can utilise all avenues to narrow the parameters of your 8 search, one way of doing that is to see the mark in 9 situ. 10 Q. The reason why I was less concerned about the chair is 11 we still then have to ask what was it about Y7 that was 12 causing some degree of uncertainty that it was thought 13 that viewing it in situ would assist? 14 A. I don't think there was a degree of uncertainty over Y7. 15 The detail disclosed in the mark indicated that it could 16 potentially be a thumb print. It was an large area that 17 was disclosed but it was devoid of what we would call 18 fixed points, whether that was a delta area and a core 19 area or perceived core area, which is the central area 20 of a mark. The delta area is where the pattern 21 diverges. These are fixed points in particular marks or 22 prints. When you have them you can safely orientate. 23 If you don't have them, then you can struggle and 24 sometimes when you're looking at a particular crime 25 scene mark you may look and say I'm looking at it this page 107 1 way do your comparison and then you turn the photograph 2 and you think there's no reasonable explanation why it 3 couldn't be that way either so you carry out your 4 comparison for that as well and, likewise, Y7 it could 5 easily have been a left thumb, could easily have been a 6 right thumb, could easily have been the middle finger. 7 As I say, all indications pointed to it being a 8 thumb but that's not to say we solely concentrated on it 9 becoming a thumb print. 10 Q. What did you learn when viewing Y7 at the scene? 11 A. Well, the fact it was placed on its own on a doorframe 12 indicated that it was -- again seemed to infer that it 13 was going to be a thumb print. Normally with other -- 14 when you've got the hand in close proximity of the 15 fingers. You end with smudges either side of a 16 particular digit. But the thumb is more flexible and 17 can be placed on its own more readily and, again, taken 18 in combination with the area that was disclosed, 19 indicated that it was potentially going to be a thumb 20 print. 21 Q. You don't recollect drawing any more conclusion than 22 that, that you were potentially dealing with a thumb? 23 A. That's my recollection, yes. 24 Q. The final topic I wanted to ask you about was the whole 25 question of court enlargements. page 108 1 Fingerprint Officers have arrived at the conclusion 2 that the fingerprint has been identified as the mark of 3 an individual, the case is going to court, the 4 Procurator Fiscal will instruct a report that will come 5 to be signed by four individuals. 6 Was it the practice then that for a High Court case 7 or a Sheriff and jury case, that was a solemn case, that 8 routinely some form of enlargement would be produced? 9 A. That's correct, yes. 10 Q. Even if there were, for example, for a suspect, multiple 11 identifications, was the practice simply to produce one 12 illustration? 13 A. Yes, one mark would be highlighted and that mark would 14 be enlarged. The charted enlargements were merely to 15 demonstrate or to assist the Fingerprint Examiner in 16 demonstrating how they came to the conclusion of 17 identity. 18 Q. Originally it was done by means of a photographic 19 enlargement? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. At this particular time it was done by means of a 22 computer? 23 A. A charting PC, yes. 24 Q. We understand that you and your colleagues are quite 25 clear and the reports itself use the term that the page 109 1 charted enlargement was illustrative? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. If I'm proceeding through that from top down, first of 4 all, there may be multiple identifications for a suspect 5 but only one enlargement is produced as an illustration 6 of the totality -- 7 A. That's correct, yes. 8 Q. Secondly, there may be more than 16 points in 1997, 9 16 points -- there may be more than 16 points in 10 sequence and agreement but the officers are only going 11 to identify 16, again, to serve as an illustration? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Again, the officers may themselves have seen different 14 combinations of 16 but, again, they prepare one common 15 document to illustrate the process that 16 points in 16 sequence and agreement can be seen on the document? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. It would be essential to that process that the 16 points 19 were accurately charted on the document; would that be 20 correct? 21 A. Correct, yes. 22 Q. That was done when photographic enlargements were used? 23 A. The accurate -- oh, yes. 24 Q. So far as the charting PC is concerned, did that produce 25 accurate reproduction of the 16 points that the officers page 110 1 intended to refer to or was there an inaccuracy in the 2 product? 3 A. At the time when we were producing photographic 4 enlargements, we were relying on the then Identification 5 Bureau providing us with enlargements. We didn't have 6 the means in the Bureau to come up with these 7 photographic enlargements. So the IB would provide them 8 for us. But it was another added to their workload. So 9 sometimes there were delays in receiving our 10 photographic enlargements. 11 So in a bid to become more, shall we say, 12 independent the Bureau purchased a charting PC. It 13 seemed a good idea at the time. 14 In reality, my experience of the charting PC was it 15 was extremely difficult to use. It was extremely 16 difficult to accurately pinpoint ridge characteristics 17 and bifurcations. You initially had to crop the area 18 because it couldn't take the mark as a whole. So you 19 had to crop the area to focus in on a particular -- if 20 there was sufficient volume in that particular area to 21 use as an illustration. You were using the mouse to 22 highlight ridge characteristics and a slight deviation 23 overshot the ridge end or overshot the bifurcation. It 24 wasn't user-friendly in my experience and obviously, 25 initially, I think the intentions were good. I think it page 111 1 was a good step to take, to be more independent, to have 2 our own ability to chart our own photographic 3 enlargements, but ultimately it proved -- to me it was 4 far too difficult to use and we returned to photographic 5 enlargements not long after. 6 Q. There's a difference between difficult to use and the 7 fact that something would be, if one persevered with 8 something that's difficult one might get -- albeit with 9 a lot of time and effort -- to an acceptable end result. 10 That's one thing. 11 The different thing is the machine is so difficult 12 that you will seldom get an unacceptable end result. 13 What I want to know is the product that was 14 produced, the charting images that were produced by the 15 charting PC, did those accurately reproduce the 16 16 points that the officers intended or was there 17 inaccuracy, as you say, because the use of the mouse 18 tended to overshoot the particular point that people 19 wanted to identify? 20 A. Well, you certainly could get away with it if you'd a 21 clear print. The difficulty arose when you'd a complex 22 print. Inaccuracies -- perseverance, we're an 23 operational bureau. The machine requires to work and 24 work properly. In my experience in utilising it, it was 25 difficult to use. Whether that's a reflection on page 112 1 whether I'm computer-minded or not I don't know. It was 2 difficult to use and it was difficult to pinpoint 3 accurately where a ridge ending was. It was difficult 4 to get that data saved to a degree that I would be 5 totally happy with. If you had a clear print you could 6 say, okay, it's shot over but I can clearly demonstrate 7 that's the ridge ending I'm pointing to and if it's 8 raised in court I'll happily point to that and say, 9 well, in this instance put it down to human error or 10 whatever. But in my experience the charting PC was, in 11 practice, a nonstarter. 12 Q. Was it known before the trial of Ms McKie that the 13 photographic enlargements or the chartings produced by 14 the PC could have inaccuracies in them due to the point 15 being overshot? 