page 1 Tuesday, 29th September 2009 (Morning session) (10.05 am) GEOFFREY ERIC GRIGG (sworn) Examined by MR MOYNIHAN A. My name is Geoffrey Eric Grigg. MR MOYNIHAN: Good morning, Mr Grigg. A. Good morning. Q. I think, just for the record, you and I had a meeting yesterday afternoon so we could explore the detailed points in your evidence and I could explain to you the points I wanted to concentrate on. A. That's correct. Q. Before we come to those, as a historical matter, you were good enough to provide to the Inquiry a statement of your evidence. Is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Are you content that that statement reflects the truth as you can recollect it? A. I am. Q. What I want to do is not to concentrate on your statement but to ask you some general questions relating to fingerprint practice and procedure and then we will come on to look at the fingerprint Y7 and finish with page 2 fingerprint QI2. So far as the general points of fingerprint practice and procedure, if I could start, please, with the most elementary question: the process that results in a conclusion ultimately that a fingerprint is identified as uniquely belonging to an individual, is that a process that you would classify as a matter of absolute fact or, essentially, a matter of opinion for the fingerprint examiner? A. The process is not an individual process. An individual examiner comes to an opinion but the process should be repeated independently by further examiners who will also reach their own opinion. Those opinions are then compared and if they tally, then the identification becomes a fact, that it has tested in a scientific process and found to have a consistent result. Q. That perhaps takes me, just to follow that through, if I could ask you about the ACE-V methodology next and take it slightly out of order. The ACE-V methodology is one that I understand is practised in the UK? A. That's correct. Q. And, indeed, is taught by you? A. It is indeed but it is a natural process which has been adapted to the process of examining fingerprints. page 3 Q. What follows on from the question of fact and opinion in the answer that you gave is to concentrate on the V aspect of ACE-V, the verification. Can you explain to me why verification is thought to be necessary as opposed to, for example, evidence being led simply of the conclusion reached by one fingerprint officer? A. Firstly, in the process that we teach at the National Policing Improvement Agency, we have two forms of verification, of the V. We start with what we describe as a small v, which is the practitioner constantly checking their own work as they proceed. Once they have reached a conclusion, to check it again to ensure they are satisfied with the information that they have gathered and the result they have personally arrived at. The V in the ACE-V process, a capital V, is the stage where, when one expert has reached a conclusion, another expert will independently go through the same process, ideally without any knowledge of the result obtained by the first examiner. By going through the process again, independently in the same fashion, they will arrive at their own opinion. If their opinions match, then we have a process which has been found to yield a consistent result and, indeed, in our process in the UK that verification should be carried out twice so page 4 that three examiners have independently examined the mark and reached a conclusion. If they reach different conclusions, then there will be a process within a bureau to examine the result and find out where the discrepancy is. Q. If I understand it correctly, I will put this in my own language, if one looks at the conclusion reached by a single fingerprint examiner that might be considered to be a subjective personal opinion? A. Indeed. Q. You're indicating that the process of verification is accordingly a proper one because through the consistency of results one can demonstrate the reliability of the conclusion? A. That's correct. Q. The part of this that I wanted, therefore, to come back and just focus in on, if one is looking at consistency of subjective opinions and, therefore, resulting in overall reliability, the term you use is "independence". What do you mean by independence? In particular, what degree of independence is appropriate in this methodology? A. In an ideal situation, each examiner would approach the task without any knowledge of what had gone before with no preconceptions that anybody else had reached any page 5 result whatsoever with the comparison. However, in the confines of the Fingerprint Bureau and the restrictions of the work that needs to be completed, this is not a practical situation. In practice, I am sure that the people verifying will have some knowledge of what has gone before, even if it is simply that they have been asked to verify a mark which indicates that someone else has already reached an opinion about it. Q. Accepting that practical limit, is there any necessary minimum element that you would say is consistent with independence? If I come up from the very bottom, blind verification where there is no knowledge at all what has happened would be the ideal, perhaps not practical. Up from that would be the fact that examiner number 2 would know that someone, not necessarily who, had made an identification of the unknown against the specific known person. Up from that would be that the second examiner knows not that someone but that a specific person has made the identification. Up from that would be that the second examiner knows that someone has relied on specific features in arriving at his conclusion. You see this idea of a spectrum -- A. I do, indeed. Q. -- to indicate what as a matter of proper practice, recognising the problems you have said would prevail in page 6 a small bureau, what the proper practice would be as to this minimum level of independence required? A. At the very minimum, the verifier should not have any knowledge of the manner in which the comparison has been carried out. If the verifier had access to maybe marked photographs showing features that the original examiner had relied on, that would certainly influence their judgment and would not be independent. THE CHAIRMAN: Just so that I may appreciate this, for example, I think when you came to examine Y7, you knew that Mr Wertheim had taken a different view to the Scottish Criminal Record Office? A. Yes, I did. THE CHAIRMAN: But not the detail, but therefore that would be acceptable but it would not be acceptable if you knew the detail as to why he had disagreed? A. It would certainly make the task much harder to conduct with a clear mind. In practice, I am sure that on occasion the examiners do know some of the detail merely because they are working in the same office as other people. We will teach people that they must be aware of any possible influences they might have in the way they approach the examination and put those out of their minds. At least if they are aware of them, then they page 7 can attempt to view them rationally rather than accept them as fact. MR MOYNIHAN: If I can then go back and follow it through but I will go back now to the start of ACE-V, the analysis stage. What is the proper approach for the analysis of a fingerprint. A. The analysis should always start with the unknown mark, the mark in question. Generally, this will be a mark from a crime scene which will be of much poorer clarity than a mark on the fingerprint form with which it will ultimately be compared. If the clear mark is looked at first or too early in the process, it may be impossible to prevent one automatically taking information from that clear mark and applying it to the mark which is not so clear from the crime scene and thus influencing the information that are gathered from that unknown mark. The examination should start with an analysis of the unknown mark without reference to any fingerprint forms or clearer marks with which it will later be compared. Q. At the comparison stage, is it permissible that if you are looking at a known mark to begin to recognise a feature in the known and then work back to the latent and have recognition that that additional feature is page 8 becoming clearer as a result of the comparison of the two? A. It's inevitable that will occur as soon as the comparison begins to take place. Although an analysis of the unknown mark should enable the examiner to determine where the clear features are in their totality, it's impossible to remember all of those in a normal fingerprint and examine them all at exactly the same moment as soon as one looks at the control on the fingerprint form. One has to start somewhere and as soon as one starts looking at one feature to compare it, you become aware of other surrounding features and will automatically start to take those into consideration. This can, of course, give rise to problems if you are not aware it happens but at some point in the comparison, having worked from the unknown to the known, it will be inevitable that you will start taking facts from the known print into consideration when coming back to the unknown fingerprint to gather more information to compare. There is a term used by a Canadian fingerprint expert called David Ashbaugh of "flip-flopping" for this particular process when it starts happening in an examiner's mind. Q. I think in your statement you use perhaps a kinder page 9 phrase. It sounds more technical. It is an "iterative process"? A. Yes, there is a great deal of repetition in the process as one looks from one print to the other in the comparison and one will inevitable be constantly reviewing the information and features that have been observed and compared already and putting them into sequence and context with the other features that are being examined as one builds up the comparison to reach a conclusion. Q. I will put this for comment, please, and see what you think: the analysis phase, as you said, will look at the totality of the mark. May it be that, having done your analysis, you will settle your eye on a particular target group of strong features in the crime scene mark? A. That is the way it works. Q. Then, as you said, you then go to the known print, in effect concentrating to begin with on that target group? A. Yes. Q. And, as you say, as a consequence of that, you may see in the known some other strong features in the same vicinity as the target group and it is inevitable you will carry those back to your analysis of the crime scene mark? page 10 A. That's the case. It does need a clear starting point to begin a comparison and that will generally be a clear group of features in a particular position within the print which can be easily found on the control print. Q. Again, as fitting this general study, fingerprints in particular as practice, as part of the criminal justice system, have as its object, evidence, that would seek to persuade a judge or a jury ultimately of the guilt or innocence of a particular individual so that the end consumer, one can assume, is a lay person, either a judge, professional judge or a panel of jurors. To what extent is fingerprint evidence such that an examiner must be able to point to a particular feature on a print as the start -- he must be able to show a juror something exists before he then proceeds to the second question of interpreting that as a bifurcation or a ridge ending, a similarity or a difference from the known print? A. It is very important that the expert presenting the evidence is able to assist the court to understand the decision that's been reached by that expert. If the court requires the expert to explain the features they have relied upon, the basis for their conclusion, then surely they must do so. If the court is not clear about how the decision has been reached, the expert should be page 11 able to explain. Q. I think we may be at crossed purposes. What I am looking at is a more elementary position. The example I gave to you yesterday is there will be some fields of expert evidence, for example, in orthopaedics and the question is, is there a broken leg or not. An orthopaedic surgeon may be able to show a line in an x-ray consistent with a fracture, whereas a psychiatrist asked to decide or to give evidence of whether someone is suffering from clinical depression as opposed to just being unhappy won't able to show the jury anything, the jury just has to listen to his evidence, listen to his reasoning, the authority of his qualifications and accept his evidence or not. With fingerprint evidence, which of those two is the better example? Do you have to demonstrate the existence of a feature to the jurors, as the orthopaedic surgeon would? A. In the United Kingdom, fingerprint evidence is rarely given with the aid of visual charts specific to the case as we are using today. It is generally given in the fashion you refer to as the psychologist where one explains one's findings to the court. However, if the court is not clear about those findings, then the expert should be willing to produce page 12 charts like these in order to indicate the points relied upon. If the expert can see those points and rely upon them, then the jury will certainly see them as well. Whether they are able to recognise them without the experience and training that the fingerprint expert has is a different matter and at some point they may have to rely upon the opinion of the fingerprint expert and their interpretation of the images that they are showing them. Q. Forgive me, Mr Grigg, that is simply the distinction I was trying to get at. The first point there for us would be do we see the point that the feature, the characteristic, that the fingerprint officer is saying exists. That is the first point: do we see it? Then if we see it, the second question is: do we agree with his interpretation of that particular feature? Is that fair? A. Yes, although there may be a point where the person without any prior knowledge is not able to actually understand quite why the expert has made a particular decision about a point. That is the reason for the training and the experience required in order to interpret fingerprints. Q. We will come back to that. I think it will become clearer when we look at some of these marks why I am page 13 asking that particular question. The next point I wanted to ask you about concerns the non-numeric system. Plainly we are looking at the judgment in this case which was carried out in 1997 to 1999 when Scotland and England, for that matter, applied the 16-point standard. Neither jurisdiction now has a legal threshold, as the 16 points. Is there now in practice now a minimum number necessary to make an identification? A. No, there's not and indeed there never was. The figure of 16 was the practice for presenting evidence in court; whereas identifications have always been made with fewer than 16 characteristics in the Fingerprint Bureau but they would have been for intelligence purposes only and never used in evidence without 16. Each comparison has to be looked at as an individual comparison. It's not possible to compare different comparisons and say that a particular number of features or a particular quantity of information will be sufficient in every case. It depends upon the information that's being relied upon; it depends upon the quantity of different information; it depends, perhaps, upon the distribution of different features within the fingerprint. Some features are much rarer than others and would have a greater impact on the page 14 thought process of the examiner. Q. So even today if I look at it, the language we have had is that a fingerprint officer needs to see characteristics of sufficient quality consistent with a unique identification. Is that a rough description of the test now? A. Yes, and if I can quote David Ashbaugh again, he talks about a quality versus clarity spectrum. As the -- clarity decreases-- sorry, quantity versus clarity, as the clarity decreases, the quantity of information required increases. Q. Would you accept that there is ultimately no objective standard as to what a sufficient quality of information is in this particular context? A. Yes, the information must be visible; it must be recognisable, in order to reach a decision. Q. Beyond that, as to what quality of material or combination of features is necessary for a unique identification, it is too variable to be subject to an absolute objective test? A. If there is one objective test that I would apply, it would be the absence of differences and indeed I tell my students, "Look for differences; don't look for similarities." If you cannot find any differences but you find sufficient similarities, then you have page 15 individualised that fingerprint. Q. We will move there from then almost directly. We know that as part of the National Training Centre, as it was then, in Durham you looked at Y7 for the purposes of Scottish proceedings. Is that correct? A. Yes. This was in 1999, I believe. Q. Or 2000 -- A. I beg your pardon. Q. -- round about then. You may be right. You tell us in your statement that you noted only three points in agreement between Y7 and Miss McKie's fingerprint. May I take it you now have no recollection of those particular three points? A. No, I don't. I made the statement nine years after the events. My recollection was that there were three points in agreement or three similar points appearing in the same area of both fingerprints. My memory was actually faulty because when I saw the fingerprints again, they were not in the area which I had imagined them to be from my memory. Q. I think from what you indicated yesterday you in fact had an understanding that a particular controversy around Y7 had been resolved quite some time ago? A. I believed there had been an Inquiry and a decision page 16 made, yes. Q. So you were not even aware there was an ongoing controversy concerning it? A. No. Well, I knew that certain individuals still held to their opinion that Y7 was made by the left thumb of Shirley McKie. Q. There was one part of the ACE-V that I did not actually ask you about that I may pick up. When you did your own investigation back in 1999/2000, whenever it was, did you take notes as part of your own exercise? A. My recollection is that I did and that would have been my practice, particularly in a case which I knew I would have to explain or was likely to have to explain my findings. Q. But you do not know where those notes are? A. No. At the end of the exercise, I handed the notes to the Head of National Fingerprint Training, who was a gentleman by the name of Geoff Sheppard, who has since retired. Geoff was going to draw up a report, which I had no part in writing, and he would use my notes as well as his own and other people's in order to do that. I've not seen the notes since. I don't know where they are now. Q. That gives you an introduction to the final part of the ACE-V process. To what extent, looking at matters page 17 today, do you teach students of the necessity or benefit of taking notes during their analysis, comparison and evaluation of marks? A. It is incorporated in the training programme from foundation level onwards. Students are expected to make notes on courses of the comparisons they have carried out. This is partly for their own benefit to get them into the habit of consciously recording what they are doing and the information relied upon and also to help us to understand their thought process while going through an exercise to compare fingerprints so we can understand better the results that they have reached. Throughout the programme, that is from foundation level, we expect them to make notes on comparisons during assessments, formal practical assessments, they are there so we can understand their thought processes again and also to help them to have confidence in the work they are doing by clarifying their thoughts as they write them down on the paper. It is something we teach as good practice, although I doubt it happens on a regular basis for every single comparison carried out in a fingerprint bureau. It is often seen as too time consuming. Most examinations are relatively straightforward and very brief notes are all that would be required in order page 18 to record the findings. But wherever the examination is a little more challenging or you may need to explain your findings perhaps in court then we would recommend that notes are made to assist you to recall the events at the time. Q. Are those notes that in particular, to use your phrase, the mark in question is challenging, would you expect the examiner to be taking notes contemporaneous with his first examination of the mark? A. Yes, I would. Again, we would always remind a student that any comparison they undertake may end up as part of court proceedings. They should be prepared to go to court for every comparison they make, therefore they should approach every comparison in the same way with the same care and the same diligence, regardless of the actual mark or the actual submission they received. Q. For the purposes of note-taking, I appreciate Y7 and QI2, which we will come to later, now have hugely disproportionate significance given that you are being asked some ten years later about these particular marks but, as best you can, standing back from it, would either of these marks have been such that you would have thought them to be challenging and you would have been recommending or expecting notes to have been taken of the initial examination of these marks? page 19 A. I think the marks themselves would be dealt with fairly quickly. In the case of Y7 my understanding is it was originally compared as an elimination fingerprint and it's a fact that elimination prints do not receive the same number of checks and have the same requirement for 16 points to be found in agreement in order to make the identification and give that information out as intelligence to investigating officers. It is quite likely an elimination print would not be noted, the procedure would not be noted in the same way as a suspect's fingerprint perhaps or a fingerprint that was being searched in order to identify an offender. Q. QI2, if I explain to you, in fact, was several parts but the part that we are interested in in this chapter of your evidence is a part that comes to be identified as the deceased's fingerprint -- it's a murder case -- allegedly found on a tin in the suspect's house. That is the significance of it. When the fingerprint examiners were examining QI2 initially, would you expect them to be taking notes of a mark like QI2? A. Yes. If they were examining it again simply to eliminate it to the owner of the tin, then it might be treated as simply an elimination mark but when it's being compared with the fingerprints of the victim, it page 20 obviously has considerable evidential value should they match and should be treated as seriously as the offender's marks if