page   1
 1                                      Friday, 23rd October 2009
 2   (Morning session)
 3   (10.08 am)
 4                  MARTIN JOHN LEADBETTER, sworn
 5   THE CHAIRMAN:  Your full names are?
 6   A.  Martin John Leadbetter.
 7   THE CHAIRMAN:  Take a seat, Mr Leadbetter, please.
 8   MR MOYNIHAN:  Good morning, Mr Leadbetter, just before I
 9       start your evidence there is something I should just
10       explain to the Chairman.
11           Sir, Mr Leadbetter has given us this morning some
12       images that, as I understand it, he received from
13       Mr Wertheim and he's given us the original photographs
14       of what he received.
15   THE CHAIRMAN:  This is some time ago, is it?
16   MR MOYNIHAN:  Some time ago, along with some correspondence
17       with Mr Wertheim or from Mr Wertheim.  I confess, sir,
18       that I have not had the time to actually even open the
19       correspondence or look at it myself.  I have distributed
20       it to others in the hall and I think what I was simply
21       going to say to you, sir, that for my part I acknowledge
22       there may be an issue about the time at which this
23       material has arrived, not an issue I was going to raise
24       but it was just as well before I launched into it.
25           I have seen a signal from my learned friend,
page   2
 1       Mr Smith, it does not seem the material causes a
 2       problem.
 3   MR SMITH:  Sir, I can confirm I have just scanned through
 4       it.  It is unfortunate it arrives when it does but we
 5       are where we are with it.  I have read through it and I
 6       do not see any difficulty whatsoever for it to be in
 7       front of the Inquiry.
 8   THE CHAIRMAN:  It is just unfortunate it was not sooner that
 9       we got it but if there is no real issue.
10           Does it affect you, Mr Holmes?
11   MR HOLMES:  No, sir.
12   MR MOYNIHAN:  Sir, I should also say that Miss Grahame and
13       Miss McKenna will be looking blankly at me just now.  We
14       did not have enough copies to distribute to everyone.
15       So we should give them an opportunity.
16   THE CHAIRMAN:  Subject to any views you want to make to us
17       about it.
18   MR MOYNIHAN:  Other copies are on their way.  I do
19       apologise.
20   THE CHAIRMAN:  Then it can be put on the system as soon as
21       possible.
22   MR MOYNIHAN:  Yes, sir.  If reference is made to it in the
23       hall we will simply use the overhead projector for
24       convenience today.  I am grateful.
25           Sorry, Mr Leadbetter, it was just a housekeeping
page   3
 1       matter I had to deal with to begin with.
 2                     Examined by MR MOYNIHAN
 3   Q.  You have provided for the Inquiry a statement,
 4       Mr Leadbetter, and at least for me the reference is
 5       FI0148-02.
 6           You have your own copy with you, I understand?
 7   A.  I do sir, yes.
 8   Q.  Although this is not, as I understand it, signed because
 9       we understand you may have signed the comparative
10       exercise material, you are nonetheless content that this
11       statement is one that is prepared by you and represents
12       a true account as best you can recollect?
13   A.  I am, sir, yes.
14   Q.  As with other witnesses, I have said if on occasion we
15       alight on anything you wish to change, please feel free
16       to do change?
17   A.  Thank you for that, yes.
18   Q.  In addition to that, you have provided the Inquiry with
19       a presentation?
20   A.  I have, yes.
21   Q.  If I could bring it up, it is TS0005.
22           This is a PowerPoint presentation you have yourself
23       prepared?
24   A.  That is correct, yes.
25   Q.  You have, in addition, available in the hall today
page   4
 1       brought with you the original charts that are
 2       photographed and reproduced in the PowerPoint?
 3   A.  I have, sir, yes.
 4   Q.  What I have indicated to you, Mr Leadbetter, is it is
 5       probably just convenient if I allow you to proceed
 6       through your PowerPoint presentation and then I will ask
 7       you my questions at the end.  Just for the avoidance of
 8       any doubt, you have at least a version of my notes of
 9       questions that I was going to ask you?
10   A.  That is correct, yes.
11   Q.  Indeed, others in the hall have a similar note or at
12       least an edition of a similar note so we all know
13       roughly the points.  It may be that as you proceed
14       through your presentation you might deal with some of my
15       points, maybe not.
16   A.  Right.
17   Q.  If I let you then simply proceed at your own pace
18       through your presentation.
19   A.  Thank you very much.
20           With your permission, sir, if I could just explain
21       my involvement in this case and how I came to be
22       involved.  The correspondence that I have produced this
23       morning, I apologise for the lateness.  I only came
24       across it myself two weekends ago when I was having a
25       final search through everything I had to see if there
page   5
 1       was anything that might be of extra value to the
 2       Inquiry.  My first involvement with this was a phone
 3       call from Mr Pat Wertheim.  It was about 7.00 one
 4       morning in 1999.  It would have been towards the end of
 5       May.  I don't know the exact date.  As I was leaving for
 6       work the phone rang about 7.00 and it was Mr Wertheim in
 7       America.  I had heard of him.  I didn't know him
 8       personally.  He explained that he was hired to look at
 9       the marks in the McKie case.
10           I obviously knew of the McKie case.  As far as I'm
11       aware at that stage I had never seen any marks or
12       prints.  He was saying how the marks are obviously not
13       Shirley McKie's and his American colleagues had come to
14       the same conclusion and would I be prepared to look at
15       them and confirm that.  So I said, "Well, I'm happy to
16       look at them and, please, send them to me".  So he did
17       do that and I think they arrived ... I think the letter
18       was 4th June 1999 in which he states that himself, David
19       Grieve, David Ashbaugh, had reviewed the case and
20       "... we all three determine the identification to be
21       erroneous", and then various other aspects there.
22           Also, "I realise this is a situation of the utmost
23       gravity and the implications for the practice of
24       fingerprint identification in Scotland and the UK are
25       serious.  I believe it would be in the best interests of
page   6
 1       all fingerprint examiners in the UK and, indeed,
 2       worldwide for the Fingerprint Society, as the preeminent
 3       organisation of fingerprint specialists in the UK, to
 4       review on case and remove any lingering suspicion of
 5       doubt by addressing the matter in an appropriate
 6       fashion."
 7   THE CHAIRMAN:  You at that time held some office, did you,
 8       in the Fingerprint Society or --
 9   A.  I have been in the past Secretary and I'm currently the
10       Chairman.  To be honest, I can't remember what my role
11       was in 1999 but I was certainly a member.
12   THE CHAIRMAN:  I was just wondering why Mr Wertheim picked
13       on you.
14   A.  Well, I was at one time a member of the Board of
15       Directors of IAI and I'm a distinguished member of the
16       IAI so that could be the reason why he approached me.
17       At that time there weren't that many members of IAI in
18       Great Britain.  Indeed, there aren't that many now but
19       there are certainly more now than there was then.  I
20       suppose he knew my name, if I can put it that way.
21   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.
22   A.  I found that rather incongruous but what he said at the
23       Fingerprint Society conference the same year in Glasgow
24       which was reported from the Justice 1 Committee.  I
25       forget when that was ... 2007?
page   7
 1           He says:
 2           "The week before I was in Glasgow, I was in
 3       Liverpool at the Fingerprint Society lectures.  Mr Swann
 4       approached me and commented that he had heard that I was
 5       to be looking at the McKie case which I acknowledged.  I
 6       said, 'Yeah, I'm going to be looking at next week when I
 7       go to Scotland'.  He then said to me, 'I have looked at
 8       the print.  It is clearly not a forgery and it is
 9       definitely Shirley McKie's print.  There can be no doubt
10       of that'."
11           He then goes on to say:
12           "I remember the emphasis that he put on that because
13       it struck me as highly unusual that an independent
14       expert would approach another independent expert before
15       that expert had even begun his examination to tell him
16       the conclusions that he had reached."
17           Well, frankly, Mr Wertheim had done exactly the same
18       to me when he called me.  So I do find that a bit
19       strange.
20           The next correspondence I received from Mr Wertheim
21       was in 2002 when he sent me details of the petition that
22       had been devised.  It had been composed by a team of
23       Mr Arie Zeelenberg, Allan Bayle, Iain McKie and Mike
24       Russell, Shirley McKie's MP.
25   MR SMITH:  Excuse me, Mr Leadbetter, I am sorry to
page   8
 1       interrupt.  I think it would help if this correspondence
 2       was made available on the overhead projector.  I
 3       personally don't have copies any more -- I have
 4       surrendered them to Miss Grahame -- and I am finding it
 5       difficult to follow.
 6   THE CHAIRMAN:  The petition is a document that we are
 7       familiar with.
 8   MR SMITH:  That may be so, sir, but I am conscious that what
 9       the witness is doing is reading from a bundle of
10       correspondence and it would help to actually have it put
11       up so that we can read it at our own leisure.
12   A.  If it would help you, sir, I --
13   MR MOYNIHAN:  I am still trying to get up to speed myself.
14       What I am told, sir, is that there are some personal
15       details buried in some of this that we would wish to be
16       careful about.  An excerpted copy is coming now shortly.
17       What I can do, Mr Smith, is pass round my copy to you so
18       that at least you can actually see it for yourself and I
19       think -- I will try to listen out because there are some
20       obvious things that I don't think you would wish to be
21       put up the screen without due consideration.
22   A.  To help the Inquiry, sir, I have no need to read any
23       more from this.  I was just highlighting the fact that
24       that was the correspondence I received from Mr Wertheim
25       first in 1999, secondly in 2002 and that really is how I
page   9
 1       became involved in this.  First, as you will know, I've
 2       never been officially involved.  I've had an interest in
 3       it from the academic point of view and via contact with
 4       Mr Swann but my first real involvement was after
 5       Mr Wertheim requested my intervention.  I needed to make
 6       that point, really.