16 A. Certainly the examiners at that time within the Bureau, 17 I don't recall any one person saying they were totally 18 satisfied with what the charting PC produced. So I 19 would have preferred -- I preferred photographic 20 enlargements and -- 21 Q. Mr Geddes, you are not answering the question. Was it 22 known that the photographic charting enlargements had 23 inaccuracies by points being overshot? 24 A. Well, with the greatest of respect, I did answer that. 25 The charting PC did overshot so, yes, it would be page 113 1 inaccuracies. As to whether anybody was happy to go 2 with that to court with the those inaccuracies you would 3 have to speak to other examiners. My experience related 4 to a clear print and if I could explain that then I was 5 happy to go with it. 6 Q. If you bear with me, I will come to the point precisely. 7 The charting PC will be produced by one officer? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Let's say for the sake of argument Mr Macpherson does 10 it. 11 A. Okay. 12 Q. The three other individuals who are signing up to the 13 report, sign up to the report and sign the charting 14 enlargement -- 15 A. Okay. 16 Q. That is that correct? 17 A. That is correct, yes. 18 Q. They apparently will only sign the chartered enlargement 19 if they are satisfied that it accurately reproduces 20 16 points in sequence and agreement? 21 A. I would expect them to sign it if it was an accurate 22 reproduction, yes. 23 Q. If it was an accurate reproduction? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And yet you tell us that it was known that photographic page 114 1 enlargements produced by the charting PC could contain 2 inaccuracies by points being overshot. 3 A. Yes, that's my experience. 4 Q. How would the second and third and fourth signatory then 5 come to sign an enlargement that was an inaccurate 6 reproduction of 16 points? 7 A. Well, in the first instance the charted enlargement is 8 for demonstration. It's not how we come to 9 identification. It's not the evidence. The evidence is 10 the actual photograph. The evidence is the actual 11 ten-print form and the evidence is the opinion of the 12 expert delivering that in court. 13 The charting PC, as far as I'm concerned, speaking 14 from my own experience, was difficult to use. If, as 15 I've said earlier, I could explain any overshot from the 16 ridge end and the bifurcation I would be happy to go 17 with that and I would happily say that to the Crown 18 Prosecution, point out to them and say, "If there's a 19 problem I'm happy to speak to it". But it is 20 demonstration purposes only. It's not a reflection on 21 the identification. 22 Q. Here you would have to have a conversation with the 23 prosecutor to say, "The charting that has been produced 24 as a demonstration is inaccurate. I'm going to have to 25 explain, for example, that point number 1 isn't a page 115 1 bifurcation, it's been overshot and I need to move point 2 number 1 to the right or to the left". You would have 3 to have that conversation? 4 A. I would suggest you would, yes. 5 Q. You have heard the evidence of Sheriff Murphy yesterday, 6 who was the Advocate Depute who prosecuted. No such 7 conversation was had with him by any of your colleagues 8 about any inaccuracy in the chartings produced for 9 Ms McKie's trial? 10 A. You'll have to put that to my colleagues. 11 Q. Yes, I will do. 12 What I'm asking, therefore, is whether it was 13 known -- I started out by asking you the purpose of 14 producing the demonstration and I accept it's a 15 demonstration, it's only one of a number of prints for 16 the suspect, it's only 16 of a potentially larger number 17 of characteristics that are in common. As an 18 illustration or demonstration it seems, I would suggest, 19 to be completely failing in its purpose if it's an 20 inaccurate reproduction of those 16 points. 21 A. I would agree with that. I don't have any issue with 22 that, yes. 23 Q. If the second, third and fourth people who signed the 24 form are properly studying the enlargement and it 25 contains inaccuracies, they should not sign it? page 116 1 A. Well, it's down to the individual. As I say, you may be 2 able to assign tolerance levels to whether it greatly 3 impacts or whether it draws away from the identification 4 process. If you feel it totally obliterates the ridges 5 endings and bifurcations you would have to -- it would 6 be your individual decision to make. But the charted 7 enlargements were demonstration. We don't do chartered 8 enlargements any more. 9 The vast majority of the bureaux at that time in 10 1997 went with generic enlargements because it's merely 11 to illustrate when we're discussing terminology, ridge 12 endings, bifurcations, we can point to them on the 13 charted enlargement and, if instructed to do so, we can 14 approach the jury and let them see what a ridge 15 ending and a bifurcation looks like. 16 Q. I appreciate and I will ask your colleagues, the four 17 who signed, these same questions but I'm just asking 18 you, as someone who was practising at the time and, 19 therefore, to get the general flavour of this, are you 20 telling me that people would sign up to charting 21 enlargements knowing, because of the problems with the 22 charting PC, knowing that the charting enlargements 23 produced in court would not accurately represent the 24 location of 16 points in sequence and agreement? 25 A. No, I can only speak from my own personal experience and page 117 1 as I've said already, tolerance levels would be applied 2 and if I could adequately explain, then I would happily 3 sign up to it. 4 Q. So you would accept then that there would not be 5 100 per cent certainty about the location of the point 6 that's indicated on the charting PC, someone like you 7 would have to come along and explain that that 8 particular ending to a line has to be moved to the 9 right, to the left, up or down, a bit like moving a 10 crossbow, to correctly locate the point you intended to 11 refer to? 12 A. There could have been occasions when, yes, the line has 13 overshot and I've allowed it to go on but, as I say, 14 it's merely a demonstration of ridge ends and 15 bifurcations and to help instruct the court on the 16 terminology we use and give examples. It's not a 17 reflection on the identification. 18 Q. There is no other written record at that time kept of 19 the 16 points that the officers had originally 20 identified? 21 A. A written record of the characteristics used to effect 22 identification? No, there wasn't. 23 Q. So this is the only record there is of 16 points on 24 which officers apparently agreed? 25 A. That would be correct. page 118 1 Q. And it's inaccurate? 2 A. Well, potentially it could be, yes. 3 MR MOYNIHAN: I have no further questions. Thank you. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I should ask you first, Mr Smith. 5 MR SMITH: Sir, I have a number of questions I would like to 6 ask and the topics they relate to are some further 7 questions about the methods of analysis and the 8 standards applied: secondly, the initial impression of 9 Y7 and just a couple more questions about Y7 and the 10 visit to the locus; the third is the general culture 11 within SCRO regarding the possibility of errors; and, 12 finally, a few questions about the relationship, if any, 13 with Mr Les Brown and what information was imparted to 14 him. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 16 MR MOYNIHAN: Sir, if I may just intervene, my learned 17 friend will understand what I am about to say. He has 18 covered a particular chapter 3, general culture. 19 There's a matter which he has made me aware that you are 20 unaware and I would ask him, just, if he is going to 21 raise this particular point, if he would signal or give 22 us an indication he is doing so because there may be an 23 issue to be raised with you. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: But when you come to that topic, if there is 25 some issue I need to consider, we will look at that when page 119 1 you get to the topic. 2 MR SMITH: I will do that. What I will probably do is leave 3 that to the end -- I may be a little while anyway -- but 4 I will look to the end and discuss matters later. 5 Cross-examined by MR SMITH 6 Q. Mr Geddes, can I ask you a few more questions about the 7 issue of the 16-point standard. 8 Can I understand your position, as at the present 9 time, is that you didn't personally have to apply any 10 degree of point standard. What you did was you took 11 what might be described as almost a non-numeric approach 12 to satisfy yourself that a fingerprint was accurately 13 identified; is that a fair way of putting it? 14 A. Well, what we didn't do was effectively sit and count 15 points 1 to 16 and effect an identification. What you 16 did was take the detail disclosed in the unknown mark 17 and known print and compared both and once it appeared 18 in sequence and agreement then you had identification. 19 Now for purposes of adhering to the 1953 16-point 20 standard I personally would come to a conclusion of 21 identity then return to that particular comparison and 22 count to see if I had the required 16 points. 23 Q. So there may have been circumstances under which you 24 were certain about an identification but when you then 25 went on to satisfy what you understood the standard to page 120 1 be you were unable to reach that court standard; is that 2 right? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. I dare say it would be impossible for you, for example, 5 to take a number, number 12, 12 points, you are 6 satisfied it's correct but you know that is 7 insufficient, for whatever reason, it's insufficient for 8 court purposes. That's fair, isn't it? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. As far as the using of points is concerned and whether 11 it's a points exercise or a non-numeric exercise, can I 12 ask you to look at a document please which is CO1126 at 13 page 4. Can I ask you to look at the second last 14 paragraph on that page. I think that should be a 15 statement that bears to be a statement, Crown Office 16 statement, provided by yourself and if you need to see 17 more of it I'm happy you see more of it? 18 A. No, I've got my copy here. It's all right. 19 Q. What we can see is: 20 "My own personal opinion as far as the 21 identification of an elimination print is that I look 22 for 12 points as a rule, although depending on the 23 quality of the marks and the points found I may accept 24 less, as I did in this case." 25 Is it not a fair reading of that paragraph that what page 121 1 you actually were doing or representing in this 2 statement was that you did apply a points standard 3 rather than a non-numeric one? 4 A. In that particular instance that is a statement that was 5 taken from me for the Mackay Robertson investigation so 6 I didn't get a copy of that until 2006. That particular 7 paragraph -- it's essentially correct, I'll concede 8 that, but the number of 12 was put to me and I said in 9 my own personal opinion 12 points was a good rule of 10 thumb. 11 However, depending on the quality of the marks and 12 the points found, you are able to accept less. 13 Q. But I take it that it doesn't matter whether it's an 14 elimination or identification. I may be using the 15 phraseology slightly incorrectly, but you would have to 16 apply the same standard when considering whether someone 17 is eliminated, whether a print is eliminated, as if you 18 were trying to say this is the person who is going to be 19 prosecuted for something. Is that right? 20 A. What you're doing is assigning ownership of the mark. 21 If I say I have eliminated Y7 as Shirley Cardwell, then 22 I'm saying that Y7 belongs to Shirley Cardwell. If I 23 then -- obviously, if it's to go to court then it's 24 incumbent upon me to apply the 16-point standard as 25 instructed in 1953. In that instance I couldn't. So page 122 1 if, for instance, it was -- arose from a suspect who was 2 known, who was suspected by the police to be involved in 3 a particular crime and I could only get ten then I 4 wouldn't have been able to present as evidence in court 5 unless directed by the Crown Prosecution. 6 Q. So there is a different standard if you are eliminating 7 someone to a standard when you are prosecuting someone, 8 if I put it that way, is it? 9 A. Well, in regards presenting as evidence in court there 10 is a difference. When I do my initial analysis and 11 comparison and come to my conclusion, it's exactly the 12 same. It makes no difference what I'm looking at. I'm 13 coming to a conclusion. For me then to be able to 14 present that as evidence in court, that's where the 15 difference lies. 16 Q. I am sorry, it may be my fault but, as I understand it, 17 you are saying that, as far as your own personal 18 satisfaction is concerned, it's irrelevant whether it's 19 an elimination or whether it's a prosecution matter. 20 It's irrelevant because you apply the same standard, 21 which is you have to be sure about that attribution of 22 the mark; is that fair? 23 A. Yes. As I said earlier it's an individual 24 responsibility on me to ensure that what I'm looking at 25 is accurate, consistent and if I'm assigning ownership I page 123 1 have to be fully satisfied that I have identification. 2 Q. As far as this particular case is concerned, you've 3 heard a lot of the evidence that was applicable 4 regarding the investigation into the death of Marion 5 Ross. You have heard there were many, many fingerprints 6 which were recovered, I think 200 or 300, somewhere of 7 that level of prints that were recovered. 8 Is it your understanding that each of these 9 fingerprints would be eliminated to a point of certainty 10 of eliminations; is that your understanding? 11 A. A point of certainty. I would fully expect if you 12 assigning ownership of a mark that you were fully 13 certain that was correct. 14 Q. So, again, as far as this particular matter is 15 concerned, I think, there were 172 fingerprints that 16 were reckoned to have sufficient detail to allow 17 attribution to an individual. I think 172 is the 18 number. 19 Is it your understanding that each of these would 20 have been carried out to a 16-point standard if it was 21 going to be considered a sufficient identification? 22 A. If I'm referring to eliminations, there would be 23 certainty as to ownership of the mark. If there was no 24 requirement for it to be presented as evidence in court, 25 then, chances are, it wouldn't have been to the 16-point page 124 1 standard. 2 Q. I would like to just ask you something that, no doubt, 3 we can call this up if necessary, but Mr Hugh 4 Macpherson, as I understand it, in his written evidence 5 to the Justice 1 Inquiry gave an indication that 172 6 identifications were all confirmed to a 16-point 7 standard by four experts. 8 If he said that, do you say that you would be 9 surprised if that happened? 10 A. That would surprise me, yes. 11 Q. Are you able to explain how it might come about that 12 Hugh Macpherson appears to give information to that 13 effect to the Justice 1 Inquiry but your position 14 is you're somewhat surprised by that? 15 A. I would suggest if marks were being presented as 16 evidence then they should have been adhered to the 17 16-point standard if at all possible. Policy at the 18 time was elims, you would satisfy yourself of identity 19 and that was it. There was no requirement to adhere to 20 the 16-point standard for eliminations. 21 Q. Can I ask you if you can help us with what is the 22 minimum number of points that you have been able to come 23 up with after you decided that the mark is correctly 24 attributed? You come to that conclusion, then you count 25 them up. What's the lowest number you have ever page 125 1 reached? 2 A. That's ever been used as evidence or ...? 