they were being compared, for example. Q. If I could follow this through then, let us take Y7 again. As you have said, viewed initially as merely the elimination of, as it turned out, a police officer who would, if it was her print, perhaps have had legitimate reason to be in the premises, you might expect Fingerprint Officers to be not as thorough with such an examination and you, therefore, might expect them not to take notes of the original conclusion that led to the elimination. Is that fair? A. I would expect them to be as thorough in the actual process of comparing but not in the process of recording or noting what they had done. It may have been part of a large number of police officers' fingerprints being compared and a matter of working your way down the list and I would not expect detailed notes to be taken for every comparison made in those particular circumstances. However, I would expect notes to be made if it was going to be of clear evidential value later in the proceedings. Q. In particular, if I follow this through, you will not be aware of this but at a later date, a decision was taken page 21 to prosecute the police officer, Ms McKie, for perjury, that she denied having been in the house. Fingerprint Officers were instructed by the prosecution authority (that's the Crown Office in Edinburgh) to re-examine Y7 against an arrest form that first came into existence in 1998, so one year after their initial examination. Plainly the purpose of this re-examination was for evidential reasons, with a view to the prosecution of that police officer for perjury. Would you expect officers in that situation to document their reasoning when they are carrying out the examination of Y7? A. If it had been me, I think I would certainly have done so and I would certainly advise any of my trainees on our courses to make notes of examinations being carried out under those circumstances. Q. Why would you do that? A. So that I could, at a later date, recall more clearly what I'd done at the time and explain my findings more clearly to the court if necessary. Q. With that background, if I turn then to -- before I do, Y7 we know you worked with at the time in the National Training Centre. QI2 did you have involvement with it yourself at the time? page 22 A. I don't recall looking at anything other than Y7, although I know that my colleagues Geoffrey Sheppard and Mike Thompson looked at further marks in relation to the Inquiry. Q. But for the purposes of this Inquiry you have been asked to look at QI2 and you have prepared some work in relation to QI2? A. That's correct. Q. Would I be correct in my understanding, therefore, that as far as QI2 is concerned, to the best of your recollection, you first studied it when asked by the Inquiry to do team to do so? A. Yes, although I do believe I have seen an image purporting to be QI2 some time ago, whether it was on the Internet or a photograph circulating I cannot recall but I didn't carry out a comparison of it at the time. Q. I will reformulate the question then. As best you are aware, the first and only comparison you carried out of QI2 was at the request of the Fingerprint Team as part of the comparative exercise that included Y7 as well? A. Yes, I believe so. Q. I will leave QI2 until slightly later. What I want to begin with is Y7 and what I will do, to explain, is having chatted with you yesterday and indeed reflected on the experience of last week, given page 23 what we have just described as the ACE-V methodology and the analysis what I am actually going to do is begin with your analysis of Y7 rather than actually make you dance to a number system that I might otherwise be wedded to. If I can begin, therefore, with Y7 and I will bring up your own charting, which is FI0168A. Mr Grigg, just for the record you have displayed beside you, I think, the photographic original of your charting; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Also an SCRO charting that you will have seen for the purposes of your phase 2 contribution? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. You also have a folder of your own notes? A. I have. Q. Including some acetates, if necessary? A. Yes. Q. That is the material you have available to you. I will try to work with the computer system because that's common to us all in the hall, but if you wish to use any of the other sources then please feel free to do so. Just let us now what you are actually using from time to time. A. Yes, of course. page 24 Q. In particular, when I bring up images if you can cast your eye to the photographic original to make sure you are satisfied with the quality of what is seen on the screen. What I want to do is to begin with the mark Y7 and I am going to highlight it for us on screen. That is the mark Y7 brought up for us all on screen. If you compare to the photographic original to your left, are you happy with the clarity of the digital image? A. Yes, I am. Q. As a matter of your own initial analysis of this particular fingerprint -- I am not going to try to strain your recollection back to ten years ago but as you are looking at this now, as you were for the comparative exercise, can you tell us where you would start with an analysis of Y7? A. The first part of the analysis was to decide what I'm looking at and which way up it is and, indeed, one of the things I was asked to do was to orientate the fingerprint in a vertical position with the tip of the finger towards the top. I didn't have any information about the actual location or position of the fingerprint, although I believe I know it was on a doorframe. Whether left side page 25 or right side, I don't recall being told or the height from the floor, but looking at the background of the photograph, there appears to be a vertical striations which would be consistent with a wooden surface which I would expect a doorframe to be and I would expect these striations to run vertically up and down along the grain of the wood. Without any other knowledge of how the finger should be orientated, I simply went along with the background, the fingerprint is pointing straight up in line with the doorframe. This actually -- to jump ahead a bit -- fits in fairly well with ridge flow which I saw on the fingerprint form mark on the left thumb. It is not entirely consistent and it's not consistent across the whole area of the fingerprint but within the limitations of the recording method and the deposition method in which the fingerprint will inevitably have been distorted to some degree, it is in my mind quite acceptable to have this orientation. If I can refer to the notes I actually made at the time, I started off looking at Y7 and I determined it was a single mark. There was some background contamination. I have mentioned the striations from the wood grain, or what I take to be wood grain already. I page 26 said there was possible wood grain vertically in line with the mark. The ridges are black. I can tell that because some pores are visible as white spots along the black ridges. Towards the lower part of the mark on the left there is a recurve. That is the ridges make a backward turn on themselves which means the pattern is almost certainly some form of loop or whorl pattern. The slope of that loop, if it is a loop, or the slope of the whorled ridge flow appears to be down to the left. Of course if the fingerprint was reorientated, if a different part was the top, it might even go down to the right but that is how it appears to me. If the mark is a left thumb, which I understand my comparison was to be, then we are looking at what we call the radial side of the thumb which would be the side of the thumb away from the hand. So this side down here (indicated). That is fairly consistent with putting your hand on a flat surface. It is that part of the thumb which actually makes contact with the surface (indicated). Q. By that part of the thumb you mean the outside -- A. The outside edge, yes. The pressure appears fairly uniform across the whole of the area but it is slightly less on the left-hand page 27 edge, particularly in the core and about half- to two-thirds the way up and the closing of the furrows above the recurve, in towards the middle of the print on the left, probably indicates movement as the thumb was placed on the surface. It wasn't put down in one movement, there's a slight rolling action pushing the ridges together as it goes down. The top part of the mark has slightly thicker ridges than lower down which indicates that more pressure was used as that part of the thumb touched the surface. On the outside right edge of the impression, there is a step in the outline about halfway down. This is a little unusual. Normally a fingerprint will have a smooth outline, forming an oval shape perhaps, but this step actually lines up with the striations in surface. The wood grain coming down from the top forms an edge to the upper part of the impression and I suspect that this step is caused by the contour of the surface. The absolute outside edge of the thumb didn't make contact because there was a slight depression caused by the wood grain. THE CHAIRMAN: When you say the outside edge -- A. On the right-hand side, sir. MR MOYNIHAN: Perhaps if I just interrupt you there, there are a number of points we will capture and then move on page 28 with your analysis. Some of the points you mentioned will become fixtures that we will come back to so if we can just locate them. This is where we enter this difficult domain of working with the computer system. It is also a point to see if we can follow this. If I go back to the beginning, you spoke of a recurve but also of a core. Can you indicate for me, please, where the core is of the mark and, following that, the recurve that you began with? A. Yes. If I use an arrow, which I believe will be red -- forgive me, I'm not familiar with this equipment yet -- it may be better if I put a circle in the area where the recurve occurs on the left-hand side. This is where the ridges are making a tight turn to recurve on themselves. Having come up from the bottom of the print they are turning round to go back again in the reverse direction. THE CHAIRMAN: So that is the area in the red circle that you have drawn? A. This is what I call the core. Every pattern of the loop or the whorl type will have a core where the ridges have a tight curvature in the centre generally of the pattern. It's -- we call it a fixed point. It is easy to locate within the pattern and it is a datum, if you like, that we can refer to when looking for other features within the ridge flow. page 29 MR MOYNIHAN: The tool I may have to just demonstrate for you. First of all, before I demonstrate if we can save that image because I am sure to make a mistake myself. MISS BAHRAMI: Image FI2909.01. MR MOYNIHAN: In addition to the core, Mr Grigg, you were mentioning some recurving ridges. The tool I have brought up enables one to draw lines. I don't know if you are comfortable using that tool to see if you can draw or at least indicate for us roughly where the recurving lines are. A. I fear it will be an indication. My hand is not steady enough ... Q. No, that is fine. It may be we resort to arrows instead of lines. A. Can I remove this circle so I can see the ridges more clearly in that area? Q. In that case what we will do is start again, with the image. We will bring up, again, FI0168A. What I will do is highlight ... there we have a clear image if you want to start again. A. Thank you. I will try and actually trace ridge flow around the core to show you where the recurve appears. This side of the fingerprint (indicated) as I've already mentioned is fainter than the bulk of the fingerprint. The ridge flow is not particularly clear in this area. page 30 However, I can see that the ridges in this area (indicated) are coming up -- if I try and draw round ... that's not very good. I will remove that. I will try again. I will just take this ridge here, (indicated) it's flowing up the side of the print and round and disappearing and back again. We have another ridge here (indicated) which is flowing around the outside of it and we have another ridge here (indicated), rather faint. This one appears to make the tightest turn to go back down again but the ridges are broken at this point. They are quite faint although the path is reasonably clear. Q. Those are the recurving ridges that you were mentioning? A. Yes, and this is where we would say the core area is, the area of tightest recurve, particularly this inside ridge where the ridge makes the tightest backward turn. Q. If we can save that image as well, please. MISS BAHRAMI: That's FI2909.02. MR MOYNIHAN: What we will do is build up on that picture. So that is saved so we can come back to that if we need to. The next point I have noted was that as you progressed up all I wrote down is there are signs of a rolling action. page 31 A. I'm sorry could you repeat what you just said? Q. All I wrote down in my notes was a rolling action. You mentioned the recurve, you mentioned the core and then the next key words I wrote down were "rolling action". So there are signs somewhere in the mark, if you look back to your working notes, of something that you indicated was indicative of a rolling action or movement as the fingerprint was deposited? A. Yes, I noticed that the spacing of the furrows, the thickness of the ridges varied as you moved up the fingerprint and I put this down to the manner in which the finger or thumb had been placed on the surface, not flat in one go but rolled up. As the finger was deposited, it moved across the surface to leave the mark. That's my interpretation from the spacing of the furrows and the thickness of the ridges. Q. So, therefore, there is no one particular area. You were just looking at the variability of the spacing across the print as a whole. A. Yes. Q. The next point, I suppose, is self-evident again as an extension of that. You note that at some locations the width of the ridges or the thickness of the ridges, is greater than in others. A. That's correct. page 32 Q. The final point was that the step on the right is unusual. Perhaps that's best done, if we experiment, with an arrow. Can you just point. I suppose we can all see it ourselves but just see for clarity and record for clarity you step to the right. A. I will just place an arrow at the point here (indicated) on the right-hand side, a red arrow, that indicates where -- I will draw a line above it, if I may -- we can see above that arrow the edge of the mark is relatively straight running parallel to the line I have drawn. Below the arrow -- and I will try to draw another free-hand line -- the outside edge steps out in a gentle curve and there's a fairly distinct point where I've put the arrow showing where the change in outline occurs. This I believe can be explained by the contours of the surface on which the mark has been made. The fingerprint hasn't touched where there is a slight depression in the surface. If it had, I believe the outline that I draw would have come round a bit more like that (indicated) from the top to the bottom, which would be the normal shape on a flat surface. Q. Thank you very much. Again, what we will do is save that image. THE CHAIRMAN: What I found very helpful with the previous witness is when it is said what the colour was denoting. page 33 It makes it much easier when you are reading the evidence again. So if you wouldn't mind recording it the way we had a commentary, I think, before. If we had just a note of what colours, what each colour is denoting. MR MOYNIHAN: Do not take exception if I smile if you use the word magenta, but what we have done is you have put in, just for the purposes of the notes, the final line has been what you would normally have expected the outline of the thumb to have been is the red curving line? A. The long one from the top of the blue line to the bottom of the shorter red line. Q. I am grateful to you. So when you are drawing things, if you simply say, it's probably in your own thought process, instead of saying, "I'm drawing a line", you would be saying, "I'm drawing a blue line". A. I will have to check what colour the line is going to be then before I start drawing it. Q. You can do it as you draw it. THE CHAIRMAN: Do not let it worry you. If you find it difficult we will get counsel to do it at the end and hear how closely he has followed it. MR MOYNIHAN: The only problem is I have a limited range of colours. page 34 THE CHAIRMAN: There is a quite variety of colours, as we learnt last week if you want to change them. MR MOYNIHAN: Could we save that one. MISS BAHRAMI: That's FI2909.03. MR MOYNIHAN: Again, I will keep that up and if it becomes too crowded we can start again. Having done that initial review, having noted the features you noted, was there any one particular area that you then began to concentrate on when you were doing your comparison for us? A. I started, having assessed the overall impression, to start looking for particular features within the ridge flow. That is mainly where a ridge ends or where a ridge forks, splits and becomes two ridges. There are several areas or several places where the flow of the ridges is interrupted in this way but in actual fact one of the first things I noted, and I made a note here in my notes, is there's an open field of eight ridges above the core, counting from four ridges up. By an open field, I mean we have a parallel flow of ridges with none of the ridge endings or bifurcations or deviations of that nature. In other words, the ridges simply flow parallel to each other across an area. The term used is open field. Because the ridge flow, particularly around the core page 35 here, is a little indistinct I actually started counting from what I was quite certain was the first really clear ridge, which is this one here. If I put a red arrow on it on the outside edge. (Indicated) This is the ridge which I believe I started examining above the core because I noticed there were no features in this area. I actually counted up eight ridges from here until I came to this point here (indicated) -- and I will put another red arrow on it -- where I noted there was a ridge ending. Between those two points, the fourth ridge up and that ridge ending, there are no other features, no ridge characteristics on any of these ridges across this area. That is quite distinctive. An open field, an absence of characteristics over an area of a number of ridges, is as distinctive as the presence of ridges in those areas. That was one thing I had in my mind to look for when I started the comparison was an open field above the core. Q. If I just interrupt you again, just for my purposes, the red arrow that you have indicated as the ridge ending, now fairly centrally in the mark. Does that coincide with point number 4 that you have come to discuss in your notes subsequently? A. Yes, it does. page 36 Q. Sorry, I interrupted you. Having identified the point you just indicated, point number 4, and the absence of other features in that open field, what did you do next? A. I carried on looking over the area of the impression and I noted that there were a number of the ridge endings and bifurcations that I had mentioned earlier. What I did was I noted their positions. For example, there is one on this picture which I've indicated by the number 3 to the right of the core area. This is a ridge ending. If we follow the ridge down, we come to a bifurcation a little lower on the same ridge which I have actually indicated as number 8 on this particular image. Q. If I can stop you again just because the green line on black is not ultimately turning out that helpful. Point number 8, is that where the tip of the pen -- sorry, I will give you control. Where is point number 8? A. Where the tip of the pen is now. (Indicated) Q. Could we then mark that perhaps by a circle. Is point number 8 intended to be within -- A. A little bit higher but that is the ridge. Q. What I will do is take it away. If we save the image just now. MISS BAHRAMI: That is FI2909.04. page 37 MR MOYNIHAN: What I was going to do, if I understand this correctly, having selected the circle ... A. I will highlight it in magenta for you. I think this is magenta. (Indicated) Q. So that is the point that you were indicating and that coincides with your point number 8? A. Yes. Q. You were looking for and you indicated to us a number of points in Y7, ridge endings or bifurcations. Beyond that can you carry on with your analysis? A. I would like to point out at this stage I was not allocating numbers to these features. The numbers have been put on to aid the chart by identifying with a number. Yes, I have also noted that one intervening ridge to the right there is another of these bifurcations which is indicated actually by line number 7. Q. You have put on a second magenta circle there. A. That's correct, yes. If I work the other way, one intervening ridge to the right of this magenta circle which is number 8, there is another bifurcation on that ridge. I have formed another magenta circle on the appropriate ridge to the left of the one which we called number 8. (Indicated) page 38 Q. Again, by coincidence, as chance would have it, that now comes to be marked up as number 2. A. It does. Q. So if you proceed then as to what you observed? A. There is another bifurcation halfway up the print towards the right-hand side which I will mark with another magenta circle (indicated). I have now drawn the magenta circle round a point which I indicated as 6 actually on the chart. These were the clearest points with which I began my actual comparison with these features in mind. The absence of any features above the core, the presence of these bifurcations -- shall I put a circle round point number 3, the ridge ending I mentioned earlier on? Q. Please do. A. If I put a circle here, that is an easily found characteristic. Q. Just for the purposes, again, of when we are looking at the notes subsequently, what you have done finally is put a magenta circle where the line number 3 ends and that you interpret as a ridge ending? A. That's correct. Q. If I understand it correctly, what you are indicating is that the analysis demonstrated an open field above the page 39 core to the point which you have today in the chart or you have for us now numbered 4, shown by a red arrow, a ridge ending? A. That's correct. Q. So it is the absence of anything from the core to that point and then the combination seen in magenta of bifurcations and ridge endings, that was your initial analysis? A. That's correct. There were in fact some other features, because I noted I found ten altogether, which I recorded on an acetate sheet which is an overlay of a photocopy of the enlarged mark because, in addition to these features, there are a number of characteristics towards the top of the fingerprint on the right-hand side. These haven't subsequently formed