 7           If I can now go on to my charts -- is that okay?
 8   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, certainly.
 9   A.  I'm referring to chart 1.  I have actually several
10       charts here which show that serious dissimilarities or
11       abnormalities can occur in fingerprint identification
12       where in fact the two prints are quite the same yet the
13       differences look great.
14           Now, Mr Wertheim actually first noticed this one and
15       both prints are the same.  I am not aware of the reason
16       why there is such distortion but it's obvious to even a
17       lay person that one is considerably larger than the
18       other and this does lead to confusion and an instant or
19       a quick glance at this could make one believe that they
20       are not the same.  Further examination will show that
21       via comparison of the ridge detail features they are
22       quite the same, despite looking completely different.
23           Mr Wertheim says and I quote:
24           "Regardless of the number of points found in
25       agreement, a single dissimilarity point is accepted to
page  10
 1       prove exclusion.  If both the mark and the inked print
 2       were made by the same finger there cannot even be a
 3       single point present in one print but absent from the
 4       other."
 5           That was quoted by Mr Pat Wertheim in Fingerprint
 6       Whorld in 2007.  Quite a ridiculous statement to be
 7       quite honest and it is something I understand that
 8       Mr Arie Zeelenberg has also stated on oath in this
 9       Inquiry.
10           There are numerous occasions when you will be faced
11       with fingerprint comparisons where there are
12       dissimilarities, even junior experts of a few months
13       will be coming familiar with such situations and it is
14       the job of the fingerprint expert or the fingerprint
15       examiner, as I prefer to be called, to sort out those
16       differences and come to a satisfactory explanation for
17       them.
18           Regrettably, there will be occasions when there are
19       dissimilarities which are just inexplicable and that is
20       a fact of life in fingerprint identification.
21           He goes on to say:
22           "As most experienced latent print examiners will
23       recognise the comparison process does not cease at the
24       first instant the expert reaches a conclusion.  In
25       practice, the comparison always continues past this
page  11
 1       point."
 2           That is of course correct and for Mr Wertheim to
 3       have come to a conclusion in less than a minute either
 4       way, on the McKie mark in particular, is quite
 5       impossible, in my opinion.  Even to exclude it is
 6       impossible.  The mark is a complex mark, one of the most
 7       complex I've come across in my 43 years and it took me
 8       several months or even weeks to look at it and get to
 9       the conclusion that I finally reached.
10           He says:
11           "I knew within a minute of looking at this mark it
12       could not have been made by Shirley McKie."
13           If we could now look at chart 2, there is another
14       example here of considerable dissimilarity.  Again, why
15       it has been caused like that is not to be explained
16       exactly but one assumes from one's experience and
17       knowledge of examination of fingerprints that it has
18       been produced by movement.  If you look at the
19       fingerprint on the right, it is a loop to the left and
20       yet the one on the left-hand side -- not quite so clear
21       there really until it has been enlarged -- it actually
22       has the appearance of being a whorl going in completely
23       the exact opposite direction.  Under Mr Wertheim's and
24       Mr Zeelenberg's premise this would be excluded and not
25       be identified.
page  12
 1           Coming on to chart 3 where I have another example,
 2       we have at the top two ten-print images captured
 3       via Live-Scan technology which is a new inkless form of
 4       capture.  Again, even the untrained eye will see that
 5       the core, the centre here on this one looks like a
 6       double S, one inside the other; yet on this one here
 7       it's a complete circle.
 8           Again, an experienced officer would look at this and
 9       realise there's an issue but a quick glance could easily
10       discard this as being not identical.  Again, why it has
11       happened is very difficult to explain, especially as
12       it's electronic capture, but it does show that serious
13       dissimilarities can occur in two prints which are
14       identical.
15           Moving on to the one at the bottom, the pair at the
16       bottom, this is a rather interesting example which was
17       sent to me by a friend in the United States some years
18       ago.  The initial impression is of course they do look
19       quite different, one being quite a wide whorl formation
20       on the right and one on the left being a more narrow
21       one.  It can be seen that there is distortion on the
22       right-hand side.
23           What happened here was that the mark on the right
24       was from a murder scene and the person in the
25       Fingerprint Bureau in I think it was Virginia was asked
page  13
 1       to compare the suspect's print on the left and he said
 2       it was not identical.  Subsequently, the man left the
 3       office and my colleague then took over and he decided to
 4       look at old cases, got this one out and to his horror
 5       realised that it was identical and the previous man had
 6       missed it.  This shows you how making a quick glance at
 7       something can completely put you off the target.
 8           There are several major dissimilarities here which
 9       needed to be ironed out before you can actually get to
10       the stage of deciding it's identical.  I should go back
11       to that one if you don't mind.  I believe there's an
12       issue which Mr Moynihan is going to raise with one of my
13       charts later concerning the number of ridge counts
14       between two certain points.  On this one as a result of
15       Mr Moynihan raising that issue I have done a ridge count
16       from the delta to the core and I make it either 13 or 14
17       counts.  On this one from the delta to the core is 17 or
18       18 so it does show a ridge difference of four counts.
19           Chart 5 I will just refer to very briefly.  The one
20       at the top shows obvious differences and it shows injury
21       but the point is where part of a finger has been grafted
22       on to another to form a new print you will have a single
23       impression and if you only get one part of it and it
24       shows that side it obviously will not marry up with the
25       other side of the print which the graft has come from.
page  14
 1           Finally -- this is the penultimate one actually, the
 2       one at the bottom shows how movement can cause the
 3       pattern to totally change.  On the left-hand side it
 4       looks like we have a whorl and on the right-hand side we
 5       have what is known as a nutant loop which looks totally
 6       different.  So, again, unless you are careful in your
 7       scrutiny and take time you could decide that something
 8       is not identical.
 9           This is the final one I wish to use.  This is a
10       strange one which occurred in a burglary in
11       Hertfordshire where two fingerprints miraculously merged
12       into making one print.  So what we have here is the
13       print on the right is that half, that half of it, and on
14       the left we have the left-hand side of this.
15       Miraculously, they have gone down together and the ridge
16       flow is continuous throughout so unless you knew you
17       would not be able to determine that.  The point is you
18       would make an identification on this part of the print
19       with this part of the print and then you would find the
20       points on this side were not identical with that.
21       Similarly, on this side, you would be able to make
22       identifications on that side but with this side you
23       would be well out.  So you could discount it.
24           With the Inquiry's indulgence, I have brought those
25       to your notice to show that fingerprint identification
page  15
 1       is not straightforward and always as simple as it looks.
 2       What you're faced with is not necessarily what you have
 3       got.  When I was on my initial course at New Scotland
 4       Yard we were always told never take anything for granted
 5       in the study of fingerprints, which is something I've
 6       always borne in mind and held close to my heart.
 7   THE CHAIRMAN:  Is there a distinction between shapes that
 8       are different and points of difference?
 9   A.  I'm not -- could you explain --
10   THE CHAIRMAN:  Actual points.  I am thinking of, for
11       example, bifurcations that are different or ridges that
12       are different.
13   A.  Well, basically, there are only two characteristics
14       really.  There are bifurcations, ie, as you are fully
15       aware, a ridge that splits or one that ends and you may
16       have lakes or small independent ridges but they are two
17       ridge endings or two forks.
18           But the thing is ridge features are not that static;
19       they are not stable.  Sometimes they will appear as a
20       bifurcation; sometimes they will appear as a ridge
21       ending.  This can be due to a numerous amount of
22       factors, such as the amount of pressure that is used,
23       the amount of ink, whether the fingerprint is in say a
24       substrate system such as blood or oil or grease or
25       butter, the type of surface it's on, how the item is
page  16
 1       held can lead to a feature becoming either a bifurcation
 2       or a ridge ending.
 3           Now, that doesn't matter.  It does not matter
 4       whether a feature is really a bifurcation or a ridge
 5       ending.  What is important is that, at that particular
 6       point in the ridge flow, the friction ridge structure,
 7       there is an event.  That event may be on one print a
 8       bifurcation on the matching Scenes of Crime mark it
 9       might be a ridge ending.
10   THE CHAIRMAN:  The point I was trying to make was if there
11       is a feature, a difference in feature, not the fact that
12       there is a feature, there is a difference.  You see,
13       what I got the impression -- and I want to make sure I
14       haven't got it wrong -- is that the examples you were
15       showing us is where the appearance, if that's the way to
16       put it, is different.
17   A.  Yes.
18   THE CHAIRMAN:  But Mr Wertheim, I noticed he talked about
19       points of difference.
20   A.  Yes.
21   THE CHAIRMAN:  Which could be interpreted as meaning
22       differences in features.
23   A.  Yes.  Well, indeed, for example, in my last chart here,
24       you would find if you had that rolled impression and you
25       were comparing against this single print as it appears
page  17
 1       to be from a crime scene, you would find that none of
 2       the features on this side could be matched to that side
 3       because this side is from that finger.  If that helps to
 4       answer your question, sir ...
 5   THE CHAIRMAN:  I think I see your point.
 6   A.  It's a bit complicated.
 7   THE CHAIRMAN:  What you are sating, thank you.
 8   MR MOYNIHAN:  Sir, if I may just interrupt, just for the
 9       transcript you were saying, first of all, you were
10       looking at chart 6 just now and it is simply when you
11       were pointing at things you say, "This side can't be
12       matched with that side because it's due to the other",
13       and when we are looking at this some time later it
14       will quite difficult to follow so if you could just work
15       back and tell us just which image you are looking at,
16       right, left.