3 Q. No, I'm asking what your position was. You had come to 4 the conclusion that there's a correct attribution. You 5 are 100 per cent certain. Then you count them up. Do 6 you get to 3, 6, 9, 12, what? 7 A. Well, I'd have to say show me the mark if I was dealing 8 with non-numeric I would have to say each mark is taken 9 on its own individual merit. You could have a 10 particular mark that had, I don't know, unusual 11 characteristics, unusual convergence, unusual pattern. 12 You could, you know, it could result in 6, 7, it could 13 result in maybe 8, 9, 10. 14 Q. I obviously don't know what marks you have looked at 15 over the course of your career. I'm simply trying to 16 understand from your own personal experience, no doubt 17 you must have remembered when you thought, "Well, I'm 18 certain about this, and lo and behold I've only got 19 three points but, hey, I'm satisfied". Can you not help 20 us with how few points you have ever had that you were 21 still satisfied of? 22 A. No, because it's taken on an individual merits onto the 23 mark. I don't keep a running total of marks that I've 24 viewed. I've satisfied myself of an identification and 25 move on. page 126 1 Q. Let me put it this way: in this particular case you only 2 could find 12; is that right? 3 A. In which particular case? 4 Q. I am sorry, 10, I beg your pardon -- 5 A. That's correct, yes. 6 Q. Y7? 7 A. That's correct, yes. 8 Q. Have you ever found one with less than 10 points that 9 you were satisfied on? 10 A. I couldn't say with certainty, sorry. I don't keep 11 notes of that description. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: It depends on so many factors, the pattern of 13 the mark, I think you explained. 14 A. That's correct. There's many instances throughout the 15 world of individuals who have went with crime scene 16 marks that maybe show conventional ridge characteristics 17 to a number of three or four but they've combined the 18 other information with the pores and the widths, the 19 width of the ridges, et cetera, that have been so 20 clearly defined they've been able to use that in their 21 identification. 22 How low can you go? I don't know. Because you're 23 utilising so much information. Maybe it's something 24 that I should have been responsible for and kept notes 25 as to marks I've dealt with down through the years. page 127 1 Maybe I concede that. But I would return to show me the 2 mark and I'll decide then. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 4 MR SMITH: You, yourself, I take it, have given evidence in 5 criminal trials before? 6 A. That's correct, yes. 7 Q. And no doubt when giving evidence with regards to your 8 opinion of Y7 you were absolutely certain about your 9 identification, your attribution of the mark; is that 10 right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Dealing with Y7, in particular you told us, I think, 13 that you come to conclusions on a 100 per cent 14 certainty; you are absolutely certain about it. Is that 15 correct? 16 A. Well, I would say that's professionally incumbent on me. 17 I can't say, "Potentially, it could be you", if I'm not 18 totally satisfied with data disclosed in the mark. 19 Q. I don't wish to be unfair about using a phrase like 20 100 per cent certainty, although I think you possibly 21 used that phrase yourself, but are you able to conceive 22 of any possibility dealing with Y7 that you're wrong in 23 attributing it to Shirley McKie? 24 A. I was asked that question by the Mackay officers and I 25 believe what I said to them was, going by my analysis of page 128 1 the print, I recognised distortion in that print, I 2 recognised movement in the print. I was able to observe 3 sufficient detail for me to confidently identify. 4 Now, they asked me, "Have you seen Pat Wertheim's 5 report? Have you seen David Grieve's", et cetera, 6 et cetera. As far as I can recall, having read their 7 reports, they don't recognise the distortion or the 8 movement. 9 Now, in my opinion -- and again it's just based on 10 my knowledge and experience -- that movement is clear. 11 It's clear to me. It's a factor that should be taken 12 into account for the analysis of the print. How anyone 13 can possibly say that's a clear touch, straight down, no 14 movement, no twist, no distortion, straightforward, I 15 have great difficulty with that. 16 Now, it may be down to me as an individual, my 17 experience as an examiner, I don't know. If they 18 pointed out to me what I've done wrong I'll happily 19 listen to it but I viewed Harry Zeelenberg's 20 presentation to Justice 1. It didn't make me think, 21 "Oh, help, I've got it wrong". 22 Now I appreciate you may consider entrenchment of 23 opinion or whatever I don't know. I did what I did, an 24 honest analysis, an honest interpretation of the detail 25 disclosed and I came to a conclusion. Now if it's wrong page 129 1 for me to stand on my own two good feet and say, "That's 2 what I did, that's the conclusion I came to", then I'm 3 sorry, but that's how it is. 4 Q. That's very clear of you, Mr Geddes. 5 I think you will understand the difficulty that 6 those who are not part of the fingerprint analysis 7 community find here, that there are some experts who say 8 it's not and some who say it is. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. You can't all be right on that. 11 A. That's one thing I think we all agree on. There's no 12 two decisions on it, either one side is wrong. 13 Q. Am I correct in summarising your position: you stand by 14 your result; you have heard nothing to make you change 15 your mind about the result but if someone came up with 16 an explanation that you would be prepared to listen to 17 it and it's possible that you might be prepared to 18 accept, "Well, maybe I got it wrong". Is that a fair 19 way of putting it? 20 A. Well, I'm a human being. We all make mistakes and I'll 21 be happy if it's pointed out to me but I've listened to 22 Harry Zeelenberg; I listened to Mr Wertheim; I'm not 23 convinced as yet. 24 Q. I would like to ask you, if I can, a few more questions 25 about the way that evidence is presented in court and, page 130 1 in particular, the use of the charting PC enlargements 2 that Mr Moynihan was asking you some questions. 3 I wonder if we could have a document SG0125 brought 4 up, please, which is hopefully a production and if we 5 can go on to the next page to see if I can find what I'm 6 looking for. Page 3 please. I am not sure if this has 7 been looked at in any detail yet. 8 I am not going to ask you to go through all these 9 various points but is this a representation of the kind 10 of way that the presentation would be given to a jury 11 when the charting PC was used for the purposes of 12 enlargements? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Will you take it from me, of course you may or may not 15 recognise any of this, but this was a document produced 16 in the trial of Shirley McKie one of, I think, three 17 charting PC enlargements. 18 A. Okay. 19 Q. Do you know who prepared them for the purposes of 20 Shirley McKie's trial? 21 A. No, I wasn't involved in the court preparation at all. 22 Q. Sure, I am not criticising that at all. I just wondered 23 if you happened to know who prepared it. 24 I think, if I understood the questions from 25 Mr Moynihan correctly, what we can understand is that page 131 1 this is designed, and your answers of course, this is 2 designed to give some degree of assistance to the court 3 in how it is an analysis takes place. Is that right? 4 A. Yes, that's my understanding of charted enlargements. 5 Q. As far as this is concerned, I think you very frankly 6 acknowledge that the charting PC, there might be some 7 degree of slippage or a failure to have a line go 8 directly to what in fact is the point of reference for 9 the purposes of the court; is that right? 