any part of the comparison with the left thumbprint of Shirley Cardwell, alias McKie. Q. First of all, if I just save the image that we have just now, the magenta image. MISS BAHRAMI: That is FI2909.05. MR MOYNIHAN: Just before we finish with this we will move on, just retain this particular image. Are there any of the features you said on the right-hand side higher up that you noted on your initial analysis, that you say did not use in the comparison exercise for us, that can page 40 be highlighted for us now at this stage? A. Yes, I'm sure I can. Q. I don't wish to take too much time over this but if there's any feature you can point to, then please feel free to do so. A. The notes I have made about them here I've put from my point 4, which is indicated with the red arrow here -- (indicated) THE CHAIRMAN: That is the long red arrow? A. That is indeed, down to the middle of the fingerprint here. (Indicated) I have noted 11 intervening ridges to a ridge ending rightwards. So if I count up 11 ridges, I believe it is this feature here. I will just draw a little red arrow to what I believe I marked. I will remove that ... I am sorry, it is here (indicated). I have just drawn a short red arrow to a ridge ending rightward. Q. And this red arrow, on this occasion, happens to be one that crosses the blue line? A. Yes, it does. Then further up we have a bifurcation and I will draw another red arrow which stops on the blue line where the ridge bifurcates rightwards (indicated). I have a bifurcation leftwards there, which is a continuation of the ridge I have just indicated, if you follow it up, another red arrow to a bifurcation page 41 leftwards. Q. For the moment, that is the red arrow that is immediately above the longest red arrow pointing to point number 4? A. Yes. I am not sure I've put my original point in the right place here. I would like to recheck my count because I should have another leftward bifurcation in that area. I have entered a mark at the end of this ... I will put a circle because I am not entirely sure I'm looking in the right place. If I can enlarge this area at the top it might be easier to locate the ... Q. What we will do, just before we do that, before we lose what is already there, if we simply save the current image. MISS BAHRAMI: That's image FI2909.06. MR MOYNIHAN: Please feel free to enlarge. A. On my acetate, I have these three positions marked. Q. What I am going to do is suggest we change the colour of the arrow because there is now too much red in the area. I will let you change to whatever colour you wish. A. How does yellow stand out? Q. Yellow is fine. Sorry, I interrupted you. A. On my photocopy here I have marked a dot, actually if I page 42 line it up ... pointing to or a dot on ... I believe I'm slightly out there. But I have to admit that reviewing this here ... I've actually marked that point there (indicated) with a dot but I have to admit, looking at it now, it doesn't seem particularly clear evidence of a ridge ending to me. I'm quite satisfied with the red arrow above it and the two which I marked at the top of the fingerprint. Q. So the yellow one is the one that -- I suppose it is another of the themes I have running in my head, which is that some of this depends on the quality of the image that one is studying? A. Indeed, yes. Q. If I save then that image. MISS BAHRAMI: That is image FI2909.07. MR MOYNIHAN: If I could take you back to the same image if I understand it correctly FI2909.06, this happens to be the image which was taken before the yellow line had been -- in retrospect, it is quite helpful not to have the doubtful one. So this is now the image that has the features which you are reasonably confident about studying the digital image in the hearing. A. That's correct, yes. Q. What I would like to do is to bring up beside that -- so page 43 if we save this image on one side of the screen and bring up again, please, a clean copy of FI0168A. On this occasion, Mr Grigg, what I am going to do is bring up your marked copy. If you could highlight the right-hand fingerprint, please. What I have done is brought up on screen from your own charting, the marked copy of Ms McKie's print. Again, we will use the numbers if they are helpful. I do not wish you to feel constrained by the numbers. Can you then tell me, having carried out your initial analysis of the mark, what conclusions you were drawing in your comparison with Ms McKie's left thumbprint? A. The first part of the comparison would be to compare the overall pattern and the overall ridge flow within the fingerprint to see if it matched with the information I had found in Y7. I believed Y7 to either be a loop or a whorl pattern, looking at the ridge flow in the core and this is indeed a loop pattern. So that's consistent or possibly because it's the same fingerprint but then loop patterns are very common so it is not in itself a very strong guide. I looked at the overall ridge flow. The ridge flow on Y7 appears to be a loop down to the left. In other words, from the core, the ridges slope down in a page 44 leftwards direction. Indeed, that's what happens with the left thumb of Shirley Cardwell. In actual fact, the slope of loops on the left-hand, ie the left thumb, is general down to the left. So this, again, is consistent with being a left thumb but not in any way of great help in establishing an identification. Nevertheless, that agrees in the overall ridge flow. The core is one of the fixed points that we would look for in a fingerprint and a core is of a similar shape and curvature. The other fixed point is what we call a delta and this occurs on the outside of a fingerprint of the loop or whorl pattern and where the loop slopes down to the left, you would expect to find a delta on the right-hand side of the fingerprint. On Shirley Cardwell's fingerprint, we can see the delta. If I try and use the free-hand drawing tool -- and I will do it in blue -- on the very right-hand edge you will notice a forking ridge. I am sorry, it is not a very clear drawing, but we can see that ridge splits up to make a shape like a letter Y. This is what we call the "delta" where the ridge flow separates on the edge of the print to enclose the core area. That can be significant because the distance between the core and the delta will be fixed in that particular fingerprint page 45 and we can count the number of intervening ridges to see if they are in fact the same. In this particular case, the delta is not visible on Y7. It's not on the area of fingerprint that has been revealed but the number of ridges which we can see in the direction of the core is entirely consistent with it being a loop pattern of this particular size. So, again, that is not helpful but it means it is more likely -- it is not a loop pattern with a small or a short distance between the core and the delta. The ridge flow is consistent and means it is worthy of carrying on the comparison. If I look at this in the same way as I described Y7, the actual clarity of the fingerprint is much better. We have well-defined ridges right across the whole of the pattern. The spaces between the ridges, the furrows, are clearly defined. There is no background contamination to confuse the appearance of the ridges and the pressure is fairly uniform again, although as we come to the top on this particular one the ridges seem to close up slightly, which indicates maybe a little more pressure at the top; as the finger has been rolled across the paper, it has distorted the actual spacing of the ridges slightly, which is quite normal with a rolled fingerprint. page 46 This is a plain fingerprint. It should have been put down in one smooth action, flat on the surface. I think that suggests there has been a little bit of sideways pressure put on as the finger was put down but it doesn't interfere with the clarity or visibility of the ridges and the structure. The core area is in the centre of this plain fingerprint impression and we can see the sharp curvature where the ridges curve back on themselves to head down to the left-hand side of the fingerprint. The first thing I notice is that above that core area there are a number of features on the right thumb of Shirley Cardwell. There's a very clearly presented bifurcation to the right just above the core. Immediately above that there is a clearly presented lake or enclosure where the ridge splits, runs parallel to itself for a short distance and then joins up again. If you would like me to mark that. THE CHAIRMAN: It might be helpful if you could mark, even with a little line, each bit that you say. A. Yes, indeed, sir. If I just stick with a yellow arrow, I will just try and draw a yellow line around the inner-most recurving ridge on the right thumb. Sorry, it is purple -- it is blue rather than purple that indicates the position of page 47 the inner-most curving ridge. If I switch to the arrow, above that we have -- MR MOYNIHAN: There seems to be some problem on the drawing. If we could bring up an arrow. THE CHAIRMAN: We normally take a break about 11.30. What I was going to suggest is if we take a break and maybe for part of that break Mr Grigg just draws in the points that he wants with the assistance of Miss Faryma and then when we resume he can just speak to each one of them -- A. Certainly, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: -- rather than trying to do it while we are all sitting watching. We will sit again at 11.50. (11.30 am) (A short break) (11.50 am) MR MOYNIHAN: What we will do, Mr Grigg, is we will save what has actually been prepared over the coffee break. MISS BAHRAMI: That is FI2909.08. MR MOYNIHAN: What has been added are a number of purple arrows pointing to feature immediately above the core. A. That's right. Q. In particular, have you arrowed, if I look at the left-most of arrows is the left-hand side of the lake page 48 you were mentioning? A. It is. Q. With another arrow to its right as the right side of the lake? A. It is. Q. Immediately to the right of that there is an arrow. Is that intended to point to a small incipient ridge? A. That's correct. Q. If you can then tell us, moving out from the incipient ridge, what other features have you highlighted? A. From the incipient ridge moving upwards and slightly to the right two intervening ridges, there is another piece of incipient ridge in the furrow and from that point moving upwards and to the left two intervening ridges, there is a ridge ending rightwards, the highest of the purple arrows. Q. The highest of those arrows is a ridge ending. Is that your preferred interpretation of that particular feature in that area or could it be a bifurcation in that area? A. There could be a bifurcation. It is very easy to confuse ridge endings and bifurcations as the ridges are slightly flexible. Q. To carry this thing back which we have on the screen now the two images, one that you have done as your analysis of Y7 and now on the right your analysis of the area page 49 immediately above the core in Ms McKie, what conclusion would you reach by comparing those two? A. I'm unable to find any of the features marked with purple arrows on the thumbprint on Y7. They are not apparent. They don't appear to be present. Given the orientation of the mark, it's possible that the right-hand end of the enclosure or lake, the purple arrow on the most leftward side of the purple arrows, might not be present if it were there on Y7 because it would be off the edge of the print but there is nothing to indicate that the feature, that lake, exists on Y7, although it's very apparent on the left thumbprint. Q. If I may be pedantic and draw a distinction, there could be an absence of features such as the left-hand edge of the lake, an absence of features that is attributable to the quality of the mark Y7 or its lack of clarity and, therefore, the absence of those features is, in a sense, neutral in your comparison. Equally, there may be features which are of sufficient clarity in Y7 such that their absence in Y7 is a positive difference. Do you understand the distinction? A. I do indeed. Given the clarity of Y7, the ridges are not as clear, the presence of particular features might page 50 not be so easy to determine but there is nothing in the appearance of those ridges on Y7 to indicate that these features exist. If I can take that enclosure as an example, you can see that on the thumbprint there is a widening of the space between the ridges either side of the enclosure to make space for it. We have another ridge appearing for a short distance. The ridge above has moved away to make space for it. There is nothing on Y7 to indicate that there's any feature such as a lake above the core because the ridges haven't moved apart. They are running parallel to each other. Q. What I would do just for the moment, we will come back to this saved image, can we enlarge the image on the left? Can you indicate to us what you are referring to as the absence of any ridge widening? A. Yes, if you look in this area here (indicated) above the red line I drew around the outside of the core indicating the ridge flow in that area, all these ridges -- I will just indicate with the pointer -- are running parallel to each other. At no point are the ridges moving further apart in this area to make space for a short extra ridge to be formed as part of a lake page 51 or enclosure. Q. So are you saying this that you have just been describing as a positive difference between the two as opposed to simply a neutral absence of detail on Y7? A. It was the first thing I noticed about the two impressions that didn't fit with each other. Q. If we can go then out beyond the particular purple arrows that you have drawn on the right-hand side back to your own analysis in that same area, the area of open field that you described, what was the significance, if there was any, of the point that is the longest red arrow, which I know to be your original point number 4? A. This is a clear ridge ending, the ridge coming from the right and stops at this point above the core. It is quite clear in this area and we can more or less position it very accurately above the core. When you look at the thumbprint, ignoring the fact that there are a number of features which make ridge counting a little more difficult because the ridges don't exist on the thumbprint, we can count up, we come to the same area and if I put a small golden circle round where I've drawn the line here (indicated) -- I will try and move that because it's not in quite the right place. There is no feature there at all. The ridges are flowing parallel to each other with no break, page 52 no interruption. So the feature which exists quite clearly above the core on Y7 is absent from the left thumbprint in the same area. Even if we look around that area trying to find a ridge ending from the right which would allow for distortion within the mark as it's made, there are no ridge endings from the right anywhere around that area. THE CHAIRMAN: Just so that I can appreciate this, the long red arrow on the left is pointing to what you would describe as a very clear feature on the latent print? A. That's correct. THE CHAIRMAN: You just cannot find that appearing on what we sometimes call the inked print? A. That's correct. It appears quite clearly to me as a ridge ending on Y7. As we mentioned earlier they can be confused with bifurcations but there is no bifurcation opening out rightwards in that area any more than there is a ridge ending rightwards. So the feature is just not there. THE CHAIRMAN: There is no feature? A. No. MR MOYNIHAN: What I want to do is save the image that is on screen at present. MISS BAHRAMI: That's FI2909.09. MR MOYNIHAN: What I want to put to you because the point page 53 that -- your point number 4, that is the one pointed to by the longest red arrow on the left-hand screen at the moment, is one that I now have a habit of referring to as the Rosetta characteristic. I explained to you yesterday it is from the Rosetta Stone, said to be the clue to the interpretation of the mark. If I can indicate to you, if I can put these two pictures to one side, please, and bring up a copy of FI0170A. What I am going to do is to highlight your marking of Ms McKie's print. I'll highlight another marking in a second, just for a moment. This happens to be a marking by Mr Zeelenberg and the only reason for doing the marking is to show you a numbered point which I understand is otherwise agreed by some people who are giving an explanation for the Rosetta Stone. It's not Mr Zeelenberg's but it is his picture that actually helps to explain matters. If I put in a rather large circle just now (indicated). Point number 14 is on Ms McKie's print. If I understand it correctly, it is to the right of the circle that you have highlighted as where the Rosetta characteristic would be if Y7 were a single impression. What is argued is that Y7 is the product of more than one touch and that what has occurred is that the page 54 point that Mr Zeelenberg has marked as his point number 14 some people would say has moved across in Y7 to come to rest where you have identified the Rosetta characteristic and that explains why that otherwise missing feature is truly in Ms McKie's print and explains the overall identification. Do you understand the point I am trying to make? A. Yes. Q. First of all, if I save that image ... MISS BAHRAMI: That is FI2909.10. MR MOYNIHAN: In that case, if we could go back to the saved image FI2909.09, please. Now I have brought back up the original image that you yourself prepared. At the top, we can see on the left Mr Wertheim's point number 14 on the right-hand edge of the fingerprint. If, as you say, Y7 was a single touch, you would have otherwise expected, it is said, that point to be where you have marked it in the golden circle in the top right-hand image. It is said that the point has moved from the right into the left and that explains why the point in the bottom image (your point number 4, the Rosetta characteristic), comes to lie, in a sense, out of position. Can you comment on that proposition? page 55 A. I've known this to occur in some instances where the finger has been put down more than once but in my experience there is always an indication, where the ridges don't line up correctly, where the join occurs. I can see no indication on Y7 where any such fault line exists between the bottom and the top of the print. There is a slight difference in pressure. The ridges at the top are a little darker, a little thicker. This is entirely consistent with placing the finger down with more pressure at the top, which is not unusual. I can see no indication that the top half has been moved in relation to the bottom half at all. Furthermore, when I look at Mr Zeelenberg's copy of the left thumb. He has marked a ridge ending to the right, on the right-hand edge, where the cold circle is, his point 14 which you marked with a gold circle. If we look at the ridge above and trace it leftwards it comes to a bifurcation, Mr Zeelenberg's point number 12. If I look at Y7, I look at the ridge above, I can see no indication of any bifurcation opening out to the right in that position above the ridge ending which I marked with a red arrow. If the top half had moved, I would expect it all to move, not just one ridge. Q. As I said to you, I am not attributing this argument to page 56 Mr Zeelenberg, it just happens to be one common image I can use so that we all know what the point is. Just to follow that particular point, if I enlarge the image in the top right of the screen at present, are you indicating the bifurcation that my cursor is currently on? A. Yes. Q. I will try to put an arrow on that point (indicated). So you are indicating the bifurcation that I am pointing to with my purple arrow? A. Yes. Q. We will save that. MISS BAHRAMI: That's FI2909.11. MR MOYNIHAN: If I highlight the corresponding area of Y7, here we have in the centre of the picture the long red arrow which we know denotes the Rosetta characteristic and that you indicated that immediately above it and to the left there is the absence of a bifurcation? A. That's correct. Q. Just for the avoidance of doubt, Mr Grigg, what is running again is a line of my question, is the clarity of the area above and to the left of the Rosetta characteristic clear enough that if the bifurcation were there you would expect to see it? A. Certainly. On the very left-hand side of the page 57 impression, the ridges become indistinct. But unless there is a considerable movement, the bifurcation should be contained within the area we can see clearly and not be off the edge of the print. Q. Could I save that particular image. MISS BAHRAMI: FI2909.12. MR MOYNIHAN: If I can come back with a single image, please, that is image FI2909.10 saved from today. Can you give me image FI2909.09 for today. This is an image I will concentrate on for some of my next few questions. First of all, the essential point in relation to the Rosetta characteristic is to have you explain why it is that you say you see no sign of multiple touch in this image. What would you expect to see if the Y7 image had been the product of multiple -- ie more than one -- touch? A. I would expect there to be a fracture in the flow of the ridges across the fingerprint. It's unlikely that all the ridges would line up precisely with each other. The spacing of the ridges would be identical on two different fingerprints. I would expect there to be a dislocation of the shape of the pattern where the outside edges don't line up and, indeed, on this one of course we do have a step on the right-hand side. But I page 58 am satisfied that is a result of the surface that the fingerprint is on rather than two separate fingerprints. The ridges flow across from the bottom, or certainly the middle of the fingerprint, below where the fractured area would have to be, right to the top and you can trace them all through with no breaks. I can see nothing to indicate any likely fault line across the impression to indicate we have two separate fingerprints here. Q. The next feature I want to ask about is there is an area in the print -- if I can highlight it by an oval -- roughly in this area (indicated) which on this image appears to have a greater density in the image than any of the other surrounding parts of the print. First of all, do you agree with that assertion, there is greater density? A. Yes, I do. Q. What would the explanation be of that greater density in this image? A. There can be a number of reasons for a locally darker patch such as this. There could be dirt or contamination on the background before the fingerprint is placed on it which is showing on the impression. It could be that the surface has such a shape that a local area of the finger touches the surface with more page 59 pressure thus compressing the ridges and making them appear less distinct joining up with each other. It