17   A.  Just on the last one?
18   Q.  Just on this last one it would help for clarity.
19   A.  I apologise for that.
20   Q.  Don't apologise.
21   A.  Right in this last chart, 6, we have a very unusual
22       situation in that we have, for all appearances, a single
23       crime scene mark.
24   Q.  That is in the centre?
25   A.  That is in the centre.  To the left of it we have an
page  18
 1       inked impression which shows a left loop.  To the right
 2       of the centre impression we also have an impression
 3       which shows a right inked loop.
 4           What has happened is that the two fingers, the
 5       finger on the left of the chart and the finger on the
 6       right of the chart, have miraculously by some fluke of
 7       nature merged into one fingerprint at the crime scene,
 8       which is the one in the centre, and without knowing this
 9       has happened the Fingerprint Examiner is presented with
10       a single image which shows a continuous flow of ridges
11       throughout and would not indicate anything being wrong
12       with it.
13           Now, once the fingerprint has been identified, it
14       can be seen that in the middle there is a dark line and
15       that is almost certainly where the two prints merged but
16       until you have actually completed your comparison you
17       would not be aware of that.
18           Does that cover the issue?
19   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, I think it was pointing out, just so we
20       saw exactly where you were referring to and certainly it
21       is clear to me now, thank you.
22   A.  Thank you, sir.
23           Next, I would like to deal with 16 points.  There's
24       been a misconception really over the years by many
25       persons, mainly outside of the UK, that we operated a
page  19
 1       16-point system or standard and that that was totally
 2       inflexible and that no fingerprints with less than
 3       16 points ever went to court or were made identified:
 4       totally untrue.
 5           We had the 16 points from certainly 1953 until 2001
 6       and it served us well but there was a feeling certainly
 7       within the higher ACPO ranks that perhaps we were losing
 8       identifications because of operating such a high
 9       standard.  I think that was the reason behind us having
10       to review it.
11           In 1997, ACPO constituted a Fingerprint Evidential
12       Standard Project Board chaired by then Chief Constable
13       Mr Ben Gunn.  I was a member of this Project Board for
14       the whole duration, six years, and we were tasked with
15       two things really: to look at the 16-point standard, was
16       there a need for it; and, secondly, if we decided there
17       was no need for it, to suggest what should replace it.
18           In the event, we decided that there was no legal,
19       moral, scientific or even practical reason for having
20       16 points and our conclusions were that the 16-point
21       standard should be abolished.  It took place on
22       June 11th 2001, if my memory serves me well.
23           Our replacement standard was to have a non-numerical
24       standard which meant from thereafter fingerprints would
25       go to court based on no specific number of points being
page  20
 1       matched between the scenes of crime mark and the
 2       fingerprint, but the same stringent checking operations
 3       would stay in place; namely, that each identification is
 4       checked by at least three officers.  The first one can
 5       be a non-qualified officer or a non-expert, then the
 6       second two must be experts and qualified.  That
 7       situation is still in place.
 8           To my knowledge, fingerprint evidence has now gone
 9       to court since 2001 on that basis with no problems ever
10       arising that I am aware of.  I'm sure they would have
11       been published quite well if there had been a situation.
12       But outside of the UK there was this impression and I
13       think Mr Zeelenberg seems to think that was the
14       impression when he undertook the Evett Williams test
15       that we stringently and strictly stuck to the 16-point
16       system.  We did not.  There were occasions when the only
17       evidence was fingerprint evidence and the police would
18       then request that the Fingerprint Officer go to court
19       and I think it is done via subpoena, would it be, sir?
20   THE CHAIRMAN:  I think it is England, Wales and Northern
21       Ireland, when you say "we".
22   A.  Yes, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
23           There are numerous cases each year that went to
24       court on less than 16 points and also we never looked
25       for 16 points if we were doing elimination.  We would
page  21
 1       check whatever number of points we thought was suitable,
 2       provided we were satisfied it was identified and,
 3       likewise, with cadavers or dead bodies if we had to
 4       identify a dead body we really had to make use of what
 5       we had.
 6           So the 16-point standard was not as strict as they
 7       seemed to think and there was another situation whereby
 8       if you had two scenes of crime marks from the same crime
 9       and neither disclosed 16 points, provided you could get
10       at least 10 in each of those you could take the two to
11       court as satisfactory evidence.  So the 16-point
12       standard, first of all, was not written in stone as one
13       might say these days.
14           In fact, one of my ... excuse me one moment.  Yes,
15       chart 10 here, sir, is an example of a case I took to
16       court myself in Cambridgeshire at Cambridge Crown Court
17       and there were only eight features identifiable.  This
18       was also the only evidence in the case.  There was no
19       other evidence in the case other than the fact that the
20       drugs were found upon the person.  The case was
21       presented before Cambridge Crown Court way before the
22       16 points was abolished and at the time the judge
23       cleared the jury and asked the defence if they had a
24       problem in this evidence being presented.  He raised no
25       objections and I was not even questioned on it and it
page  22
 1       was accepted.  So just one example of how the 16 points
 2       was not as rigid as we are led to believe.
 3           With your permission, sir, I'd now like to go on to
 4       the Evett Williams case.
 5   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, please do.
 6   A.  The Evett Williams survey was prompted by the thought
 7       that there was no need for the 16-point standard.  As a
 8       result, Dr Evett Williams, who was then at the Home
 9       Office, sent out ten sets of pairs of fingerprints and
10       crime scene marks to all UK fingerprint bureaux.  I
11       think they were to Scotland, England, Northern Ireland
12       and Wales and also, I believe, to Canada, certainly the
13       FBI, to Holland and to Germany.  In all, I believe, I'm
14       not absolutely certain, but the number of experts taking
15       part I think was 141 or 147.
16           The sole object of the exercise really was two
17       things: first of all, to see whether the experts or the
18       examiners looking at the pairs all came to the same
19       conclusion, ie there should have been nine identical
20       pairs and one not identical pair.  The second object was
21       not, as Mr Zeelenberg says in his report, to see how
22       experts marked the points but to see how many points
23       they marked and that's what we were asked to do.  I took
24       part in it myself, as did Mr Berry, and we returned ours
25       to the Home Office.
page  23
 1           The outcome was that every expert in the country in
 2       the UK that looked at these got the correct answer.
 3       There were nine identical and one not identical.  There
 4       was a big difference between the number of individual
 5       features or characteristics that officers marked.  This
 6       came as no surprise to most of us because there is
 7       always a subjectivity aspect to fingerprints.  Some
 8       people may like a certain feature others may not wish to
 9       use it.  I think we've heard Mr Swann say in his own
10       evidence that, "They were features I didn't choose to
11       use".  So some people would look for just a nice few
12       clear ones, others would examine it in more depth and
13       find far more.  So there was a great difference, as much
14       as I think in some cases 25 difference.  Quite a lot.
15           What is worrying for me really is that all of these
16       pairs of prints are so easy to compare and there is no
17       difficulty with them.  You know, frankly, I'm quite
18       appalled that Mr Zeelenberg could only make, I think,
19       one or two identifications.  This is quite
20       outstandingly -- well, it's surprising really because
21       they are so easy.
22           If we can go through them --
23   THE CHAIRMAN:  It is right to say that he has, as you will
24       have seen from the transcript, he has discussed this in
25       his evidence.
page  24
 1   A.  I have that here, sir.
 2           He's talking about caution under the Dutch system,
 3       which I believe they look for 12 points in an average or
 4       poorer mark and only ten points on really clear ones but
 5       these have all got so many points, the minimum one here
 6       is one with 10, some of them have got plus 30 and I just
 7       am appalled the fact that they can't -- you know, he
 8       says they are operating caution but I have to say I
 9       think it's lack of competence and even verging on
10       irresponsibility not to have made these identical.
11           On chart 7 if we look at pair A, Mr Zeelenberg says
12       that he feels there is I think the potential for an
13       ident and potential for multiple procedure, which I
14       don't know what that means.  There are 20 to 25 clear
15       matching features.  I cannot understand how he can come
16       to that conclusion.
17           On mark B he has rejected because he cannot find one
18       feature out here.  Now to me when there are 22 to 23
19       matching features to find one that is not there does not
20       detract from the efficacy of that identification.  It is
21       on the edge where it can be seen that there is a
22       wetness.  I believe this mark was probably made in a wet
23       substance anyway so you often will get a false
24       aberration but to reject something with 22 to 23
25       matching features is just quite ridiculous really.
page  25
 1           I won't waste the court's time going through all of
 2       them but they are all of the same quality.  There are no
 3       problematical prints there whatsoever and I would expect
 4       any junior Fingerprint Officer to have come through
 5       those with flying colours.
 6           My point, I suppose, if I have to be blunt, is if he
 7       can't cope with identifying these, he has got no chance
 8       on earth of actually coming to the right conclusion on
 9       the McKie mark.  That is my conclusion.  Likewise, with
10       QI2 because these are complex marks which take a great
11       deal of experience and time to analyse and get right.
12       These are simple.
13   MR MOYNIHAN:  Mr Leadbetter, sorry, to interrupt you we will
14       come back I think later, as you know, to mark B in Evett
15       Williams.  If we can go to it again just now to record
16       in the transcript and the image the areas you were
17       pointing to a few moments ago.
18           If you bring up mark B and if you can just assist us
19       and Miss Allen's on the autopilot just now so she will
20       be able to mark the area.  If she goes on the left-hand
21       image and you will see she is moving a pen around so the
22       area that you are referring to that Mr Zeelenberg had
23       observed a difference, can you guide her.
