page 1 Wednesday, 23rd September 2009 (10.00 am) PAT ALEXANDER WERTHEIM (continued) Further examined by MR MOYNIHAN MR MOYNIHAN: Yes, sir. Just before we start the evidence, Mr Wertheim, there is a piece of information I have been passed which I think will be of interest to others in the hall. I think you have managed to be persuaded the weather in Scotland is so fantastic you will be able to stay an extra day for which, if that is correct, I am personally grateful because I said to you the allocation two days was my decision in advance and not anybody else's. Is that correct? Subject to finding suitable flights back you are able to stay tomorrow? A. Yes, since Sir Anthony wasn't willing to stay until midnight I agreed to stay the third day. I have to comment that in the last decade of combined total I've probably spent 40 or 45 days in Glasgow and I've never once seen bad weather. I don't know why you complain about it so much, except maybe keep the tourists out! Q. Thank you very much. What I want to do is to continue with Y7 and I will now move on to the point that I tried to get to page 2 yesterday which is point number 7 for us. If we could bring up, please, the image of Y7 which is FI0167A. What I actually want to do, Mr Wertheim, is to concentrate on a run of three features, 7, 8 and 9. If I do the usual and, in relation to Y7, highlight what I am interested in. I am bringing up Y7 just now and I am going to look at the areas 7, 8 and 9 for a reason, to combine them. In your own notes, if I bring up your own notes and perhaps put the image to the side and bring up FI0118 and if I begin again on page 31. We were looking yesterday at your notes and you were using production 189 numbering. With that piece of knowledge, if I turn now to page 32, you have a series of comments in the second half where you look at points numbered 8, 7, 5 and 6. Some photocopies will be coming for everyone shortly in relation to these numbers. If I tell you -- you may want to take a note of this, Mr Wertheim -- your point number 8 (the numbering in 189 for us) is now point number 9. On the charts it is the last one I was going to ask you about, number 9, was 8. 7 for you in your manuscript is now 8 for us. 5 on your manuscript notes, is the one that throws everything out, is very confusingly originally number page 3 14. So we see that on the chart just in this vicinity. Number 6 was 7. Number 6 on your notes is now 7. When we are looking at 7, 8 and 9 on the chart we are referring to point 6 in your manuscript note, 8 is point 7 in your manuscript note and 9 is point 8 in your manuscript note. Do you follow? A. I'm sorry, I'm a little bit confused. Let me write it. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want to make a note of the figures? A. Yes, of which point is which. I am take it then that the numbers that I used in my notes in March 1999, which I took from the SCRO production 189, those numbers do not correspond exactly with the numbers on the current SCRO chart? THE CHAIRMAN: I think Mr Dalyell will give you ... if you want to make a note ... MR MOYNIHAN: What I am actually doing is handing out to everybody now sheets, some of which has been lost because the numbers are all black but I will try and sort that out. (Handed) If I could just explain, Mr Wertheim, page 31 is there. It's your original page 8 so it is the first page of this photocopy. I have not changed any of the numbers there. On your page 9, which is the second page of the photocopy, page 32 for me in the electronic version, page 4 your original numbers are as they were originally on the left-hand margin. Then I have added in the corresponding numbers that I will use in the right-hand margin. Do you see that? A. In the right-hand margin ... Q. Of your notes. A. The left-hand margin, you mean. Q. The right-hand margin of your notes. THE CHAIRMAN: In the photocopy. MR MOYNIHAN: There are numbers on the right-hand side of the photocopy. THE CHAIRMAN: On the second page -- A. Oh, I see, on the second page. Thank you. MR MOYNIHAN: It is on the second page. A. Right, very good. Q. Then where it becomes confusing is I want also to look at the last page of the photocopy, page 33 for us digitally. There are now two lots of numbers. You will recognise your own handwriting as the inner numbers nearest the drawing on the left-hand side. So you have points 6, 7, 8 going round the clock, 14 and 5. Do you see that? I have written outside of them 7, 8, 9, 5 and 6? A. Very good. Thank you. page 5 Q. So that is the conversion of these numbers. My reason for doing this again, Mr Wertheim, is to look at what you were initially thinking about these points that we are about to discuss and to use your notes as a cross-check. A. Very good. Q. It also becomes even more confusing when we look at your charts of difference because we have more numbers to add in but I will deal with that when we come to it. First of all, if I begin with the point that on the SCRO chart is number 7 -- I will just bring it back up again. Do you see point number 7 on the SCRO chart? A. Yes, I do. Q. Again, perhaps I should just highlight that particular area so that we can see it more clearly. On your notes, if I understand it correctly -- and I am looking at the second page of the photocopy -- that is page 9 of your original notes, digitally it is page 32 on the right-hand side of the screen, 118 is point 32. A. Yes. Q. If I understand correctly, the note I should be interested in is the one at the very bottom that I am highlighting just now. page 6 A. That's correct. Q. What you note at the time in relation to the latent was for that what for me is point number 7, is on the very edge "nothing noted". The corresponding point in Ms McKie's print was a bifurcation and your conclusion was "not dependable". Can you explain what you mean by "not dependable"? A. Yes, sir. Yesterday some discussion around point number 1 in the current SCRO chart hinged on the issue that that point is on the very edge of the print and, because it's on the edge and because there's some slight curving, it appears there may have been a wee bit of slippage as the finger either touched the paper or lifted -- excuse me, as the finger in Y7 either touched the doorframe or lifted from the doorframe and, therefore, on that very edge where I can't follow the ridges down beyond that point to confirm its true existence, I don't trust points that are right on the edge. They are too subject to slippage and they are too subject to misinterpretation. That was true of point number 1. It is even more true of this alleged point. Q. If I can bring up, so that we can compare side-by-side, page 33 in the notes -- again everyone has this in manuscript -- we will see that what I have now described as point 7 you originally had as point 6 just page 7 immediately above the L of the word "latent" -- A. Yes. Q. -- does indeed correspond to point 7 in Y7 on this chart? A. That is correct. Q. If you follow the numbers round, in your drawing 7 and 8 do correspond, the numbers that are off the screen just now, but to the next two points clock-wise round 8 and 9 in general location. A. That's point 8 which was point 7 on the earlier SCRO chart and that would be point 9 -- Q. What I am pointing to just now is a bifurcation, at least it seems to me, above and to the right of point 8, which is now known as point 9. If I come out, you will see the numbers. A. Right and I would suggest for purposes of this discussion, Mr Moynihan, that we begin with point 9 and pin the others to that point because that point is a very clear point which makes it easier to interpret in relation to that point. Q. If you may, I will do that just in a moment but, first of all, what I just wanted to do was by reference to your notes in relation to the point I now call 7, just to see what you have written and we will follow it through because your own notes do discuss this page 8 combination of points and we will come to it in a moment. For my point 7, your original point 6, what you have drawn as we see in the right-hand side of the screen is: "No point in the latent and yet a clear bifurcation in Ms McKie's print." A. That's correct. Q. That is the point you are making. If I can bring up, therefore, on the right-hand side, just drop for the moment FI 0118 and bring up another copy of FI0167A, that's the McKie print. What we will do on this occasion is highlight Ms McKie's print. At point number 6, if I follow it, by correctly highlighting it by my arrow -- no sorry, I haven't. What I want to highlight is number 6. Is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. That says point number 6 in her print is a clear bifurcation? A. Yes. Q. But in relation to -- point number 6 is -- I am getting hopelessly confused because of the numbers. It's not point number 6 I want; it is point number 7. A. Okay. Yes, point number 7. Q. I apologise. Point number 7 is the point I am page 9 interested in that was originally 6. It is now 7. Point number 7, I have now indicated on the drawing, a clear bifurcation said to be the same as point number 7 on the inked. Can you comment now, with these two images side-by-side, as to what view you would take by it? A. May I enlarge? Q. Yes, please. A. This is brilliant software but I believe we're both having some problems because it's new to us. We'll take that and we'll take a roughly corresponding area here (indicated) and, once again, I'm going to start with the green then to trace the ridges as I see them. Now, this much I can be sure of and I've traced a bifurcation which actually encompasses point 9 on the current SCRO chart and just to be sure that we're looking at the same thing -- Q. If I help you, that is what you understand to be the bifurcation number 9? A. That's correct. So I'm using that as a reference. Now, in the inked print then of Ms McKie ... from point 9 we follow the -- and we'll go back to the latent print now. I'm in the latent print and from point 9, if we follow the left leg of the bifurcation downwards, the line that I've traced in red I believe to be a reliable page 10 interpretation of that ridge. At the point SCRO has indicated number 7, which in my notes of 1999 I referred to as SCRO point number 6, which would have been the point they used in production 189 at the time, they allege another ridge -- let me not use green. I'll use a blue ridge here -- they're alleging that a second ridge leaves from this point (indicated) and comes down right here. The problem I have with that interpretation is at least twofold or threefold. Point number 1 being that it's right on the very edge and for that reason I would be reluctant to consider it as a serious point. Number 2, the indication that I see, the very faint darkness that I traced -- and I will erase it and retrace it so you can see what underlies it here -- the very faint darkness that I traced is so faint ... I will simply start over with that particular point. If this ridge is reliable, this second ridge is so much fainter than that, I find it unreliable. The third issue that causes me to doubt the existence of this point is a fact that I referred to several times yesterday and that is that where you have a bifurcation, a clear Level 2 detail, the adjacent ridges on either side must necessarily diverge to make room for the new ridge that's appearing at that location page 11 and I think to accommodate this, let me just start over if you'll excuse the delay. Let me just start over and retrace these ridges as quickly as I can because then for the purposes of the record we can refer to the colours as differentiating. Once again, I'm tracing in green the ridges with which ... it's a little bit off to the side and I want to be accurate here. I'm tracing in green the ridges with which I agree to the interpretation. Now in blue I'm tracing the second ridge which would have to exist at the current point 7 to make this correct. What I'm referring to -- and again I am going to return to green -- is I interpret this ridge coming in from the left as the adjacent ridge to the point labelled as 7. Now I will circle this point in yellow. If the current SCRO point number 7 was a real feature, a true bifurcation, then I would expect to see -- and now I am going to use the line tool and I'm going to draw a red line -- if that was a true bifurcation at current point 7, I would expect to see some divergence of the ridge to the left and the ridge to the right to make room to accommodate the extra ridge generated at this hypothetical point number 7 but, in truth, I see no divergence of the ridges as I have indicated in the red. page 12 I see only straight ridges as I have indicated in green on either side of point 7 and that argues against the existence of point number 7. If point number 7 were a real bifurcation, there should be some divergence of the ridges at that point. Going to the inked print of Shirley McKie -- Q. Can we just stop for a second because we have lost a number of images today already. If I can save what is on the screen just now, from now on I am going to save the pair of images which I think will be better. We' are going to have to have perhaps just a little delay while these images are saved. MISS BAHRAMI: That's image FI2309.01. THE CHAIRMAN: I think you were going to go on and speak about seeing that convergence in the ten-print copy. A. Right, what I am looking at there is -- it is clear up here so let me demonstrate here (indicated). Above SCRO point 5 in the inked print, if we look at the distance between the two ridges adjacent above the bifurcation and if we look at the distance between the two adjacent ridges below the bifurcation, as I've marked in blue on the inked print at SCRO point number 5, then we can see that those adjacent ridges have increased in separation. If we look at SCRO point number 7 in the inked print, we would be looking at the distance between the page 13 two ridges above the bifurcation and the two ridges below the bifurcation. The divergence of these two ridges at point number 7 is not so great as we observed at point 5 but, still comparing those two blue lines, you can see there has been some divergence around the point 7 in the inked print and yet, as I have interpreted the latent print and the ridges that I've traced in green on Y7 within the yellow circle, I do not see a divergence that I would expect were there a true bifurcation at that point. THE CHAIRMAN: I notice, if you look at the right side of point 7, it almost looks like a convergence to my eye but maybe not. A. It may, sir, but again we're on the very edge of the print and I would hesitate to put a firm interpretation on that ridge. It may be coming slightly together or it may be going straight but the point of relevance here is that it does not separate and flow out around point 7 in Y7 and that argues against the existence of a bifurcation at that point. THE CHAIRMAN: The reason I asked you is I noticed you said, "I would expect", as opposed to saying you would always find. A. I hesitate to use the word "always", sir, because as surely as I use the word "always" then somebody will pop page 14 up with an example that disproves me. MR MOYNIHAN: Again, if we save that image that will be image FI2309.02 for today, I think. We will take time to save it and then when we are ready we will proceed. Mr Wertheim, I want to ask you something that is not about the detail of the numbers but is more to do with the ACE-V methodology. I asked you yesterday about the correct order in which to do an analysis and you said you would start with the latent and proceed thereafter to the known. Intending no disrespect to you, and this is what I want you to comment on, in looking at point 7 your notes started from the position that it's off the edge or at the edge and, therefore, not reliable and that's what you note. Now when you are looking at the SCRO interpretation what you are doing is trying to follow their interpretation and you are arguing, as you have done, that to have an interpretation consistent with theirs that point number 7 is a bifurcation one would have to mark in a blue line that we see on the screen just now in the saved image. As a matter of fingerprint methodology, is that the correct way to work to begin on the latent with something you think is on the edge and unreliable, page 15 proceed to the known and say if they are the same there must be a bifurcation in the latent and then go back to the latent and see if, by one means or another, you can trace that bifurcation? A. That would not necessarily be incorrect methodology but that would only be in the latter stages of a comparison. In the initial stages of the comparison, you would begin with the very clear points that, in the case of Y7, are in the middle of the print and only if you felt it necessary would you go out to the edges. In some of the agencies now in the US, it's required of the examiner to actually take a photograph or a digital image on the computer screen and mark out in one colour the very clear points in the latent print before the inked prints are ever looked at. Then if any additional points are discovered, such as hypothetically this one, then those are marked during the comparison in a different colour to differentiate those from the original mark or from the original points that were clear in the latent print. So it would not be an incorrect methodology, as you've suggested, to go around the edge and pick out additional points like this and try to interpret them based on what you see in the inked print. That wouldn't be entirely incorrect, although that would be secondary page 16 to marking the clear points and I think I would be safe in saying that that would only be done in a case in which there were insufficient clear points to start with and any points discovered in that way as a secondary tool would carry less weight in making the identification. Q. Therefore, if I treat you as following through that methodology and grappling with point 7 as a second look at the latent, what you have drawn is your response to that. You do not find it even on a second look as a reliable point in an assessment of the comparison of these two prints? A. That's correct. As noted in 1999, I don't see that point there. What I've drawn on this screen is what I believe the SCRO was referring to. I don't see it and for the reasons I enumerated (firstly, it is on the very edge; secondly, that additional hypothetical ridge I have traced in blue is too faint to be reliable; and thirdly I don't see a divergence of the adjacent ridges) for those three reasons I do not believe that that point exists. Q. If I may, I do not think we need to save anything but on the right-hand screen if I take down Ms McKie's print and bring up your own notes of difference FI0130.19. Mr Wertheim, I am happy to look at your larger chart. page 17 In fact, you have it there. Area 4 I would understand to correspond to point number 7 that we have just been discussing? A. That's correct. Q. I will give you a chance to read what you have written in relation to area number 4. A. "A green circle in the inked print [and I'm indicating my phase 1 chart] a green circle in the inked print encloses two clear downward opening bifurcations. The same area in Y7 is an open field of ridges and has no bifurcations whatsoever. It might be suggested that the bifurcations exist in Y7 but are below the bottom limit (edge) of the mark. That is not the case. Considering the relative position of the two bifurcations with respect to the feature in area 3 of the inked print, they should show up in this area of Y7. The absence of