might be that on the part of the finger that touched the surface there was excess sweat compared with other areas; therefore, leaving a heavier deposit or maybe the finger was dirty and some of the dirt was transferred to the surface. It could be down to the way in which the fingerprint has been developed with a powder or a chemical in that excess powder has been applied locally in this area or, because of the extra sweat, more powder has adhered in that particular area. There are any number of reasons. It would be speculation on my part to say exactly what the cause is on this particular impression, but it is a localised area and the ridges around it are quite clear and any of the reasons I gave could be the cause of this darker area. It's not the only dark area on this fingerprint but it is a big one. Q. The final question in relation to that: would there be any possibility that the area I put within the oval is a red flag or a warning for the possibility of a separate touch or multiple touch? A. I don't believe so. I can see the ridges flowing through the area, although they are indistinct, and I think any characteristics that might be observed in the page 60 area might not be reliable. I think it is just a localised area of heavier development than the surrounding fingerprint. Q. In that case, I am grateful to you. That would finish my questions about the Rosetta characteristics. I am going to save this image. MISS BAHRAMI: That's FI2909.13. MR MOYNIHAN: What I am going to do is go back to the unmarked image FI2909.09 today on one half of the screen and if you could also bring up FI0167A. What I want to do, Mr Grigg, is ask for you to comment, please, on the SCRO charting of Y7. We have not looked at that before today so you may want to just cast your eye to the photographic original to your side. What I am going to do is bring up the charting of Y7 by SCRO and compare it with your image (that's is FI2909.09) of the features in the top part of Ms McKie's left thumb that you regarded as significant. First of all, in your marking you highlighted immediately above the core, as the first purple arrow immediately above the core, a bifurcation. If I understand it correctly, the Fingerprint Officers would point to feature number 9 as that bifurcation. Do you see that? A. Yes, I can. page 61 Q. For the moment looking at this as a point in isolation -- we will look at groupings later -- do you have a comment on the interpretation of what is seen in the left-hand side of the screen, the SCRO marking number 9, the interpretation of that as a bifurcation in Y7? A. Yes. I mean, I have obviously seen this point in my own comparison and I did consider it as a bifurcation because that is the immediate appearance of it. However, when you look at the area or that area in particular, the background structure is interfering with the ridge flow in a number of cases and if we look at that area -- Q. Give me just a second. What I will do is take down for a moment ... bring up a different thing, your own drawing of your own initial analysis. I have brought that up just now so that we have your drawing from FI2909.09. This was of significance to me. What you have drawn as the curving ridges, the middle one and the one immediately to the right of it (so the middle and the right-most of the red curving ridges) at least to my eye are in the same area as what SCRO has marked as a bifurcation and you see it as two separate ridges. Is that correct? A. It is correct. page 62 Q. Can you just explain your position. A. If I can point out in the background -- and it is clearer on the enlargement on the right -- we have areas of contamination perhaps from the surface structure interfering with the ridge flow. In this particular area, we can see there's a line, slightly curved, running down the print right down to the core which crosses this point between the two ridges. Because of the lack of clarity in this area, it makes it appear as if those two ridges are actually a bifurcation but I think it's a feature of the contamination from the background rather than a feature in the ridges itself but it does give the appearance of a ridge bifurcating in conjunction with the fainter appearance of the ridges right on the left-hand edge where the print is losing clarity. Q. Because that is so important, if you could bear with me and we will mark perhaps in yellow -- could you mark in yellow where you say there is the crossing feature that is indicative of some background interference? A. Yes. We have a number of lines coming down the print. I will try and draw them. There's one there, there's one here, one here, one here above the apparent bifurcation (indicated) which have given a darker aspect to these tracks down the print and apparently filled in page 63 the furrow in this particular area I am indicating with the point at the moment, giving the appearance of a bifurcation, in conjunction with the fact that on the left-hand edge there we've lost clarity and the actual ridge flow is not as clear as it is on the right of that line. THE CHAIRMAN: Where your yellow line ends to the left of what is said to be a bifurcation, that seems to continue on, does it? A. Down towards the core area, sir? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. A. Yes, it does. MR MOYNIHAN: Can we save that image and we will do as we do on a number of occasions, save this image and on the right-hand side of the screen go back to a fresh copy of FI2909.09. MISS BAHRAMI: FI2909.14. MR MOYNIHAN: Can I go back on the right-hand side of the screen, please, to another copy of FI2909.09. What I am going to do is return to my starting point, your marked up Ms McKie print with the purple arrows. What I want you to concentrate on are the two features that you have marked here. We have dealt with the bifurcation. Immediately above the bifurcation beginning to the page 64 left is the lake with two points, the two bifurcations forming the lake, and immediately adjacent to the right-hand side of the lake is the incipient ridge that you have drawn. I will highlight for us an area of SCRO marking or charting. That did not actually work as I intended. What I want you to comment on, Mr Grigg -- and, please, double check the photographic original because this is important -- I understand the SCRO position to be that the lake is to be understood to be pointed to by 10 and 11 and the incipient ridge is pointed to by 12 and 13. So it is the four points I am indicating with my cursor: 10, 11, 12 and 13. That is their reconciliation of the three arrows in your marking of Ms McKie and Y7. Could you comment on that, please? A. As I said earlier, if there had been a lake in the space between the arrows indicated by 10 and 11 on the left-hand side, then I would expect, in fact, that the ridges either side, above and below, would have to be moved further apart to make room for this extra feature to appear. Looking at the ridges above and below, they are exactly the same distance apart as they flow around the top of the print with no sign of any movement to allow space for an extra ridge. page 65 Looking at the ridge itself, which the arrows 10 and 11 are pointing to, it appears to be a plain, though faint, ridge. Q. It is 10, 11, 12 and 13, the points I had in mind asking you earlier on about whether points that would be open to interpretation had to be demonstrable to a jury. I just start with that. Do you, in the SCRO charting, see a particular ridge running between 10 and 11 or are you inferring that there is such a ridge? A. I see a single ridge running from 10 to 11. Q. You actually see it? A. I can see it's faint but the ridge flows in a smooth continuous curve around the top with no sign of any divergence or bifurcation. As I said, that is reinforced by the ridge flow of the ridges above and below which make no sign of moving apart to make room for a feature like a lake. Q. So far as the incipient ridge is concerned, you have highlighted it yourself by a single arrow. It is pointed to by the SCRO charting as two, namely that the two ends are ridge endings forming that incipient ridge. Do you have any comment on, first of all, the observability of such a feature in Y7 and then, separately from that, the interpretation that it is the page 66 incipient ridge that you have highlighted? A. If it hadn't been highlighted with lines 12 and 13, I don't think I would notice anything particular about that ridge on the picture of Y7. There certainly appears maybe to be a white space in the centre of the ridge at that point which could be accounted for by the fact there is a separate little bit of ridge in the furrow alongside as the incipient ridge would have to be. It could also be accounted for by the position of pore, simply the way in which the mark has been recorded or left, but there is no indication of a clear separate piece of incipient ridge alongside it. Incipient ridges, by their very nature, are not always recorded. They are small ridges, immature ridges, not fully formed in the process of the development of the fingerprint. They don't always touch the surface unless more pressure is used. If this is a piece of incipient ridge, sufficient pressure has been used to reveal it but if we look a little bit higher on my marking with the purple arrows, two intervening ridges above the position of this supposed incipient ridge there is another small piece of incipient ridge in the furrow, the most right-hand of my purple arrows. I would expect that to be visible as well on Y7 if sufficient pressure had been used to page 67 reveal an incipient ridge so close to it in another location, but that is not visible on Y7. Q. Your overall conclusion then on SCRO using points 10, 11, 12 and 13 as four characteristics to be observed in Y7 which are common to Y7 and Ms McKie's print, what is your overall conclusion about that? A. My conclusion is they are not actually present on Y7. Q. That finishes those particular points. What I would like to do, again just still with the same image up of Ms McKie's print, same image on the left-hand side, if I could bring up your charting FI0168A -- if I keep the one on the left -- FI0168A. What I am going to do, Mr Grigg, is in each case for consistency I will bring up Ms McKie's fingerprint and I'm in the same area we have been looking at. It is the area just above the core. On this occasion, I want to look at the point that has been highlighted by the Scottish Criminal Record Office as point number 14. You have also indicated a point number 5. By coincidence, is your point number 5 the same as the SCRO number 14? The reason I am drawing that inference is there is, to my eye, the appearance of a bifurcation with, immediately to the right, a break in a ridge which would seem to be common to the two chartings? page 68 A. Yes, it's the same feature that's indicated on both of the impressions here. Q. It happens that, again, this is something where Scottish Criminal Record Office by point 14 are indicating it's a point of similarity, common to Y7 and Ms McKie, whereas you are pointing to it as your difference number 5. That is you are saying they are not similar. Can I, therefore, ask you when you look at the fingerprint Y7 -- I will go back then to highlight the fingerprints -- please feel free to enlarge further because it is really difficult to see your point 5. Can you explain to us why you regarded your point 5 as a point of difference between Ms McKie's print and Y7? If I take down on the right-hand side FI0167A and bring up a second copy of your FI0168A, what I want to do is I will highlight on one side Y7 and then on the other side I will highlight Ms McKie's print. What I would like you to do for me, please, is explain why you regard your point number 5 and SCRO point number 14 as a difference and not a similarity. Do you understand? A. I do indeed. Q. Please enlarge the images and use the tools as you see fit. A. I would like to enlarge this area on the fingerprint of page 69 Ms McKie and if I similarly enlarge the area on the fingerprint of Y7. Looking at the fingerprint of the left thumb, there is a very clear downward bifurcation where I have my cursor indicated by the line numbered 5 (indicated). If I look at the equivalent line -- can I redo this particular line? Q. If you double click on the left-hand and it takes you back to the start. A. Thank you. We can still see down here the line 5 on Y7 indicates an area of plain ridge. It is fairly clear. The ridge flow is easy to trace. There is no bifurcation in that position on Y7. The position of that can be taken from this ridge ending where I've put my cursor now (indicated). I have actually indicated it as feature number 3 on Y7 on my chart. If we count up one intervening ridge from number 3, we come to this ridge I have indicated with the line 5 to show that there is nothing there. If we come to the equivalent feature on the fingerprint of Shirley Cardwell, here is a feature in the same position as my number 3 on Y7. If we count up one intervening ridge we have the bifurcation on the thumbprint. So the sequence of these two ridges is different. We have a ridge ending and plain ridge; we page 70 have a ridge ending and a bifurcation, although this may be interpreted as another bifurcation, the bifurcation above it, but the sequence, the arrangement and existence of the features is different. THE CHAIRMAN: I wonder if it would be possible to mark these points because when you come back to it it is not all that easy to pick it up again? MR MOYNIHAN: First of all, your point number 5 that we are discussing -- I will try not to hit the particular feature or obscure the particular feature of the drawing -- is that indicated by the purple line? A. Yes, it's pointing towards the end of the green line. Q. And the ridge ending that you are pointing to is indicated by the yellow line? A. Yes. Q. What you are indicating is that there is -- we will come back to that and ask you to explain your position just in a second -- the corresponding features in Ms McKie, again the one that corresponds to the -- A. You have just put a yellow arrow on number 5 or roughly in the area the number 5 would be on Y7. Q. I am just trying to find the ridge ending. Where is the ridge ending that you are comparing with the yellow arrow? A. If I put a yellow arrow on it ... page 71 Q. Is that what you are indicating as corresponds to ridge ending? A. Yes, I may not have placed it quite correctly but we can see the appearance of the bifurcation on the thumbprint is the position of the ridge ending on Y7. Q. So the two yellows correspond and, similarly, if I can use an arrow that will be what best corresponds to the purple -- it does match actually. So you are comparing on the two images now the relative positions of the yellow and purple arrows? A. Yes. Q. You are indicating in one there is a ridge ending -- yellow -- bifurcation on the other in that position but in the corresponding place in Y7, there is a continuous ridge whereas in Ms McKie there is a bifurcation? A. Yes. Q. That is a positive point of difference? A. Yes. Q. If we could save that, please. MISS BAHRAMI: That's FI2909.15. MR MOYNIHAN: What I am going to do is go back to Mr Grigg's charting which is FI0168A twice, please. Mr Grigg, what I am going to do is to work through your areas of difference in the lower part. I am going to leave the upper part of the mark. I am going to work page 72 through your areas of difference in the lower part. That is 1, 2 and 3 to begin with. If I highlight the Ms McKie print and Y7 on your charting, can you then just run through these in your own particular order 1, 2, 3 and tell us why you highlight these as points of difference. A. Yes. If I start with point number 3 on Y7 as I've already mentioned that, we have what appears to be a ridge ending upwards where I have my cursor on Y7 (indicated). This is to the right of the core and appears fairly distinct. If we move to the right of the core on the thumbprint we have in approximately the same area what appears to be a distinct downward bifurcation. This could be taken as a starting point in actual fact for the comparison if we overlook or come to terms with the apparent difference in the features present. Moving to the left from point 3, we come to what appears to be another or a downward bifurcation one intervening ridge towards the core from point 3. I have marked that as point 2. Taking the point 3 on the thumbprint, if we move one intervening ridge to the left towards the core we do indeed come to a downward bifurcation. This appears to be two features in agreement, although the original one, number 3, one appears to be a ridge ending and one page 73 appears to be a bifurcation but they can be confused. If we move further to the left from my point 2 on the thumbprint, another intervening ridge, we come to another downward bifurcation which I have marked as point 1. However, when look at Y7, moving one intervening ridge from the position of point number 2 towards the core and down, there is a plain ridge. That bifurcation I have indicated as one on the thumbprint is missing from the fingerprint Y7. However, the ridge here (indicated) or the area which is disclosed on Y7 is right to the edge of the available area. Where you get a bifurcation on the edge of an area you will normally see a thickening of the ridge as they start to divert before they disappear off the edge of the print. You will also see the ridges either side start to move apart to make room. There is nothing about the ridge flow here to indicate a thickening of the ridge where I have indicated number 1, nor is there any significant divergence of the ridges on either side there to indicate that there is a bifurcation in between them. To claim there is a bifurcation here is a little speculative, given it's right on the edge of the print. In order for the prints to be the same, there would need to be one but there's nothing to indicate there actually page 74 is on Y7. Q. If I take you then, your point 3 in Ms McKie's print, you have said your preferred interpretation would be a ridge ending. A. On Y7? Q. On Y7, but you would not quarrel with the interpretation of a bifurcation if one asked if that was consistent, taken in isolation, with point 3 on Ms McKie? A. The two features can appear transposed at times. Q. So you would not quarrel with the proposition that point 3 could be seen as a common feature, your point 3? A. It's possible, yes. Q. Similarly, your point 2 you could see, again viewing matters in isolation, as points in common, two bifurcations? A. With point 3. Yes. Q. Where you stop is in point 1 where you indicate on one view you might expect sign of the presence of a bifurcation and it is absent. That is the first point you make? A. Yes. Q. Separately, you have some reservations that you are right at the edge of the mark anyway? A. Indeed. I wouldn't consider it to be a point which one could rely upon even if there were indications there page 75 might be something there and I can see nothing to indicate there is. Q. If you bear with me, what I have to do when I look at the SCRO charting I have to make a translation and if I invite you just to note this: I understand that your point number 3 is the SCRO point number 5. THE CHAIRMAN: Just give the witness a moment. Are you going to check that? A. Yes, I'm satisfied with that. MR MOYNIHAN: Your 2 is their 6. A. Yes, except my 2 and 6 -- and the SCRO 6 are marked in slightly different places but I believe are indicating -- Q. Sorry? A. My number 2 and the SCRO number 6 are marked in slightly different places but I believe are indicating the same feature. Q. Therefore, there may be two points looked at in isolation which are relatively common to the two of you? A. Yes. Q. It is the point number 1 for you that I need to make a slight adjustment to to relate that to the same feature that SCRO are pointing to and it is back to the question whether the area that I said to you was 9 (that is the large bifurcation immediately above the core) whether it page 76 is to be seen in Y7 or not. Let us just assume -- we have covered your evidence in relation to that. Let us just assume that SCRO is correct. What I will do is mark in ... I do not intend that to be entirely accurate. It is plainly not. What I am wanting to highlight is that you have drawn as the point of significance for you, as number 1, something that is on the right-hand side, if that is a bifurcation, of the descending bifurcation? A. That's correct. Q. The point I want you to compare it with is the SCRO point 7. If I understand SCRO point 7 correctly it is in fact on the left-hand side of that descending bifurcation. Is that correct? A. Yes, I agree. Q. We are not, in fact -- and reason for my rather bad drawing is to say that we are not looking at precisely the same point but we are looking at roughly the same feature or characteristic? A. There should be a bifurcation on one of those ridges depending upon where one starts the counting from to reach it. I came from the right-hand side. The ridge that I have arrived at is in a slightly different position alongside the ridge that the SCRO chart indicates. page 77 Q. If I can just with an arrow highlight what I have called the bifurcation number 9 -- just now with a purple arrow -- it descends and on each of its two legs as it descends there's a bifurcation -- A. Yes. Q. -- lower. Hence the point of principle is the same. Whether one is looking at the right or the left branch one is looking for the presence of a bifurcation? A. Indeed. In my opinion, however, the bifurcation on the right-hand branch, if the bifurcation exists, is lower and would be off the edge of the print on Y7. I don't think it would be revealed in any case. Q. What I will do is save this image just now so my artwork is preserved for posterity. MISS BAHRAMI: FI2909.16. MR MOYNIHAN: If I can then bring up, please, two copies again of FI0168A, what I am going to do is to highlight Y7. Your point number 1 we can see is marked. The SCRO point number 7 is the ridge immediately adjacent to the left, whether one is calling it a bifurcation or not. Do you see any evidence in the upper ridge of a bifurcation present at all? A. No, I don't . Q. Perhaps just to finish this particular point if you could bear with me, I will bring up an image that page 78 Mr Swann refers to in this regard as the Kent image, TS0006. We only need one copy of it, TS0006. What we will have to do is rotate that. What I will try to do, Mr Grigg, is to highlight roughly ... I am highlighting now another image. This is one by Mr Kent of the Home Office. A. I've heard of him. Q. It is said by Mr Swann that this image is clearer -- let us just assume he is right. It is certainly a different image. He is suggesting that on this image a bifurcation, either in your point 1 or SCRO point 7, in that vicinity, is to be seen and it corresponds to the bifurcations I