24   A.  She is more or less on that point.  I am remembering
25       this from what I saw from Mr Zeelenberg, sir.
page  26
 1   Q.  If you give me just a second I simply want, for the
 2       purposes of the transcript, as you will appreciate, when
 3       we look back and we read you as saying "over there",
 4       unless I record it we will have lost what you were
 5       referring to.  So is the blue arrow, again, because we
 6       will come back to this later --
 7   A.  It needs to go up about quarter of an inch or an eighth
 8       of an inch on the same ridge.  Come down a fraction,
 9       just a wee fraction across to the right and you're
10       there.  Lovely.  Spot on.
11   Q.  What we will do is save that image as 01 for today,
12       please.
13   A.  May I continue?
14   Q.  We just need to get that reference into the transcript
15       and then you can continue.
16   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2310.01.
17   MR MOYNIHAN:  Thank you, Mr Leadbetter.  You can continue.
18   A.  Okay.
19           Well, Mr Zeelenberg is quite right that that feature
20       is not there but I think clearly it's an aberration
21       which is on the edge and I believe this mark looks like
22       it is in a wet substance.  Clearly it's not there but
23       when you have 22 to 23 other clear matching features
24       it's overwhelmingly obvious that the mark is identical
25       and to reject it on one feature like that is
page  27
 1       irresponsible, frankly.
 2           If I may go on to chart 8 which is still Evett
 3       Williams, we have on this one four pairs of images.
 4       Again, the top left pair are a loop clearly disclosing
 5       12 to 16 clear features.
 6           The difficulty here which I think Mr Zeelenberg
 7       refers to is the background.  It's obviously
 8       superimposed upon another, what looks like another ridge
 9       structure.
10   Q.  Again, are you referring to something on the left?
11   A.  The scenes of crime mark on the left appears to be
12       superimposed over another piece of ridge structure,
13       which looks probably like a bit of palm, and I believe
14       his problem here with this one, if I can check -- yes,
15       he was dismissed because of bad areas.  Well, I feel he
16       can only be referring to seeing a background on it but
17       clearly there are 12 to 16 points and would present even
18       a junior expert again with absolutely no issues of
19       identity.
20           Going to the pair of images on the top right, pair
21       F, we were in agreement.  It was an identification.
22           Going to bottom left, the third pair, which are set
23       G, we identified as not fit for comparison.  I have
24       clearly marked 11 points there which would present no
25       issue to anybody, normally.
page  28
 1           Finally, on bottom right, the last pair there, which
 2       are set H, we would discuss 11 points, no ident.  Which
 3       is something of an anomaly because in Holland they say
 4       12 points for a good image and ten points for a bad one.
 5       Well, frankly, they don't come a lot clearer than this
 6       so I don't know why that would have been rejected.  It
 7       met their own standard.
 8           Chart 9 I'm referring to, two pairs of images
 9       side-by-side, one on top of the other.  The top pair,
10       which is set I, Mr Zeelenberg says 14 points discussed,
11       potential identification.  Again, it's a really clear
12       mark disclosing 12 to 15 clear minutiae.  So I cannot
13       understand why he has a problem with that.
14           The last one, set J, was the one that was not
15       identical and everybody who took part in that exercise
16       agreed that that was not identical.  It was contrived to
17       try and make it look like it was an ident to try and
18       catch people out but no-one fell for that.
19           So really I suppose in concluding on that particular
20       aspect my thoughts are that, you know, it was a fair
21       exercise, certainly not difficult and even by standards
22       of a junior officer it presented no problems.  I just
23       cannot understand why the Dutch and indeed the Germans
24       did so bad on it and I'm quite appalled really at the
25       rate of -- and standard of their competency.  I can't
page  29
 1       say much more really on that.
 2           Really now I come on to my charts, if that's okay.
 3       The first chart is chart 11.  As I said at the opening,
 4       I have not been involved officially in the McKie case
 5       and I've only looked at Y7.  I have not done any work on
 6       QI2 other than was asked of me in the comparative
 7       exercise.  Although I have seen some photographs I never
 8       did any work on it.
 9           The issue with Y7 is one of problems with it in as
10       such as I believe -- and this is my opinion -- it
11       suffers from three issues: from pressure, compression of
12       the ridges in this area, although they can be seen
13       clearly; I believe there is some movement here --
14   Q.  Sorry, Mr Leadbetter, again if you could just bear with
15       me a second.  First of all, if we could do the usual and
16       bring up two copies, please, of the same TS0005.028 and
17       on the left if we enlarge Y7 and on the right enlarge
18       the mark of Ms McKie.
19           On the one on the right, if you just double-click
20       again and if we could just make sure the margin will
21       allow us to capture -- sorry, point number 1 on the left
22       hand margin ... just so that we can capture the numbers.
23       Thank you.
24           What this enables us to do is to enlarge and mark
25       separately various areas.
page  30
 1           What would help me, Mr Leadbetter, is when you are
 2       referring to various areas if you can simply use your
 3       numbers to orientate us.  So if you are in the area of,
 4       for example, point number 1 on the left image, if you
 5       simply tell us you are in the area of point number 1 on
 6       the left and then we will be able to follow this in the
 7       transcript later.  Sorry about this.
 8   A.  That's fine, no problem.
 9           You will see here that I have decided to mark 14
10       matching features or features in agreement.  I have
11       produced another chart where I have shown in detail the
12       two areas where there are, I believe, in each case eight
13       features in agreement and a further chart which I would
14       like to talk about more in-depth where I've produced 22
15       matching Third Level Detail features and I will explain
16       a bit more about Third Level Detail before we get to
17       that chart.
18           Looking at this chart, as I say, I've matched 14
19       features and on the right-hand side I have produced a
20       chart which describes the feature and the number of
21       intervening ridges between that and the next feature.
22           If we start at number 1, we are looking at a
23       bifurcation.
24   Q.  What you are doing is starting at number 1 on -- you
25       yourself are pointing to number 1 on the left-hand,
page  31
 1       that's number 1 in Y7?
 2   A.  Which is indeed the Rosetta characteristic.
 3   Q.  All I am doing is being pedantic.  Are you going to
 4       proceed round the numbers in Y7 first?
 5   A.  If you think it would help.
 6   Q.  Do it in the order you wish.  It is simply when we are
 7       recording in the transcript it would help me to know
 8       which one you are referring to.
 9   A.  I am conscious of time as well.  If there's no need for
10       me to actually go through each single feature --
11   Q.  I am not trying to stop you.  It is simply that when you
12       said you were referring to point number 1, I had to look
13       across to see which point number 1 you were looking at,
14       ie Y7.  All I was meaning was for the transcript, if you
15       can just be mechanical, any time you are referring to
16       something if you could say number 1 on the left image or
17       number 1 on the right, et cetera.
18   A.  Thank you.  I'll try to remember.
19           Looking at point number 1, which is the Rosetta
20       characteristic feature which I have marked as a
21       bifurcation on Y7, the left-hand image, that corresponds
22       with the Rosetta feature marked as a bifurcation on the
23       right-hand image, which is the Shirley McKie print.
24           Following on from the left of feature 1 on Y7, we go
25       to the left and miss one ridge and on the next ridge
page  32
 1       above is a bifurcation.  Similarly, on the McKie print
 2       we can find the same thing: miss one ridge and then we
 3       have a bifurcation.
 4   Q.  Again, Mr Leadbetter, are you pointing to the feature
 5       that you have numbered 9?
 6   A.  No, number 2.  I'm going round in a logical sequence.
 7       I'll go chronologically.
 8   Q.  Sorry, I interrupted you.
 9   A.  No, that's fine.
10           Back to Y7.  From the bifurcation marked number 2 we
11       miss three ridges then, 1, 2, 3, and we find a small
12       bifurcation which is in the area of compression.  It's a
13       small ridge and that's a bifurcation.  Likewise, if you
14       count three on this side, 1, 2, 3, we find the same
15       bifurcation on the print of Shirley McKie?
16   Q.  Again, that is point number 3?
17   A.  Point number 3.
18           To arrive at point number 4 we simply follow along
19       that short ridge with no ridges intervening on Y7 and we
20       come to point 4 which is a ridge ending.  Likewise, on
21       the Shirley McKie mark we follow along that short ridge
22       and come to a ridge ending, with no intervening ridges.
23           From point 4, we have a small gap in the ridge
24       structure and then we are confronted with a ridge ending
25       coming to the right, which is point 5 on Y7, similarly
page  33
 1       found in the same position on the Shirley McKie mark.
 2           From point 5 on Y7 we travel along the ridge and
 3       then just drop on to the next ridge shortly below and we
 4       find a ridge ending which I have marked 6.  Similarly,
 5       found on the Shirley McKie mark in this position here
 6       (indicated).
 7           From point 6 on Y7 we then have to count three
 8       ridges intervening, 1, 2, 3, and then we arrive at
 9       point 7, which is a bifurcation.  Similarly, on the
10       McKie mark, 1, 2, 3 ridges: bifurcation.
11           From point 7 to point 8, there are no intervening
12       ridges and then from point 8 we count three ridges, 1,
13       2, 3, and we arrive at point 9 which is the dot famously
14       associated with the Rosetta characteristic.  Likewise,
15       seen here (indicated) on the McKie print.
16           From point 9 we count two clear ridges, 1, 2.
17       Point 9, 1, 2, and we come to point 10 which is a ridge
18       ending going down.
19           From point 10 we have no intervening ridges and we
20       find point 11 at the end of the same ridge.  It gets a
21       bit less clear there I have to say but I can see it
22       clearly.