any features in area 4 of Y7 is evidence of difference completely incompatible with the idea that Y7 came from the same source as the inked print." Q. What I want to ask just for you to comment on again is the question where if one has a particular frame of mind over time one can see more points consistent with that. What I suggest to you for your comment is that in your original notes you had simply said the point that SCRO are relying upon, a bifurcation in this location, I page 18 cannot see because it is off the edge or is at the edge of the mark so I therefore cannot see the point they rely on. That is what you said at the time. Now it would seem, I suggest, you have gone further because what you have said is, "If it were there, I would expect to see a sign on this mark, Y7". I suggest to you that is just going a speculative step further that, because you are at the edge of the mark, you simply do not know what is that fraction beyond the image that is on the screen. A. I would respectfully state that I don't see a significant difference in my notes of 1999 and the notes that I've prepared here. As you point out, I go a little bit further in my speculation regarding this point or in my interpretation regarding this point. I would again repeat what I said yesterday and that is for purposes of preparing the case for trial in 1999 to prove to the jury that these two prints, Y7 and Shirley McKie's print, are not the same, the degree to which I presented the evidence necessarily was lower than the degree to which I am presenting the evidence to the Inquiry because the goals and objectives of this Inquiry are far greater than simply to determine whether or not Y7 matches. Q. If I move on then to points 8 and 9 -- and I appreciate page 19 you wanted to start at 9 but if you bear with me, if you want to approach it in a different way, please say -- A. Before we move on, my paragraph that I just read from area 4 talks about the relative positions of the bifurcations and that would include SCRO point 7 in their phase 1 chart. For a little bit of clarification on my paragraph, if we could pull back up the previous marked image of the inked print that I was working on, I will show you what I meant by relative position in paragraph regarding area 4. MISS BAHRAMI: On the right-hand side of the page? A. That's correct. MR MOYNIHAN: That should be image 2? A. Yes, the image that was replaced with my notes. MR MOYNIHAN: I think what we are looking for is FI2309.02. MISS BAHRAMI: They haven't been renamed yet. I'll bring it up. MR MOYNIHAN: Mr Wertheim, is it the Ms McKie you want to look at again? A. Yes, we can put the inked print on the right. Perfect. Okay, I'm going to go back to the line tool here and we have not used a light blue line yet this morning so I'll choose light blue or light green whichever it is. I believe I'm afflicted with the slight colour blindness page 20 that you mentioned yesterday, Mr Moynihan. If we come from point 6 in the SCRO chart of Y7 to point 7 and we look at the angularity of that line and if we come to point 6 in Shirley McKie's inked print and go to point 7 and look at the angularity of that line, we find that, even if we accept the existence of point 7 in the SCRO mark-up of Y7, the relationship to their marked point number 6 is farther down the ridge significantly farther down the ridge, than point 7 is from point 6 in Shirley McKie's inked print and you cannot have a bifurcation moving up and down a ridge and changing its location from one touch to the next. The relative position of a bifurcation in point 6 and point 7 in Shirley McKie's inked print would reproduce in the same relationship with regard to the angle across the intervening ridge. That's what I meant by relative position in the paragraph of my notes that accompanied the phase 1 exercise. Q. Thank you for that. Again, we will save this pair and it will be image FI2309.03. What I am going to do is to move on to the points which for me are 8 and 9 and if I can indicate without marking, point 8 is the one that I am pointing to just now (indicated). It is just immediately above the lower of your green lines in the middle of the Y7 print. That page 21 is point 8. Point number 9, as we have already said, is the bifurcation that you have marked in green on the print. Point 8 and point 9 we want to discuss. In the McKie fingerprint, point 8 is what I am pointing to just now (indicated). To give it a description myself, it is a point that is in the middle of the picture towards the left-hand side and point 9 is what would appear to be a bifurcation immediately above it. Those are the two points, 8 and 9. Perhaps, first of all, if I start with your own notes to follow this through. I will leave the print on the left. I will bring up on the right your notes FI0118.33 and people can follow this on paper if they prefer. It is page 2 of the original photocopies I handed out with the numbers that may assist. You have drawn in the latent as point 8 the bifurcation that I will now call 9 and, below that, you have drawn as number 7, is that a small enclosure? A. That's correct. Q. That would correspond to point 8 in the now SCRO numbering. Your own drawing relates what you see on Ms McKie's print to what we see in the latent. What you say in your notes relative to what I now choose to call point 8, originally point 7 for you, if we go back to page 32, the middle page of the page 22 photocopies for everybody else, you are here talking, in the part I am about to highlight, about what is point 8 for me. Can you tell me what you have written so far as the latent is concerned? A. In 1999 I wrote of point 7, which is the point we're currently referring to as point 8 on the SCRO phase 1 chart I wrote in 1999: "On the very edge of the print there's a possible recurving ridge, possibly with an upthrusting rod adjoining under the recurve." Then in parentheses: "not noted above." Q. Then you have written so far as what you'd seen in Ms McKie's inked print? A. In the inked print relative to the same point as charted by SCRO on production 189, I've written of their point number 7 (currently referred to as point number 8) that the recurving ridge or that there is a recurving ridge with a rod on the inner recurve. Q. Can you explain what you mean by that? A. Okay. May I draw a picture on my notes here in the area where you've highlighted? Q. If you wish. A. I'm going to use the colour red and above the note on page 23 number 7 in the inked print I'm drawing an arc. This would be what I mean by a recurving ridge (indicated) and with a rod on the recurve -- it should be going straight down -- I'd be referring to a rod that comes straight down from that centre of the recurve. What I'm referring to on number 7 is that I see a possible recurving ridge in Y7, possibly with an upthrusting rod adjoining under the recurve; in other words, connected to it right here (indicated). This was my possible interpretation of it in 1999 and this would be at point number 7 on production 189 which is point number 8 as we are referring to it today. Q. We see the conclusion, your evaluation, in 1999 was that these two features were described as being in tolerance? A. That's correct. That's what I've got marked in my notes there in 1999. That was my opinion in relation to this point in reference to the analysis at that time. Q. If I compare that with the notes that we have of the points of difference, FI0130 -- we will save this pair now and I have lost track of the numbers so you will need to tell me. MISS BAHRAMI: It's FI2309.04. MR MOYNIHAN: If we take the left-hand image down just now and bring up for me also FI0130.19, I am now looking to area 5. page 24 Does area 5 correspond to the feature we have just been discussing as point number 8? A. No, sir, not in all aspects it doesn't. Q. If I look at the area that is highlighted in yellow, are you pointing to a small enclosure in Y7 that you find not to be represented in Shirley McKie's fingerprint? A. That's correct. Q. Again, if I show you on the right-hand side if I go to FI0118.33 and I look at the drawing on the top left, what you marked as number 7, for me it is number 8, you have indeed marked a small enclosure in your drawing, in your most recent drawing. A. That's correct. The drawing -- if I can mark it here -- currently we have page 4 of 8 of my phase 1 notes on the left and we've got page 10 of 16 of my notes of March 28, 1999 at 8.00 am and I will use a blue circle because we don't have blue here. In my 1999 notes, I am enclosing within the blue circle what were referred to at the time as point 7 and point 8 the way I drew them in 1999 in my interpretation of Y7 and I'll circle my notes from my phase 1 comments in the same area. What I find there -- I'll use some red arrows to indicate as I'm speaking -- I find the large bifurcation which is labelled in the SCRO phase 1 chart -- page 25 Q. It's number 9. A. Yes, as number 9, and I'll mark that point in my notes of 1999 with the same red arrow and then at point number 7 in my 1999 notes the drawing I've put in shows a small enclosure and in my current phase 1 notes I'm showing a small enclosure. I would like to state for the record that when I prepared these drawings from my phase 1 notes, roughly five or six weeks ago, I did so without reference to my 1999 notes and so I'm struck by the similarity of my 1999 drawing and the current interpretation that I've made a decade later. I've showed the SCRO current point 9, I've showed an ending ridge below it, I've showed the enclosure on the recurve below that and the only thing I've added in my current phase 1 notes is an upthrusting ridge ending inside the inner recurve in this new drawing. Q. If I may anticipate what you have highlighted as area 6 in a moment, because, again, if I complete the particular similarities in the notes, in your most recent drawings you also draw in, if I can put it with an arrow, you put an intervening ridge ending between the opening that you have highlighted and bifurcation number 9. So between points 8 and 9 you have a ridge ending. Is that correct? page 26 A. That's correct. Q. Do we also see that in your 1999 drawing that you similarly have an intermediate ridge ending between what I now call 8 and 9? A. That's correct. The intervening ridge ending was in my 1999 interpretation and is present in my current interpretation as well. Q. Do we see at the point that you are indicating or that can be indicated in your drawing for Ms McKie in 1999 is that there is no intervening ridge ending between the points on that original drawing as 7 and 8, which for me is 8 and 9, so there is an absence of that intermediate ridge? A. That is correct. Q. If you will bear with me, Mr Wertheim, if I go on FI0130 to the next page, that is point 20, I now come to your area 6. If I understand it correctly, what you are in fact relying on as your area 6 is the existence in Y7 of that intermediate ridge and its absence in Ms McKie's print. Is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. So we can see your area 5 and your area 6 comments today are the same as observations you made in 1999; is that correct? page 27 A. That's correct. Q. However, if I can return if I take the left page down and now bring up side-by-side and put on the left in other words FI0118.32 for everyone who has the manuscript copy, we have to make the adjustment that point 8 is now 9 and point 7 is now 8. It is all a bit confusing. A. Yes, I've marked them here on the hard copy you gave me. Q. The point that I was making was in relation to the evaluation. In 1999 you had noted differences. In particular do you, in point number 8, actually remark that there is a possible ridge ending beneath? A. Right. Q. So you have noted what you have actually drawn and if I highlight it, it is those two lines (indicated), with ridge ending beneath? A. Yes, sir. Q. So you have noted the point and yet in 1999 in relation to 7 and 8, now 8 and 9, you said in tolerance whereas now you say these are clear differences. A. Oh, no. What I'm saying is that the bifurcation -- what I said in 1999 is the bifurcation marked as point 8 in production 189 I accepted as being within tolerance, within tolerance, with the bifurcation in Shirley McKie's inked print marked at the same point. page 28 That point number 8 in production 189 was considered for purposes of my notes, my handwritten notes here, that point was considered as a stand-alone point without considering the ridge ending below it for purposes of the term in tolerance there. Q. I understand what you are saying. If I look then just to complete the picture, to some extent the bit that follows on may fit in with that because the reason for having the second page up (that is page 10 of your original manuscript, page 33 of the digital version) is, having gone through each of these points individually, you then in your notes treat them as a group and you bring in some of the other points we discussed yesterday. Because one can read it for oneself, without taking too much time over this, did you find some discrepancies when you approached these numbers as a group? A. I think discrepancy is too strong a word because discrepancies would imply that I disagreed with that point. I believe what I would say in that regard is that this is a matter of interpretation, as some other lines I've drawn where I've explained that maybe the ridge connects with this side, maybe it connects with this side. If I can draw in green on my notes on page 9 of 16, page 29 I'll show you what I'm talking about with those alternatives, possibly this, possibly that. What I'm saying in instance 1 is that it's possibly a bifurcation, such as I'm drawing in green (indicated), with a ridge ending beneath it, which is the interpretation that I made in my drawing on the following page of my notes that I'm circling in green just now (indicated) on page 10 of 16, a bifurcation opening to the right with a ridge ending below it. The two possible alternatives -- and I'm going to change colours, I'll draw in red the second possible interpretation -- possibly two unbroken ridges. I'm saying that these ridges are broken up enough that we could have two unbroken ridges and the appearance of the bifurcation, as I'm indicating with the cursor (indicated), is an incorrect interpretation. That's possible. I don't necessarily agree with it, as indicated by my drawing circled in green. A third possible interpretation, which I will do in blue ridges, is that we had two parallel ridges with a cross-over between the ridges. So these are the three possible interpretations. I'll use this colour for the arrow. The first one is the possible bifurcation with a ridge ending beneath and that's this one (indicated). The second is possibly two page 30 unbroken ridges and that this one (indicated) and the third is possibly two ridges with a cross-over. So when I was trying to interpret that feature in Y7 in 1999 I listed what I believe is the most likely interpretation first and that is the bifurcation with the ridge ending in it as I've drawn on page 10 of 16 of my notes in 1999, which corresponds to the drawing on both area 6 and area 5, I believe, of my notes in the phase 1 Inquiry. My notes in area 5, area 6 of phase 1, correspond to my drawing on page 10 of 16 of my 1999 notes. As you correctly point out, in my handwritten notes on the previous page of 1999 I have noted three possible interpretations. The fact that I've drawn it in regards to the top interpretation indicates to me that that was my strongest belief at the time. Q. If I look back to the criminal court trial and see how much more quickly the same point can actually be made if we don't use technology but nonetheless consistently, what you are saying is the third interpretation would be below the bifurcation numbered 9 is a short ridge ending that intervenes that you don't find in Ms McKie. First of all, if we save the pair we have just now and the number will be ...? MISS BAHRAMI: The number will be FI2309.05. page 31 MR MOYNIHAN: SG0531.172. We simply see you and Mr Findlay got through things a little bit quicker than I am getting through them just now. Line 22 turns to point number 8, which of course for us is point number 9. If we also bring up page 173 of the same document, we will see the complete answer, one paragraph, perhaps 30 seconds in a criminal trial, and it seems that you gave exactly the same answer as you have just given, namely that number 8 is the splitting ridge. "If we look at the latent print we can very clearly see a splitting ridge opening to the right at point number 8. On the surface, considering that as a splitting ridge alone, I would say that is within tolerance standing alone and by itself. However, if you will look at the latent print between point 8 and point 7 [points 8 and 9] there is clearly an intervening ridge. There is no intervening ridge between point number 7 and point 8 in the ink print. So taken in combination 7 and 8 are well out of tolerance because there is an extra ridge in there that you cannot account for." A. It's exactly the same thing I've said currently in phase 1, 10 years later, and again without reference to my earlier statement. page 32 Q. It never ceases to amaze me how much quicker everything is in a criminal trial than it is perhaps in other litigation. A. I will have to compliment you on having all these information at your fingertips to throw at me because I'm amazed. Q. What I would like to do is perhaps to return to image number 4 today, just to complete this point. What I would like to do is simply ask you if you can, on the drawing that you had already prepared, to indicate to us where you see the evidence of that intervening ridge between points 8 and 9 for us now. Point 9 is, as we now know, the bifurcation. Point 8 is a feature that I am indicating just now (indicated) and I will leave you to do all the marking so that you can tell me where what you would understand point 8 to be and, accordingly, where the intervening ridge is. A. Right, I will use purple this time to draw this. As I interpret the ridge starting on the left at the very edge of the mark, of the latent print, the ridge comes in, curves down slightly and ends. Purple doesn't show up as well as I thought. I can define this as a ridge ending or a feature of some sort by virtue of the fact that again the ridges diverge at that point and to remain consistent with what I drew earlier I'll use blue page 33 to demonstrate the distance between the ridges before this point and the distance between the adjoining ridges after this point. We can see here (indicated) a very marked separation going in an upward direction to the left, that these ridges diverge drastically and that adds considerable weight to the interpretation that there must be an intervening ridge with a ridge ending as I've drawn both in 1999 and in my phase 1 drawings in area 5 and area 6. MR MOYNIHAN: Can we save that as image 6 for today. MISS BAHRAMI: FI2309.06. MR MOYNIHAN: What I want to do is to move on now to a quartet of points. I'm leaving 8 and 9. The next points I want to talk about are 10, 11, 12 and 13. If I bring up twice on the screen FI0167A and highlight Y7 and I'll also highlight Ms McKie's print. It is easier for my purposes if I use Ms McKie's print for a description of the quartet of points. 10 is on the left side of an enclosure or lake; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. 