have looked at in the area I have called bifurcation number 9. Do you see in this image any evidence of a bifurcation in either of those two limbs? A. Certainly the bifurcation -- this bifurcation above the core, is that number 7 on the SCRO chat? Q. Sorry, I didn't hear what you said. A. The bifurcation on the SCRO chart, point number 7, I believe? Q. This is the SCRO point number 7. A. Sorry, is it number ... I beg your pardon, number 9. Q. SCRO number 9. A. This particular impression does appear to show a much page 79 clearer bifurcation in that position than the original one. We've lost a little bit of the contrast above the print in that area so the background interference isn't as pronounced as it is on the Y7 that I've been using. It's possible that if one referred to this print one would make a different interpretation, but if there is a bifurcation at that point then, for the ridge flow to be correct, there must be a ridge ending below it, I would suggest, otherwise we have a ridge ending here because the ridge curve underneath is now not very clear compared with the Y7 that I looked at. But I would concede that looks more clearly a bifurcation in that position 9 in this photograph than on the original one. Q. Let us just mark that. I want for a reason to stay well clear. Purple now on number 9, as I call it, you say on this particular image, the Kent image, that's perhaps more consistent with a bifurcation than in the other image? A. It certainly looks much clearer, yes. Q. Let us for the avoidance of any doubt, that is what I was referring to as the bifurcation with the two descending limbs, on each of which there would, if this were Ms McKie's print, be bifurcations from each of the two. page 80 Do you see evidence of a bifurcation in either limb on this image? A. On the left-hand leg coming down the ridge does move away to the left or appear to move away to the left, which would be consistent with opening out to allow a bifurcation to the right of it. That is not so apparent on the original Y7 picture. However, there is still no evidence or no sign of the actual bifurcation that divergence would be linked to, nor is there any evidence on the right-hand limb of a bifurcation slightly lower as there would be on Shirley McKie's left thumb. I can see nothing to actually support the supposition that there are two bifurcations on those ridges. Q. Sir, I appreciate the time but if I can just, while we have this, complete one final point. Because feature 9 on this Kent image is one that is capable of an alternative interpretation more clearly to be seen as a bifurcation, could I ask you just to take your time and look at the Kent image and tell me -- perhaps, if we do it digitally I will give you a chance over lunch to look at the photographic original. What I am interested in knowing is whether the features I called 10 and 11 (the lake), 12 and 13 the incipient ridge, the SCRO features 10, 11, 12 and 13, whether page 81 there is any evidence of those being present in the Kent image? A. No, as I remarked earlier, the area above is actually less clear than it is on Y7. The ridge flow is even more difficult to determine. There is no indication, again, of that ridge flow opening out to make a lake or for the ridges to diverge to make space for a lake. As for the small incipient ridge, on Y7 there appears to be, as I said, a white spot in the ridge itself which could be a pore. I cannot even see any detail on that ridge at that point on the Kent image. MR MOYNIHAN: What we will do is save these images and we will carry on after lunch. I will show you over lunch the photographic original of Mr Kent's image, just to avoid any dubiety about the quality of these images. So we will save this and have that for the record and that would be a good point to invite you to adjourn. MISS BAHRAMI: FI2909.17. THE CHAIRMAN: We will then take the adjournment now and since we have gone on for ten minutes we will sit at 2.00. (1.10 pm) (Luncheon Adjournment) (2.00 pm) MR MOYNIHAN: Mr Grigg, I'm now about to turn to points 7 page 82 and 8 in your own list of differences and if I could again bring up a copy of FI0168A and have that twice, what I am going to do is do the usual. Give us a copy of Y7 on one side of the screen and a copy of Ms McKie's print on the other and with that introduction, leave you to take over so that you can explain your points of difference 7 and 8 for me, please, in whichever order it is more convenient to you. A. Yes. I would like to point out I had trouble marking these points on the chart because of their relative positions on the two prints. Hence the order is actually reversed on the picture of Y7. I've had to draw the exit line to point 8 above the exit line to point 7 as it appears on the fingerprint of Shirley McKie's left thumb. This is because of the difficulty I had actually aligning apparent similarities between two prints in order to describe them. Point 7, if I can start with that, the earliest number, is a downwards bifurcation, three intervening ridges to the right of point 2. If I can enlarge that area of Y7 and I will draw a red arrow to show the position of point 2, which I have already mentioned, and then if I go three intervening ridges to the right -- one, two, three -- I come to this feature, another bifurcation, which I have labelled as 7. page 83 In between those two, one intervening ridge to the left we have another bifurcation which is in fact point 8. If we follow the ridge from point 8 upwards, we come to the ridge ending which I have already labelled as point 3 and I will put a red arrow on that one as well (indicated). So we have a little cluster of characteristics here to the right of the core which is fairly distinctive. When we look at the thumbprint of Shirley McKie, and if I can enlarge a similar area, if I start with indicating point 2, again which is this bifurcation here (indicated) which I will just put a red arrow on to the right of the core, I count across the three intervening ridges, I come to a ridge ending. Now, it appears to be a bifurcation. It appears to be joined to the ridge on the left but if the ridge count is to be right, then I've got to change one of the features to make them agree. If I come back that one intervening ridge from there, I come to a point on this ridge here (indicated) -- I have just put an arrow along the line of the ridge -- where point 8 should be but there is nothing on that ridge at all. It's a plain ridge. If I follow the ridge upwards, I come to a bifurcation which could be construed as a ridge ending in the same page 84 position or similar position to the point number 3 which I've already mentioned. Superficially this little cluster of features could be confused but they are actually very different. If I move outwards from this point 7 on Y7, I have a plain ridge and I will mark this time not with an arrow but with a plain blue line. I will put a straight line down it. There is no feature on that ridge. If I come out one intervening ridge on the thumbprint, we come down the ridge, we find there's a bifurcation on that ridge halfway down the blue line I've just drawn. Potentially, it looks like this feature here is the feature which appears on the blue line on the thumbprint. If I count across one ridge, I come to a bifurcation -- Q. Sorry, I am already having a little bit of problem following just the numberings. Could I ask you, please, just if we could go back a little and, maybe in green, what I would like to do is just to number the arrows so that we know the points you are referring to. If you could just tell me the numbers that correspond to your own points and starting at about ten to the hour on the left-hand what point is that? A. That is point number 2 on my chart. page 85 Q. With any luck I can write 2? A. This is point number 3 on my chart. Q. Then this one (indicated). A. The red arrow pointing down to the right on the right-hand side is point number 7. Q. So this is 7 (indicated). A. And the other red arrow is number 8. Q. My best 5-year old's writing, I think. Are the numbers are in the same order -- A. Yes, this is number 2, number 3, number 7, and number 8. Q. I am sorry, you were saying you wanted to move on. A. Yes. If I move from point 7 across to the right one intervening ridge on the thumbprint of Ms McKie there is a bifurcation present. If we move across to the equivalent ridge the same distance on Y7 we have a plain ridge. The feature is not there. What I was about to say was the relationship between this bifurcation on the thumbprint -- THE CHAIRMAN: That is the one marked with the blue line? A. That's correct, and point number 7 to the left of it is the same as the relationship on Y7 between 7 and 8, one intervening ridge between them. It's possible those could be confused as being the same. If we move up to point 3, we can see that on Y7 we have a clear bifurcation where the ridge splits equally page 86 on both sides of the central axis of the ridge and follow up we come to a ridge ending. If we look on point 7 on the thumbprint on the assumption that they're the same feature, in actual fact the bifurcation is all on the right-hand side of the ridge. The actual ridge carries through in a virtually smooth line and there is a pronounced shoulder where the bifurcation would split off on the right-hand side. This has a very different appearance to the feature marked as 7 on Y7. If we follow that ridge up on the assumption that that is in fact the same feature as the one marked as 8 on Y7, we come to a bifurcation where the ridge bends sharply to join the ridge on the left; whereas on Y7, point number 3 is not joined to the ridge on the left; it's a ridge ending. MR MOYNIHAN: Can we just save that, please. MISS BAHRAMI: That's FI2909.18. MR MOYNIHAN: I am going to start with it and ask you just to reconsider something. What I would like you to do, please, is to look at the SCRO charting and in the SCRO charting what I would ask you to look for -- beginning with Ms McKie's fingerprint and look at their 4 and 5. A. Yes. page 87 Q. I think everyone in the hall has this in paper form. What you have as 7 and 3 in Ms McKie's print, they have as 4 and 5? A. I think I have as 8 and 3. Q. This is what I am wondering about because if what I am looking at is a double step bifurcation, the lower right-hand most step of that bifurcation, at least on what I can see, is SCRO point number 4? A. Yes, I agree with that. Q. So your 7 as drawn in Ms McKie's print is the SCRO point 4, yes? A. No. My number 7 would be the SCRO point 3, I think. Q. This is what I just want you to look at. What I see that you have drawn as number 7 you have said could be a ridge ending or it could be a bifurcation. A. Yes. Q. Let us assume for the sake of argument that it is a bifurcation. What we have is, at point 7, one bifurcation with the left-most ridge carrying on up and forming a second bifurcation above that you have marked as 3. A. Yes. I'm sorry, I confused myself with the difference in the arrangement of the ridges. Indeed, on my chart I've shown 8 as a plain ridge, of course. I've been trying to align that with the SCRO chart which shows two page 88 bifurcations. So you are right to pull me up on that. Q. Your 7, which is the lower bifurcation, would be their 5? A. No, I believe it would be their 4. Q. I do apologise. Your 7 is their 4; your 3 is their 5? A. Yes. Q. What I want to do is I have a reasonably clear mental picture myself but I would ask you to check in their Y7 because, if I understand it correctly, where they suggest that the point they have as 4 is, in fact, if I draw a circle, it is in the vicinity of what you have drawn as 8? A. Yes. Q. The point that they have as 5, they would draw as in the vicinity of your point 3? A. Yes. Q. That means that, in a way, they have shifted these points to the left now to the arrows that I have put on or the red arrows I have done they have shifted them to your 3 and 8, whereas you understood them to be 7 and 3. Do you follow me? A. I'm not sure I do. Q. I have green numbers against arrows. I am now going to have red numbers against circles. That is the position on Y7 that SCRO has suggested these two points are? page 89 A. Yes. Q. To use your number, if I look at Ms McKie's print, the double step bifurcation you have as 7 and 3 on your print? A. Yes. Q. You intend to mark those by the arrows 7 and 3 on Y7? A. No, because they're not the same. I can't mark them in the same way on both prints because the features are different. They appear in a different order and they are different types, but they have a superficial similarity and could easily be confused with each other. This was the point I was trying to make. Q. This is where it comes then, looking at the confusion, because if, it might be argued against you, if you have tried to make a relationship between point 7 in Y7 and 3, you are not comparing the correct features that would coincide with your 7 and 3. What you ought to be comparing, it would be suggested, is the red circle 4 and the green circle 5. 4 and 5, it would be suggested, are the correct representation in Y7 of what you have highlighted in Ms McKie as 7 and 3. A. Well, I don't actually accept that. Q. Could you explain to me then why you reject the interpretation which would have on Ms McKie's print (that's the one to the right of the screen) point 7 and page 90 3 correctly positioned where I have put the 4 and 5 on Y7 in circles? A. First of all, you have to try and fix the position of these characteristics within the overall pattern, the overall ridge flow, which means finding a common datum from which to start and that is very difficult with the clarity of the print in the areas which might help us. There are no features which are actually the same which we can use as a starting point. The best position to start is probably the core where we have the area or recurve. On the enlargement here it is right on the very left-hand edge of the print. If I count from there, I have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 intervening ridges before I come to this ridge ending which I have labelled 3. If we try and do the same on the fingerprint of Ms McKie, let us take that ridge ending in the core -- well, we can't quite see it on the left print ... Q. If you give me just a second what I will do is -- when you say take that. What I will do is put an arrow in. I will leave you, sorry, just to mark it. A. On this impression on the left, Y7, I am taking this recurving ridge as being the same as this recurving ridge around the core. We can't see this ridge ending in the core which is very clear on the thumbprint. It's page 91 not very clear, if in fact it exists at all, but this appears to be innermost recurving ridge on both impressions. From Y7 on that ridge I have 5 intervening ridges before I come to a point I've labelled 3 as a ridge ending. On the thumbprint, we have 1, 2, 3, 4 intervening ridges before we come to this bifurcation. If that is to be joined-up, we have 4 on both sides so that would tally, but we still have the form of this bifurcation down bottom. It's not a shoulder as it appears on the thumbprint. It is an equally spaced bifurcation and equally on both sides. Although there are features in very similar relative positions, they are not the same type of feature in both impressions. Q. Just for clarity, if I draw a line in yellow -- I do not intend this to be physically correct just so that I join -- I'm drawing a yellow line within the red circle at 5. Are you indicating that it could be a bifurcation in that location? A. It would have to be a bifurcation in that position to match, yes. Q. It would have to be a bifurcation in that location for point 5 on the left to match as the bifurcation that -- point 5 and point 3 to match with the bifurcation you page 92 have in number 3? A. Yes. Q. Then the ridge counts would be correct but you have a problem about the shape of the bifurcation that you have as 7 on Ms McKie's print and that I am suggesting to you is number 4 in the red circle on Y7? A. That is an interpretation if we join the top of the ridges up together. I have to admit on my original notes I had a difference in ridge count to the core trying to replicate that here I made it the same so I would have to study this image a bit more closely. The bit I want is off the edge. I had five ridge counts on Y7 ... I beg your pardon. (Pause) No, I'm afraid I may have confused myself. I can't find my ridge count on my notes. Q. I was not really intending to reduce this down to a point of confusion because what I wanted to do was to step back from all of this. First of all, could we save this image. MISS BAHRAMI: It's FI2909.19. MR MOYNIHAN: Just before I return to my next port of call, if I use the clearer Ms McKie print, because the clarity is quite clear, you have indicated there what I might call a cluster of four arguably bifurcations, if we make your number 7 a bifurcation rather than a ridge ending, page 93 a cluster of perhaps 4 bifurcations. A. Yes. Q. If we then return to what you did as your original analysis, which I think is image FI2909.09. Perhaps if I could keep on the right-hand side the image that is currently displayed, keep on the right the one currently displayed and bring up FI2909.09 on the left. A. Can I just return to point number 3? Q. If you give me a second. Yes, do you want to -- A. I was confused I think because you joined the ridge ending on Y7 up to the ridge on the left which would make the sequence ... Q. If you give me just a second. What we will do in that case is return to the last saved image. A. I am sorry, I think I became confused because your little yellow line on Y7 in circle 3 or circle 5 joins up the ridge ending to the ridge on the left. It could equally easily and just as likely join up with the ridge on the right and I think that is the way I have seen it. If it does join up, leaving point 8 on the left-hand limb as I've marked it on the thumbprint of Y7 as point 8 and then there is a difference in ridge count from the core to this point of one. It was your yellow line which confused me, I'm afraid. THE CHAIRMAN: So the ridge count could be right or could be page 94 incorrect depending on whether you have join as counsel did the ridge to the left or to the right at point 5? A. That's right. MR MOYNIHAN: It is not my intent to confuse you. What I am doing, you will readily see, is I am trying to draw by that yellow line a configuration which would make Y7 fit with your points 3 and 7 in the McKie print. Do you see? A. Yes, I accept that. Q. Drawn in that way with the yellow line to the left, it could fit? A. Yes. Of course this is the wrong way to go about a comparison. Q. This is what I wanted you to comment on. Drawn with the yellow line to the left, it could fit but that is a convenient way of answering the problem about the ridge count. What you are saying is you must have understood that yellow line in fact to be thrown to the right rather than left; in other words, to connect, if at all, with the ridge to the right? A. Point number 3 appears as a ridge ending on Y7. If you want to make it a bifurcation, it could equally as well go to either the ridge to the left or the ridge to the right. To manipulate it is maybe to take the information you want it to fit. page 95 Q. You say this is going about it the wrong way. Can you just explain to me why this is going about it in the wrong way? A. On Y7, point number 3 appears as a ridge ending. If we follow the ridge ending down, we come to a very distinct bifurcation which I have labelled number 8. On the thumbprint, we should be looking for a ridge ending five ridges from the core which, when we follow it down, we come to a bifurcation. What we have is a pair of bifurcations on Y7 which are in the approximate same relationship and approximate same position on the core and we have or you have taken those as being the same features but you had to manipulate them in order to make them fit in the sequence that you wanted to and that is because it is easy to see on Y7 and not so easy to see on -- I beg your pardon, it easy to see on the print, on the thumbprint but not so easy to see on Y7. Q. You used the word manipulation and I intend nothing sinister by that but we talked about the Ashbaugh flip-flopping or, more technically correct perhaps, iterative process. Is what I have attempted to do by drawing in the yellow line which would be manipulating to fit, is that permissible flip-flopping or iterative process or is page 96 that going beyond what you would regard as permissible? A. It is always easy to confuse a ridge ending and bifurcation. They can appear interchangeable at times depending upon a number of factors but you have to look at every characteristic within the totality of all the other characteristics and when there are so many characteristics which don't agree in their position and sequence, it becomes futile to move one or two because you don't affect the overall comparison. It's easier and much more honest to say this doesn't fit in the sequence of the whole fingerprint. Q. I am very grateful to you because it was that, I think, that provided the bridge then I was going to ask in relation to your evidence back to I think -- I think we have these saved, so that is okay. If we go back to FI2909.09. On the left-hand side, you drew for us at the start of this particular chapter of your evidence to the right of the core in the magenta circles three, I think, bifurcations lower down and a ridge ending higher up. That is what we ultimately ended up looking at when we looked in detail at various points. A. Yes. Q. I had asked you, as best you could recollect back to your original investigation, you had seen perhaps about page 97 three points in common and your recollection now is slightly different from then. Were you thinking, at least I am trying to understand as best you can what you saw in your original investigation, of something in the nature of those magenta circles as perhaps being points in common? A. I regret I can't. My memory was that there were bifurcations in agreement higher up the print, perhaps in the area with the long red arrow indicating what you call the Rosetta point. I think my memory became distorted over time between differences and similarities. Q. I think that is understandable in the circumstances. As you say, if there are differences in the print is your evidence, you had reached the point where you are not going to manipulate the points that may be in agreement because the points in difference really trump the possible points of agreement. Is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Now taking it all the way back to where we started, can you indicate to his Lordship -- I have missed out one point of difference that I perhaps will just miss because we have time not available to us. That is your point number 6. I think I will just