23           From point 11 on Y7 we miss one ridge and come to a
24       ridge ending at point -- sorry, where was I going from
25       11?  I've lost track.  Yes, from point 11, which is a
page  34
 1       ridge ending down, we miss one ridge and we come to
 2       point 12 which is also a ridge ending.
 3           From point 12 to point 13 we have 3 intervening
 4       ridges, 1, 2, 3 and then we have a lake which is,
 5       basically, two small bifurcations which is marked with a
 6       double marker.
 7           Finally, we miss one ridge and come to point 14
 8       which is a ridge ending.  I have put some guidance notes
 9       down below.  I don't know if it would be of help if I
10       read those out.
11   Q.  Yes, please.
12   A.  "Guidance notes to the analysis.  This is an extremely
13       complex Scenes of Crime mark requiring careful and
14       painstaking analysis.  In my opinion, the mark is
15       affected in three ways: (a) distortion caused by
16       slippage or movement when it was deposited; (b)
17       excessive pressure, causing some of the ridges to
18       compress; and (c) it is approximately 60 to 70 degrees
19       out of normal orientation.  Any of these three problems
20       could lead an examiner to come to a wrong conclusion if
21       dealt with in haste.  The most serious of the three
22       problems is that of bad orientation and unless the
23       examiner orientates the left thumb impression of Shirley
24       McKie to approximately 60 to 70 degrees out of
25       perpendicular it is almost impossible to effect a match
page  35
 1       between the two images."
 2           What I mean by "match" is not identify it in
 3       characteristics but to match them so they are in the
 4       same plane for comparison purposes.
 5           Should I move on to my next chart?
 6   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.
 7   A.  This chart is a little more complicated, sir.  I thought
 8       it would possibly aid the Inquiry if I was to --
 9   MR MOYNIHAN:  Sorry, if you allow me just a second, please,
10       before we lose anything from the screen, could I save,
11       please, this pair because we will come back to these
12       from time to time.
13   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's save as FI2310.02.
14   MR MOYNIHAN:  If we can now move on again and tell me which
15       chart it is that you are moving to.  Chart 12?
16   A.  Chart 12, yes.
17   Q.  If you allow me a second, what we will do is have chart
18       12 brought up on the screen.
19   A.  Chart 12.  Perhaps I could read the guidance for
20       analysis first on this one.
21   Q.  Yes.  That is the bottom left-hand?
22   A.  That is the bottom left-hand tablet, yes.  This again I
23       have said is an extremely complex scene of crime mark
24       requiring careful -- actually I think I've repeated the
25       same thing so there's no need to put that again.
page  36
 1           What I've done is taken approximately the same area
 2       of the Y7 mark and produced two pairs of enlargements
 3       showing certain features that I've marked.
 4           On the left-hand pair, first, I've produced eight
 5       features.  Starting at feature 1 on Y7 I've marked the
 6       dot associated with the Rosetta characteristic.
 7           I have then moved across with no ridges intervening
 8       to the Rosetta characteristic, which here I've marked as
 9       a ridge ending.  I marked it as a bifurcation in the
10       previous image and I did this purposely to show that
11       features can be unstable and can appear to be different.
12           From that ridge ending clearly we go along the
13       ridge.  Without any intervening ridges we come to a
14       bifurcation, a very small bifurcation.  From there we go
15       along to the left, again with no ridges intervening and
16       we come to a bifurcation.  Moving back to the right, we
17       again have no ridges intervening and we come to another
18       bifurcation.
19   Q.  Mr Leadbetter, it has been drawn to my attention you are
20       not giving the numbers of the particular points again.
21       It would assist.
22   A.  I do apologise.
23   Q.  It is just to be mechanical about it.
24   A.  Would you like me to start again?
25   Q.  Yes, perhaps it would assist.
page  37
 1   A.  I am sorry about that, sir.
 2   THE CHAIRMAN:  That is all right.
 3   A.  Chart 12, top pair of images at the left.
 4           Looking at Y7 I have marked the first feature,
 5       feature number 1 as a dot which is associated with the
 6       Rosetta characteristic.  On the print of Shirley McKie
 7       it can be seen clearly also here on the right-hand side.
 8           Without any intervening ridges I move to point 2
 9       which is, in fact, the Rosetta characteristic which I
10       have marked as a ridge ending.  It's clearer here as a
11       ridge ending because the enlargement I believe is
12       different to the one on the previous chart.
13           From there, from point 2, the Rosetta, we move along
14       to the right along the ridge and without any ridges
15       intervening we come to point 3, seen here also on the
16       McKie print, which is a bifurcation.
17           Following along to the left, we arrive at point 4
18       without any ridges intervening which is also a
19       bifurcation and can be seen here on the Shirley McKie
20       print as point 4.
21           Moving from point 4, we come to point 5 which is to
22       the right without any ridges intervening and we come to
23       a bifurcation, seen here also as point 5 on the Shirley
24       McKie print.
25           From point 5 we drop down to the next ridge with no
page  38
 1       intervening ridges and we come to point 6, which is a
 2       bifurcation.
 3           From point 6 we move along to the right, missing one
 4       ridge -- sorry, I've got that wrong.  From point 6 we
 5       move along ... from point 6, yes, we miss one ridge
 6       intervening and come to point 7 which is a short ridge.
 7           Then from that we then drop down one ridge to
 8       point 8, which is a ridge ending, and from there we can
 9       get back to the last or the first characteristic, which
10       is point 1 by counting three ridges, 1, 2, 3 -- 1, 2, 3.
11           I've tried to illustrate this graphically with a
12       drawing here which is not something I would normally do
13       but I thought it may be of extra assistance to the
14       Inquiry.
15           Looking at the next pair of images on the right-hand
16       side I have marked nine characteristics here showing the
17       different sequence, although in more or less the same
18       area.
19           We start at point 1 on Y7, which is a bifurcation,
20       travel along the same ridge and come to a bifurcation,
21       which is point 2.
22           We then miss two ridges, 1, 2, and we come to
23       point 3, which is a bifurcation.
24           We then go from bifurcation 3, we miss two ridges
25       intervening, 1, 2, and we come to point 4, which I've
page  39
 1       called an enlarged pore.  Clearly there's a circle there
 2       with a gap in between.
 3           From the large pore, we count four ridges to point 5
 4       which is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 -- sorry, 1, 2, 3, 4 and then we
 5       come to point 5, which is a ridge ending.
 6           From point 5, we have no intervening ridges.
 7       Point 5 to -- sorry, I've got that wrong actually.  Go
 8       back to point 5.  Point 5, we have three intervening
 9       ridges to point 6, 1, 2, 3 -- point 5, 1, 2, 3.  Point 6
10       is a ridge ending.
11           Then we have nought ridges intervening and we come
12       to the dot which is point 7.
13           From point 7, we count two ridges intervening, 1, 2,
14       and we come to point 8 which is a subsidiary ridge, that
15       is to say a partly formed ridge, which is not a true
16       ridge and it's very thin.  It lies in between naturally
17       formed real ridges, sometimes known as incipient or
18       secondary ridges.  Point 9 is the end of that same
19       ridge.
20           My next, and I think my final, chart probably is
21       chart 13.  This presents 22 Third Level Detail features
22       which are in agreement.  If I could just talk briefly
23       about Third Level Detail, when ACPO got rid of the
24       16-point standard, they felt that there could be
25       occasions in the future where if an identification was
page  40
 1       presented before the courts and there was a very low
 2       number of features, they might need to be able to back
 3       it up with something else just to give it more
 4       substance.  That was their view.
 5           ACPO decided they would need to look into this and
 6       they formed a Third Level Detail Working Group which I
 7       chaired.  We were tasked with looking into all the
 8       information that could be found from a fingerprint, ie
 9       the holistic approach.  In America, David Ashbaugh (who
10       I think is probably been known to this Inquiry) had
11       written a book called Ridgeology and in that he
12       promulgates the idea of three levels of ridge detail.
13       The first level is basically pattern type and ridge
14       flow.  The second level is just conventional ridge
15       features that we've been talking about just now.  The
16       third level is anything else that you can find within
17       that print which may be able to assist you confirm or
18       establish an identification.  This can include anything
19       from pores, subsidiary ridges, the angle of a ridge, the
20       edge of a ridge, even scars, warts and creases.
21       Anything like that can be used provided it's present in
22       both images.
23           By the very nature of Third Level Detail, it's more
24       elusive than normal ridge characteristics because they
25       are not so well formed.  The ridge structure is much
page  41
 1       finer and it could be that on one print you find a Third
 2       Level Detail feature and you may not find it on the
 3       print.
 4           I chaired this committee for two years almost -- I
 5       think it was about 19 months -- and on that committee
 6       was Professor Champod, was Jeff Grigg and also David
 7       Goodwin, who I believe has done some work for this
 8       Inquiry.  They formed part of my working group along
 9       with selected Fingerprint Experts from the rest of the
10       UK, including Scotland.  I think we might have had
11       someone from Northern Ireland right at the very end but
12       I don't know if he ever attended.  I'm not sure.  We
13       tried to be fair with everybody.
14           Anyway, we came to the conclusion that Third Level
15       Detail was safe to use and a valid form of means of
16       identification and could be used when an officer felt
17       the need.  If he had an identification with only eight
18       or nine points and he was uncomfortable going with just
19       that, then it was agreed that he could use some Third
20       Level Detail features to aid that identification.
21           We wrote a policy note, which I believe is still in
22       affect now, and I presented it to ACPO.  Basically, we
23       said that, yes, Third Level Detail features are suitable
24       and safe to use provided they occur in both images but,
25       secondly, Third Level Detail would not normally be used
page  42
 1       on its own to prove an identification.  This was a
 2       safeguard against perhaps the loose cannon fingerprint
 3       expert who might only have about four characteristics
 4       and think he could add in three or four Third Level
 5       Details to bulk it up.  So that was the safeguard
 6       really.