11 is the right side of that same enclosure or lake? A. Yes. Q. 12 and 13, if I understand it correctly, are indicating the ridge endings of what might be a small incipient page 34 ridge? A. Yes. Q. Is that correct? A. Yes, it is. Q. Those are the four points and given their proximity I want to actually deal with them together. 10, 11, 12 and 13. If I now highlight that area so that we can look at it a bit more closely and in the Y7 if I do the same, highlight that area, we now see the two side-by-side. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. What I would ask people to do is just to have perhaps a mental picture of that. Perhaps if we save it we will come back just now. Save and come back to it. MISS BAHRAMI: It is saved as FI2309.07. MR MOYNIHAN: I think everyone in the hall possibly have, as I have, paper copies of these images because what I actually want to do is learn a lesson that I have learned that Mr Findlay was a bit faster than I am and look at what you said about these four points in the original criminal trial. If I bring up, please, the transcript which is SG0531 and go to page 173. So that we can follow this, there is a bit of a twist. Number 10 for us was number page 35 9 in 189, so number 9 in the transcript; number 11 for us was 11 in the transcript; and 12 and 13 were the same. 10 was originally 9 and 11, 12 and 13 are the same. With that, we can now read what is on the transcript. I will begin on page 173 digitally, 171 of the transcript, line 10 is point number 9. You discussed that with, if we see at line 13 number 11. So 9 and 11 is what you are discussing as the pair and if I tell everyone 9 and 11 then are now 10 and 11 for us, you were discussing the lake. I am not going to take time to read it all. I will just simply give everyone an opportunity, if I bring up page 174 as well, please, so people can read it. Can you just take time to read from line 10 on the left-hand screen through to line 11 on the right-hand screen. I will then ask you some questions. (Pause) A. Yes. Q. If I understand it, what you are saying is so far as points then 9 and 11 (for me 10 and 11) you simply don't see them on Y7. A. I didn't see them in 1999 and I don't see them today. Q. That is why I am getting a lesson from Mr Findlay, it's perhaps as short as that and we will look back. If I can leave number 10 for the moment because page 36 confusingly for everyone number 10 then is now number 17 for me and we will come back to that in a minute. If I move you on and have up on the screen pages 175 and 176, what you are talking about in what is on the screen now as the left and right pages are the features 12 and 13 and for once the numberings are all consistent. Can I ask you to begin on the left-hand screen at line 14 and proceed on the right-hand screen down to line 15. (Pause) A. Yes, sir. Q. Again, if I understand it correctly, you accepted then that 12 and 13 on Ms McKie's print was an incipient ridge. A. Yes. Q. You did not find enough indication of the presence of that in Y7? A. Yes. In my testimony in 1999 on page 174, which is SG531.176, on lines 13, 14 and 15, the clarity in this region simply isn't there for me to rely on any incipient ridge structure in between the ridges that exist here. In order to see the incipient ridges in a latent print such as Y7 you would have to have a very high degree of clarity (level 3 detail) and the clarity in Y7 page 37 at this point is not sufficiently high to allow any interpretation of Level 3 in this area of the print. There are some areas of Y7 in which you can rely on the Level 3 detail because the clarity is greater but not in this area of Y7. Q. What I want to do is just before we look back to the image is I asked you earlier on about the ACE-V methodology and you described that once through the latent, then you can go to the known and come back on a second sweep of the latent to see if there are points detected. Can I ask you again to look at what you said in evidence at the criminal trial at page 173, digital page 173, please. It is the left-hand page that is up on the screen and it is between lines 11 and 25. You are asked about number 9 by Mr Findlay, which for us is number 10. You say: "Number 9 is off the edge of the ink. I'm sorry, sir. If I can do anything I can perhaps extrapolate that ridge all over but number 9 and number 11 would have to be used in combination and we would have you an enclosure there and I see nothing that justifies the inclusion of a wide enclosure in the area of number 9 and 11 that in any way matches the enclosure that appears in the ink print." page 38 That far we have discussed, it's the next part: "Now if I look in the ink print and see that enclosure and then go back to the latent mark and look at the points labelled 9 and 11, again I can say, yes, that could be but that is allowing myself to be influenced by what appears on the ink print. It is allowing a mindset or a prejudice to form based on the ink print which I am then using to help me interpret the latent print." Can you comment on that? What were you indicating there? A. Wow, I said that before Bror's research said that that happens. Yes, I'm referring to what you referred to yesterday as a confirmation bias. You see it in one print and so you are biased then to observe it in the other print. That's not entirely the way Dr Dror and Mr Charlton used the term "confirmation bias" but I think it's a correct application of the term. You are forming an opinion in the unknown based on a preconceived notion and that's exactly what I was referring to. If I study the inked print hard enough and then look at the latent print, my mind can trick me into saying, "Yes, could be". Which is why it's important to study the latent print and make your best interpretation without that prejudice, without the page 39 influence of the inked print entering into that interpretation. That's what I've said here and I stand by that completely. Q. Dror, just so we get it right in the notes is D-R-O-R, Dr Dror? A. That's correct. THE CHAIRMAN: Is it not slightly different doing it in the opposite direction; in other words, that you look at the latent print, you see what could be a bifurcation, let us say, for example, but you are not quite sure whether it is a bifurcation or a ridge ending and then when you go to the ten-print you can see a bifurcation there, is it not justified doing it that way? When you are dealing with say the edge of the latent print to say, well, that rather confirms since it could have been one or the other, as it happens, that's confirmed to some degree by what I see on the ten-print? A. Yes, you're exactly correct. If you see it in the inked print -- I mean, excuse me, if you see it in the latent print and you think, okay, possibly there could be a bifurcation here, it looks like it but it's not real clear, if you see that and make that interpretation on the latent print first and then look at the inked print and you see it clearly, that is more reliable. But if page 40 you study it in the inked print first and then go to the unclear image, that's less reliable. THE CHAIRMAN: That is what I am seeking to find out. It could be justified going in one direction but not going in the opposite direction? A. That's correct. THE CHAIRMAN: I see we have run a little bit over the usual -- would this be a convenient moment? MR MOYNIHAN: Yes, because we will look at the images in relation to those points and I can then pick up point number 10 in the transcript as well. THE CHAIRMAN: We will stop now until 11.55. (11.35 am) (A short break) (11.55 am) MR MOYNIHAN: Mr Wertheim, what I was going to do was to go back to the images we had started with in relation to 10, 11, 12 and 13 and pick up now just very briefly what we have seen in the criminal transcripts, in particular the point you discussed with the Chairman about the proper way to work backwards and forwards between images. Could I bring up image FI2309.07. These were the images I created earlier on, Mr Wertheim, intending to show the features 10, 11, 12 and 13 that we have just page 41 been discussing. With the benefit of these images, if memory serves me correctly, 10 is what I'm pointing to just now (indicated) in the left-hand image, 11 is what I'm pointing to now (indicated) immediately to its right, and above them 12 and 13. 10, 11, 12 and 13 (indicated). Dealing with 10 and 11, what is your observation on those as they are to be seen in the Y7 image? A. All right, without reference to the markings on the chart and further without reference to the inked print, I want to sit back and look at those images from a little bit more distance so that my mind can connect the dots, so to speak, and I want to draw what I believe to be a reasonable interpretation of the detail. I'm going -- to keep it in the frame of reference I'm going to start down with the ridge on the point that we have agreed is number 9. Off to a wee bit of a shaky start there. Now I'm going to go upward from the ridge on point number 9 and trace what I believe to be a reasonable interpretation. (Indicated) Now we're back over to the earlier points, which I believe -- were these 3 and 4 or 4 and 5, I forget? Q. Give me a second. I can help you. page 42 A. Let me look at the chart over here. Okay, those two that I've put over there were 4 and 5 on the initial and just to confirm that, I'm going to mark them here with a red arrow, point number 4 and point number 5 in the SCRO point, I'll put the corresponding point number 4 and point number 5 with the red arrows in the inked print. (Indicated) I'm only doing that for purposes of frame of reference and relationship. So now I'm going back to Y7 and I'm going to continue upward in that ridge. (Indicated) Now I've also traced the bifurcation that we were agreeing to as point number 3. So what I'm looking at here primarily is the area that I'm enclosing in a yellow circle above point number 9. Basically, I believe it is a reasonable interpretation of this latent print, based on the level of clarity, to accept that we have straight ridges in there; that we don't have any bifurcations; we don't have any enclosures. If there is an incipient ridge -- and for purposes of this I will mark the incipient ridge as a small red line as I believe the SCRO has put it in here -- if we are to say that that's an incipient ridge, the problem I have with it is that the level of clarity does not justify it. For example, if we are to say that that little page 43 mark -- and let me erase it and redraw it -- if we look at that little mark and accept that that is an incipient ridge -- now I'm redrawing it -- then we have to say, right, well, there's an incipient ridge right here as well (indicated) because -- and this is skipping four ridges up from there. My point being that the level of clarity here is low and the presence of stray shadows and images or artefacts is somewhat higher than we would allow if we were to try to interpret Level 3 detail. Just as a find this upper little mark that I've put in red, I find it unreliable to accept that that is an incipient ridge. Likewise, I find it just as unreliable to accept that there's an incipient ridge below. I'm not denying that it might exist, I'm just saying I see nothing whatsoever to justify it and I'm going to put one more green ridge above that latest little red hypothetical incipient that I've drawn up above. (Indicated) So if you were to interpret that lower red mark as an incipient ridge, as indicated by I believe that's number 12 and 13, isn't it? MR MOYNIHAN: Yes. A. If we are to accept that lower one as an incipient ridge, then I would suggest that that upper little red mark is just as likely to be an incipient ridge. Then page 44 further above that I see other stray images. I see something going on right in here (indicated). I see something right here (indicated) that I'm marking in red. You see, the magnitude of shadow in these little areas I've marked -- here's something right here over to the right (indicated). What is that? I don't know. Is that another incipient ridge? Well, it has the same degree of darkness to it as the one indicated by points 12 and 13. My point, if you will pardon the pun, is that I find none of this sufficiently reliable given the degree of clarity to justify the interpretation of an incipient ridge at that location. Q. Or, for that matter, an enclosure? A. Or an enclosure. Yes, the lower enclosure at points 10 and 11, did we say? Q. Yes. A. I find nothing to justify that either. Q. If you give me just a second we will save those two images before we lose all that work. MISS BAHRAMI: That's saved as FI2309.08. MR MOYNIHAN: Sorry, Mr Wertheim, I interrupted you. THE CHAIRMAN: I think he had completed his answer. MR MOYNIHAN: That is okay because if I could return now to image FI2309.07 and we will start again and pick up one page 45 of the other points just slightly out of order. What I actually want to look at is point number 17 and if I indicate what is point number 17, point number 17 on Ms McKie's fingerprint is again a bifurcation? A. That's correct. Q. In Y7 I'm not going to put in a mark because that might actually obliterate the detail. I understand point number 17 to be where the pen tip is pointing just now (indicated). That is point number 17. 10 and 11 we see, 12 and 13 above, point number 17 is to the side and above. On the left-hand side it's the top-most mark. What comment do you have about highlighting point number 17 in Y7 as any feature of clarity to be interpreted? A. Since you've got my previous transcripts and my memory's going back ten years, but I believe one of the statements that Donald Findlay and I exchanged several times during the trial was the phrase, "if you can't see it you can't use it". I believe you'll find, if not verbatim, something to that effect repeated by Mr Findlay and me a number of times. Training and experience as a fingerprint expert allows me to interpret the ridges and the furrows in a latent print like this, but no training and experience can prepare my eyeball or my brain to see something that page 46 is not there in the first place. Now, as a lay person, you are seeing exactly what I'm seeing and so if I outline in green a ridge with a bifurcation -- Q. If I just stop you, Mr Wertheim, because, again, as yet another example, if I defer to Mr Findlay, we will see the exchange you had with Mr Findlay about this particular point now. The twist is that point number 17 was, in the original trial, point number 10 and it is the one I have leapfrogged so far. So if we go back to your transcript, it is SG0531. If we leave on the left-hand image, take the right-hand image down just now and put in it's place -- just bring up the transcript, SG0531, page 174 and 175. On this occasion we are looking at point 10 so on the left-hand image it begins at line 11 and, if I understand it correctly, it runs on the right-hand page to line 13. I will not ask you to read it out, I will just ask you to read it quietly to yourself and then I will ask you some questions. (Pause) A. Okay. Q. If I understand it correctly, what you have said in the criminal trial was that you found no reliable evidence of number 10 in Y7. page 47 A. That's correct. Q. Mr Findlay seems to have anticipated Dr Dror in his concluding questions of you on page -- the original transcript reference is 173 between lines 4 and 13. That is the right-hand page. At line 9: "Is there a danger that you then go back to the latent print and say, yes, well, right enough, that could be a bifurcation, you've talked yourself into it?" You say: "Yes, sir, that's the problem exactly." A. I stand by that. Q. That is why I think we can leave it as short as that. That is what you stand by in relation to point number 17 for me, which is 10 in the original case. That I think leaves us with only one point now of the 17 to be discussed and in the SCRO it is point number 14. If we bring up again a dual image, please, of FI0167A, I will do what I usually do which is have Y7 on one side of the screen and Ms McKie's print on the other. Point number 14 on Ms McKie's print, do you see that highlighted? A. I do. Q. Point number 14 SCRO say is a ridge ending. Would you accept that interpretation? One might page 48 think it could either be a ridge ending or a bifurcation. Is it a ridge ending in that location? A. Yes, in Ms McKie's inked print I would accept either interpretation. It could be a ridge ending. It is so close to the lower ridge that I would also be willing to accept it is a bifurcation. Q. You may want to study the photographic original to your side because what I am going to do is enlarge Y7 so that we can all clearly see point number 14. I have tried as best I can to enlarge it without losing the number. We can go further. Do you see anything in Y7 that would be a reliable indication of a ridge ending to correspond to point number 14 in Ms McKie's print? A. No, I don't. I see an open field of parallel ridges and, if you like, I would be glad to trace in green what I interpret there. Q. If you give me just a second because, if I am correct in my notes, this corresponds to area 10 in your differences. Can you just check your images to see if that is correct? A. Not exactly. As I count the ridges on the original SCRO phase 1 presentation of Y7, I see that their point 14 in mark Y7, their point 14 is five ridges below the page 49 so-called Rosetta point and in number 10, area number 10 in my notes that you're referring to, I don't go five ridges below that Rosetta point. So area 10, as I've drawn it on my page 7 of 8, doesn't go down as far as SCRO's point 14. Q. Let us just look at then area 14. Again, I do not want to take up too much time on this particular one but what is your comment looking at them on screen just now? A. On screen just now -- do you mind if I enlarge it a bit more? Q. No, that is okay. A. Because I think my hand is a wee bit too shaky to trace the green lines reliably. We see point 14 where I'm holding the magnifying glass or thereabouts, so we will keep track roughly of that area and I've tried to include that area in the dead centre. So as I'm indicating with the cursor right now, that would be point 14 where SCRO marks it. I will try to outline a corresponding area of Shirley McKie's inked print that includes point 14, again in the centre of the image. Now I'm going to go to the green line tool and attempt to interpret the ridges and trace them, connecting the dots as accurately as I can. I'll start a few ridges above point 14 and go a couple of ridges below it as quickly as I can, sir. page 50 (Pause) Okay, I've outlined this only in the latent print. I won't bother to outline it in the inked print. I'm going to draw a large circle around the mark of point 14 and the adjacent ridges going out in each direction. I don't see anything in that yellow circle that justifies the interpretation of a ridge ending or a bifurcation at that point. To use the blue line tool, I see the ridges going into that yellow circle as approximately the same distance outside the yellow circle. If I go to Shirley McKie's inked print and draw the blue lines between the ridges in approximately the same positions on either side of point 14, I note that there is a significant increase in the distance between adjacent ridges on the lower side of the bifurcation. I do not see any such increase in the distance between the ridges in Y7 and that argues strongly against the presence of any point in that location. Q. In that case, what we will do is save that particular image, please. A. I would add the comment that -- Q. Just pause a second. MISS BAHRAMI: That's saved as image FI2309.09. MR MOYNIHAN: Sorry to interrupt you, Mr Wertheim. page 51 A. I'm sorry for speaking out of turn. I was going to say that on reviewing that, as I was going so fast with that green line tool, it looks like the top ridge may not exactly correspond with what I intended to draw, but the second, third, fourth and fifth ridges going down I believe do relatively accurately reflect correct interpretation of those ridges. Q. What I would like to do is look at a very few of the features we have been talking about picking up, just for completeness, something that Mr Swann says in responding to your phase 1. If I understand Mr Swann correctly in relation to some of the points that you have described as not seeing from the images we have used, Mr Swann may agree with you that he does not see them on the images we are using but he suggests they are to be seen on a different image. Just for completeness, what I would like to do is use the image which I understand he is using. I understand he is using an image TS0006. I can give you the photographic original. It is in the plastic sleave in front of me. It's a Mr Kent image. (Handed) It will be page 2. If we could bring up again, please, FI0167A on the right-hand side as well. On this occasion, what I am going to do is to page 52 highlight Ms McKie's print and I will attempt -- first of all, can I rotate this image so that the T Kent, instead of running along the top, runs down the left-hand margin. So if we could rotate it 90 degrees anti-clockwise. What I will try to do is bring up the Y7 image. What I'm interested in -- first of all, one can use it for a number of different features because Mr Swann refers to it for number 2, number 7, 10 and 11, so I could use it for any number of those. 