leave that to the side. page 98 Perhaps if I could say this to you, Mr Grigg, up on screen, just now we have one point -- point number 6, that we have not discussed so far -- I have not asked you about. Is that a significant point of itself or are there other stronger points already on the screen that we discussed in detail? A. There are more significant differences. It might be possible to argue that number 6 wouldn't even appear on Y7 because of the orientation and it is towards the edge of the print. Q. In that case let us not waste any time this afternoon with that. Since we now have it displayed, what in your judgment are the most significant differences? A. The absence of the lake and the bifurcation above the core, points 7, 10 and 11 on the SCRO chart; the presence of the point I've labelled 4, the ridge ending from the left, what you call the Rosetta point; the absence of the bifurcation I've labelled as 5 on the thumbprint from fingerprint Y7; and indeed the position and arrangement of the points we've just discussed 2, 7 and 8 and 3 down the bottom being superficially similar but in actual fact different. Q. So those are the significant differences. In conclusion if I take this in stages, first of all, is there enough page 99 detail in Y7, despite all its clarity problems, enough detail to make it an acceptable print for comparison purposes? Is it capable of identification? A. Yes, to both questions. It is capable of identification; it is capable of being compared. Q. But your conclusion in relation to Ms McKie is it is not Ms McKie but for the reasons you have just indicated. A. Yes. Q. I am grateful to you. That finishes Y7. If I can turn then to QI2. For QI2 what I will begin with is your own FI2 charting, FI0169A. I will do as I normally do and give us on each half of the screen Marion Ross's print and QI2. If I start with this general question I'd ended Y7 with: in relation to QI2 is there enough detail on an examination of QI2 to make it of sufficient quality to carry forward an identification of any individual? A. In order to answer that question, I think I would have to see the fingerprint of the individual who actually left the mark. As it stands, it is a very fragmented mark. It is very difficult to align the different areas where characteristics can be discerned to build up a picture of the whole mark and how the different areas fit together. There are characteristics visible in different page 100 places but whether they could be accurately linked to each other by following the ridges through, counting through in order to get sufficient in total over the whole area to make a decision, I'm not sure. Q. It may simply be the language I have used. I understand in fingerprint laboratories that marks will be studied to see whether they meet a standard which, I say, is of comparable quality; in other words, enough detail to make them a robust basis for a comparison with a field of potential donors. I understand that some marks will be excluded because the detail on them is just insufficient for a reliable comparison. What I was asking was whether your judgment of QI2 is that it would be discounted at the first stage as comparing(sic) insufficient detail for comparison or whether you would understand fingerprint examiners to be prepared to work with it and compare it with possible suspects? A. I would expect given this is or this was a murder investigation for every single mark to be compared if it could be and I would expect this mark QI2 to be compared, as far as it could be, with any suspects who were put forward. Q. Again, the conclusion which you have reached is that there are points of difference in QI2 such that you page 101 would say positively this is not the mark of the deceased, the late Marion Ross. Is that correct? A. Yes, these two fingerprints do not match. Q. You have highlighted eight points of difference that, in your judgment, mean that it cannot be the print of Marion Ross? A. That's correct. Q. It is a question of just exactly how one works through this particular print. One could look at it by simply comparing the SCRO position with your own or one can do it by looking at the way that you studied it. I think what is probably better is if I ask you just to explain your own, because I think your own one will begin with QI2 as an analysis then linked to Marion Ross -- is that correct -- A. Indeed. Q. If you begin then if we take them in perhaps in any logical order as best suits you. We could either begin at 1 or we could begin at 5 as being at the top of the clock just as best suits you, what is your analysis of QI2 that results in you saying it is not Marion Ross? A. My analysis actually started with the actual pattern and ridge flow which are very similar although I noted on the left side of QI2 there is what I would call a page 102 "funnelling" of the ridge flow. That is, if I can try and draw on the picture to illustrate, we have the ridge flow here and here (indicated). These two red lines are the outside of a wide area of ridge flow at the bottom narrowing down as we move towards the top of the fingerprint. These ridges are funnelling together. The ridge flow on the fingerprint doesn't show this particular flow in that area. However, given the broken nature of the print, the fragmented nature of it, this might be just an artefact of the way it has been left or developed or, indeed, other marks which surround it because we can see there are a number of marks on this particular item. That was the first thing I noted. The overall ridge flow appears very similar. They are both whorl patterns. I have attempted to estimate the ridge counts to the deltas on the outside and there is nothing there to discount these as being the same pattern and, therefore, it's worthy of carrying on the comparison. When I came to look at the actual features available within the pattern, I noted that there are on the left of the core about five characteristics, that I am talking about I will just draw ... Q. If you give me a second, I will save the image that's page 103 there just now with the red lines and then remove those so we have a clear image. So we will save the image there and then come back. THE CHAIRMAN: Just before we save the image, is it possible on the inked print to mark the same what you would regard as the equivalent ridges in the same form of the red line? A. We have the core here (indicated). It is very difficult to count out because of the very poor clarity. About eight ridges to the left ... so I'm looking maybe down about there (indicated). Then if I estimate there are about two or three ridges, it will be maybe this ridge here (indicated). THE CHAIRMAN: So that is as near as possible the equivalent? A. It is roughly equivalent. THE CHAIRMAN: If you would like to save it now. MISS BAHRAMI: FI2909.20. MR MOYNIHAN: If you could bring up again two copies of FI0169A. Mr Grigg, if I pass the controls over to you just to explain, as you wish, the points of difference that you saw. A. Thank you. I noticed that there were clusters of characteristics in different areas. Perhaps the largest page 104 and boldest area of the print is on the left-hand side over here (indicated) to the left and slightly below the core. Above that the ridge flow becomes very broken and very faint but we come round to the top of the core, we have another area of fairly well-defined ridges extending down the right-hand side of the core where we have a few more down here. Again, between that bottom right-hand side and left side, the ridges are fainter, they are broken, they are disturbed by other contamination from the background and, indeed, there's an area here where they are completely missing, whether they come from this fingerprint or any other fingerprint. Perhaps if I can start with the point on the right of the core which I've labelled 6. It is a very strong bifurcation on QI2 and it can be fairly accurately placed one ridge out from the core on the right. When you look at the forefinger print we have a bifurcation in exactly that position. However, the appearance of this bifurcation on the right is quite different in that the two legs of the bifurcation, the ridges that proceed downwards, have different thicknesses. The one on the right is a thick ridge, as thick as the ridges above the bifurcation before it splits. The ridge on the left is very much thinner. page 105 If we look at the bifurcation on QI2, we see that both legs of that bifurcation are very similar in width and the same width as the ridge above before it bifurcates. The reason why ridges might appear to have different thicknesses is usually down to the pressure that is being placed upon them, the amount the ridge has been crushed as it has been placed on the surface. When you have two ridges side-by-side they will have very similar pressures on them, they would appear to be the same thickness unless one ridge actually had a different structure and was thinner than the corresponding ridge on the other side of the bifurcation. So this bifurcation on the forefinger print has this very clear appearance of a thin ridge on the left and a thicker ridge on the right. This will be the structure of the ridge that makes up the bifurcation. The bifurcation as it appears on my QI2 appears to have a different structure in that both ridges are of similar widths, similar thicknesses. So although the bifurcation appears in the right position on both prints to match, the appearance of the bifurcation itself is immediately causing me some concern about whether it is the same feature or not. So immediately having found that feature I'm wondering how close a match it's going page 106 to be. If I proceed downwards from point 6, I move one intervening ridge to the right -- and it may be helpful if I enlarge this image, and I will do the same with the fingerprint -- if I move one intervening ridge to the right and follow it down, I come to another bifurcation on the next ridge out. This I've labelled number 7. If I perform the same action on the fingerprint, one intervening ridge, move one out, I indeed come to a bifurcation. So we have two as superficially similar features in the same relative position on both marks as well as the pattern, but the appearance of this bifurcation (indicated) is different to the one on QI2. If I come further down -- Q. If I could just stop you there because at the point where you were saying the appearance of the bifurcations were different, you in fact were pointing the pencil back up to your original point number 6. A. Yes. Q. Can you just explain, please, what it is about your point number 7 or your points number 7 that leads you to suggest that the appearance of the bifurcations are different? A. I was talking about number 6. We have two bifurcations in apparent sequence which is a very good starting point page 107 for the comparison. I was reiterating that one of them has a different appearance on each mark. If I follow from point 7 downwards and count out one intervening ridge, I come to the point that I've marked as 8, which is a bifurcation upwards. If I do the same on the forefinger print, one intervening ridge, I come to a feature which is best described as a crossover, a short joining ridge which joins -- and if I can indicate with two short blue arrows -- (indicated) a feature where two adjoining ridges are joined by a short ridge which crosses over from one ridge to the other. THE CHAIRMAN: That is the two blue marks, the two blue arrows point to -- A. I've just placed on the fingerprint. On QI2 we have a bifurcation which I have marked as point 8 which might correspond to the bifurcation which I've marked with the lower blue arrow as forming the lower point of the cross-over. If that is the case we should see the other bifurcation at the top of the cross-over but it doesn't exist on QI2. So although we have two bifurcations which appear similar and a good starting point, we move down to the next ridge out, I find a different feature. MR MOYNIHAN: Could we save that image? MISS BAHRAMI: FI2909.21. page 108 MR MOYNIHAN: What I will do is we do not have to go back to a clean image, necessarily. A. Can I keep this image, please, for the moment? Q. Yes. I will leave you to it. A. If I draw attention back to the bifurcation immediately to the right of the core, which is point number 6, if we follow the ridge upwards immediately above the core we have the appearance of something which looks like a small lake. The ridge is very much thicker. In fact, if I can use my arrows again, I will just draw where I see the ends of this thicker ridge arrangement with a gap in the middle. This looks like a very small, tight lake. But if I follow the ridge on QI2 upwards above the core, there is no indication of any little lake formation. The ridge doesn't appear any thicker. The ridges either side are much closer together. There is no room for a little feature like that. THE CHAIRMAN: Would you like to mark where you would expect to find it, had it been there? For the record, this is the uppermost of the two pairs of blue arrows that you have marked? A. Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: Where the lake would appear to be on the inked print and not to be on the latent print? page 109 A. That's correct. If I count on QI2 from the position where that lake or the blue arrows indicate the lake's position would be, one intervening ridge, I come to a ridge ending which I have labelled 5 on my chart. This is in the form of a slightly broken ridge with the appearance of maybe a little independent hanging off the end. I've marked the end of the ridge ending as being at the end of this short piece broken off the end, the independent part. If I turn back to the forefinger print I count up one intervening ridge and I do come to a little independent-type ridge which I've marked with number 5 but the rest of the ridge is missing. So the ridge which ends at that point doesn't appear on the forefinger print. So this is a very clear difference in the two prints. MR MOYNIHAN: When you say that which the upper green line coming down from the top is your point number 5, in fact -- A. That's right. Q. When you say on Marriott Ross that something is missing, can you tell me, please, what it is that you say is missing? A. A ridge. page 110 Q. Why should I not understand the ridge to be -- sorry, is my blue arrow now that I have added at the top the point you are indicating? A. What I've done is I've gone one intervening ridge up from the position of the lake on the forefinger and come across a short independent or incipient ridge. You have drawn your blue arrow to a point on the ridge above that which appears to carry on round without stopping. Q. If I choose red then, what we are pointing to in fact is the small incipient ridge that I just pointed to by the red? A. Yes. Q. You are indicated that that would seem to be on Marion Ross a small incipient ridge? A. Yes. Q. Whereas in QI2 you would say there is a ridge present? A. I would. Q. Why can't one say there is a ridge there by connecting up the edges of the incipients? A. Because the incipients are narrow ridges. They are not fully formed ridges. They have a different appearance to a fully developed ridge. On QI2, the ridge appears to be the same thickness, within limits, as the ridges either side. It doesn't appear as an incipient, it appears as a fully formed page 111 ridge. Q. It would be suitable to save that particular image. MISS BAHRAMI: That's FI2909.22. A. Can I also point out that on QI2, either -- the ridges above and below this ridge ending we can see are separated as if to make room for the additional ridge. On the forefinger the ridges above and below that little incipient are completely parallel; they are not separating at all to make room for an extra ridge. MR MOYNIHAN: In QI2 what you are saying is either side of what you say is a ridge ending there are diverging ridges to accommodate it? A. Yes. Q. Whereas in Marion Ross, in the same area, the ridges remain parallel consistent with there only being incipient ridges in the gaps? A. That's how it appears to me. MR MOYNIHAN: Sir, I don't know at what point you were seeking to adjourn? THE CHAIRMAN: I thought since we ran on to 1.10 having sat -- MR MOYNIHAN: In that case -- THE CHAIRMAN: We have missed the refreshment side of things anyhow. MR MOYNIHAN: In that case what I will do is carry on . page 112 THE CHAIRMAN: Just let me check. MR MOYNIHAN: What I was going to do, Mr Grigg, without losing any of the markings that there are already on the image, you will see the covered 5, 6, 7 and 8. Again, in whatever order suits you best, if you carry on with your analysis of QI2. A. Thank you. I would like to look at the other side of the mark so if I double click this image of QI2 -- Q. If you click on the left you get back to the original image. A. As I stressed at the beginning, there is another area of friction ridges which is reasonably well-defined on the lower left-hand side below the core and I started off -- and I'll enlarge that area to make it a bit clearer -- there's a bifurcation or a feature I take to be a bifurcation below the core and to the left. To the right of it, slightly higher, there's the appearance of a ridge ending -- Q. For the record, the bifurcation you are talking about is your number 1? A. I've labelled it number 1, yes. The ridge to the immediate right has the appearance of being a ridge ending but we are entering an area immediately where the ridges lose definition. So this may not be the case. It may just be a red herring. But page 113 this bifurcation which appears quite strongly is below the core and to the left. I counted six intervening ridges to the top of the core. I will perhaps draw a line where I would have counted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ridges I make that. Q. What we actually found with Mr Wertheim is that if you just mark a line crossing the yellow lines perpendicular to where you are seeing the ridges, that actually helps you to count and enables us to see what you are counting. If you mark with a yellow cross-section where you see the ridges as crossing over the yellow line. A. Is that line sufficient for you? Is the line as I have drawn it -- Q. The yellow line is fine but what I was saying to you was you are counting ridges and if I show you, for example, I assume that you are counting this (indicated) as one ridge so we could have a point there, then if you mark the other ridges you see we can both count them and see them. A. I'm with you. One there ... and then we can hit the ridge which is the recurve at the top of the core. If I turn to the forefinger, I've marked the bifurcation as point 1. If I draw the lines on the top of the core again, in actual fact I only make that four intervening ridges. I'd made it five earlier. I must have page 114 miscounted. But there is a difference in the number of ridges between that bifurcation and the core on both prints. So although the bifurcation is in a similar position there are actually a different number of intervening ridges between it and the core. Q. Can I ask you this: if I use a different colour because you have put in the points in yellow, if one is counting the numbers, why not add in what I am marking in red. I haven't done the counting to see whether it makes any difference. A. It will certainly make a difference but the most right-hand ridge you have indicated with the red line is actually the ridge that goes around the top of the core. That's where I'm stopping the count. I haven't marked it on QI2 either. The other two red lines you have drawn indicate incipient ridges which fall across the line of count. Because incipient ridges are smaller ridges which don't always appear, they are never used for counting unless they appear in exactly the same way in both impressions because they may not appear in one and may appear in the other which would confuse the issue. Therefore, I didn't count them on the forefinger. In fact, I cannot see any on the left-hand one. Q. If you omit the top-most red line then the number of page 115 lines drawn would be equal on both sides? A. It would be -- if those incipient ridges were to carry round as full ridges on both of them they would be counted. Q. What is wrong in relation to the bottom-most right line in inserting it? A. On which impression? Q. In Marion Ross, the bottom-most red line, what is wrong with inserting it in the line count? A. Because it is an incipient ridge. It is a thin ridge. It is a broken ridge and it doesn't extend round the pattern. The first line, yellow line, on QI2 we can see is a normal thickness ridge which will, though broken by the background of the development and so on, actually continues round. Q. Can we save that and then again, I will let you carry on with your description. THE CHAIRMAN: I wonder should we take ten minutes now and sit again at 3.25. MISS BAHRAMI: FI2909.23. (3.12 pm) (A short break) (3.25 pm) MR MOYNIHAN: If you allow me, I've just two things to ask: one is about notes and the other is just to get a piece page 116 of information for Mr Holmes if I could lay my hands on it. (To Mr Holmes) I will come back to it later. Miss Jones, who is for SPSA, did want to ask one question but had to leave. It is outwith the run of the general questions. I had asked you about note-taking and what she was wanting to know was obviously note-taking assists someone in giving evidence, ultimately, in the case. Do you think that proper note-taking assists fingerprint examiners in arriving at the correct initial conclusion on a mark? A. I think note-taking helps the examiner to clarify in their own mind exactly what it is they are looking for by weighing up the observed information and then writing down what they believe are the correct facts about the mark, it clarifies in their own mind what they are looking for and firms up that information and helps them make their comparison. Q. So you actually think it does assist them in the reasoning process itself? A. I do. I believe it's part of the process. Q. What I want to do then is enable you to complete your analysis of mark QI2. Before we do so, I will also start a discipline that when we look at a zoomed image page 117 we'll insert the numbers for the points so it's a lot easier to follow, not when you are giving your evidence, it is just when we are looking at copies later on. So if we move on then from the point that you had, which I think was your point -- have we covered your point 3? A. No, point number 1, I believe. Q. I would now like to proceed. On the image that is on screen, what I will do is mark number 1 and am I just at point number 2? A. I believe that's point number 3. Let me just check. Q. It is. Does that mean that I am now at point number 2? A. That's correct. Q. And point number 4? A. 4. Q. With at the top -- and we have completed the discussion but I will mark it in anyway -- point