 7           As far as I'm aware -- I retired from Cambridgeshire
 8       in 2005.  That policy came in, I think, about 2003.  To
 9       my knowledge no-one ever really needed to use it because
10       most of the identifications can be affected quite safely
11       and responsibly upon the use of normal characteristics,
12       bearing in mind that every identification is checked
13       three times by two senior officers and a junior one.
14           However, in this case I felt it might be of valid
15       assistance to the court if I looked at the Third Level
16       Detail angle and I have therefore produced a single
17       chart showing these Third Level Detail features that I
18       have marked.
19   MR MOYNIHAN:  This is chart 13?
20   A.  Chart 13 in fact.
21           They are not so easy to see, of course, as normal
22       features and I've made larger impressions of them for
23       the benefit of the court.  I think the enlargements are
24       about seven or eight times the actual size.  I don't
25       really intend to go through all of them, other than to
page  43
 1       show you some which are quite outstandingly obvious I
 2       think.
 3           For example, I have put some perspex on here with
 4       some shapes in various colours so that it's easier for
 5       me to show you where they are.  For example, if we look
 6       at the top left -- I should say that this is Y7 on the
 7       left and this is the Shirley McKie print.  If we look
 8       at, for example, to start with features 14 and 15, these
 9       are two enlarged pores which I've circled.
10   Q.  If you allow a second for me to come back because the
11       numbers have been lost in the top.  Sorry,
12       Mr Leadbetter.  You were talking about 14 and 15?
13   A.  Yes.  14 and 15.  We've had two enlarged pores which sit
14       side-by-side.  They are quite prominent actually on
15       the -- yes, I don't know if you can see them here on
16       chart 11.  On my chart 11 they are approximately where
17       feature 2 is marked.  You can see the two circles?
18   Q.  I think what we are going to have to do when you say do
19       we see the two circles you are going to have to just
20       again assist by pointing to the two circles that you
21       have in mind.  Perhaps if we could use an arrow feature.
22   A.  It's point 2 so -- the line at point 2 actually goes
23       through them.
24   Q.  Mr Leadbetter, it is simply that no-one can see them so
25       therefore we can't actually mark them.  Again, if you
page  44
 1       can indicate to Miss Allen, if we take the pen just now
 2       which is on line number 2 -- perhaps if we take the pen
 3       away just now, what I will do is if you allow me a
 4       second I will take over.  So my pen is poised now at
 5       point number 2?
 6   A.  It's basically in between your pointer there.
 7   THE CHAIRMAN:  It bisects the two pore marks.
 8   A.  More or less.
 9   THE CHAIRMAN:  Do you see that?
10   MR MOYNIHAN:  I've not see it yet.  You say it bisects the
11       two.  My pen tip is on the point of point number 2.
12   A.  It's slightly above.  They are actually adjacent to each
13       other.  It's like a pair of spectacles.
14   Q.  So adjacent to each other so that the two circles --
15   A.  It actually looks like a pair of spectacles with a nose
16       underneath it.
17   Q.  This is just a purely mechanical process just now.
18   A.  Where you had it just then is in between the two of
19       them.
20   Q.  Let's just start.  Is what is drawn one of the two?
21   A.  Just a fraction to the right.  No, take that one away.
22       Just move that blue arrow.
23   Q.  Mr Leadbetter, if we just stop, please.
24           Sir, I see the time is 11.25.  Perhaps it would
25       assist if we took a break just now, I will draw them
page  45
 1       with Mr Leadbetter and come back.
 2   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, we will sit again at 11.45.  We will
 3       take a short break, then these can be marked in and we
 4       can see them when we return.
 5   (11.25 am)
 6                         (A short break)
 7   (11.54 am)
 8   THE CHAIRMAN:  Have you been able to record the points?
 9   MR MOYNIHAN:  We are just about to do it sir.  I apologise,
10       the computer seems to be in Friday mode.
11           Sorry, Mr Leadbetter, what we have done in the
12       interval is marked on an image (which is now saved as
13       FI2310.03) the two pore marks that are now to be see in
14       the blue arrows either side of the line that's marked as
15       number 2.
16   A.  Thank you, sir, yes.
17   Q.  Sorry, I had interrupted you.
18   A.  I took those points because I think they are quite
19       significant and probably --
20   Q.  If you just allow me a second.  Do you want to talk
21       about those points now and we will go back to the
22       other chart, that was your chart 13.
23   A.  Fine.  I took point 14 and 15 because I think they are
24       quite significant and even, in fact, below them there's
25       yet another circle which can be seen in both the prints
page  46
 1       and the Y7.
 2           Going back to chart 11, did you say?
 3   Q.  No, the one that you are looking at just now is chart
 4       13.
 5   A.  Chart 13, yes.
 6   Q.  So if we bring up TS0005.28 if you allow me just a
 7       second.  Let us run through to chart 13, please, and
 8       then the next one.
 9   A.  Thank you.  I chose to mark 14 and 15 on the other image
10       so that you can get some sort of geographical area of
11       where this area I have chosen is actually on Y7 and the
12       McKie print; in other words, it's the top left-hand
13       edge.
14           I don't intend to go through all these points other
15       than to just highlight some of them which I think will
16       be quite significant to you.  I've already shown you 14
17       and 15, these two circles.
18           Also of interest is point 22 which shows a
19       significant thickening of the ridge edge and on the
20       McKie mark, on the right-hand side, you can see the
21       thickening there also.
22           To the left of 22 there's a dot which is clearly
23       visible on both images and if you go above that dot and
24       miss one ridge you'll find a pair of dots which are
25       side-by-side, clearly visible on both --
page  47
 1   Q.  If you give me just a second, please.  The enlarged
 2       ridge is 22.  The dot you have been mentioning just
 3       immediately after that is 21?
 4   A.  To the left, that's correct, yes.
 5   Q.  And the two dots above it --
 6   A.  Miss one ridge and then there are two dots, 19 and 20.
 7   Q.  Thank you.
 8   A.  Points 11 and 17 are also quite significant.  On the
 9       left-hand image point 11 appears as a black blob and on
10       the McKie print it appears as a circle.
11           Clearly there is a large pore there or an opening of
12       some sort.  On the left-hand one it's been filled in
13       probably by something on the surface which it touched
14       but quite obviously there is a similar shape oval on
15       each side.
16           Then immediately to the right of point 11 there's a
17       gap, quite clear on both and then a ridge ending.
18           I also might point out points 9, 8 and 6, again,
19       which are three dots forming a triangle, clearly evident
20       here on Y7 and similarly placed here on the McKie print.
21           Finally, I might also refer to point 10 which is
22       less obvious perhaps to the layman but we have a slight
23       gap, a slight split in the ridge, which I have indicated
24       by two lines here on Y7 and also here on the McKie print
25       (indicated).  Of course, immediately above it without
page  48
 1       any ridges intervening, in coincident sequence, you can
 2       find 16 and 17.  Sorry, 11 and 17, the two that I
 3       mentioned before.
 4           Just perhaps finally I ought to mention point 2
 5       which is a sort of oblong dot here on Y7 -- sorry, here
 6       on the McKie print more clearer and here in the Y7
 7       (indicated).  If you look at the blank image, it's
 8       clearly visible here (indicated).  Even below that, I
 9       see now, new, the ridge immediately below that is thick
10       and appears on both images here too.
11           So there's probably more in that if I was to spend
12       my time but certainly I'm so satisfied with those 22
13       Third Level Detail features it could be one of those
14       rare instances where I would say I'm happy on that
15       identification alone without even using the normal ridge
16       characteristics.  There's no need to, of course, because
17       the ridge characteristics are far more convincing.  But
18       if you add the two together you are looking at something
19       like -- 14 plus 22 -- 36 features.
20           That is more or less the end of my charts.  I wasn't
21       going to mention chart 14 although I think I will just
22       make the point because I think it's important.
23       Referring to the evidence given by Mr MacLeod, when he
24       appeared before the Justice 1 Committee he presented a
25       very large and voluminous document.  Regrettably, most
page  49
 1       of it was unreadable and this is just two typical pages
 2       taken out of it, completely black and totally pointless.
 3       When he was asked in the court if it was useless he
 4       agreed that it was, so I feel that it's worth mentioning
 5       that, you know, the evidence given at Justice 1 could
 6       have been better there if he had something to say.
 7           That has basically dealt with my charts.  There is
 8       one issue I would like to refer to with your indulgence,
 9       sir.
10   THE CHAIRMAN:  I am sorry, I was just trying to adjust the
11       brightness on this.
12   A.  I think you will be on a loser, sir.
13           With your indulgence, one just other issue, sir, may
14       I refer to?
15   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, please.
16   A.  This petition which was created by Mr Zeelenberg,
17       Mr Wertheim, Mr Bayle and Mr McKie: first of all, I
18       personally saw no reason why they needed to go to those
19       extents if they were so convinced that their conclusions
20       were correct and that the print was not Ms McKie's.
21           Secondly, I felt it was a very unprofessional manner
22       to approach such a serious and grave issue.
23           Thirdly, you did not know who was signing it, what
24       their experience was, what qualifications they had.