10 and 11 happens to be one that I personally have a clear mental picture of. 10 and 11 in Ms McKie's print is the lake -- A. That's correct. Q. -- which we discussed latterly. Please, you highlight on Y7 to whatever magnification you think is appropriate and tell me whether in this Terry Kent image you can see clear evidence of 10 and 11. Obviously, even I am looking at it and I assume what my cursor is on just now is the bifurcation that would correspond to number 9? A. That's correct. Q. So perhaps if I magnify from a certain point down, do you see any greater clarity in Mr Kent's image? A. Yes. Mr Kent's image does appear to have a crisper page 53 focus than the original image used by SCRO. Q. Or used by me for this particular -- A. Yes, or any of us in the first instance. Q. Do you see on the Kent image though, by reference to that, any indication of the lake, 10 and 11? A. I've got the cursor over point 9 so this 10 and 11 would have to be in this area (indicated). The yellow circle I've drawn -- it's actually a yellow ellipse with vertical axis. The bottom of that yellow ellipse is on point number 9 and extends upwards. I can see how Mr Swann might talk himself into that island if he studies the inked print very hard first, but if I were to interpret that without reference to the inked print, my interpretation would be that the safest interpretation is a straight ridge. Here's the safe interpretation of the bifurcation at point 9 (indicated). Here's the other leg of the bifurcation at point 9 (indicated). The ridge above the one that allegedly has the enclosure and this is a little bit smaller scale so you'll have to forgive me if my green line wiggles too much. But all I see in that yellow circle, all that I can reliably tell you about that latent print mark is that I would accept an open field of parallel ridges without any ridge endings or bifurcations within the several ridges above point 9, page 54 but I would find it very difficult to accept any other interpretation for purposes of a comparison with Shirley McKie's fingerprint. Q. Just for completeness, because you said that Mr Kent's image has a greater clarity, a second point that Mr Swann relies on the Kent image for is number 7. Point number 7 for me I can locate as being a bifurcation on the lower part of the left leg of the bifurcation number 9. Am I correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have drawn the left leg of bifurcation number 9 in the picture from Mr Kent. Do you see in the image that you have just traced any clearer indication of the bifurcation number 7 than you have spoken of previously? A. No, sir. I see a small shadow in there and for purposes of clarity I'm going to extend the green lines on the lower ridges below point 9 all the way to the edge of the image. Now I'm going to put a wee red circle and I'm going to add a tiny yellow dot. (Indicated) We might accept that Mr Swann's interpretation is the yellow dot adjoins the green ridge above it to prove that there's a bifurcation at that point. However, I see a lot of dots in this mark and, indeed, I see a lot of dots in the broader yellow circle page 55 that I'm tracing right now (indicated). I don't think I could interpret any of the dots in that larger yellow circle as representing a bifurcation any more than I can accept the yellow dot within the red circle as representing a bifurcation. Q. So you do not see this image as assisting you in relation to point 7? A. Not at all. Q. The final one, just so that we have completed this, is Mr Swann refers to this image in relation to point number 2, which is the bifurcation that is just below what you have described as the handshake, 15 and 16. I will not attempt to locate that for you in the Mr Kent image because I am just not as familiar with this image. Can you see any clearer indication of that bifurcation using Mr Kent's image? A. I've got to anchor it to something else, so what I'd like to do is anchor that to the SCRO's point number 3 and in Shirley McKie's print, the inked print, I'm marking number 3 with a red arrow (indicated) and now I'm going to locate number 3 in Terry Kent's photograph of Y7. You'll have to excuse me because I'm doing here exactly what I say is wrong to do. I'm working from the inked print backwards. I'm going to draw a blue line in the inked print page 56 from point 3 up to this point (indicated) number 2 and in doing so, I see that if we start at number 3 we have to skip two ridges slightly above the perpendicular on the intervening two ridges to get to point 3. So now I'm going over to the photograph that Terry Kent took and I'm going to skip two ridges going slightly upwards from the perpendicular. If we are to trust that point as Mr Swann has indicated it, it should be somewhere at the end of that blue line and just to make sure I'm clear for the record on the location to which I'm referring, I'm going to draw a magenta circle around that area (indicated). Again, with all due respect to Mr Swann, I see nothing in that image of Y7 to justify a bifurcation in the corresponding area of Shirley McKie's inked print which I will also attempt to mark with a magenta circle. So now we've got a magenta circle in both Y7 and the inked print. In the inked print we can clearly see that there is a bifurcation at the end of the blue line. In the corresponding area of Y7, anywhere in the vicinity of the end of the blue line, anywhere in the vicinity of the magenta circle, I see nothing to justify the bifurcation as existing there. Q. Thank you very much. What I will do is save that particular image. page 57 MISS BAHRAMI: That's FI2309.10. MR MOYNIHAN: Mr Wertheim, what I have to do to complete now -- I have been round the clock in features 1 to 17 of Y7 so I have two points of difference to discuss with you but, before I do, can I ask a more general question. We have plainly -- and this is no criticism at all -- taken a day now going through Y7 in some considerable detail as necessary for this Inquiry, drawing lines to insert ridge endings and whatever else. If you were working in your lab -- and let us start with the simplest process -- you are asked to eliminate from a police investigation a number of individuals who could have a legitimate reason for being in the house. Let us say it is a homicide, so we are dealing with the deceased, the members of her family, the police officers involved in the investigation. So there are a number of suspicious fingerprints found and you are asked to eliminate the people who are known to have a legitimate reason and in that process narrow down to the fingerprints that may be suspicious that the police would then concentrate on in finding the suspect. Do you understand the process? A. Yes. Q. The way you have worked by not only trying to identify points, ridge endings or bifurcation, but then to look page 58 at the relationship of those points by calculating the ridges between them, would you apply that same detailed methodology to what I would call an elimination; that is, excluding from the police inquiry someone who is thought to have legitimate reason? A. Absolutely. Q. Why is that? A. The same standard for identification has to apply in every instance. You can't apply a higher standard for a suspect and a lower standard for a non-suspect. You can't apply a higher standard for a serious crime and a lower standard for a non-serious or vice versa. The standard must be the same. If you're going to testify to a conclusion that you've identified somebody, in your opinion, to the exclusion of anybody else in the world, then it's the same standard for everybody. You can't exclude at a lower standard because somebody had a legitimate right to be in the scene. The standard for identification has to be the same standard for everybody; and the standard for exclusion has to be the same for everybody. Q. In fact, in this particular case we have seen from your notes that you did in fact run the ridges or count the ridges between features that could conceivably be ridge endings or bifurcations. page 59 Was that your normal practice whether it is an elimination or an identification or did you do more in this particular case given the nature of the case? A. I don't normally run the ridges and trace them out in my notes the way I did for this case, but I have in the past for latent prints that are unclear in order to record in my notes the correct interpretation. I normally would not do that for elimination because normally in my laboratory we only do eliminations of police officers, victims, others with legitimate access. We only eliminate the prints on those that we intend to run through the AFIS system. In other words, if I've got 300 prints in a house, it adds little to the cause of justice for me to identify the people who have had legitimate access to the house. The question is whether the suspect has ever been inside that house in light of his denial that he was there. So I'm not there to prove that the people with legitimate access have ever been in the house. That's of no interest to the court. I'm there to prove whether the suspect has ever been inside the house. For that reason, we don't normally do victim eliminations on all of the marks in a house. If I select several marks that I'm going to run through the AFIS system, then I don't want to waste my page 60 resources in AFIS searching for prints that belong to people with legitimate access. Therefore, I will do victim eliminations on the prints that I've chosen to run through AFIS and if I identify one of the prints (that is to say if I eliminate it as having been made by a victim) then there's no sense running it through AFIS. The only prints I'm interested in running through AFIS are those that cannot be eliminated to the people with legitimate access. So that's the practice in my laboratory. THE CHAIRMAN: If you are, as you say, 300, you couldn't possibly -- or can you -- go through them to the detail that you have done on this case? A. Oh, absolutely not, sir, and that's why I wouldn't bother to do eliminations on them. What I am saying is out of those 300 I may pick 5 or 10 or 15 that I wish to search through the fingerprint computer and so I will do the eliminations on those and I would not pick difficult prints like this one to search through the computer. I'd pick the relatively pristine, undistorted prints to search through the AFIS system and in those cases, pristine undistorted prints, the elimination doesn't require the degree of analysis that we've put into this one. THE CHAIRMAN: But what I am interested in is, in this case, page 61 one had I think over 300 prints and there were eliminations to be carried out. There are a number of points but when you look at areas which, if I can use that description that you have used, you would argue you can see discrepancies but on the points would that have been enough to eliminate? A. No, I would not have eliminated this print to Shirley McKie. Here the word eliminate means the same thing to me as identify. THE CHAIRMAN: As somebody who has a legitimate reason to be in the property, a police officer, what I am really asking is whether, on the points alone, without going into the deeper aspects and subtleties which you have done, would you eliminate that officer? A. No. What I might have done and what I believe might have happened in this case is I would have picked a target four, five, six points and in one of the slides that we've put up yesterday from the acetate tracings that I prepared for Ms McKie's trial, in one of those slides I had highlighted a target group that, to me, in the latent print, was the most obvious to use for a search of the inked print. That target group roughly corresponds with a target group in Shirley McKie's inked prints and that would be just loosely the points on SCRO chart as numbered 3, 4, 5 and 6. page 62 In the mark Y7, if I've memorised those four points in Y7, and then I'm searching the inked prints and I see that cluster in Shirley McKie's print, that might trigger recognition so that I would then go to the comparison. The analysis is memorising the target group in Y7. The comparison then will be when I bring them in and put them side-by-side and the evaluation would be going back and forth to find similarities and differences. So what I'm saying is the target group alone might trigger, "Oh, yeah, right, I need to look at this print", but I wouldn't eliminate on that alone and I think that might be one possible explanation for what happened in this case. I think possibly one of the experts going through doing eliminations had coincidentally picked the same target group that I've said I might use, points 3, 4, 5 and 6, because that's easy. Its an obvious target group; it's very clear; it's unambiguous. So if you pick points 3, 4, 5 and 6 as your target in Y7 and you search in the inked prints and see that and say, "Oh, right, that's McKie" and you flip it aside and go on you haven't done a thorough job of comparison. You've only spotted that target group. I can see where later it might have been reported that Y7 was made by McKie on that alone and I can see page 63 how then later an examiner might be asked, "McKie denies being there. Are you sure that was her", and he says, "Yes, of course I am. I wouldn't have said so if I wasn't sure". I can see how this could start out at a very low level and just escalate slightly until it blows up. I'm not saying that I know for sure that's what happened but that's one explanation that's occurred to me, that the elimination was made on the target group alone without a serious look because the serious look should have followed before the elimination was made. MR MOYNIHAN: What I would like to do is to pick up the two points of difference that we have not discussed so far in relation to Y7. It is your 2 of 12 points of difference. First of all, point number 8. For this purpose what I will do is use your own image which is FI0164A and, again, if we bring it up twice. We have covered most of the others but we will leave the Rosetta Stone to last. Point number 8, you will correct me, is the area I think you were describing as magenta that my cursor is on now at the top. Is that correct? A. No, sir, I believe point number 8 is the area in brown below that. Q. So it is where my -- page 64 A. That's correct. Q. I will put an arrow on it then just to be clear. (Indicated) Point number 8 is in the area I've just indicated. Is that correct? A. Inside the circle, yes, sir. Q. Does that mean that the corresponding area is -- A. Yes, you had it correctly there, that circle. Q. What point is it that you want to make by way of a contrast between these two areas? A. May I enlarge and mark? Q. Yes, please. A. Let's take this tool. Okay, to begin with I'm going to analyse this with reference to point number 9 in the SCRO chart. For the sake of avoiding confusion, I'm going to use the SCRO numbers and not my own here. We can cross-reference this to my numbering system if you'd like. I'm marking right now in Y7 with green the bifurcation which is the SCRO point number 9 in their phase 1 chart. (Indicated) Now I'm going to mark point number 9 in the inked print to correspond to that (indicated). Now I'm going to use the technique that I used just a minute ago, again with the caveat that this is not the page 65 way I've recommended to do it but nonetheless we will do it here. I am going to draw a blue line from point number 9 in the inked print up to a bifurcation that I see in Shirley McKie's inked print (indicated). To clarify that bifurcation what I am going to do is draw that ridge with a green line. I'm going to use two shades of green for a purpose I will make clear, because I want you to see exactly what I'm interpreting. I'm highlighting in a dark green the ridges that can actually be seen in the print and I believe there was a tiny bit of damage to the skin because there are some gaps and I'm filling in the gaps in light green with a line that's wiggly but which I'm trying to draw straight. (Indicated) I see this as a clear bifurcation. We can study the ridges adjacent, above and below. We can see the criteria that I've described as the adjacent ridges separating to accommodate that bifurcation and even though the light green areas that I've filled in can't be seen clearly in the inked print I believe that is a justifiable interpretation. There is a bifurcation at that point in the inked print. Now I will go to the latent print. I am going to choose again the blue line tool and I am going to see, in the inked print I have to skip 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ridges page 66 and the sixth ridge up is the bifurcation and I'm going pretty close to perpendicular to those intervening ridges. So if I come up skipping 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, this puts us in approximately the same location. I see in my drawing I've put it a little bit further to the left. What we're looking for there is a bifurcation somewhere in that area (indicated). If I start at the ridges above -- Q. If you give me second, what we should do is take my arrow away. I will take my arrow away. I don't want to obscure your detail. A. Thank you, I appreciate that. Now I'm going to again go to the green line and I'm going to start above that brown circle in my original drawing and I'm going to try to interpret these ridges. I've drawn an area of ridges here (indicated) that is somewhat larger than the area that I had originally enclosed within the brown circle on my phase 1 chart and I'm going to try to enclose this larger area within a brown circle on Y7 on the screen (indicated). I see nothing in that brown circle that corresponds in any way with the bifurcation that I'm now putting in a brown circle on Shirley McKie's inked print. There's nothing there. This is a point that exists in Shirley McKie's page 67 thumbprint that simply does not exist in Y7. Q. In that case, what we will do is capture