number 5? A. Yes. Q. Sorry to have interrupted you. In that case having dealt with your point number 1, please then just proceed in the way you see fit. A. On QI2 over to the left of the print I observed there was a ridge ending upwards which I've labelled as number 2. This feature lies, if I draw a line, 1, 2, 3 -- and I will come back to that in a moment -- 4, 5, 6, 7 page 118 ridges to the left of point number 1. On the forefinger, there is the appearance of a ridge ending in roughly the same position relative to point number 1 but I say "roughly" because when I look at the impression, I'm not clear if this ridge doesn't actually continue onwards and either finish somewhere in the area which I'm indicating with the cursor now (indicated) over the next few millimetres or actually join up as a bifurcation at that point -- sorry, I will indicate that with an arrow (indicated) -- at the point I have just indicated with a red arrow a bit further up on the ridge. However, on the forefinger impression the ridge appears to stop at this point. It wouldn't be normal to leave a large gap between two ridges with nothing in it as it appears on the control print of Marion Ross. So I think this is an aberration in the recording of the print. It should actually continue higher but nevertheless I have marked it where it appears to be. If I count from number 1, across to that point it is quite easy to see there are eight intervening ridges from 1 to 2; whereas on QI2 there are only seven. However, I've maybe cheating a bit on QI2 because we can see the feature which I've labelled 3 is out of position, it's higher up on QI2 and, consequently, the page 119 line from point 1 to point 2 cuts across two ridges formed by a bifurcation which I've labelled as 3. That would make the ridge count the same on both of the prints. However, on the forefinger that bifurcation occurs lower down and doesn't come in the way of the ridge count. I've, therefore, only counted that as 1 to try to show that difference in position without that bifurcation occurring in the middle. So again these are superficial similarities which are in fact not in the right position relative to each other. Q. If you will forgive me, I think that point that you have just made will become more apparent if I insert the numbers 1, 3 and 2 and, in effect, what you are saying is if you draw a straight line from 1 to 2, then the feature number 3 in Marion Ross's print is below the line; whereas in QI2 it is above the line? A. Yes. Q. Could it be that relative differences in pressure could relocate feature 3 to that extent or not? A. It's possible for features to move in relation to each other because the skin is flexible. However, if you have a movement, it should be consistent across the fingerprint so all the features are being moved in the same direction by the pressure of the finger being put down. Therefore, if number 3 is lower than 1, on one page 120 you would expect number 2 to be lower as well; whereas, as I tried to explain at the start, what I've marked as 2 on the forefinger of Marion Ross may not actually be the characteristic. It may be much higher up rather than lower and it should be a bifurcation rather than the ridge ending which appears on QI2. THE CHAIRMAN: Just while I remember, when one is looking at what I call the inked print, where the inked print is taken from someone who is deceased, as Marion Ross was at the time hers was taken, do you have to make any allowance for that because surely the circumstances in which it is taken are not as easy, to say the least of it, as they would be if the person was putting their finger on a desk or some hard surface to have the inked print taken? A. That's certainly true. I don't think that any particular allowance need be made, though. The manner of taking the prints does differ from a live person to a deceased person, but the clarity of this particular impression of Marion Ross's fingerprint is very good. It doesn't indicate any distortion that might account for a feature being moved out of position and there's no reason for it to be with the normal methods used to record fingerprints from deceased persons. If the body had been in any way decomposed then it page 121 may of course be a different matter but this appears to be a body in good condition. MR MOYNIHAN: What we will do, Mr Grigg, is save this image and then we will deal with the last point on QI2 which is number 4. MISS BAHRAMI: That's FI2909.24. MR MOYNIHAN: So the last point, Mr Grigg, we are going to deal with is point number 4. What I will do is just complete the numbering on QI2 itself. I hope I have not actually obscured the point but if I have, just tell me. A. I think we can still see it. Q. What I will do is take that away because I have no intention of obscuring the point. Could you explain, please, your point number 4? A. If we go back to point number 2 and look upwards on QI2 and to the left, one intervening ridge we have a bifurcation which I have numbered 4. I was looking for a feature of a similar type in a similar position in the forefinger of Marion Ross and moving up from the apparent ridge ending I have to go across two intervening ridges and up a considerable way before I come to a bifurcation which I've labelled 4 on the inked print. There's a considerable difference in the distance between these two points. There's a difference in the count from the ridge ending number 2 as I have page 122 marked it and the position of the bifurcation. So, again, they are similar types of features in roughly the right position but it is roughly the right position. They are not the same. When I was talking about number 2, I pointed out, in fact, that may not be a ridge ending on the inked print at that point, it may in fact be a bifurcation higher up. If that was the case, then the ridge count from number 2 to number 4 would be one intervening ridge on both of them but the features are different and number 2 has then moved further out of position in relation to point number 3. What I tried to find was similarities in that area but all I found actually were differences. Q. Could we save that image. MISS BAHRAMI: That's FI2909.25. MR MOYNIHAN: What we have actually done, Mr Grigg, is gone round all of your points of difference. I have silently to myself picked up some of the SCRO points because they coincide with points of difference. Obviously your conclusion is that QI2 is not the fingerprint of Marion Ross. A. No. Q. Is there anything else that's significant in that conclusion that you have not already covered by picking page 123 up the points of difference on your charting? A. If you want me to refer to the SCRO chart -- Q. No, I do not need you to pick up all the other points in their charting unless there is something particularly significant in your opinion for me? A. No, the differences I have indicated on my own chart leave me in no doubt. I am quite satisfied these two marks were not made by the same person. MR MOYNIHAN: Sir, that would be an appropriate point to end my examination. THE CHAIRMAN: Just before I invite applications to cross-examine I want to make it clear that my view is in this part of the Inquiry it is really not desirable we should go through every point or that counsel should feel obliged to go through every point. All I am interested in is any new issue that has not been covered by Counsel to the Inquiry because I feel that it is better for those who don't agree, the experts who don't agree, to make their own positive contribution as to why they say their view is correct and the other one is wrong rather than counsel feeling they have to go through it with each witness. Subject to that now is there any application, first of all, from you, Mr Smith? MR SMITH: There is. I may say I am relieved at the page 124 observations that we are not expected to go through the detail in that way. There are a number of matters I would wish to ask questions on. I can say I hope to be concluded in about 15 minutes if I am allowed to ask these. The first relates to the question of training, this witness' own experience in training and indeed what training is provided to SPSA, if it continues to this day. The second is to ask a very few questions about a presentation that Mr Mackenzie who is due to give evidence provided, not in great detail, one or two very small points of detail to set up a couple of cross-examination questions. Finally, I do wish to ask about Y7. There are a couple of very small points that have not been covered by Mr Moynihan that I can deal with fairly quickly. THE CHAIRMAN: I think I should have said before, I think cross-examination has been responsibly conducted before and I am content, as long as you make sure that we are not covering something that is already touched on. MR SMITH: I am happy to do that. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you. Cross-examined by MR SMITH Q. Mr Grigg, I wonder if I can ask you, fist of all, to confirm that you have been involved in, if I put it in this way, the fingerprint business for many years as is page 125 disclosed in your Inquiry statement? A. Yes, I started working as a Scenes of Crime Officer in 1973 and I qualified as a fingerprint expert in 1985. Q. I think you explain in your statement to the Inquiry you have attended a number of courses: two courses at Hendon Police College, you say a six week standard course in 1982 and a three-week advanced course before you qualified as a fingerprint expert in 1986. Is that correct? A. Yes, you are right it was 1986 not 1985. I beg your pardon. Q. I am simply reading from your statement, Mr Grigg. You then explained that at some stage you became a fingerprint training instructor with the National Training Centre in Durham? A. That was 1997. Q. Can I just be clear about it, as far as your training and experience is concerned no doubt there was a good deal of on the job training but the training you obtained seems to have come from, as it were, sources outside where you ultimately ended up. Is that fair, ie Hendon? A. Yes, that was the standard training package available to police forces the England at that time. Q. Prior to giving evidence in England, what kind of page 126 certification or certificate did you require before you actually felt capable and confident enough to give evidence in cases before the courts? A. I was authorised to present evidence to courts after I had passed the advanced fingerprint course and received the authorisation of my Chief Constable at the time. Q. So it was actually almost an examination kind of situation? Is that right? You had to pass the test -- A. On the advanced fingerprint course, yes, there is an assessment. There are assessments for practical ability, theoretical knowledge and, in fact, presentation skills. Q. Did you have any particular further examinations to pass before you became an instructor? A. I had to pass a practical examination before being offered the job as an instructor. Q. Can I ask you to move towards the microphone a little or move the microphone towards you. A. As part of the interview process I had to pass a practical examination before I was offered the position as an instructor at National Training Centre. Q. I think we've seen some information which indicates that SCRO had, at some stage earlier on, I think, indeed round about the time of the trial of Shirley McKie and prior to that, they had been attending Durham on page 127 occasions in respect of further training courses, et cetera, et cetera. Is that something you had personal knowledge of in about 1999/2000, that period of time? A. Yes, I believe officers from Scotland have attended our training courses throughout that period. Q. Was that an occasional thing or a regular thing? A. The training provided or offered to the Scottish forces has changed over the years. I don't believe a few years ago that the Scottish forces took advantage of the whole training programme offered by National Training Centre. We now have a national training programme within the United Kingdom which the SPSA attends in its entirety and supports. Q. How quickly after the Shirley McKie case was it that what is now the SPSA engaged fully with Durham to take up the available courses that are provided there? A. I'm afraid I couldn't answer that question accurately. Q. Obviously, the SCRO has changed, at least in name. I think the Scottish Fingerprint Service was the name that was used and then SPSA and exactly what the change in personnel and training structures are concerned is yet to be, I think, discussed before this Inquiry, but as far as that organisation is concerned, can you give some indication of the general standard that you feel they page 128 operate to at the present time? Do they produce people of high quality, of average quality? Where would you fit it into the overall picture? A. I would say the officers from Scotland are of very high quality. I think they always have been and they are well trained and well versed in the job. Q. I would like to ask you about the question of note-keeping. You were asked some questions about that. I think you indicated that that is something that would be appropriate for the purposes of a court case. If you felt you were going, possibly going to court. I would like to ask you just about the detail of notes. If I was cross-examining you and I was to say to you, "Did you have any doubt about the match between the inked print and the mark", would you be able to identify that from your notes? A. I'm not sure I actually wrote the conclusion down in my notes. Can I check them now to tell you? Q. I am not really too concerned about this particular matter, I am really concerned about what level of detail you would, generally speaking, have in your notes. Would you note down where a bifurcation was? Would you draw little sketches? Would you make notes about the timing and who else looked at it? What kinds of things can we imagine? page 129 A. My notes are actually in two parts. I have written notes which do contain details of time spent on particular aspects of the examination and I also have graphical notes where I have used acetate overlays to record the position of features which I have then described in written form as well in my notes. Q. So I take it then, if I was in a criminal case cross-examining you, you would be able to provide significant information about what you did, what you found and would you be able to indicate, as it were, an audit trail to say who else had seen the fingerprints as far as you know? Would you be able to provide that information? A. In a fingerprint bureau, yes, that information would be kept. It would be part of the recording of the process. Q. Yes, something you would expect to be good practice if not something you feel should be invariable practice throughout England and Wales at least; is that fair? A. Well, I believe it is part of the practice to have an audit trail in the Fingerprint Bureau. The Scottish forces, to my understanding, have an ISO 9000 approval, which means they will have processes in place to record such things. Q. Let us suppose you did examine a mark and you felt there was some doubt, I take it that is something you would page 130 disclose, even if you concluded ultimately that you thought there was a match between the two, you would nonetheless disclose in your report that you weren't entirely comfortable with it. Is that fair? A. In principle, yes, but I cannot imagine giving evidence of identity on a mark I wasn't sure about. Q. The exercise you were asked to carry out in this matter I take it was a fairly unusual one, was it? A. It was not something I have had to do before in this fashion. Q. Is it fair to say that what you were doing was looking at two fingerprints, ie if you take Y7 and Shirley McKie's fingerprint, having concluded they were not the same and then try and explain either why they were not the same or look for similarities you would then try and knock down; is that fair? A. I have to admit I found the whole process very confusing. It was not in accordance with the way in which I would normally work in comparing fingerprints. The way I was asked to carry out the comparison under phase 1 and phase 2 was not a way in which I would normally carry out a comparison. It was very difficult. I found it very difficult to keep my own mind clear about what I was doing without being influenced by the other information that I was observing from other page 131 people. And while there is, between the principal contradicters, a common consensus about the outcomes of the marks there are differences in the way we've carried it out. Whereas there is a difference in outcome between the contradicters and SCRO there was a lot of similarity about the way we've carried it out. It has been a very difficult process to conduct equably. Q. Yes, but you have identified, in your opinion, a number of differences that exist between Y7 and Shirley McKie's mark. I take it that I would be right in saying that a single difference would be enough for you to say, no, these are not the same, if it could not be explained by double tap rotation, something of that kind; is that fair? A. A clear difference would be very difficult to explain. However, when you reach a certain volume of similarities, then you would form an opinion about identity and would look for an explanation for an apparent difference. Where there are several differences to be accommodated it becomes much more problematical. Q. I would like you to look at one document, please. It is numbered CO0059, page 12 and 13 if we can have these page next to each other, please. Mr Grigg, I am sure that you will not have seen this page 132 before. Am I correct in that assumption? A. I don't believe I've seen them before. No, they don't look familiar. Q. If you take it from me just to, as it were, some orientation purposes that this was a presentation we understand was presented by Mr Mackenzie to a meeting at the Tulliallan Police College in Scotland some time ago. I would like to ask you for your comments just on one or two points. First of all, we see on the left-hand image there appear to be numbers up to 45 on the left-hand side? A. Yes. Q. In what you will recognise as being Y7. We don't see numbers up to 45 on the right-hand side. I am not quite sure in my mind what the reason for that is but I am sure we will find out, perhaps tomorrow. What is represented, as I understand it, or was represented is that there were up to 45 points of similarity between Y7 and Shirley McKie's print. Can I just ask you, first of all, is that something that would surprise you if someone was able to find 45 points in sequence and agreement between Y7 and Shirley McKie's print? A. I would certainly be surprised. I don't believe they are there. I don't believe there are any points in page 133 agreement so to find 45 it would surprise me. Q. Can I ask you to look at the general shape of Y7. I am sure you are fairly familiar with it. Imagine if I was to draw a line and round the perimeter of the mark, bear that exercise in mind, wherever you would draw it, I am not going to do it. If you can look towards the bottom do you see in the left-hand image, point number 7, do you see it bears to point to a black blob of some kind? Do you see where point 7 is? A. Yes. Q. Are you able to say whether the end point of that line from 7 ends up on the ridge markings in Y7? Can you see if it actually points to anything on the fingerprint? A. On Y7, I don't think it points to the fingerprint at all. It appears to point to the background of the doorframe that mark has been deposited on. Q. Similarly, number 8, do you see the line goes up, it passes the end point of Y7. Does that appear to be on the very edge, the very margin of what you do if you drew a line on it. Do you see that? A. Yes, I can but I think I would like to point out that asking me to make a comparison of a mark which I have not seen before in this medium is not ... Q. Very well. I will save it for Mr Mackenzie in due course. page 134 Finally, if I can ask you something. Perhaps with reference to the photograph that you have in front of you, Mr Kent's photograph, I think I looked at that earlier on while you were sitting in the witness box during the break. What I am interested in -- and you can just use that image that is on the left-hand side of the page just now -- we can see, as it were, this step if we go from Y7, at the very top of it, towards the right, the position maybe about -- just above the sticker 27, towards the top of the image. Then it comes down generally towards about 4.00/5.00 and then it takes a kick to the right and then comes round and down the bottom. I think you indicated that that may be something to do with the contour of the wood. Would you agree with me that the Terry Kent image actually gives a fairly good indication of what may be a wood grain or something similar going up following the line that I've just described, the straight part of the line going up towards the top of the page. Is that fair? A. Yes, that is how I interpreted Y7 as well. Q. Let us imagine that far from there being a raised grain along that line that there's actually a dip along that line. Are you able to help whether if there was a dip, as it were, a gouge in the wood -- I don't mean in any page 135 dramatic sense but it's actually a depression in the grain -- could that account for the actual lines of the fingerprint not, as it were, entering the valley to leave any mark? A. Yes, that is the interpretation I put on it. We can see a darker line here (indicated) and I'm indicating the left-hand edge of the mark Y7 at the top where there is a slight raising of the grain in a fine line causing a bit more pressure as the ridges touch it. To the right of that we have a white area where there is I take it to be a depression in the surface which the ridges haven't touched. So the raised part of the grain has put an edge on the impression that has been left. Q. I'm sorry, there is one more question I wanted to ask and it is this: I think you expressed some considerable doubt as to whether or not this could be, I think it was put, a multiple tap, at least double. I think you excluded it could be two touches for the reasons you gave earlier. If I was to suggest that it may only be consistent with someone's opinion in this case that there were at least four different touches of that print, at least four different touches, I take it your position is that that is really just impossible to fathom in the circumstances. Is that fair? page 136 A. Where there is a double touch, there's a multiple impression, it is normal to find a fault line where the two impressions overlap each other. I have seen double touches where the fault line is hard to detect. I certainly can't detect anything I would ascribe to a fault line on this particular image. To have four separate areas without a distinguishable fault line