10 A. That was my experience of working with it. 11 Q. As I understand your evidence, the position is that, on 12 occasions, you have given evidence but have you given 13 evidence when the charting PC enlargements have been 14 used to demonstrate to the jury? 15 A. I couldn't say with any degree of certainty; I can't, 16 no. 17 Q. I realise this is a difficult question since you say you 18 can't do so with certainty but what I'm interested in is 19 that if you had done, would you have said to the 20 prosecutor before you went in, "Listen, I've got to tell 21 you now there might be a bit of slippage here. These 22 lines might not directly point to the relevant point"? 23 A. I have to say if I had a particularly difficult mark and 24 I was utilising the charting PC and I didn't feel it 25 correctly demonstrated the identification process then page 132 1 my first port of call would have been my Bureau. I 2 wasn't happy with this machine. I understood the logic 3 behind bringing it in. It was the way forward in 4 essence but, in practical terms, it didn't do the job 5 correctly so far as I was concerned. So if I had a 6 difficult mark I'm afraid my first port of call would be 7 the Chief Inspector's door, "I would prefer photographic 8 enlargements in this case". 9 Q. Again, just stick with this on the screen for a moment. 10 As I understand your evidence -- we don't need to go to 11 the passages -- but the position was Mr Macpherson found 12 16 points. Is that right? 13 A. He found 16 points? 14 Q. Yes. 15 A. Yes, for the initial identification, yes. 16 Q. You yourself on looking at it could only find 10? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. And can I understand some discussion would then take 19 place between him and you saying, "Well, we're agreed 20 about these 10, but here's one here..." Do you follow? 21 A. Yes, uh-huh. 22 Q. And notwithstanding him saying where it is, it is a 23 ridge ending or bifurcation or something, your position 24 was you still couldn't see it. Is that right? 25 A. Yes, that's correct. page 133 1 Q. I guess if we were to do the exercise -- it's a poor 2 copy, I'm sure -- on the document in front of us, there 3 would be some of these points, because 16 are apparently 4 marked on the left-hand side of the page, there will be 5 some of these by my arithmetic, which is probably as bad 6 as Mr Moynihan's, there are six of them that you would 7 not be able to see on that document? 8 A. Well, potentially, taking if the 10 that I had marked up 9 coincided with 10 of which Mr Macpherson was happy with. 10 Q. Sure. So there may actually be, you might have spotted 11 one that he wasn't satisfied with -- 12 A. Oh, I would like to think so. 13 Q. Nonetheless, there's bound to be at least six that you 14 would not be able to see on this document. Is that 15 right? 16 A. That's a possibility. 17 Q. The reason I ask this is if this is to demonstrate to a 18 jury ultimately that there are 16 points that match up 19 between the left-hand view and the right-hand view, 20 would you agree with me that a jury has pretty well got 21 no chance of seeing the six missing points if you with 22 all your years of experience, with the guidance of 23 Mr Macpherson in the leisure of your laboratory, if you 24 can't see it, a jury has frankly really no chance 25 whatsoever. Do you agree with that? page 134 1 A. Well, in essence, Mr Smith, that is not the evidence. 2 The evidence is the expert's there providing. That's 3 one of the reasons why a lot of the bureaux went with 4 generic enlargements and one of the main reasons they 5 gave was, "We don't want the jury trying to become 6 experts". So they go with generic enlargements, it's 7 nice, its clear. There's a ridge ending. There's a 8 bifurcation. That explains the terminology. That 9 explains the process and it's up to the individual 10 examiner to be able to effectively communicate their 11 credibility and, by extension, their opinion. 12 Q. Yes, I understand that but the presentation that we see 13 here, the answer really is that the jury does have no 14 chance of seeing -- pretty well, no chance of seeing the 15 six missing points. That's right, isn't it, on the 16 right-hand side? 17 A. I would have to concede that, yes. 18 Q. What could be done is instead of a 19 generic enlargement explaining what a bifurcation, 20 et cetera, is concerned, you could look at the 21 right-hand photograph there and a good example, for 22 example, if we look at point 7 we can see it identifies 23 almost the top of a bifurcation, doesn't it? 24 A. Yes, that's correct. 25 Q. So you can do the exercise reasonably easily, 5 is a page 135 1 bifurcation, 4 is a ridge ending, relatively 2 straightforward to a explain to a jury from that inked 3 mark of Shirley McKie, how it works? 4 A. Yes, that's correct. 5 Q. But the purpose of producing the left-hand side must be, 6 must it not, to try and allow the jury to compare left 7 with right and say, "Oh, yes, I can see that one", or, 8 "Oh no, I can't see that one". That's correct, isn't 9 it? 10 A. Well, I suppose, yes, effectively, yes. You're trying 11 to demonstrate how you came to do the identification 12 so ... 13 Q. Now, of course, what we do know is that you didn't give 14 evidence in Shirley McKie's trial? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. But we also know that had you been asked to give 17 evidence in Shirley McKie's trial you would have had to 18 say, "Well, I'm sorry I can't. I'm satisfied, but I 19 can't support the legal standard on this". Is that 20 right? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. At any stage did you feel it was incumbent upon you to 23 disclose to your superiors directly or go to the police 24 or go to the Procurator Fiscal and say, "Listen, you 25 must know that although there are some people giving page 136 1 evidence about this, it may be relevant to the defence 2 to know that I was not able to find 16 points". 3 Did that ever occur to you? 4 A. I wasn't disputing identification. 5 Q. No, but what you were doing was you were unable to give 6 the required legal standard for identification for court 7 purposes. That's right, isn't it? 8 A. The legal standard is not relevant to identification. 9 It's for presentation purposes. 10 Q. With respect, do you not understand that the defence may 11 be very interested if an officer within SCRO was to be 12 brought, let's say as a defence witness, they are asked 13 in the witness box, "Were you able to find 16 points", 14 and you say, "No, I couldn't"? 15 Now do you understand how important that could have 16 been for the purposes of the defence? 17 A. I couldn't come to 16 but I verified the identification. 18 That doesn't make any sense to me for the defence. 19 Q. So you don't see any advantage to the defence to be able 20 to bring someone along from SCRO who says, "I couldn't 21 get 16 points"? 22 A. But I've verified the identification. 23 Q. I'm not sure that's an answer to my question, with 24 respect. 25 A. Well -- page 137 1 Q. Could you not see any advantage to the defence to bring 2 someone from SCRO in who then says, "I couldn't find 3 16 points"? 4 A. Well, if you're asking my personal opinion I don't see 5 how that adds anything or takes anything away from the 6 actual identification process. In essence, I was phoned 7 at home by the Quality Assurance Officer and asked my 8 opinion, so that's documented. So they were well aware 9 of my opinion. Whether that was transferred on to the 10 defence or the Crown Prosecution I had no play or part 11 in the court proceedings. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you just one question about that. 13 I appreciate you haven't had your evidence challenged in 14 court but, in your experience, have you ever known two 15 members of the Scottish Criminal Record Office, 16 fingerprint experts, to be on opposing sides in a case? 17 A. Not to my knowledge, I have to say. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: In other words, were witnesses from the 19 Record Office made available to defendants where they 20 had a contrary view? 21 A. Certainly evidence has been requested by the defence 22 from officers at the SCRO. Whether they've actually 23 been on opposing sides I wouldn't think so, no -- not to 24 my recollection. There has been reports provided for by 25 the defence, usually in fact for negative reports, that page 138 1 SCRO received so many impressions, suspects were 2 provided, et cetera, and -- 3 THE CHAIRMAN: What I am really asking is whether this is a 4 neutral body of independent experts who are made 5 available if the defence want to call them that they can 6 call them or -- 7 A. Well, the defence is more than capable of requesting our 8 conclusions or whatever. As far as I'm led to believe. 9 I mean, I've made negative reports in the past, albeit I 10 haven't been asked to provide identifications for the 11 defence. But I've certainly provided negative reports 12 and, as I say, that's usually because the individual has 13 been accused of a crime, is going to trial, there were 14 crime scene marks retrieve from the particular loci and 15 we never identified anything. So, in that instance, 16 it's obviously in the interests of the defence to have 17 it known crime scenes mark were found at the loci and 18 none were attributed to their particular client. 19 MR SMITH: One of the areas I would like to explore with you 20 is the documenting of views as you went along. 21 Y7 is a mark Mr Macpherson looked at and you looked 22 at as well. You came to a view as to the number of 23 points you could get. 24 Can you help me with this: where was it documented 25 that you were only able to find 10 points? page 139 1 A. It wouldn't have been documented in the case papers 2 because the procedures didn't dictate that at the time. 3 I verbally communicated it to the Quality Assurance 4 Officer. As to dates or whatever, I think it was round 5 about what has come to be known as the blind test, give 6 or take whatever days. I was certainly asked for my 7 opinion. I gave it verbally. 8 The fact that I was -- I couldn't achieve the 9 national standard wouldn't have been documented anywhere 10 in the case papers. 11 Q. You see there something of a practical difficulty for 12 the defence, if I put it this way, that I use "doubt" in 13 the sense of doubt about 16 points. I hear your 14 evidence about doubt, about certainty of identification 15 of the mark but the doubt about 16, 10 or 16, isn't 16 written down anywhere and unless you actually ensure 17 that you're position is communicated to the defence, the 18 defence would never have any way of finding out about 19 that if it wasn't documented at the time. 20 A. It certainly wasn't documented in the case papers so I'd 21 have to acknowledge that. But, as I say, it was 22 verbally communicated to the Quality Assurance Officer 23 and as to the court preparation, I was not involved in 24 at any stage. 25 Q. If I can just step back a bit from the point where you page 140 1 came to a view about Y7 and ask a little bit more about 2 the visit to the locus. I think Mr Thurley was involved 3 at one stage in giving you a lift down or something; is 4 that right? Have I got that correct? 5 A. Yes, I believe that was correct, yes. 6 Q. What I'm interested in is this: you explained to 7 Mr Moynihan why you went to look -- we will deal with 8 Y7. Forget about the one in the chair. Think about 9 Y7 -- and you were there to look at, amongst other 10 things, you did look at Y7 and the positioning of the 11 orientation of it. 12 The difficulty I have is this: is it not the case 13 that the orientation of it would be irrelevant, 14 completely irrelevant, as to whether or not it was a 15 match? 16 A. Irrelevant as to whether or not it's a match. If I 17 don't orientate it properly then my comparison phase 18 falls at the first hurdle -- if I'm unable to orientate 19 the crime scene mark then my comparison phase falls 20 other first hurdle. I'd be potentially looking at it 21 upside down or round about or -- to orientate the mark 22 basically means ensuring that, if it's a thumb print, 23 that I'm looking at it correctly. 24 Q. So your position in evidence is it, that the way the 25 mark is put on, if I put my thumb up that way and you page 141 1 look at an inked print you can maybe say, yes, these are 2 the same but if it's upside down you would not be able 3 to come to that conclusion. Is that your position? 4 A. I have to be able to orientate -- obviously, it benefits 5 my comparison phase if I can orientate the crime scene 6 mark sufficiently accurately enough to enable me to 7 carry out the comparison. 8 Q. Can I just be clear about this: if I was to try 9 to compare a mark with an inked print, then the exercise 10 I would be doing is going to the mark, I would be 11 identifying points (for example, ridge endings, 12 bifurcations, et cetera). I would then, and only then, 13 go to the inked print and carry out the same exercise 14 with regard to broadly the same area of the print. 15 That's right, isn't it? 16 A. You missed out the first phase and that's analysing the 17 ridge flow of the pattern if it's disclosed, which 18 enables you to orientate the mark. 19 Q. So your position is you have to know the orientation of 20 the print? 21 A. No, I said it benefits the comparison phase if you are 22 able to orientate the mark. 23 Q. Is it not the case that if you look at the core of the 24 fingerprint you can get a fairly good idea as to the 25 orientation of the mark, the core of it? page 142 1 A. On occasions, yes, you can. 2 Q. You see, again, the difficulty I have is it either is or 3 isn't a match. That's right, isn't it? 4 A. I would agree with that, yes. 5 Q. And taking forward the ridge pattern, even if you get 6 the unknown mark, a photograph of it, you turn it round 7 to a point where it looks broadly similar, just from the 8 photographs, then you would be able to carry out a 9 comparison. That's right, isn't it? 10 A. That's correct, yes. 11 Q. I am going to suggest to you that actually going and 12 visiting the locus to see whether it might have been 13 upside down, back to front, inside a locked safe, inside 14 a glass, it doesn't actually matter with regard to the 15 analysis. Is that not right? 16 A. Well, it's not the actual visitation of the locus. It's 17 seeing the mark in situ can sometimes benefit your 18 assessment and orientation of the mark. That's your 19 initial step when you first pick up the crime scene mark 20 is to try to ascertain the orientation of the mark. It 21 obviously -- maybe it is me but to me it narrows the 22 parameters of your potential comparison phase. I'm not 23 saying it excludes but when you first sit down to do 24 your comparison it would enable you to narrow the 25 parameters in the first stage. page 143 1 Q. So when you looked at the mark on the doorframe in this 2 case, did you come to a conclusion as to how the -- 3 well, first of all, did you have any idea which digit 4 had left it? 5 A. As I said earlier, it gave all indications of 6 potentially being a thumb print but until you actually 7 assign ownership you can't take anything for granted. 8 Q. Is that not doing it round the wrong way? Assigning 9 ownership to see what the orientation is rather than the 10 other way round. I'm having difficulty following why it 11 is that the orientation would be important when you 12 can't really see how it's orientated until you assign 13 ownership. Which comes first? 14 A. Well, you can orientate the print as accurately and as 15 convincingly as you feel, you try to orientate it so 16 you're looking at it like-for-like, potentially, but you 17 can't say with 100 per cent certainty you've got it 18 right until you actually assigned ownership. So then 19 you move to what you were saying earlier on, the level 2 20 detail is where you effect your identification. So you 21 move to Level 2 in ridge characteristics. 22 Q. Having regard to the position of that mark Y7 was, if it 23 had been a right thumb, it would have been easier to 24 position than if it had been a left thumb. That's 25 right, isn't it? Having regard to the position of the page 144 1 doorframe and the door itself. 