25       It's well-known that only two people from the United
page  50
 1       Kingdom signed it, one being Allan Bayle.  The other was
 2       David Fairhurst who was at Surrey and actually failed
 3       his expert's course.  I have an e-mail from Mr Ashley
 4       Crooker in California who said he actually agreed that
 5       it was not identical without even looking at the images.
 6       I think that's in as one of my addenda.
 7           So, overall, I think the petition has got no value
 8       whatsoever and was, to me, a most unprofessional manner
 9       in approaching the issue.
10           I think that's basically all I have to say other
11       than to say that I remain convinced that the finger-mark
12       Y7 was made by Shirley McKie's left thumb and would not
13       be here today unless I had that strong conviction.
14   MR MOYNIHAN:  Thank you, Mr Leadbetter, as you know there
15       are some points I was going to ask you about and there
16       are a few others that have arisen just out of what you
17       have been talking about today.
18           I was going to start by asking you about differences
19       but before I look at the American study which is on the
20       list of topics to be covered with you, arising out of
21       what we have been discussing this morning, at page 10 of
22       the transcript, you discussed inexplicable differences.
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  Plainly I would assume that Mr Wertheim would not have
25       any difficulty with the proposition that if there is a
page  51
 1       difference between a latent and a known mark, that the
 2       difference is capable of easy explanation (for example,
 3       due to movement or injury or something of that sort),
 4       that the existence of that difference would not
 5       challenge the match.
 6   A.  Well, I hope he would understand that but by not adding
 7       that extra bit he's leaving it to the court to infer
 8       that if there is a difference that's the end of it.  So
 9       I feel he should have completed the statement, of
10       course.
11   Q.  What I want to, in fact, move on to is a more difficult
12       proposition perhaps which is, if I understand your
13       evidence correctly, that a match to the extent of a
14       unique identity between a latent and a known can be
15       achieved even with presence of a difference, the
16       explanation for which is unknown?
17   A.  It can, yes.
18   Q.  That is what I want to look at.
19   A.  Well, I think there's a good example of that in that
20       mark B from the Evett Williams one which Mr Zeelenberg
21       rejected.  I recall it had in excess of 20
22       characteristics and there was one on the edge which you
23       can only assume has been caused by either something
24       possibly of a substrate that the finger has come in
25       touch with or by movement or pressure.  The actual
page  52
 1       reason for it I could not explain but I certainly would
 2       not have objected the identification on that basis.
 3   Q.  We will come to Mr Zeelenberg's chart, his explanation
 4       of chart B, just in a moment.  Before we do so I would
 5       like just to look at this particular problem just now
 6       more generally.
 7           We have had evidence from now a number of
 8       fingerprint experts who when presented with this dilemma
 9       about the inexplicable difference, a difference for
10       which they have no rational explanation, some of them
11       say this: that if they have sufficient characteristics
12       in sequence and agreement then the existence of an
13       inexplicable difference would not preclude a conclusion
14       of unique identity as a proposition.
15   A.  Yes, I would agree with that, yes.
16   Q.  That then leads us to the next question which is what
17       the level would be of a sufficient number of
18       characteristics in sequence and agreement?
19   A.  Okay, I thought you were going to ask that.  That's
20       something more of a philosophical question.  My answer
21       to that really is: show me the identification and I'll
22       tell you.  Obviously, I don't believe you can have a set
23       number of points that will cover every situation that's
24       going to arise.  If you get a pair of images where
25       there's some extremely unusual characteristics, then the
page  53
 1       number obviously becomes much lower.  There is no set
 2       number that I would set upon it.
 3   Q.  However, if I used the Cambridge example that you gave
 4       to us earlier on, your chart 10, you told us that you
 5       had found a unique identity with eight points?
 6   A.  Yes, I did, yes.
 7   Q.  So you can admit of the possibility of a unique identity
 8       with, if I may use this term, as few as eight points?
 9   A.  Indeed, yes.
10   Q.  Would you go lower than eight?
11   A.  Again, it would depend on what I was looking at.  The
12       uniqueness.  I saw one in Moscow which was really,
13       really low, only had about three or four points, but was
14       so unusual and with so many aspects to it that, you
15       know, added to the sort of weight of the evidence that
16       the three or four points became far more important
17       because there was Third Level Detail, there was
18       pressure, there was edges of the ridges and the man
19       brought it to me and said you would have no doubt about
20       this being unique and I said no.
21           There was one other one which was published in the
22       IAI's Journal of Forensic Identification which was
23       unique where there were no characteristics and it was on
24       a telescopic glass from, I think it must have been a
25       rifle, a telescopic sight, and there was a thumbprint
page  54
 1       actually on the glass.  You can imagine that the actual
 2       area was not very big to start with and the thumb had
 3       gone on it, it was published as a unique identification
 4       and all it had was straight ridges and in between those
 5       ridges there was a series of dots and those series of
 6       dots fell in unique pairs, triples, and there was no
 7       doubt about it.  Everyone who looked at it was astounded
 8       because if you're asked what is the minimum number of
 9       characteristics you would ever use to make an
10       identification, people are going to come up with their
11       various 7s, 8s, 9s whatever.  No-one's going to say
12       nought but this actually happened.  So it's not an easy
13       question to answer.
14   Q.  I appreciate that.  What I am, therefore, trying to do
15       in this is maybe comparing apples with oranges.
16       Nonetheless coming back to the proposition, are you
17       therefore unable to give me a minimum number that would
18       be sufficient to discount or, in a sense, to trump an
19       inexplicable difference?
20   A.  I mean, I don't like to because I don't see any
21       relevance in the numbers game.  If you remember I was on
22       the Evidential Standards Committee and we looked at all
23       sorts of things and the more I looked at it, the more I
24       realised that the numbers were a nonsense.  You have to
25       just be pragmatic and, if I'm pressed, I suppose I would
page  55
 1       be quite happy to say, like Mr Swann, eight but I
 2       wouldn't stick to it.
 3   Q.  Let us then look at the example you mentioned, which is
 4       Mr Zeelenberg's explanation of chart B in Evett
 5       & Williams.  In Mr Zeelenberg's presentation AZ0061,
 6       slide 138 --
 7   A.  Indeed, I think that is chart 7.
 8   Q.  Is that the way it comes up?
 9   A.  That's the one, yes.
10   Q.  We will just use what is on the image, first of all, you
11       recognise this as set B from Evett & Williams?
12   A.  Yes.
13   Q.  So what Mr Zeelenberg did, if one progressed through his
14       slides, is he started by marking up near, on the
15       right-hand image, up near where the number 7 is some red
16       dots.
17   A.  Yes.
18   Q.  Equally, on the left-hand side, the same red dots.
19   A.  Yes.
20   Q.  So there are four red dots around about the number 7?
21   A.  Yes.
22   Q.  We can see the corresponding positions on the left
23       image.
24   A.  Yes.
25   Q.  What he then took, he would start by saying those red
page  56
 1       dots on the right have a similarity to the corresponding
 2       positions on the left.
 3   A.  Yes.
 4   Q.  However, so far as the number ridge count is concerned,
 5       in the known print he counts seven intervening ridges;
 6       whereas in the mark he counts eight?
 7   A.  Yes and I can see why.  Going from the bottom of the
 8       vertical red line, I mean, indeed if you go on the
 9       left-hand print you can indeed count 8, as I have done
10       as you have been talking, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and on
11       this slide indeed 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 but if you count
12       from the bottom up 1, 2, 3, you will see there's a ridge
13       coming in and if he'd have actually just moved his line
14       a fraction past that the count would have been the same.
15   Q.  I think the question would be, though, where in the
16       known is that ridge?
17   A.  Well, that is clearly caused by movement because if you
18       look where the cluster is, you can see to the right of
19       the middle dot there is a line going off almost at, I
20       suppose, horizontally.  Going from the left-hand side of
21       that line you can see that there is a line going
22       horizontally, which is obviously an aberration caused by
23       movement -- no doubt about that.
24   Q.  So there is something that you would explain by
25       reference to movement.  Perhaps if you just move your
page  57
 1       microphone back into view.
 2           So that is one?
 3   A.  I have no doubt about that because it looks so alien to
 4       the natural ridge flow and I would suggest that
 5       Mr Zeelenberg's either incompetent there or wilfully
 6       misleading the Inquiry.
 7   Q.  The next one that he referred to, if we look at the
 8       right-hand image, the two red dots are to the right
 9       below which he has put in a yellow dot which is on a
10       continuous ridge on the known.  What he has drawn on the
11       unknown, the latent, is the third, the bottom to the
12       right red dot and he says, well, on the latent that is a
13       ridge ending; whereas on the known it's simply an
14       intermediate point on a continuous ridge and, therefore,
15       it is a second point of difference.
16   A.  On the right-hand image, clearly, where he's put the
17       yellow dot there is no characteristic.  We can all see
18       that.  On the right-hand image, quite clearly, it's in
19       the same point or the same area of the mark where we
20       were just talking about and there's obvious ridge
21       movement and a shift.  So it's an aberration which has
22       been caused by movement, absolutely no doubt about it
23       and he should know better.
24   Q.  Why would there be in the relative position of the
25       yellow dot on the right what you describe as an
page  58
 1       aberration caused by movement where a matter of
 2       millimetres at most to the left and above there is a
 3       direct coincidence of points?
 4   A.  Sorry, again?
 5   Q.  On the right-hand image there are two points, red dots I
 6       suppose, fixed points, that remain constant between the
 7       latent and the known.  Fractionally, it must be no more
 8       than millimetres, there is a point that seems to be
 9       different that you discount due to movement and it's
10       only a fraction, but millimetres, away from two
11       otherwise fixed and reproduced points?