between them I think is extremely unlikely on this print. MR SMITH: That's very measured of you. Thank you very much. THE CHAIRMAN: I had better ask Miss Grahame, first of all, have you any ...? MISS GRAHAME: No, thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Holmes? MR HOLMES: Yes, sir, there are some issues I would like to cover with Mr Grigg. I would like to cover the issue that has just been mentioned, that is whether Y7 is a single or a multiple touch. I would like to cover the points made or the statement that he has made to the Inquiry so far as it deals with his previous examination of Y7 carried out by himself and Mr Sheppard at Durham. I would like to briefly cover his analysis of Y7 and QI2 for the Inquiry, though bearing in mind that individual points are something that should not be covered again page 137 with -- THE CHAIRMAN: If they are fresh points, certainly, that you want to touch on. MR HOLMES: Briefly also, sir, I would like to cover the conclusion contained in the document CO0032 which was authored by the witness. Cross-examined by MR HOLMES Q. Thank you, sir. Mr Grigg, first I would like to cover some of the issues that were raised in the statement you gave to the Inquiry. You say that you were aware of the McKie case before July 2000 because, you say, of media coverage and of informal discussions with other experts. Are you able to say what were the nature of the discussions you had had with other experts about the McKie case prior to July 2000? A. Well, I can't remember any details as such but I know that my reaction was complete surprise that SCRO would be accused of making a mistake of this nature and that was the same attitude that my colleagues had at the time, as I recall. They were all utterly shocked that this allegation could be made. We trusted SCRO. We thought they did not make mistakes. Q. Can I ask then did the individuals with whom you discussed the case express a view on Y7? page 138 A. Before the original examination I made along with the Mr Sheppard and Mr Thompson none of us had actually seen the marks so it was a purely gut reaction that SCRO wouldn't get these comparisons wrong. Q. So did you discuss Y7 with anyone who actually had access to any material prior to conducting your own examination? A. Only with Mr Sheppard and Mr Thompson after we conducted our own examinations. Q. You say also in your statement that you cannot recall having seen Y7 yourself before July 2000 but that you may have done so. If you had, where would you have seen it? A. I believe it was published on the Internet. Whether that was before the examinations I carried out at NTC or afterwards I can't really say. As far as I know no copies of the mark were circulated around the Fingerprint Service so unless I saw it on the Internet because I believe it was published there or marks alleging to be part of the original inquiry were published there, I'm not sure I would have seen it. Q. Would you have been aware at the time of any views being expressed by those who had circulated the material? A. I can't recall specifically but I believe that the views of Pat Wertheim had been published, who I believe had page 139 quite strong views about the comparison. Q. Indeed, the Chairman asked you earlier on today whether you were aware at the time that you carried at your examination that Mr Wertheim had formed a view and you said that you were. Is that correct? A. I knew he carried out an examination on behalf of the defence, yes. Q. Did you know that he considered Y7 not to have been made by Shirley McKie? A. Yes, I knew of his conclusion. Q. You say in your statement that you were instructed by Mr Sheppard to carry out the examination in 2000. Is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Amongst the materials that you were given was the report that had been authored by Mr Wertheim. Did you see the report prior to carrying out your examination of the mark? A. No, I didn't look at it until after I carried out the comparison. Q. Did Mr Sheppard give you any indication of why you were looking at Y7 in July 2000? A. Only that there was an Inquiry being carried out and NTC had been approached to review the marks independently. Q. Did Mr Sheppard give you any indication of any views page 140 that had been expressed about the mark previously? A. I don't recall discussing the outcomes of any comparisons with Mr Sheppard or Mr Thompson until after we'd carried out our comparisons when we discussed our findings. Q. Was it apparent to you from the circumstances under which you were being instructed that the mark was being challenged? A. Yes. Q. You go on in your statement to explain the process that you undertook when you went to examine the mark. First you said that you examined the chance impression without reference to the inked impression; is that correct? A. That would be the process we would carry out, yes. Q. How long would you spend doing that alone before you even looked at the inked impression? A. I cannot recall at this point in time. I did make notes at the time but, as I explained earlier, I don't know where those notes are. They would almost certainly give the answer to that question. I can recall being fairly surprised at the differences I found fairly early on. It didn't take very long for me to become very cautious about the examination because of the differences I was picking up during it. Q. When you say that you found differences early on, what I page 141 am asking you about, first of all, is your assessment of the chance impression of Y7 alone without any reference to the known mark. How long would that ordinarily take? A. I can only surmise it took me a similar length of time to the current examination which I've got a record of. I could give you the time I spent on it this time round but I really don't know the details of the examinations I carried out nine years ago. Q. When you look at an average chance impression, are we talking about a matter of seconds to look at the crime scene mark? Are we talking about a matter of minutes or are we talking about spending longer than that on it? A. In this particular case, I would expect the initial assessment to take, as you say, a matter of minutes. Some marks can be assessed very, very quickly given sufficient clarity and sufficient volume of information. Others will take much longer. For the purposes of this Inquiry I certainly took longer than I would have done perhaps if this had been a routine job withing a bureau. But I'm assuming nine years ago it was several hours to carry out the examination. Q. Can I ask when you say you would have taken some time over the examination carried out for this Inquiry, what materials were you given to examine for the purposes of page 142 this Inquiry? A. In 2009? Q. Yes. A. I received -- and I have a note of them -- I received an example comparison chart; I received blank chart templates; I received 8 times enlargements of Y7; and fingerprint forms in the name of Shirley Cardwell; fingerprint forms in the name of Marion Ross; actual size photographs of Y7 and QI2; enlargements of QI2; I also received ... enlargements of certain fingerprints on the forms in the name of Shirley Cardwell and Marion Ross; I received a fingerprint labelled XF; and fingerprints in the name of David Asbury. Q. What I was getting at is that you had access to the original sized photographs? A. Yes. Q. That is what you used to carry out the comparison, is it? A. And the enlargements that I was supplied with as well. Q. On the subject of enlargements, you reviewed charted enlargements that were prepared by SCRO when you did your examination in 2000; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And it's fair to say that you were critical of the enlargements that had been prepared? page 143 A. I certainly was. Q. One of the criticisms that you had was that there appeared to be lines drawn towards characteristics which didn't, in fact, point anything out; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. Are you aware of the fact that the charted enlargements prepared for this case were prepared on a charting PC? A. I was aware of that. I was certainly told that because I remember discussing it afterwards with Mr Sheppard and Mr Thompson. Q. Is this a piece of equipment of which you have any experience? A. No, I've not used one but I've heard about them. We have a facility or we should have a facility on our AFIS system to do charting but nobody ever uses it, if it is actually operational. Q. When you say you have heard about them, have you heard good things about them? A. No. Q. What seems to be the particular difficulty with a charting PC. A. The difficulty was actually putting the line where you wanted it to go. Q. Could that explain the difficulties that you found with the SCRO enlargements that you were presented with back page 144 in 2000? A. Not entirely. Some of the lines appeared to point to areas where there were no features in the vicinity. Q. Are those features you cover in your examination in the 2009 Inquiry? A. I can't remember the specific characteristics involved nine years ago. Q. You concluded that the charted enlargements that were prepared at the time were copies of one another and that they had not been produced independently. Were you aware of the system of preparing enlargements that was in place at SCRO at the time? A. Do you mean the corroboration of evidence? Q. Yes. A. I was aware that evidence in Scotland is given by two fingerprint experts, yes. Q. So when you say that the charted enlargements that you were provided with were not introduced independently that is not necessarily to say the examination that led to those enlargements was not carried out independently? A. No, but my memory, as I recall the events, we had enlargement charts signed by different people which purported to show the same features either differently or different features the same, in other words mistakes were being made apparently across the charts in page 145 different people's names. Q. I will move on for now. You say that when you carried out your examination in 2000 you took a reasonable amount of time over it. You were aware of the seriousness of the work and, in any case, you believe that a fingerprint expert's work should be carried out with the utmost care. Again, can we assume that you took a similar amount of time over the examination that you carried out for the 2009 Inquiry? A. I've tried to be careful at all times, yes. Q. The conclusion that you come to is based on one premise, is it not, which is that the mark Y7 came about as the result of a single touch. Is that correct? A. I believe Y7 to be one impression, yes. Q. Are many of the differences that you have marked in the 2009 enlargement capable of explanation if one accepts the premise that mark Y7 came about as the result of a multiple touch or that there is at least significant distortion within the mark? A. It's certainly possible with significant distortions for features to be moved or their appearance to be changed, but there would normally be indications where this had taken place, what we call a red flag. If you're referring to the possibility of double touch on Y7, I page 146 cannot see any signs there is a double impression on that particular mark. Q. You have made reference to red flags. You have also referred previously in your evidence to the Inquiry to a gentleman by the name of David Ashbaugh. Is he somebody who has done any particular amount of work in this area? A. Yes, David Ashbaugh published a book in 1999 Quantitative-qualitative Friction Ridge Analysis, which is probably the most recent textbook available on fingerprint examination. He expounds the scientific principles on which fingerprint comparison should be based, the ACE-V methodology, for example. He discusses some of the psychological aspects because it is a mental process and is affected by mental or the influences that we may be subjected to, which is why it is very important that all the analysis is done on the unknown mark in order not to be influenced by what we can see more clearly on the known mark and why the comparison should be carried out independently without any influence from other people. Q. I am thinking particularly of the term that you have just used, which is "red flags", and the assessment of the mark to see whether there is a continuous ridge flow or whether the mark is a complex one. page 147 Is that something Mr Ashbaugh has done any particular work on? A. I'm not aware of particular work by David Ashbaugh but I know he uses the term "red flags" in his work. Q. Would it surprise you to learn that Mr Ashbaugh submitted a report in 2000 which indicated that Y7 was the result of a double, if not a triple, tap? A. I hadn't heard that. Q. Can I take it from the phrase that he uses, a double or a triple tap, that is what you would understand to be a double or a triple touch? A. Yes. Q. Would you therefore disagree with Mr Ashbaugh? A. Well, I don't agree that there is more than one impression. Q. Can we take it that where there are individuals in this case who are of the view that this is as the result of more than one touch that you would simply regard their view as incorrect? A. If the suggestion was made there was more than one touch, I would want to see why that decision had been reached and how the impression has been made without leaving any clear signs as it happened. I cannot see them. Q. Can I show you an image of Y7. I think Mr Kent's image, page 148 you have agreed, is quite clear which is TS0006. It is page 2 of that and if we can rotate it so the mark is facing up the way. First of all, the area of that mark that you describe as the "core", could you indicate where that is on Mr Kent's image, please? A. How would you want me to do that? With a circle round it or just an arrow? Q. Whichever way you prefer. A. I will put an arrow. I am drawing a red arrow pointing towards the centre of the pattern the fingerprint comes from. Q. Roughly how many ridges would you say are visible above the core towards the top of the fingertip on that impression? A. I've counted 11 up to the point here, the ridge ending. There look to be at least as many above it. I have not counted above it all the way to the top along that line. Q. Is it common to see that many ridges visible above the core of a chance impression? A. Certainly on a thumb, yes. A thumb has a great number of ridges above the core area. The thumb is a taller finger than the other fingers and there are a large number of the ridges up to the nail. If the finger is rolled upwards, you can have a considerable number of page 149 ridges. Q. Are you able to give any indication on looking at that impression and judging by the number of ridges that are visible above the core of how the mark was deposited? A. Yes, I think I mentioned earlier that I think it was deposited with a slight rolling motion; so there's been a bit more pressure at the top as the finger has been put down and the finger has been pushed slightly, which has closed up the ridges in the middle area. Q. I think you have answered the question already of how you account for the shape of the mark. I am interested particularly in the area which seems to bulge out to the right towards the bottom of the mark. A. I will just draw a red line. Do you mean this bulge here? Q. Yes. Is an alternative explanation for the one that you have given not that that is another impression caused by the same thumb but facing in a different direction from the one that you see facing towards the top of the screen there. A. It's certainly a possible explanation and something I considered when I first saw the mark. Normally, a single mark would have a smooth outline with no steps in the outline. When I saw this bulge on the right-hand side, that was something I immediately thought of. On page 150 closer examination, I could see nothing to indicate there are two separate impressions and when I noticed that the top part lined up with the grain of the wood, I was quite satisfied that the shape was caused by the surface rather than separate touches on the surface. Q. There seems to be a considerable variation in the colour or the shade of the mark. There seems to be a very much darker area towards the centre and a much darker area round the periphery of the mark. Would you agree with that? A. There are different densities of colour of blackness across the impression, yes. Q. How would you account for that? A. Partly as a function of the pressure that's been applied affecting the thickness of the ridges and therefore the apparent density of the mark, partly as a result of background contamination which is showing through the ridges, and, as I said earlier, it may be due to the way in which the sweat was deposited unevenly across the surface of the mark or dirt on the surface or on the finger that attracting the development medium to make a darker area. Q. Is there some distortion in this mark as a result of a variation in pressure that was applied? A. Yes. Every mark is distorted by the very act of putting page 151 it down. This one has been distorted compared with the plain thumb impression on the fingerprint form, but that is quite normal with a mark made by chance in this fashion. Q. How does that affect your approach when you come to do your analysis? A. Well, the first stage is to examine the unknown mark, and in this case Q7(sic), to clarify in my own mind what the information is that I will be able to rely on before I look at the fingerprint form mark. It's taking into account not just the fingerprint but the background on which it is deposited. Ideally, I would have liked more information about the actual position of this mark so I could better envisage the position of the person who made it. That would give me more information about the way in which the finger would have been put down. I didn't have that. I had to make some assumptions but one tries to get as much understanding as one can before you do the comparison. Q. When you come to carry out your examination, however, are you keeping in your mind the fact that there could be some movement of characteristics because of a variation in pressure or because of distortion due to pressure? A. Oh, yes. It is quite normal to find subtle movements page 152 and discrepancies in appearance between the same characteristics on different fingerprints. Q. Is that something that could explain any of the differences that you have marked on your own enlargement of Y7? A. I don't believe that the volume of discrepancies can be explained by movement. Q. Are there individual discrepancies that could be explained by movement? A. It is possible that the appearance of a characteristic might vary on one impression to the other because of the way it has been deposited or the way it's been developed or even recorded. Q. Are you able to identify those discrepancies which, in your view, are not capable of explanation purely because of movement? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Holmes, in the course of his evidence, I understood the witness to say that there were places where you would expect other characteristics to move as well because they were so close, as I understood your evidence. A. Yes, particularly in QI2. THE CHAIRMAN: So you really have expressed your view about the movement of characteristics. If one moves, you expect the other to move which is reasonably adjacent to page 153 it. A. I would expect adjacent characteristics to be affected in the same way and any displacement to be progressively similar across the print. MR HOLMES: Is that something that could take place as a result of any other form of distortion that took place when the mark was deposited? Sorry, that is not a very good question. Can characteristics move individually as a result of movement of the finger when the mark was deposited as opposed to a variation in pressure when the mark was deposited? A. Not any significant degree. The deposition of a mark can change in the pattern if the mark is distorted by the pressure or slight movement but that, again, will be affected -- not just individual characteristics but characteristics across the print will be affected to some degree by that movement or pressure. Q. When you carried out your examination of Y7, both in 2000 and for the purposes of this Inquiry, you mentioned that you took notes. Is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Was it your practice in 1997 always to take notes when you were carrying out an examination? A. Before 1997, when I worked in a Fingerprint Bureau, I page 154 made notes for serious cases and cases where I knew I was going to be asked for evidence. In routine cases, I didn't make full notes although I would annotate photographs of the marks with details of the features I found. Q. Was that the standard practice within your own bureau at the time? A. Yes. Q. Are you aware what the standard practice was within SCRO at the time? A. I'm not. I can't say I was. Q. What is the benefit in experts keeping notes when ultimately a number of experts will have to go and speak to a single illustrative enlargement that may not necessarily reflect the 16 characteristics or the number of characteristics that they discovered during their own examination of the mark? A. I don't believe an expert can speak for anything other than their own opinion about their own examination. Therefore, any notes I made would be for my own use in order to help me recall what I did and explain what I did. I wouldn't expect other people to use my notes. Q. If you were working an assistant who had to go along to court and have reference to an illustrative enlargement, then what you would require to do is take notes when you page 155 carry out your own examination of the mark to start with and thereafter take another set of notes when you carried out your examination to check the 16 that had been marked on the enlargement? A. If I was required to produce an enlargement chart in court, as for the Inquiry today, I would want to produce it myself rather than rely on someone else's. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you moving to another subject? MR HOLMES: Yes, sir. THE CHAIRMAN: It does not look to me as if you are going to be able to finish this afternoon. I had hoped that we could release Mr Grigg but obviously that does not look possible. I think it has been a long-ish day for both the witness and for everyone. I am sorry, Mr Grigg, I am sure it is very inconvenient but I think if you would be good enough to come back tomorrow morning we will try not to detain you too long. I apologise again. We would have liked to complete your evidence today. THE WITNESS: I appreciate that. MR MOYNIHAN: We are going to capture the image that is on the screen. MISS BAHRAMI: FI2909.26. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 10.00 tomorrow. (4.30 pm) (Adjourned until 10.00 am the following morning)