2 A. Well, as I said earlier, I don't get involved in body 3 alignment or where was what. I'm merely interested in 4 the detail disclosed by the mark itself. Whether 5 someone was looking in the bathroom, looking at the 6 bathroom, coming out the bathroom or whatever, I have no 7 interest in that area. It's merely the detail disclosed 8 by the mark that I am using to try and assign ownership 9 of that mark. 10 Q. All I am trying to get at is this: to have any value 11 orientating the mark you have got to have a reasonably 12 certain view as to which digit had left it. That's 13 right, isn't it? 14 A. Not really because you've got set areas in your print, 15 the delta and the core, which enables you to helpfully 16 orientate the mark. To me it's the first port of call, 17 when you sit down to your crime scene mark. It's how I 18 was trained. It's how I still do it. You try and 19 orientate the mark. 20 Q. All I am trying to put to you is this: we are using the 21 doorframe up there for demonstration purposes. If I 22 want to get my right thumb print on top of Y7 I stand 23 right in front of the door and put my hand like that 24 (indicated) extended in front of me, correct? 25 A. If you like, yes. page 145 1 Q. Whereas if I want my left thumb, I have to turn my arm, 2 curl it around the front of me or stand inside beyond 3 the door and put it there, correct? 4 A. I wouldn't say for any degree of definite. I wasn't 5 witnessing what took place. I don't know how it was 6 placed. I'm merely concerned with data disclosed by the 7 crime scene mark. 8 Q. With respect, Mr Geddes, as I understand it, you were 9 going to try and orientate the mark. Now that 10 inevitably must require you to come to some kind of view 11 as to whether it was a left thumb or a right thumb or, 12 indeed, any other digit that was put on the doorframe. 13 That right, isn't it? 14 A. It would merely be what was considered. You can't say 15 for definite. You can't just look at a mark in situ and 16 say, "Oh that's going to be ..." Unless it's an 17 enormously clear print, unless all detail is there, 18 delta's, cores, patterns, if everything is there you 19 might be able to come to a conclusion, particularly if 20 you have a sequence of fingers placed down, utilising 21 the loops and the whorls, et cetera, you might be able 22 then to say it's a left middle or it's a right fore. 23 But a mark in isolation, particularly one that I, on 24 initial analysis, recognised movement or distortion to 25 some degree in that mark, I'm not going to say for page 146 1 definite. I said potentially it could be a thumb print. 2 I couldn't say whether it was going to be a left or a 3 right. That's where Level 2 detail comes in. When I 4 start my comparison phase and I start to compare 5 the ridge characteristics against the known prints. 6 Q. Can I ask you what led you to the conclusion it may be a 7 thumb print? 8 A. Merely the area disclosed. I mean, just basically 9 looking at your hand, a thumb print's far larger than 10 every other so there was a vast area of the friction 11 ridge detail disclosed in that. It indicated that is 12 normally indicative of it potentially being a thumb 13 print. 14 But again, as I explained earlier to Mr Moynihan, 15 there are certain articles or ways, excessive pressure, 16 you can have a middle finger resembling a thumb print. 17 You can't take anything for granted. I wasn't being 18 definite at the locus. I was looking at potential. 19 That doesn't mean I was excluding anything from my 20 potential comparison phase. 21 Q. Could I move on to something slightly different and that 22 is the attitudes of SCRO officers in general about the 23 quality of their work. 24 I think you've been here when it was suggested that 25 SCRO officers were told, I think was suggested that they page 147 1 were about or along with the best in the world. We 2 heard something to that effect. 3 A. Well, I heard it here in the evidence, yes. 4 Q. Is that something you had heard before? 5 A. No, definitely not. 6 Q. It wasn't a matter of discussion within the office? 7 A. No, I can't say I was ever involved in any discussion 8 like that. In my experience, my limited experience as 9 it may be, is solely based in Glasgow. We've had inter 10 bureaux meetings with Aberdeen and Tayside, et cetera, 11 and we've had presentations by other experts from other 12 bureaux throughout the world and to say that you're the 13 best in the world is, frankly, a ridiculous statement to 14 make. 15 Q. I would like to ask you now two further matters: one 16 area is a question of Mr Les Brown and the last one is 17 the one that Mr Moynihan raised with me. 18 As far as Mr Brown is concerned, can I ask you this: 19 first of all, did you have direct contact with Mr Brown 20 at any time? 21 A. Yes. I went to meet him ... it would have been maybe 22 February 2006. 23 Q. Can I ask -- 24 A. I'm not sure. I'm not sure, sorry. I did meet him. I 25 have went to meet him. page 148 1 Q. Can I ask why was it you were going to meet him? 2 A. Fiona McBride phoned me to say she was going to meet 3 with Les Brown and at the time didn't know who he was. 4 She explained who he was and what he was proposing to do 5 in relation to investigating the murder of Marion Ross. 6 I said I would accompany her to meet with him and we 7 went to his house. I met with him and his wife, Sheila. 8 We had a long talk about the case and then he said 9 there's a journalist who's interested in coming along, 10 she's expressed an interest on hearing our side of the 11 story and she joined us at some point in the afternoon, 12 if I remember correctly. 13 Q. I am not particularly interested in the question of 14 journalists and so on, as I think there is evidence 15 about that, but what I am interested in is this: you 16 said something about Mr Brown to investigate the murder 17 of Marion Ross. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. I take it you would agree with me your interest in it 20 was really actually down to the issue of Y7 at that 21 time, wasn't it? 22 A. Well, I was exploring potential avenues to get my 23 evidence out because, as I said earlier, I been cited by 24 yourselves and by the Scottish Executive to appear at 25 the civil hearing and I was hoping to get a chance to page 149 1 give my evidence. I was presented in -- again, dates 2 might be a bit sketchy-- but 2003, the averments for 3 that particular civil hearing and the averments, I 4 believe, placed by yourself relating to my involvement, 5 I didn't recognise, I have to say, and I wanted an 6 opportunity to speak to them and, as I said, you cited 7 me and the Scottish Executive cited me so I was hopeful 8 that I would get the opportunity to speak. 9 That didn't happen. So -- the Parliamentary Inquiry 10 was just a wish at this moment in time, nobody was 11 committing to it and I took the opportunity to meet with 12 Les Brown in the hope that if he would if he would 13 investigate the murder of Marion Ross it would raise the 14 profile again and maybe get another inquiry into it. 15 Q. You know, of course, Mr Geddes, that those within SCRO 16 were invited to give statements to those acting for 17 Shirley McKie. You know that, don't you? 18 A. I was asked to attend a UNISON meeting with Kath 19 Rylle(?) who said that she had received notification, 20 well, from yourselves, I would assume, wishing to 21 precognosce certain officers and at that time, well, we 22 said yes and she said she would deal with that. I never 23 heard any more about that. So I can't say that I ... 24 Q. So a request came from me to give a statement to give 25 you a chance to explain your position but that was, you page 150 1 say, that was headed off at the pass by Kath Rylle. 