that particular image. MISS BAHRAMI: That's image FI2309.11. THE CHAIRMAN: Are we near the end of Y7? MR MOYNIHAN: I suspect we will not finish the Rosetta characteristic before 1.00 so it might be as good a point to adjourn as any. THE CHAIRMAN: We will sit again at 1.50. (1.00 pm) (Luncheon Adjournment) Afternoon session (1.50 pm) PAT ALEXANDER WERTHEIM (continued) Further examined by MR MOYNIHAN MR MOYNIHAN: Mr Wertheim, what I am going to do is turn to the Rosetta characteristic, the last point of difference in relation to Y7. For a reason that will become apparent just in a moment, what I am going to do is not use your charting but rather use Mr Zeelenberg's charting of Y7, which is FI0170A. Again, if we could have it twice, just as normal. The reason for bringing up Mr Zeelenberg's chartings is that in phase 2 responses I understand Mr Mackenzie page 68 and Mr Swann to agree some numbers that will assist us in locating points and they agree them by reference to Mr Zeelenberg's charts so that the Rosetta characteristic Mr Zeelenberg has charted as his point of difference number 11. If I am wrong about this, then no doubt someone will tell me. Mr Zeelenberg has charted the Rosetta characteristic as number 11. If I highlight that ... do you recognise that as the Rosetta characteristic? A. Yes, sir. Q. Point number 11 in Mr Zeelenberg is the Rosetta characteristic and you are aware that the significance of the Rosetta characteristic is that if there has been no movement in Y7, it is the product of a single touch, then that is a feature of the print that is not to be found in the corresponding place in Ms McKie's fingerprint? A. That's correct. Q. Therefore, would be one unexplained difference inconsistent with the identification of the print as hers? A. Yes, sir. Q. I understand and you are probably familiar with the counter-argument that Y7 is the product of more than one touch and that the Rosetta characteristic is to be found page 69 in a different location in Ms McKie's fingerprint and is to be seen in Y7 where it is as a result of movement in a multiple touch scenario. Are you familiar with that position? A. I've heard that hypothesis. Q. To assist us, I understand that Mr Swann and Mr Mackenzie -- again, I will be corrected if I am wrong -- would point to what Mr Zeelenberg has highlighted in Ms McKie's print as number 14. Again, if I can highlight that with an arrow, number 14 as, if one might call it this, the source of the Rosetta characteristic which has come to be located somewhere else in Y7 in the position that we see in the arrow. That is as I understand the argument. What I want to do is discuss that proposition with you. A. Okay. If I can just throw in a comment for the record. Q. Yes, please. A. I've heard the phrase "Rosetta point". I find it amusing but I would agree with the term for exactly the opposite reason and that's something you mentioned at this point alone. In the absence of a double touch, this point alone is sufficient to disprove the identification. So if I'm going to use the term Rosetta point I would use it in that context, not the epiphany page 70 movement or moment that shows the twist. I had never, frankly, read Peter Swann's material because I don't want to be influenced by it. I don't want to be biased for it either against or in favour. I want my interpretation to stand on its own. I want my interpretation to be free of bias from any source. So, with that comment, I'm eager to proceed and interpret this and then see how my interpretation is consistent or inconsistent with Mr Swann's interpretation. Q. Yes, please do. The only reason for looking at Mr Zeelenberg's image is we can all agree in relation to Y7 where the Rosetta characteristic is. I just wanted some clarity in asking you questions in the opposing case because I take it, as I started, I assume that you say single touch, therefore a feature inconsistent with Ms McKie. So I want to show you the opposing case and I need to begin by giving you a clear representation of the source in Ms McKie for this particular characteristic and, as I understand it, this is the clearest indication I can give you as to the source of this particular characteristic. Taking it just in stages, assuming I am correct, the source is the feature number 14. What view do you have -- we will come to how it has moved perhaps as a page 71 separate point -- but simply looking at it as a feature or point of characteristic in a fingerprint, do you find any correspondence between point 14 in Mr Zeelenberg's McKie print and the Rosetta characteristic in Y7? A. No. Q. Can you explain why not? A. Once again I want to anchor this point to something that we can all agree on. So, for purposes of this exercise then, let me use point number 3 in this chart. If I'm not mistaken, that corresponds to point number 3 in the SCRO phase 1 chart. Q. If you give me a second, I will just double-check that for you. Yes, Mr Zeelenberg's point number 3 is indeed SCRO point number 3? A. I choose that simply because we don't run into any numbering conflict. It might be easier for me to use Mr Zeelenberg's point number 6 but that is not the SCRO point number 6 and for that reason it could result in confusion, so we'll stay with point number 3. Do you mind if, I erase -- Q. Please just erase as you feel fit. A. I am going to erase the red arrows you put in there because I think we all know now where we're talking. I'm going to cut out the boxes. Okay, I've got the page 72 Rosetta characteristic in Y7 at the upper left-hand quadrant and I've got point number 3 in the lower centre of this box. Before I proceed any farther let me mark those points in the green so that we can be very clear about where we're starting and how we're proceeding. I made a bit of a misstep right there. Let me remove this and start from the upper end of this ridge (indicated) and trace it back down. This is one of the problems of a fingerprint expert and that is in an unclear image you have to resolve the image before you can proceed with a comparison. This is part of the analysis phase. I think we can see the ridge I'm talking about in the point labelled number 3 and now I'm going to go to the Rosetta characteristic and I'm going to do the same thing here. I'm going to do it in green. (Indicated) So now in the Y7 I have outlined two ridges, each with a bifurcation and these correspond to the lower one being point number 3 and the upper bifurcation being the so-called Rosetta point. Having done this now, I've committed myself to those ridges and those points and I'm now we're going to proceed with the analysis in the inked print. So I'm going to try to outline as closely as possible the same area of ridges. In this regard, I'm using the bifurcation in SCRO chart as point number page 73 9 as a reference. That's also Mr Zeelenberg's point number 7. Just for clarification, I'm trying to explain how I'm choosing the size of the box I'm drawing. (Indicated) So now we've clearly included Mr Zeelenberg's point 14 and point 15 in the inked print. I'm not entirely happy with what I've done here but we'll proceed with it anyway. Then if needs be, we can come back and look in a little more detail. I'm marking point number 3 in green just as my reference point and I'm coming up and suddenly I've run into a problem here and that is that the ridge going up from point number 3 stops and I see Mr Zeelenberg has numbered that stop as a point and in Y7 the ridge going up from number 3 continues all the way through the latent, so we've got another difference there but we'll forget about that one for now. We're talking about the Rosetta point. The question is whether this Rosetta point which I've circled in yellow in Y7 matches the point in Mr Zeelenberg's presentation which I have circled in yellow and, if it does, then we must find a similar point which I'm going to circle in magenta in Mr Zeelenberg's inked print and that would be a bifurcation or a ridge ending a short distance above page 74 that so-called Rosetta point in the inked print. I'm not going to trace those ridges because I think they're clear enough without tracing them but I am going to trace the ridges above in Y7 in green just for clarity. The slight problem I said I observed was the fact that I didn't go quite far enough on the left-hand margin of this enlargement but I think we can go beyond that if we need to. I'm tracing the ridge above the Rosetta point on Y7 and what happens to it, tracing the second ridge above the Rosetta point and I'm moving a little too fast so I'm kind of moving down the ridge like a drunk driver going down a one-lane road. But I think it's clear which ridge I'm indicating. (Indicated) Now I'm going along the next ridge. So what I'm seeing in Y7 is a series of parallel ridges above it. Now, I'm going to draw a blue line connecting the yellow circle with the purple circle or the magenta circle in the inked print in Mr Zeelenberg's presentation and I'm going to try to roughly match the length of that blue line in the latent print and now I'm going to draw a purple circle in Y7. I thought I was going to draw a purple circle in Y7 it didn't work -- magenta. (Indicated) If we were to say that the characteristic in Y7 page 75 circled in yellow, the so-called Rosetta point, if we were to say that that corresponds to the feature in the yellow circle in the inked print, then we would necessarily have to find a bifurcation in the area of the magenta circle. Now, let's conduct one other little experiment here and that is I'm going to run a different coloured line, and I believe I will use a light blue, and I'm going to run that line from point number 3 in Y7 straight up to the Rosetta characteristic (indicated). Now I'm going to run that same line from point number 3 in the inked print up to the alleged Rosetta characteristic (indicated) and we're going to count the ridges that we have to cross between those two points. If we start at point number 3 on that light blue line, we actually follow the ridge, we don't cross it, so we cannot count that as an intervening ridge. So in Y7 we begin counting intervening ridges with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. We count 5 intervening ridges between point 3 and the Rosetta characteristic. In the inked print we count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ridges and, even if we discount that ridge ending, I think the line clearly crosses it, but we've jumped from five to eight or nine ridges difference. I've never done this experiment before so I'm doing page 76 it here for the first time and my question that I'm trying to answer myself here is: is Mr Swann alleging that the Rosetta characteristic rotated smoothly around the one ridge to plant itself in a new location and obviously that cannot be true because we've gone from five ridges to eight or nine ridges. Therefore, the Rosetta characteristic would have had to, necessarily have had to rotate not only 66 degrees clockwise, it would have also had to jump three or four ridges farther out. Therefore, if we are to accept that this is a double tap or a twist, if it's a twist it had to be accomplished without dragging any sweat whatsoever through the furrows. If it is a simple twist, we would expect the furrows to become occluded by sweat and show up as a smear. Therefore, we cannot accept a twist. If it is a double touch, then we would have to accept that the first touch occurred, the thumb was lifted, moved 66 degrees and then touched again three or four ridges further out but with an absolute perfect alignment of the ridges in the second touch and the first touch so that there's no crisscrossing, there's no overlap, there's no offsetting of the ridges and I find that an utterly fantastic proposition and I reject it. Q. I would like to show you -- if we could save those two page 77 images we have just now. MISS BAHRAMI: That's saved as FI2309.12. MR MOYNIHAN: What I would like to do is to bring up some images from a previous occasion in the Inquiry, FI0707-07. This is an image that was done on a previous occasion by Mr Kent of the Home Office. As I understand it, what he was indicating was that between the two arrows, in the point between the two arrows, there is something unusual going on and that what is unusual is on the right-hand side, the right arrow, one can see a number of ridges that are fairly widely spaced; whereas to the left, the ridges are, in fact, more narrowly spaced. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. He would agree with you I think in the middle sort of top section there is what you describe as the blob? A. Yes, sir. Q. So to the right of the blob he says ridges that are more widely spaced than they are to the left of the blob and he's thinking there's something unusual going on here. A. May I mark on this, please? Q. Yes, please. A. We're going to draw a yellow circle here to enclose the page 78 blob more or less. Something of that range (indicated) so the yellow circle encloses the area called the blob. With all due respect to Mr Kent, Mr Kent is a chemist and not a long-term experienced latent fingerprint expert. THE CHAIRMAN: I think he would be the first to agree with that. A. Well, that's good to know. But a fingerprint expert who has worked extensively with fingerprints knows that it's not uncommon for the ridges near the tip of the thumb to be broader than the ridges down in the centre of the fingerprint and I wish I had some examples of that. If you don't mind, let me check my computer because I may be able to point us to some that are already in the Inquiry files. I believe in the Inquiry files we were given a chart of thumb prints -- yes, we were. Mr Moynihan, if you would, please, we were given a sample chart of thumb prints from the Met demonstrating how to chart a latent print identification. Do you have that in electronic format that we can put up here? MR MOYNIHAN: No, I don't think we have reproduced the styles that would ... A. Would you please switch to my computer? THE CHAIRMAN: We were just saying if we put your screen up page 79 we can ... A. Yes, we can do that. I'm going to slide over into the screen in front of us the thumbprint that was in those charts and what I'm going to ask you to look at is the closeness of the ridges towards the centre. I don't seem to have my tools -- but I'm not on your computer so I don't have the tools. If you'll notice on this particular chart -- let's see if I can grab this ... no, I'm not going to be able to move it down. Yes, I can. I see something here. Okay, it's point number 1 and point number 2. If you look at the ridges in the area of points number 1 and 2 and look at the distance between those ridges and now as we go to the tip of the thumb, look at the size of the ridges and the distance between them near the tip. You see exactly this imagined unusual feature of Mr Kent's and it's nothing unusual at all. It is a classic characteristic of the widening of the ridges as you approach the tip of the thumb. There's nothing at all unusual about that observation of Mr Kent's. That is to be expected in a thumb print just as it shows up in this chart provided by the Met to teach us how to chart fingerprints. MR MOYNIHAN: I do not know how we are going to capture page 80 that. What I think we will do is by one means or another put on to the computer database a copy of the Met style so we will have that for the record in future because we cannot copy across from your computer. A. Right, but I believe since this is already one of the Inquiry's exhibits it would be easy to adapt that. I hope I have given my testimony clearly enough that it can be observed. Q. I will do only one other thing, Mr Wertheim, to give you a chance to comment on the material that Mr Kent was referring to. In the course of his evidence, Mr Kent (this is day 19 on 7th July, hence the references to some of the items) he referred to your tracing which is DB0172H.7. It is a digital version of your own tracing, defence production number 2. If I understand his evidence correctly, what he was observing was the spacing between the three or four ridges that I am pointing to with the pen just now (indicated). I will just put an oval around them. The spacing between the lines on the right, relative to the corresponding lines on the left, either side of the blob and the fact that there are more lines to the left than there are to the right indicating, to his mind, I think the phrase he used was, "It's not a typical mark and page 81 there is something odd occurring in these locations". A. Mr Kent is a brilliant chemist. What I'm going to do here is use green to propose a solution to this problem. I'm connecting the ridges on top of the blob with the ridges on the bottom of the blob (indicated) and the thing that is proven by Mr Kent's observation is that somewhere in the middle of the blob ... that was not exactly what I wanted to do. Let's do that again. Somewhere in the middle of the blob there is simply a bifurcation or ridge ending. You have three ridges going into the blob you have four ridges coming out of the blob. Somewhere in the middle of the blob there is a feature. The blob occludes the detail to a degree that prevents us from determining exactly where that feature might be, but somewhere in the blob there is a feature and that explains why you have more ridges coming out than you have going in. Q. What I am going to do next is to give you a chance to comment in your evidence on those who rely on the Rosetta characteristic as being explained by movement. In other words, they agree with you that we view Y7 as a single touch, the Rosetta characteristic is inconsistent with Y7 being Shirley McKie, inconsistent if it is a single touch. For Y7 to match Shirley McKie there must be more page 82 than one touch and the explanation for the Rosetta characteristic is that that feature has moved in one way or another. You have already looked at it in one way by reference, when you were drawing your drawing, to say you don't think it could have happened. What I want to do is to put to you the explanation given by two others for your comment. These are two individuals who say Y7 is Shirley McKie. In point of time I am going to begin with Mr Mackenzie because Mr Mackenzie, if I understand it correctly, was thinking about the Rosetta characteristic -- he did not call it that then -- thinking about the Rosetta characteristic before Mr Berry came up with the 66-degree rotation theory. So he is the first in point of time. If I understand correctly, for Mr Mackenzie what I should do is begin in his production -- sorry, save that. MISS BAHRAMI: That's saved as image FI2309.13. MR MOYNIHAN: If we could bring up, please, the production CO0059 and begin at page 06. Sir, I have handed round to everyone again, for what use they wish to make, a paper copy of Mr Mackenzie's presentation which he will deliver in due course. I am afraid I, for one, find it easier to work with the paper page 83 rather than digital images so it is there for people to use. People will just have to bear with me because the digital page numbers are one page out relative to what is on the paper because of the cover pages. Mr Wertheim, just to explain to you, I am going to take you through, ultimately, to an image that Mr Mackenzie has created but if I understand correctly -- and again I am looking to Mr Holmes just in case I have got this wrong -- what Mr Mackenzie has used is an image which I have on the page, which you will see is page number 5 in the original paper version. It is an image sourced from the net. In fact, it was an image I believe