2 A. I have no ideas what happened to it afterwards. She 3 said it was an initial approach. As to whether it was 4 an official approach I'm not sure. I never saw the 5 actual documentation. It was merely a point of 6 discussion. Would we discuss -- would we engage in a 7 precognition with representatives from yourself and, 8 after discussion, it was agreed, yes, if that was a way 9 to get the evidence out we would do that and never heard 10 anything more about it. 11 Q. Did you ask any more about it? 12 A. Yes, we certainly asked. You never gave us any answers. 13 It sounds ridiculous, I know, but when I received the 14 citation and I received the citation from the Scottish 15 Executive I was happy with that. I had one in either 16 hand. I was going to be called at some point as far as 17 I was concerned, so I was content with that. 18 Q. I just want to be absolutely clear about this. You 19 are saying that Kath Rylle of UNISON, effectively -- the 20 thing hit the buffers at her hand? 21 A. I couldn't say for definite. All I can say is it was -- 22 as far as she put it across to us it was an initial 23 approach from yourselves. It was a matter of discussion 24 at this meeting. She asked if we'd be willing to be 25 precognosced by yourselves and at the end of the meeting page 151 1 it was decided, yes, if that was the only way to get the 2 evidence out ... there was a feeling at the time this 3 could be the only way to get the evidence out so this 4 was going to be our opportunity to speak. So, as I say, 5 when the citations came in I was perfectly content with 6 that. 7 Q. Coming back to Mr Les Brown, again, I ask you this: it 8 was Y7 that was your interest in Les Brown picking up 9 the investigation, if that's what he was going to do, 10 wasn't it? 11 A. It was my involvement in Y7 that I wished to get out 12 there that I wished -- I mean, your averments as far as 13 I recall said along the lines of: I expressed doubt, I 14 refused to sign the relevant documentation, I 15 refused ... basically, insinuating that I had not 16 verified identification, I had expressed doubt and was 17 refusing to take part in any further process of that 18 mark, which, as I've said today, was not correct. So it 19 was that particular aspect of it that I wished an 20 opportunity to address. 21 Q. Mr Geddes, you have already told us that you weren't 22 able to identify to the 16-point standard. You know 23 that, don't you? 24 A. I never expressed any doubt. I never refused to sign 25 any documentation. page 152 1 Q. I think you have already given an answer to that 2 question. You did not get up to the 16 points that were 3 then required for criminal court purposes; that's right, 4 isn't it? 5 A. I never express any doubt. You said I expressed doubt? 6 I didn't express any doubt. As to whether it achieved 7 the 16-point standard, that has no reflection on whether 8 I say it's an identification or not. 9 Q. Can I ask you what information was provided, either by 10 you or Ms McBride at the first meeting with Les Brown as 11 to your involvement? 12 A. The particular information that I gave was in 13 relation -- just a factual account of my involvement. 14 That's, as far as I'm aware, the only information I 15 gave. 16 Q. Just to be clear about this, Mr Brown you knew to be a 17 retired police officer. You knew that, didn't you? 18 A. Yes, it was explained to me, yes. 19 Q. You were discussing with him certain matters in 20 connection with an investigation into a murder. That's 21 right, isn't it? 22 A. Well, I was giving him a factual account of my 23 involvement in that particular fingerprint case. 24 Q. So the answer is, yes, you were giving information that 25 was related to the investigation of a murder, connected page 153 1 with the investigation of a murder? 2 A. Yes, technically speaking, yes, it was related to my 3 involvement, yes. 4 Q. Did you see anything untoward about the fact that 5 somebody who is employed as a Fingerprint Examiner is 6 imparting information to someone who is not in the law 7 enforcement business and not acting under the authority 8 of a court action? 9 A. That information was well-known. It was out there so I 10 just wanted to make sure that it was being heard. 11 Q. So just to be clear, you passed him only information 12 that was already known; is that right? 13 A. Well, information that was factually relevant to myself. 14 Q. I will ask you again, did you pass him any information, 15 any information, that was not already known outside in 16 the general public, as it were? 17 A. I shouldn't think so, no. I gave him my factual 18 involvement in the case. 19 Q. So why would you need to tell him what was already 20 well-known? 21 A. Need to tell him what? 22 Q. Well, anything. Why would you have to impart to him any 23 information, unless it was not already known? 24 A. Well, he was taking an interest in the case. He'd asked 25 particular questions relating to my involvement and I page 154 1 gave it. As far as I'm aware, all the information 2 relating to my involvement was already known. Whether 3 Les Brown was aware of it, I don't know. 4 MR SMITH: Sir, I see the time. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, we are reassuming on my Wednesday. 6 MR MOYNIHAN: I am afraid I was involved in conversations on 7 other matters. I didn't have the conversation with 8 Mr Geddes or, indeed, with Mr Holmes. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, perhaps the first thing, I take it that 10 you will be a little time with the witness. 11 MR SMITH: Yes, sir. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: And there will be other applications. Just 13 give me an idea of how long the witness might be 14 required for? 15 MR SMITH: I think, sir, I may be another 15/20 minutes, I 16 would think. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you know yet whether you would wish to ... 18 MR HOLMES: As matters presently stand, sir, I don't intend 19 to make an application. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Macpherson, have you ...? 21 MR MACPHERSON: I don't anticipate making an application, 22 sir. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: I am not committing anybody. Miss Grahame, 24 are you ...? 25 MISS GRAHAME: Nor would I anticipate making any page 155 1 application. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: So it is just unfortunate having to stop now. 3 When would you be available again, Mr Geddes? I 4 know you have other commitments in the High Court coming 5 up. 6 A. The High Court for Monday I've actually been excused 7 from but I was, as I informed the Inquiry, due to go on 8 holiday. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: We understand that. So you are going on 10 holiday. 11 A. Well, if it aids the Inquiry, I would be happy to come 12 back on Wednesday, if that's -- 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Is it convenient for you because I know 14 you -- 15 A. Well, it's not particularly convenient. I might get 16 divorced but ... 17 THE CHAIRMAN: It's not too inconvenient. If you could come 18 on Wednesday morning we can immediately complete your 19 evidence. 20 A. Okay. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: I am grateful to you. 22 A. Okay. 23 MR MOYNIHAN: Sir, if I may just ask: I don't know how long 24 Mr Geddes is away for because plainly if it's a balance 25 then we could take him some time later, perhaps, if that page 156 1 suits. 2 A. It's inconvenient to finish today? If Mr Smith is 3 anticipating 15/20 minutes, is that ...? 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Unfortunately, my problem is I have a flight 5 to catch which if I don't catch I'm here for the 6 weekend, much as I would enjoy that but I think I had 7 better not. 8 MR MOYNIHAN: What I would suggest is we will have a 9 conversation, sir, amongst ourselves and find when we 10 can get too point that least inconveniences Mr Geddes. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Whenever is convenient we will fit you in. 12 So Wednesday then at 10.15. 13 (3.20 pm) 14 (Adjourned until Wednesday, 1st July 2009 at 10.15 am) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25