published by your son. So it is one of your son's images of Y7. It happens to have different clarity yet again relative even to the Kent image or the Inquiry's image. Mr Mackenzie is using this image. If I understand it correctly, running through the centre area, if I highlight it by an arrow (indicated), and emerging across it runs in a bowed shape as a lighter area in the photograph. I understand that Mr Mackenzie attaches some significance to the difference in the lighting within that area as indicative of some sort of movement. If I take you then to page 7 in the digital version (page 6 in the manuscript), you will see, among other page 84 reasons, I hope it has turned out in the copy that you have, Mr Mackenzie has outlined a part of the print. Do you see the box line? A. Yes, I do. Q. I understand Mr Mackenzie's position to be that there is something about that boxed area which stands out as being potentially different from the remainder of Y7 and, therefore, calling for explanation. This is as far as it goes so far. Then if I take you on to page 8 in the digital version (page 7 in the paper), what we see coming from left to right is a line, again indicating above the line there seems to be something potentially different from what is below, and to the right is a box drawn, an area again where there seems to be something potentially different relative to the rest of the print. If I stop there and move on to page 8 in the digital (page 7 in the paper), do you have any comment on the proposition of Mr Mackenzie that in the boxed area I am indicating just now -- perhaps I will enclose it within a circle -- in the boxed area in the image there is something different that requires an explanation? A. No, I frankly don't. I believe -- and I'm saying this without having had a chance to look and ascertain -- but I believe the photographs that Kasey Wertheim posted on page 85 the Internet were photographs that I had taken. I would ask if these are photographs from Kasey's website or if these are photographs from Ed German's website, www.onin.com. I sent my original negatives to Ed German and he scanned them with a Nikon 35 mm negative scanner to get the highest possible resolution so that the images posted on Ed German's site are very high resolution images scanned directly from the negative. If Kasey has them on his website ... Q. If you just allow me a second. It is my misunderstanding, Mr Wertheim. If we take, in fact, Mr Mackenzie's image as a scanned image from the original -- so it is my mistake. So let us not worry about the source of the image that he is using. Let us treat it as a straightforward image of Y7. It is entirely my mistake. Is there anything in the area that I have highlighted that does call for an explanation? A. My point was that if these came off the Internet, then the brush mark which I have been accused of causing would result in a lightening of the image in approximately that same area. Therefore, if these are images off of the Internet, the brush mark was present in those images. These are very contrasty, black and page 86 white, with the shades of grey dropped out and it makes it hard for me to interpret whether this was one of my photographs or the SCRO photographs. That was my only point. Now, either way my answer is going to be the same -- Q. I can clear that up looking to my left just to double-check. This is an SCRO photograph. We will just proceed on that basis. A. All right, very good. Q. So it's an SCRO. You said the explanation would not have made any difference anyway or the source would not make any difference to your explanation? A. If this is an SCRO image and the SCRO had access to the full grey scale images that aren't so contrasty, then I would question what is the purpose of removing the greys and forcing us to see only the blacks and whites and erase all greys from consideration. The shades of grey are just as important as dark blacks and light whites so I would question the motivation behind going to such a contrasty image. But the bottom line answer, Mr Moynihan, is that I don't see anything in there to prevent me or to cause any second-guessing on my original assessment that Y7 is one single touch with every ridge flowing continuously and uninterrupted through the print, except for the area page 87 which we demonstrated in an earlier image as the blob. The blob is a smeared area where resolution is not exact but where we can conclude that there is some feature in there. However, in every ridge going through this print, top to bottom, the ridge flows in a smooth uninterrupted line all the way through the print. I've not been doing this as long as some of the SCRO experts. I've only been in the business for 36 years and in those 36 years I have never seen a double tap, triple tap, twist, smudge in which the flow of the ridges wasn't interrupted. There will be a crisscrossing, an offsetting, a thickening of the ridges but it is virtually impossible to produce a double tap or a twist that will accommodate a continuous, uninterrupted, undetectable break somewhere in that print. This is one single fingerprint, one single touch and release, with some slight smearing in the centre area referred to as the blob and with some very slight feathering or shifting around the very outer edge either during initial contact or during removal of the finger. I see nothing in Mr Mackenzie's image to cause me any concern, except the fact that he has removed the grey scale and allowed us to only see black and white and to me that still doesn't disclose any new page 88 information at all. Q. If I can just move it on specifically to the question of the Rosetta characteristic then in these images. In the paper version it is page 11; in the digital version, page 12. The digital version may not have come up as well as the paper version. I trust that others have coloured paper versions or paper versions which have the points in colour? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR MOYNIHAN: What I understand Mr Mackenzie's position to be is that Y7 is the product of multiple, perhaps as many as five, touches and the difference in colouring in the numbers marked is indicative of a different potential touch. If I begin at the bottom middle, you will see the number 1, then I go clockwise round the bottom part, 1 round to 22, there's one touch in the area we have been primarily talking about. As I carry on clockwise I get to 38 to 45, a second potential area. I will come back to 38 because it is the Rosetta characteristic. Then 23 round to 28 is potentially a third touch. 29 to 32 perhaps a fourth and 33 to 37 potentially a fifth. Mr Wertheim, we will come back to the Rosetta characteristic in a moment. page 89 As to the theory that Y7 may be the product of as many as five different areas of fingerprint superimposed, what is your comment on that? A. I would deem it virtually impossible for a double tap that allowed all of the ridges to join continuously. I would deem it utterly fantastic and completely unacceptable to consider a proposition that five touches had allowed all of the ridges to line up uninterrupted and continuous. Impossible. I completely reject that proposition. That is utterly impossible, totally fantastic and unacceptable. Q. What I would like you to do is, please, just look for yourself and satisfy yourself, I understand that Mr Mackenzie is pointing generally to the Rosetta characteristic as point 38 on this chart. He has maybe pinpointed the lower rather than the upper branch of it but do you recognise it as the Rosetta characteristic? A. Yes, I do. Q. It is a little bit easier in the book form but if I bring up as a double screen the digital page 33 (in the book form it is 32) so that we can see the two things side-by-side. It is a little bit easier, as I say, in the book form perhaps, one can flip backwards and forwards. Perhaps the clarity is even a little bit easier in the page 90 book form than on the screen. What I understand the proposition to be and I would ask you to comment on is that in Y7, the cluster from 38 to 45, that includes the Rosetta characteristic, is in fact to be found sourced, as we see on the manuscript numbered page 32, in the book, again with same corresponding numbering 38 to 45, so that group has moved across laterally from right to left and been deposited. Do you have a comment on that? A. My initial comment is that if Mr Mackenzie had access to clearer images I wish he would have used them in this book. Are you saying that 38 on the right side of the screen now (page 11) is the same as 38 on the left side of the screen which is numbered page 32? Q. Yes. Mr Wertheim, that is what I am asking you to comment on. A. I'm not trying to make a grandiose show of this, I'm simply trying to locate point 38. Q. Mr Wertheim, wait just a second. My copies have page numbers and I now understand that my page numbers are on a sleeve not on the picture. I do not know if people are able to -- if you give me a second. THE CHAIRMAN: If you hold it up, we can see. page 91 MR MOYNIHAN: I am sorry about that. I think you are looking at the same one, Mr Wertheim. A. Okay, I'm having trouble separating the purple line on number 38. Number 38, as I see it -- may I use the drawing tool on the screen, please? Q. Mr Wertheim, if you give me just a second. I am looking to my left. Mr Mackenzie may have the photographic original which might actually help rather than using a photocopy. We will give you it straight back. Page 32 of your presentation. (Handed) A. My earlier comment stands. This is still an awfully blurred, unclear image but let me do the best I can here. I'm going to circle in yellow what I perceive as number 38. If I'm following this chart correctly -- let me erase that and draw a slightly larger circle. Okay, if I'm following this purple line correctly, I believe the point that I've marked there is what Mr Mackenzie is calling point 38. If that is indeed point 38 -- well, that's a bit tiny. I tell you what, in the Y7 image that we have in front of us, I'm going to mark the Rosetta characteristic with an arrow coming in from the bottom so that I don't disturb the images above it, all right. (Indicated) page 92 THE CHAIRMAN: I wonder if it would be quicker if we took the short adjournment and got Mr Mackenzie to mark what he says is point 38 and that would save you speculating where it is. If we rise now until 3.00 and in the interim, if he wouldn't mind, if Mr Mackenzie would mark what he says is point 38, then it may speed things up. 3.00. (2.50 pm) (A short break) (3.00 pm) MR MOYNIHAN: First of all, Mr Wertheim, I will confirm Mr Mackenzie is quite happy with the area that you have marked on the screen as being an accurate representation of where point 38 is. Secondly, just in case I disorientated you I have misrepresented Mr Mackenzie's position. The numberings are, indeed, five different sequences of number. They are not necessarily indicating five different touches. There are multiple touches in fact but what he is indicating is that these are five distinct areas of interest to him; so not necessarily different touches. Let us not get into the sophistication of that. If I just ask you to look at point 38, the Rosetta characteristic, and ask you to comment on the proposition the Rosetta characteristic, on the page 93 right-hand screen at the moment (page 11 of Mr Mackenzie's numbered presentation), is in fact to be sourced on Ms McKie's fingerprint at the position you have marked with the yellow circle on the left-hand side of our screen. So it has moved across from the yellow circle to come ultimately to rest where the red arrow shows on the right-hand side. Is that something that you can comment on? A. Okay, let me make sure I understand what you're asking. Are you asking me to consider the cluster of 38 through 45 as a cluster? Q. Yes. A. Very good. Then what I'd like to do, with your permission again, is to separate a box for a little greater enlargement in this area and I'm going to refer to Mr Mackenzie's book here and in that regard I found the copy in the book provided to me to be just as enlightening as Mr Mackenzie original so I have returned his original. What I want to do is mark a box that I know includes all of the points of interest (indicated). Would Mr Mackenzie accept that the box that I've marked does in fact include the points 38 through 45? THE CHAIRMAN: I think we can see from the markings how many page 94 are included. A. I've tried to include them all there. MR MOYNIHAN: It does seem to. A. Now what I'm going to do is try to mark an equivalent box, roughly equivalent, on Y7. Is it really that bad? Let's try that again. Because even those little purple lines were heavily pixillated and they shouldn't have been. Okay, what I'm going to do now is back out of both of these and try to draw a larger box to better minimise the confusion that's going to be caused by that pixillation. (Indicated) Q. It may be, Mr Wertheim, this was one of the reasons for having the book. It may be simply the quality of the image on which the points are charted is not sufficiently good to permit enlargement to these sort of scales unlike some of the other images we have been using that have been scanned for that particular purpose. Perhaps if you just look at the paper versions and see if you can make the point. If you can't make the point because the images don't permit it, then so be it. A. If images of this quality were submitted to me in the laboratory for analysis, I would send them back to the submitting agency and refuse to look at them and ask for page 95 better quality images. The pixillation and the degradation of the image, both in the inked print and especially in the latent print here, makes it impossible to draw any conclusions whatsoever from the points or the alleged points that Mr Mackenzie is attempting to demonstrate. I cannot comment on this. Q. That is fair enough. It was simply to give you a chance to comment insofar as the material permits. That was Mr Mackenzie I'd said was the first point in time. The second individual, as you know, is Mr Swann who has incorporated some of the work of Mr Berry. Mr Swann, if I bring up his charting, it is in TS0004. I do have the paper versions of this that can be made available to you, photographic versions of it. I may have a limited ability to enlarge these images simply because of the format in which they have been submitted to us. (Handed) THE CHAIRMAN: Do we need to give back Mr Mackenzie -- MR MOYNIHAN: It's already been given back. You have your original, Mr Mackenzie? You have the original page back from your book? MR MACKENZIE: Yes. MR MOYNIHAN: If we look, please, in TS0004, it is a PowerPoint presentation and if we go to slide L and page 96 proceed through it to find ... we see this is chart C with the letter at the top left-hand corner, TS0004.004, chart C. In the bottom right we will see a chart 3 which is a representation of the Rosetta characteristic. Chart C3; do you see that? A. In the bottom right-hand corner -- Q. If you go back to the beginning, do you have in these charts in the top left-hand side of each page a letter, chart C? A. Chart C. This one starts L, M, N, O ... Q. Mr Wertheim, it is okay. You have just been given the wrong one. (Handed) You should find in that one a chart C. A. Yes, now I have it in front of me, thank you. Q. C and then in the bottom right-hand corner you will find chart 3. A. Yes, sir. Q. Which is a representation of the Rosetta characteristic. I am not going to go into any great detail in relation to that one because I understand that one to be a comparison between a Y7 mark and a copy of Ms McKie's print taken from the Daily Mail on Tuesday October 24th 2000 which is in the box immediately above. I am not going to take time over that. page 97 What I am going to do is ask you -- it may be we do need the other set of photographs that you were given. I want to turn to chart L in the presentation, TS0004.013 is chart L. I understand Mr Swann to be indicating by way of explanation that mark Y7, as he says: "... has been twisted through an approximate 65-degree anticlockwise movement when contact was made between it and the door standard. This has resulted in the ridge characteristics to be found at the 2 o'clock on the left thumb impression of Shirley McKie appearing at 12 o'clock on the crime scene mark." He has marked on this a movement anticlockwise that does seem to be slightly more than 66 degrees, looks to have gone from about 3.00 on the clock to 12.00, which would be 90 degrees but that does not matter so much. The areas I am then interested in he marks with the letter N on the left-hand side. He says: "This area is to be seen in prepared chart which highlights the strong cluster of prominent sweat pores and to the right the Rosetta characteristic, so named because of its particularly unique shape and associated detail. The second ridge below the cluster of sweat pores ends a short distance to the right in a 128-degree downward slope with an adjacent island ridge", is what page 98 he says. I then turn to photograph N or slide N. You will have the original there. N, if I understand it correctly -- and, please, you tell me if I am wrong -- in the left-hand image the Rosetta characteristic is marked as the point 7. Would that be correct? A. Let me play with this a minute because I'm trying to ... Hold on a minute now because I'm looking at chart M. Oh, we've got N. Sorry, I misunderstood. Q. Obviously lost in the translation from Scottish to American. N for Nicholas? A. I'm looking at the correct chart now so allow me just a moment, please. Q. What I will do, in fact, for others because this we will not be able to mark in any way, if I could also bring up, please, just to the side TS0002. If you go on the right-hand screen to N -- A. If -- Q. Mr Wertheim, if you just bear with us. What I have handed you is a photographic version but we will be unable to mark it. I'm trying to bring up an alternative version which we will then be able to mark as appropriate. page 99 What I have is a PowerPoint presentation on the left, which is TS0004, and I have the scanned version of the images that you have in the booklet form as TS0004 -- it should be 0002 on the right. With any luck the one on the right is something that we can enlarge as appropriate. Could I have TS0002 brought up again on both sides of the screen because it is one that we can actually play with. It is the better one. What I have done is taken from the Inquiry's scanned version of the booklet which you have, chart N, I have now brought those images up. What I was going to ask you, if you look at the right-hand of the screen just now, a point which is termed number 7, do you recognise that as being the Rosetta characteristic? A. Yes, sure I do. Q. If I understand the chart, the proposition is that that feature, the Rosetta characteristic, is sourced from the position marked as 7 on the left-hand side of the screen, again, if I mark by an arrow roughly in the position I have indicated. Do you see that? A. May I ask for a point of clarification, please? We've on the screen got in front of us the two images on page N, as in Nora. page 100 Q. Correct. A. All right, I want to go through a wee bit of an exercise here. Can I mark on this? Q. Yes, you can. A. All right, very good. Thank you. I'm going to take my line -- and I'm going to use a yellow line because I believe it will show up better here -- and I'm going to start at the very core of Shirley McKie's thumbprint and I'm going to run up to the Rosetta point. Are we all right with that? Q. Yes, please do as you wish. A. I'm going to count the ridges between the core and the Rosetta point and when you do a ridge count, you do not include the ridge on which the line starts nor the ridge on which it ends. You include the ridges only between those. So you have got 1, 2 -- just to make it a little bit clearer let me mark those. I'm going to go back to my green. I've got a purpose for doing this. Here's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. I'll accept that I may be one ridge off in this middle area because there's a little confusion but I've come up basically with 14 ridge between the core and point 7, the Rosetta point. Now if I could ask your indulgence I would like to page 101 erase the photograph on the right and put up the enlargement of Shirley McKie's right thumb on page M, as in Mary. Q. So that would be 004 of that same document. Is that what you want, Mr Wertheim? A. Exactly. Thank you, Mr Moynihan. I'm going to cut that a little bit more, if you don't mind, for purposes of my little experiment here. I wish to point out to you that I have never seen these images before that I'm aware of in my life. I'm going to use the yellow line again. I'm going to start at the core, I'm going to run out to the Rosetta point and now I'm going to repeat the ridge count exercise and I'm going to count the ridges in green. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. Mr Swann cannot have it both ways. It cannot be 14 ridges in one and 24 ridges out in the other. We're using the inked prints for crying out loud. Mr Swann is utterly mistaken and I reject both of his interpretations. Q. What we will do in that case is we will save this pair as an image for today. A. Mr Swann obviously doesn't even review his own work. MISS BAHRAMI: That's saved as image FI2309.14. page 102 MR MOYNIHAN: That, I think everyone will be pleased to hear is my questions in relation to Y7. I now move on to QI2. I want to do a similar but I trust faster exercise. In relation to QI2, again what I am going to do is use the SCRO image for the same reason that some of the numberings coincide in their points of similarity and points of difference. In QI2 if I bring up, please, for the SCRO it is FI0166A and bring it up twice as normal. Again, I have observed, Mr Wertheim, if I understand it correctly, that your points of difference coincide with the points of similarity for the SCRO with, again, two exceptions. The areas of difference which are unique to your analysis are 6 and 7. Otherwise, your areas of difference seem to coincide with points of similarity, so I will go through the SCRO points of similarity in the order in which they are on the charts 1 round to 16 but I will tell you as we proceed what point of difference or area of difference I understand these to coincide with on your charts so I don't disorientate you. What I want to do is to begin rather eccentrically at point number 1 but, in fact, I am going to start with four points which are in a roughly similar area: 1, 2, page 103 10, and 16. What I am going to do is to highlight the central area. You will see why I begin with these particular points. The uppermost point that my cursor is on just now in the Marion Ross print is point number 1 in the SCRO analysis. Beneath that is point number 16. Below that, again, point number 10: 1, 16, 10. Immediately to the right of 16 is point number 2. So I am going to begin by looking at 1, 16, 10 and 2. My reason for starting is that 1, 16 and 10 are in roughly the same area. In fact, if I understand it correctly, they coincide with your area number 1, your area of difference number 1. Am I correct in my understanding they are area of difference number 1? A. Yes, I believe the points you've designated 1, 2, 10 and 16 are all within the area I designated as number 1. Q. I think SCRO point 2 you deal with specifically in an area of difference too? A. Yes. Q. I have highlighted the picture on both sides. My understanding of the SCRO interpretation of Marion Ross's print is that point 1 is a bifurcation, that point 10 is a ridge ending and returning to point 16, point 16 is a ridge ending. So it's bifurcation, ridge page 104 ending, ridge ending. Perhaps the interpretation of 1 and 16 is that we have a bifurcation which, on the right-hand side, terminates abruptly in what one might call a spur? A. Yes. Q. First of all, as an interpretation of Marion Ross's print -- I appreciate this is working the wrong way round -- do you accept or would you dispute the interpretation that 1 and 16 are to be understood as a bifurcation and a spur with number 10 being a ridge ending to the continuing leg of the bifurcation. A. Normally in a spur (that is a bifurcation in which one ridge ends very abruptly) normally in a spur I would -- if I were calling it a spur, I would want to see more than simply one ridge unit appended to the other ridge. To restate my earlier definition, a ridge unit is one sweat gland and the surrounding tissue which is represented on the surface of the skin by the sweat pore and the little tissue surrounding it. The point designated here as number 16 appears to be a single ridge unit and it constitutes by itself the spur. Normally I would not call that a spur but I can see where one might, so I will accept that designation as point number 1, a bifurcation; point number 16, a ridge ending that constitute a spur in relation to point page 105 number 1 down to point number 10 being the remainder of that ridge. Q. If I move across with that understanding, I do appreciate I am working the wrong way round. A. By the way, before we move on, Mr Moynihan, do you mind if I trace that in green just to set it? Q. Yes, please. A. If you don't mind I would like to enlarge it a little bit, just slightly more. The reason for doing that is because it makes it easier to trace the ridges as we're going around. So I think we've included sufficient area of which we're discussing there. I'm trying to make sure I include a roughly equivalent area so we're on pretty close to the same scale. What I'm going to do is we've only been talking about inked print so I'm only going to trace the spur and the ridge leading toward the spur, except I'm tracing it away. (Indicated) I don't know where that little line just came in from, the little black line running to the right. That just appeared out of nowhere. Let me try erasing that and redrawing it. Let's see if we can redraw that and not have that artefact. I'm trying to stay as close as possible to the points marked there by the SCRO. Where has that little line come from? page 106 Q. Let's just ignore it. A. All right, fine. I just want to clearly define what we're talking about here. I believe that I've accurately reflected point 1, point 16 and point 10. Q. Yes. A. Okay, very good. Q. What I want you to do is, looking to QI2 on the left-hand side, can you comment, please, on the fact that the points 1, 16 and 10 are as now highlighted in the QI2 and are points in agreement between the two. Do you follow me? A. Okay, so you want me to mark those points in QI2. Okay, we're going to start at point 16, we're going to come up and curve over to point 1, then we're going to come back up and follow this ridge around. Now we're going to come back to point 1 and follow this ridge back down (indicated). You want me to comment on that? Q. First of all, do you accept that that is an accurate interpretation of QI2? A. No, sir. Q. Why not? A. Because if we're to accept that interpretation of QI2, we're ignoring a section of ridge that I've marked in yellow and it would appear to me that, using light page 107 green, it would appear to me that point 16 and point 10 are points along the same continuous ridge. You cannot ignore the ridge that's in the yellow circle in QI2. I question whether there is sufficiency in QI2 -- sufficient clarity in QI2 to make an interpretation of such fine detail as we see in that spur but, further, if we are to consider that I have another problem with it and, in red, what I'm going to do is outline a shape here in the core of Marion Ross's ink print and this is the ridge which to me would define the centre of the core. I'm drawing this thing in red and, for brevity's sake, I'm just going to call that the chilli pepper and if I outline the chilli pepper in QI2 I find that it has grown substantially and, as a gardener, I wish I knew what fertiliser was being used for this mark. THE CHAIRMAN: Is it not on a larger scale because the green line is much larger? A. All right but here's my point, sir, and that is I've tried to reproduce the scale but let me come to a different colour here -- THE CHAIRMAN: I am just commenting that when you say it's grown a lot, I am just wondering whether ... A. If we consider the distance between point 1 and point 10 and we consider here the distance between point 1 and page 108 point 10, in Marion Ross's inked print the size of the centre ridge is slightly shorter in relation to the distance between point 1 and point 10. In QI2 the size of this feature is substantially larger. No, I reject the SCRO's interpretation of the centre of that print. I do not believe the clarity of QI2 justifies the interpretation of a spur. That's my first point. My second point is that even if you accept the interpretation of a spur in QI2, you have to conclude that the ridge which I've circled in yellow simply does not exist. Number 3: if you accept the grouping of points 1, 10 and 16 then you cannot ignore the ridge to the left of that which I've called this chilli pepper and which is so much larger in QI2 as to be completely out of tolerance. MR MOYNIHAN: If we could save that image just now. MISS BAHRAMI: That's image FI2309.15. MR MOYNIHAN: What I want to do is I want to go through QI2 a little bit quicker. What I want to do now is concentrate on point number 3 and if I bring up clean images, we can concentrate on point number 3. Your chilli pepper has still stayed there but the point can still be seen. Point number 3 is indicated page 109 where my cursor is in Marion Ross's print. Would you, Mr Wertheim, describe that as a bifurcation or is it, with the thinner line coming up, something that recurves inside the otherwise descending ridge. A. I beg your pardon, Mr Moynihan, I believe that's point number 2 that you are indicating with the cursor. Q. Sorry, I apologise. That is point number 2. A. Yes, I accept that that is a bifurcation in both Marion Ross's print and in QI2. Q. I can be relatively brief with this one. You and some of the others who dispute the identification of QI2 as Marion Ross's print rely on the shape and width of the two descending branches from the bifurcation. To the right we see a relatively thick line descending in Marion Ross; to the left, a relatively thin line. Whereas the argument is in relation to point 2 in QI2 the branches as they descend, both right and left, both seem to be of similar width. Is that an encapsulation of your area number 2 point? A. Yes, sir. Q. The argument against that is, as I described to you yesterday, the fact we will get variances due to a variety of circumstances, even between two otherwise identical features, due to chemical processes and page 110 pressure or whatever, there can be variations. Could that account for the left limb of the bifurcation in point 2 being different as between Marion Ross's print and QI2? A. I will completely agree that different processes and different touches might produce what appears to be a very thin ridge in one print and a thicker ridge in another print. However, in a single print in which the entire print was developed using the same means of processing, two adjacent ridges should produce proportionally similar ridges. So if you have a thick ridge and an adjacent ridge which is very thin from one touch to the next and one development process to the next, the ridges may be thicker and thinner but the relative thickness and thinness in any one image processed using a singular development technique for that image, the proportional width of the ridges, one to the other, should still show you a large ridge on one side and a skinny ridge on the other. So I reject the suggestion that the development technique might have had anything to do with this. Q. What I am going to do then is move on now to point number 4 and I'll try and get myself clean images this time. Can we bring up, again, FI0166A both sides just to page 111 make sure I get clean images without the chilli pepper. We still have the chilli pepper on the right-hand side. We have moved on to point number 4, Mr Wertheim. Let us do this the correct way round. I have been committing the mistake earlier on of asking you what the points are in Marion Ross. In relation to QI2, point number 4, do you see it on the left-hand side of the screen? A. Yes. I can see where the little ridge ends -- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to touch the mouse. Q. It's okay, 1, 2 -- A. Yes. Q. It is point number 3 we are looking at. Point number 3. You see what is pointed to in QI2 as point number 3? A. Frankly, no. Do you mind if I do a slightly bigger enlargement and put my little green lines on there? I can't restrict us too much because this image of QI2 is terribly out of focus. (Indicated) I might mention while I'm doing this that I was concerned when I was at the Procurator Fiscal's Office in Kilmarnock reviewing evidence that in the booklet production in which the chart is produced I found the photograph that we see on the left here for QI2 which is out of focus and the original small photograph in the booklet with that chart was just as much out of focus page 112 and in a completely different production of SCRO in the evidence at the Procurator Fiscal's was a separate copy of the photograph, a different photograph of QI2, that was so crisp in its focus that the microscopic silk screening on the surface of the sweets tin was reproduced and I would question why for this chart SCRO used an out of focus photograph when they had a crisply focused photograph that showed much sharper detail. It seemed to me disingenuous to use an out of focus photograph when, in fact, there was a cleanly in focus photograph in their possession. Moving on to the discussion of point 3 now, I am going to go back to my green line -- Q. Before we draw any lines, what is actually pointed to on screen? Do you see any feature there at all that's open to interpretation? A. No, sir. What I see is a series of four or five parallel ridges with no point in existence in that location. If you would prefer not to spend the time tracing the ridges as I see them I'll gladly forego that. Q. If you give me just a second. (Pause) This is, again, one of these issues, Mr Wertheim, whether one starts with the latent and goes across to the known. Only if one sees a feature that is worth page 113 taking across -- A. Yes, I can see how if one was to focus too heavily on the bifurcation in the inked print one might trick oneself into seeing the bifurcation in the latent. I believe that in lieu of focussing -- in lieu of going through the exercise of tracing the green lines, I might refer the Inquiry to my phase 1 production and it would be in the appendix in which I drew the pictures related to QI2 because I've drawn the ridges as I see them in area 3, area 4 ... yes, area 3 and area 4 both, by coincidence, reflect that area of ridges, I believe, 1, 2, 3. Q. I have noted your area 3 coincides with SCRO point 3. A. So we can simply forego that exercise and refer to the drawings that I have already prepared in my exercise. I see no bifurcation at all . Q. My reason for asking you this is whether, either in producing what you have now as area 3 you have started from the Marion Ross print to see if you could reproduce that in QI2 rather than going the way you would conventionally work as a fingerprint officer and start with QI2 and see whether you see anything that's capable of being taken across for interpretation. A. Okay, I'm a wee bit confused. Q. That's okay, if I help you. If I bring up, please, your page 114 witness statement FI0118 -- A. Before we do that, please -- Q. Let us save this so we can come back to it. MISS BAHRAMI: That's FI2309.16. MR MOYNIHAN: If we could now go to FI0118.54, what I've brought up, Mr Wertheim, is part of one of the appendices in your witness statement. I think it might be appendix 8. It is a copy of the report you did for Mr Asbury's solicitors dated 30th March 2000. As I would understand it this is your first report in relation to QI2. Would I be correct in that understanding? A. Without the exact dates in front of me I can't say but I would say that if the date on the top of this 30 March 2000 is the first date in the series then this is the first report. Q. We see the subject of your report is an analysis and comparison of QI2? A. Yes, sir. Q. What I want to do then is to, on the same basis as before, look to your earliest contemporaneous report to see what you were thinking at the time. If I turn within it to page 56, we will see that you begin in paragraph 16 going through the points one-by-one beginning at point number 1 and, thankfully, page 115 on this occasion the numberings coincide with the Inquiry reference numbers and you have begun with point 1, 16 and 10. We see in paragraph d you reach a conclusion about 1, 16 and 10. If I take us on to the next page, you have dealt with point number 2. Point number 3 you deal with in f and you say: "Point 3 in the mark is difficult to understand and appears to be nonexistent. The red line ends in the mark between two ridges in a location where there is no point. Point 3 in the inked print is clearly a downward opening bifurcation. This is a drastic difference between the two prints." That is my reason for trying to be short with you in relation to QI2 and to ask you just to comment on the possibility that in preparing your points of difference for us, for this Inquiry, what you have in fact been doing is working in the reverse. You have been looking at the Marion Ross print to see if you could reproduce in QI2 what is seen there rather than perhaps, as you did when this report was written, simply see what you could discern in QI2 itself. A. Oh. No, I understand the question now, thank you. I don't believe that's an accurate statement. I believe that there may be some confusion in the way that I've page 116 worded it with respect to which point I'm looking at first in my report in phase 1 versus the way I've worded it in year 2000 but I'm not even sure about that. You may be correct in your assertion. Q. What I want to do is, because of your first comment about QI2, I want to start really in this simple approach: were you correct in paragraph f of your report -- we will go back to the images in a moment -- simply to have said you don't see anything at point 3 in QI2 as charted. Bearing in mind this is not using the Inquiry's charting; this is the one that was available at the time of the criminal trial. But to see if the new charting has made any difference, if I bring us back to FI2309.16 again, the one which was most recently saved -- it does not matter because I can start again. A. Let me -- Q. Point number 3 in the left-hand image, if I put my cursor on it, I will put a circle round it, roughly. A. It's the left side of the circle. Q. Do you see anything in that area? A. No, sir. Q. This is what has troubled me, Mr Wertheim. That's what you said in the original report but as you correctly say in the charting that you have done as part of your phase 1 contribution you have a very detailed drawing for area page 117 number 3 would imply that there is clear detail to be observed in the area of the yellow not quite circle, the yellow oval. A. In area 3? Q. In area 3. A. In area 3 of QI2 on the left side of the page I've got a series of parallel lines and my comment that I've handwritten is that the bifurcation in the inked print has no corresponding bifurcation in QI2, only straight ridges. I remark in the area 4 discussion that in the latent print, QI2, I -- but that's in reference to a different area of the print. I'm sorry, sir, I'm not understanding where you find a contradiction in my 2000 statement and my current statement. Both of them I believe record simply an open area with no bifurcation there. Q. Maybe it is just simply my misunderstanding. If I am, I suppose, more simple in relation to this, if your evidence is that there is no feature to be observed in the area of the yellow oval -- perhaps I should redraw it to be more correct -- if there's no feature to be observed within the yellow circle -- A. That's correct. Q. -- then I find it as difficult or equally a page 118 contradictory proposition to then say that a clear picture can be drawn of what is occurring there to show that what is occurring there is a series of straight ridges and not a bifurcation. The position should either be, "I can't see anything" or, "I can see something but I say it's a ridge and not a bifurcation". Do you understand now? A. Yes, sir. I do understand now, thank you very much. If I can draw a few lines on here, perhaps I can help clear up my apparently contradictory statements there. I'm going to start out with the green lines and trace through QI2, trying to stay within the ridge, a possible interpretation. Now, this is one interpretation and here's -- Q. If I stop you, Mr Wertheim, right there because if I show you what I am seeing, I am seeing some grey lines coming straight down. A. Exactly, and that's what I was going to demonstrate myself now. I was going to mark them in blue but it's irrelevant. But I see much what you do. I see starting up here and coming down pretty much as a straight line. I see these marks and you've done them in red and I'm -- we're at approximately the same thing, we're looking at the same features. I see this whole series and it extends considerably farther than what you've drawn. page 119 Q. It suffices just for now -- A. I believe that's led to the two different interpretations. At one point I rejected them and said, okay, I'm not even going to trust anything in there and then at the second point I said, okay, I'm going to try to trace some ridges through that in spite of the confusion. Q. If you stop just now, the area that is now the straight lines, red and blue, what might account for that appearance of straight lines through this? A. A smear. Q. A smear? A. An area of finger that has dragged. With regard to the entire impression of QI2 I believe there are probably a number of touches that overlap and in trying to interpret QI2 in places you have to interpret ridges flowing almost perpendicular between other ridges. In a normal circumstance I would never try to interpret such a situation because it's not reliable. Q. That was a point I was trying to ask you because that's the conclusion I had reached from your report back in 2000 that you, for whatever reason, deemed this particular area unreliable, whereas in your charting for the Inquiry you seem to be suggesting some very clear detail was discernible. Which of the two is it? page 120 A. Well, I'm not sure which interpretation is absolutely correct. This is an area which is subject to interpretation and I might go 51 per cent and 49 per cent one day and then 49 and 51 per cent the next day. Either way I don't think it's entirely reliable here. Q. Again, we have now in this forest of red, blue, yellow and green a feature which is given the number 3. Given the evidence of smear running from top to bottom through that area, what would be the responsible conclusion of a fingerprint expert as to relying on that point in the analysis. A. If I were doing the original analysis, I would never rely on a feature in that position. Q. The next one I wanted to ask you about, which is just below it -- I will double-check my copy -- is point 4 and I am indicating point 4 just now. What I should do is let us capture what is on the screen relating to point 3 before I start point 4. MISS BAHRAMI: FI2309.17. MR MOYNIHAN: What I want to do is highlight point number 4. We can take that away because I may have obscured something, a detail. Again, looking at it as a fingerprint examiner examining this print, is there something that is page 121 noteworthy in the position of point number 4? A. There may be. Q. So there may be? A. Well, let me show you what I'm looking at. I'm seeing a ridge below it that I'm marking in green and I'm seeing the possibility of a ridge above it that I'm marking in green, (indicated) but now I'm going to highlight in yellow what appears to be a smudge -- I didn't get it quite as big as I wanted the first time -- what appears to be a smudged area running down through the print. In that smudge we may, indeed, have a third ridge running through there that culminates in the ridge ending shown. With respect to that, if we look at the inked print and see in green the ridge below, the ridge above and the ridge ending at number 4, then I'm going to draw a red circle around an area here (indicated). I'm going to draw a red circle round there and I'm going to draw a red circle around it over here. The problem we're running into, if we accepted this smudge exists and that the green ridge I've drawn in the middle in QI2 is unreliable, then we cannot accept point number 4. If we reject the idea there is a smear in QI2 where I've indicated it in yellow and if we're to propose that point number 4 is a real point, then with respect to the image of Marion Ross's fingerprint one page 122 ridge removed -- oops, wrong tool -- one ridge removed up and to the left there is another ridge and yet in the QI2 I see nothing to indicate that. As I see QI2, the ridge above that area will be coming down without a divergence, the ridge in Marion Ross's inked print is, in fact, diverging. I've done a little sloppy job there. But I see nothing to support the idea of an additional ridge above the point marked as number 4. Consequently, my belief that there's a smear running through there is reinforced. Anyway, I don't think that the point number 4 and I don't think that the ridge running down below it is entirely reliable because I believe there is a smear coming through there indicated in the yellow. Additional support for that hypothesis might come from the fact that we can draw additional blue lines through here showing additional apparent straight features. I'm not saying that these are absolutely reliable, I'm saying simply that there is too much going on in here to feel comfortable with those ridges. Q. In that case if we finish there on point 4, we will move now to points 5 and 6 and if we could save the two images just now. A. You might want to start over with some clean ones. Q. Don't worry. That's why I am saving these. page 123 MISS BAHRAMI: That's FI2309.18. MR MOYNIHAN: Can I start all over again, please, with two copies of FI0166A. Point 5 and 6, in fact even I have to carry out an enlargement to see point 5 because with point 5 the red line seems to go into a black area and it's very difficult to see where it ends. So if I can enlarge it we will see where point 5 ends. If I understand it correctly, point 5 ends where my cursor is just now. Do see the line? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the red point. Point 6 is immediately below it. So there are two points, 5 and 6. Do you have any comment on the significance from a fingerprint point of view of the upper of those two points, point 5 shown where it is? A. I'm tempted to say fiction. Q. Sorry? A. I see nothing there to support an interpretation of a short ridge as is visible in Marion Ross's inked prints. I see absolutely nothing in the area of 5 and 6 to justify any interpretation that would be even remotely consistent with the image in Marion Ross's inked printed thumbprint. Q. I keep making the same mistake, cropping it and losing page 124 the numbers for the lines. If I try to bring it up so that we can see 5 and 6. If you will allow me just a second, I will double-check. 5 and 6 are said to be 5 a bifurcation, 6 a ridge ending, perhaps a second example of a bifurcation and a spur. A. Okay, yes. I'd said a short ridge. I would accept a spur. Q. So 5 and 6 we can accept a bifurcation and a short ridge. Going across to what we see on QI2, what is your comment on saying that the two red dots coincide with that bifurcation and short ridge? A. No such feature can be concluded from QI2. There is no spur; there is no short ridge; there is no interpretation of QI2 that can justify labelling those as valid points for a purpose of identification. I utterly reject that. Q. What I am going to do and probably conclude on this is bring up again clean images. If I understand correctly the report that I was looking at earlier on (that is FI0118, pages 57 and 58 which I do not need to look at) I can ask you to look at a series of points 7 through to 13 which you have not actually yourself commented on as areas of difference but may actually be capable of being dealt with page 125 together. If I highlight on QI2 the lower area so that we can see the spread 7, 8, 9, 10 we've talked about so we don't need to go back to it, 11, 12 and 13, what is your opinion, Mr Wertheim, about the clarity of these particular points, just going round them in the numerical order round the clock beginning at 7 on QI2. Do you see anything of sufficient clarity in QI2 to be carried over for interpretation, looking at each of these in turn? A. No, and if I could add comment as to the reason why here. I'm going to roughly outline in yellow some problems I'm having here. The area that I'm outlining right now (indicated) appears to be part of a print completely unrelated to QI2, the area that I'm outlining as a second area again has a mess that's unrelated to QI2. If I come over here (indicated) I've got a large area that's unrelated to QI2. I've got some more ridges up in here (indicated) that appear unrelated to QI2. So I've got huge areas here of double taps, smears, other fingerprints that are completely unrelated to QI2. Now I haven't included directly the points we're talking about but what I made reference to earlier this afternoon was the fact that this whole area is a page 126 hodgepodge of double, triple, quadruple, quintriple(sic) prints just stacked on top of each others and I would be loath to try to claim I could separate the ridges from any of the overlapping prints. One of the reasons I've stayed away from this area is I don't put much reliance in it. I am going to use a slightly different colour circle. I will use magenta again. (Indicated) I see a cluster -- once again I neglected to draw the circle quite big enough. It's a little deceptive because where you start the cursor is not where the edge of the circle is going to be. In the area that I've designated, I'm not sure that all of the ridges within that purple circle come from the same touch. I think there may be some double tap production of ridges duplicating or -- not duplicating but confusing in that area. Q. If I can just stop you, please, there for two reasons. First of all, we've lost some of the earlier charting so let's save the two images we have on the screen just now. I have another reason for asking you to stop if you will bear with me. First of all, we will save this. MISS BAHRAMI: Image FI2309.19. MR MOYNIHAN: Bear with me, Mr Wertheim. You have hit a page 127 point that just by coincidence I was going to ask about if I can find the cursor. If you follow the numbers round, number 12 comes in to a point. The next one around is, therefore, number 13. A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you see that? A. Yes, sir. Q. To the left of the point number 13, there is a fairly strong feature which to me has the shape of something in the nature of a hook. Do you see that? A. Yes, sir. Q. Point number 13 on Marion Ross appears to be a bifurcation. Would that be correct? A. A bifurcation or ridge ending. I would accept either. Q. Where is the hook? A. Can I elaborate then? I see some ridges -- what I see or one interpretation that I make that I think may be correct is that there are some double tap ridges from a separate touch running through there that approximately a 45-degree angle to the ridge. They'd be coming down from 2.30 towards about 7.30. May I use a blue line to ...? Q. Yes, please. page 128 A. The ridges running along these two blue lines appear to me to be a double tap impression of a few ridges on top of that one that are interfering with it. Q. If I stop you, Mr Wertheim, because this assists me. First of all, what you would say is, "My hook is not present in Marion Ross's print". Is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. The absence of the hook in Marion Ross's print is not itself inconsistent with her fingerprint because the explanation lies in the hook being the product of a double touch. Is that correct? A. The hook could be the product of a double touch. This area, in my opinion, is too confused to draw any firm conclusions. Q. My reason for asking you that, and I am sorry to have interrupted your flow, is in the immediate vicinity of my hook, which is explained as the product of a double touch, is point 13 which is said to be a corresponding feature in Marion Ross. What is your view about the reliability of relying on something such as point 13 as standing out from the hook? A. I would never have relied on it. In the first place, I don't see the divergence of adjacent ridges to justify it. We've got the -- immediately to the left of the page 129 point marked 13 we can see a ridge that curves, it starts out going straight down and then curves slightly to the right where it intersects the magenta oval. Immediately to the right of point 13, beginning right on the edge of the magenta oval and going down slightly to the right, is another ridge and if we were to accept point 13 then we would have to see a stronger divergence than we see and yet at the bottom those two ridges don't allow for two additional ridges between them which you would have in Marion Ross's inked print. Was that clear without me drawing the ridges? In other words, I don't see any evidence of a bifurcation on point 13 in QI2 that opens downward. I see nothing to justify that interpretation. MR MOYNIHAN: One last point if you will bear with me, sir. First of all, I will save these images and treat us to a clearer view. MISS BAHRAMI: FI2309.20. MR MOYNIHAN: When it is saved we'll start all over again FI0166A on both sides of the screen, please. Mr Wertheim, I have asked you to quickly look through 7 through to 13 and we have had some conversation about it. I want to ask you specifically and, again, I will do it the wrong way round but I will ask you to comment on 11 and 12. 11 and 12 in Marion page 130 Ross appeared to me to be an enclosure or lake. Would I be correct? A. That's correct. Q. 11 and 12 in QI2, can you comment specifically on those and their correspondence to the lake or enclosure in Marion Ross? A. We have in QI2 not a great deal of compression or stretching in the main part of the print. My objection is that there are too many overlying prints and too many smears to extend out much beyond a small area in the core; that is to say, points 2 and the 1, 10 and 16 area going straight up and straight to the right about three ridges from there I can see some clear ridges. Nothing else is really reliable. In the area of 11 and 12, we're outside the area I'd consider reliable and because I don't see sign of compression or stretching of the skin, if the island or enclosure in QI2 were to be said to match the enclosure in Marion Ross's inked print I would expect the proportions to be very close to the same. I believe that the impression in QI2 is out of proportion, it's out of tolerance in the overall shape of it. I do not see a joining of the ridges at point 11 which occurs in Marion Ross's print, although I would concede that in the disturbed deposition there I can't page 131 be sure that there is or is not a joining. QI2 is just not reliable in that area. I'm not happy with the shape of it and I certainly don't trust the reliability of it. THE CHAIRMAN: The print in general? A. QI2 in general. The only area that I trust is up above the core but I'm sure we will come to that later. MR MOYNIHAN: Just for the avoidance of doubt, if you mark the area that you regard as being reliable. A. Okay. (Indicated) This is not exactly correct but this encloses basically the only area in which I feel the ridges are sufficiently clear and uninterrupted by smearing and double tapping and such nonsense. I would say the area I've enclosed inside that right oval is not entirely reliable. I would highlight in yellow here an area on the right side of the oval that is coming into question and I'm going to highlight another area up at top of the oval that is coming in question. The oval itself doesn't exactly enclose it and on the right-hand side I'm enclosing another area that comes into question. So I would say that what is inside that purple or magenta oval and has not been highlighted in yellow are what I see as reliable ridges in this print. Everything outside that oval I would distrust because of double page 132 tapping and because of smearing. Q. If we just finish, perhaps, on that. I asked you to do a sweep round from 7 to 13 because I discerned from your earlier notes we can deal with it as quickly as that. 14 and 15 do those -- bearing in mind it is 4.40 -- admit of a relatively short explanation given what you have just said? Would you be prepared to reach conclusions based on what is shown as 14 and 15 in QI2. A. Yes, sir. In QI2 I see what appear to be two bifurcations at points 14 and 15 and I will readily add that in my QI2 production for phase 2 I showed some points in this area. I don't deem them to be reliable and I would never use them in an examination on the bench. What I see in points 14 and 15 again, I see a smear and I'm going to try to attempt to draw it -- I see a smear coming in through the area that ... I thought I'd highlighted that in yellow. Q. Mr Wertheim, what I will do is the image that is on the screen just now let us save before we lose the oval that you have marked. A. I believe you can go ahead and cut out a QI2, again, and put it back at the same time. Q. What I was going to do was save the images we have just page 133 now and, since 14 and 15 require a bit more of an explanation, come at it when I've got a degree more energy tomorrow morning. So, if you would not mind, if you would save what is on the screen just now and I do promise to others who are very interested in this that since I have reached numbers 14 and 15 and I have covered 16, QI2 is about to finish shortly tomorrow morning. THE CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, we have the benefit of Mr Wertheim for the day tomorrow. Is that right? A. Yes, sir, I've been advised after lunch that a new return flight has been booked for me on Friday and I will be available to the Inquiry the entire day tomorrow. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed, that's very helpful. MISS BAHRAMI: The last image was FI2309.21. THE CHAIRMAN: 10.00 tomorrow. (4.42 pm) (Adjourned until 10.00 am the following morning)