12   A.  Well, it's clearly a false minutiae caused by -- you
13       must remember this is right on the edge of the mark and
14       it looks like there's some sort of wetness there, as I
15       think I said earlier.
16           Going from that middle dot to the right, the
17       movement of the ridge and the lay of the ridge is
18       totally alien and, indeed, is the one above, to the
19       natural flow of the ridges.  Ridges do not veer off at
20       that angle, naturally.
21   Q.  Then the other point of difference that Mr Zeelenberg
22       highlighted -- and I think this was the one that you had
23       in mind when you did your own sort of charting and we
24       drew something on an image -- on the right-hand image
25       Mr Zeelenberg has marked a yellow dot in a continuous
page  59
 1       ridge?
 2   A.  He has, yes.
 3   Q.  In the corresponding position in the latent, there is
 4       what appears to be a bifurcation marked by a red dot?
 5   A.  There is indeed, yes.
 6   Q.  He has said that, to his eye, there is an inconsistency
 7       here because there is a yellow point on the known, a
 8       continuous ridge, and in the corresponding position in
 9       the latent, the red spot, a bifurcation?
10   A.  Yes, and I can see it and he's quite right.  There is a
11       false characteristic there.  But, again, it has to be
12       caused by something that has induced movement or
13       something.  We have 23 matching features.  The
14       overwhelming evidence is this mark can only be identical
15       and I think he's throwing in a red herring there,
16       frankly.  I can see it's not there, but it looks -- in
17       fact, next to it there's another one so it's just an
18       aberration that has occurred as a result of movement or
19       being at the edge.  It does not in any way detract from
20       the effectiveness of that identification.
21           If we go back to the red line going up, where the
22       figure 7 is, if you follow that particular ridge which
23       the dot is sitting on to the left, you will see it
24       abruptly ends and you'll find exactly the same thing on
25       the image on the left, just to add a bit to it.
page  60
 1           We also have another aspect here in that there's
 2       another mark coming in on this.  So these ridges could
 3       actually be associated with other fingerprints.  There's
 4       plenty of reasons why that could have happened, none of
 5       which can be definitive but there's no doubt about that
 6       being identical and it just amazes me that he comes to
 7       that conclusion.
 8   Q.  The source of the difference, though, may be this,
 9       Mr Leadbetter, without asking who is right and who is
10       wrong: the source of the difference may be simply in the
11       proposition that you would say if you have as many as
12       22/23 matching characteristics, then there must be a
13       unique identity, irrespective of the existence in the
14       right-hand image of the yellow dot and the continuous
15       ridge for which you have no clear explanation?
16   A.  Yes, and that does not come as any surprise to me, as I
17       said in my opening presentation there are occasions when
18       things are inexplicable.  However, I have offered two
19       excuses here why that could have happened.  First of
20       all, you've got this image on top of another ridge
21       sequence or ridge system and, secondly, it's on the edge
22       and could easily be caused by movement.
23           I should also add, of course, that there were about
24       130 other people who agreed that it was identical
25       without doubt.
page  61
 1   Q.  Nonetheless even in relation to the 22/23 matching
 2       features, two of them (that's the points at either end
 3       of the line 7) themselves require an explanation as to
 4       why they are matching because it would seem that there
 5       is a difference in ridge count that has to be explained?
 6   A.  Yes, I would agree with that, yes.
 7   Q.  I will move on to another example that Mr Zeelenberg
 8       gave us.  This is one you have not seen previously so if
 9       you wish to take some time to look at this please do.
10   A.  Thank you.
11   Q.  Again just on PowerPoint, please, AZ0061, slide 14.
12       Just move within what we have here just now to slide 14.
13           This is an example that Mr Zeelenberg prepared of
14       two fingerprints, one on the left and one on the right.
15       He has marked 12 points which are identical in the two.
16           Do you want to take some time just to see if you
17       agree with that?
18   A.  No, okay.  What is the source of this material?
19   Q.  Mr Zeelenberg is the source of this.
20   A.  I see, it's nothing to do with the McKie Inquiry?
21   Q.  No, nothing to do with McKie.  (Pause)
22           Are you content --
23   A.  I am waiting for the next question.
24   Q.  Sorry, you are content those appear to be identical?
25   A.  Well, no, I'm not, no.
page  62
 1   Q.  What is the problem?
 2   A.  First of all, I'm not seeing the whole image.  It's been
 3       cropped to show the areas he thinks match.  That's the
 4       first thing.
 5           The cores are different in as much as we have a
 6       ridge ending there and a complete circle here
 7       (indicated).  We have -- the one on the extreme left
 8       here (indicated) I can't see if there is another ridge
 9       actually coming down because it's been cropped so close
10       it doesn't show anything, it just shows a little sort of
11       subsidiary ridge.  It doesn't show the bifurcation he's
12       trying to produce.
13           This one (indicated) appears to be --
14   Q.  Sorry, you said "this one".
15   A.  I beg your pardon.
16   THE CHAIRMAN:  The right-hand one.
17   MR MOYNIHAN:  Work just mark it with an arrow.  You say
18       "this one" (indicated).
19   A.  Yes.  There, I mean, it's on the same ridge structure,
20       ridge flow, as the bifurcation above but when you come
21       to this one (indicated) it's on the next ridge system.
22       Now these may -- they may -- be identical, I don't know.
23       It depends what we're looking at but without seeing the
24       whole image of both of them it's not possible to say if
25       there are any dissimilar features.  This could be
page  63
 1       identical, even this could occur as a result of a
 2       bifurcation becoming a ridge ending but I'm not going to
 3       make a decision on this one way or the other.
 4   Q.  That is fine.
 5           First of all, if we could save this image.
 6   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2310.04.
 7   MR MOYNIHAN:  14 is what we were just looking at.  If we
 8       move then to 15 --
 9   A.  Could I just say ...?
10   Q.  Surely.
11   A.  As I said earlier, without seeing the whole prints I
12       would not really want to come to a conclusion.  My
13       feeling is they are not identical because, for example,
14       these two points here (indicated) are considerably
15       higher up on the right-hand side than on the left-hand
16       side.
17   THE CHAIRMAN:  That's the two bottom right-hand side points.
18       On the right one they are higher than on the left?
19   A.  Yes and the angle between them is even higher.  However,
20       that's a minor point.
21           Secondly, I have said I don't like the look of the
22       core.  The cores don't look the same to me.  Thirdly,
23       higher up here (indicated) on the right the distance
24       between these two points is significantly more.
25   MR MOYNIHAN:  So those are the top two most points?
page  64
 1   A.  Yes.  Then the next pair below that one appears to be a
 2       ridge ending below the ridge above it and here
 3       (indicated) they both seem to be on -- they really are
 4       on the same end of the ridges but he hasn't marked it in
 5       the right place.  Plus this one over here (indicated) on
 6       the extreme left, again, as I said before, you cannot
 7       see whether it does actually bifurcate or not so that
 8       cannot really be marked as a true feature there.
 9           Again, we have a distance issue here, even an angle
10       issue.
11   THE CHAIRMAN:  That is the two on the extreme left?
12   A.  Yes, sir.
13           Finally, the two to the immediate left of the core
14       are much higher in relation to the actual core itself
15       than these two (indicated).
16           All that coupled with the fact that I can't see the
17       rest of the images would lead me to say I need to see
18       more before I come to a conclusion on it.
19   MR MOYNIHAN:  That's fine because, in fact, what
20       Mr Zeelenberg does in slide 15, he says that they are
21       not identical and then proceeds to show why they are
22       not, if we proceed just through the slide.
23   A.  It's no surprise.
24   Q.  Then if we just proceed through the slide and we will
25       see he marks it up.  If we just carry on.
page  65
 1   A.  As, indeed, I said, there is no bifurcation there
 2       (indicated).
 3   Q.  If we go just one step back.
 4           The reason that I pulled this up was simply what I
 5       understand Mr Zeelenberg to be saying by these slides is
 6       that a superficial similarity and even a substantial
 7       number of points still requires one to go over the whole
 8       mark to look to see if there are points of difference?
 9   A.  Most certainly.
10   Q.  And then to question whether there is a good explanation
11       for that difference or not?
12   A.  I agree wholeheartedly and it certainly takes longer
13       than a minute.
14   Q.  What I want to do then in looking at differences is to
15       look at your own chart, chart 11.  If I begin with
16       TS0005.28 and if you give me that twice, please.
17           What, as you are aware, I was going to ask you about
18       are your points 13 and 14.  On the mark on the right the
19       points 13 and 14 appear just simply as it's reproduced
20       here on the right-hand edge.
21   A.  Yes.
22   Q.  Whereas in Y7 the points 13 and 14 appear in a more
23       central, albeit the lower edge, more central position?
24   A.  Yes.
25   Q.  Can you explain why it is that the points 13 and 14
page  66
 1       appear on the right in the known and in the centre in
 2       Y7?
 3   A.  I will attempt.  As you are aware, I have steered clear
 4       of marking points around the core area.  A lot of other
 5       people have gone into that area.
 6           My impression is that there is something wrong with
 7       the natural ridge flow around the core area so I avoided
 8       going there.  Thus I can only offer that as an
 9       explanation as to why the count is significantly
10       different.
11           You will recall, however, that in one of my charts
12       at the beginning I showed a similar pair of images where
13       there was considerable difference in count and it
14       couldn't really be explained.
15   Q.  One of the things that is running in my mind in relation
16       to all of this is that with some of your earlier slides,
17       if you will forgive me, what one can say is there is a
18       claim as to identity in the earlier slides.
19           The question is how has it been established that
20       they are indeed identical, the earlier slides that you
21       have used in your presentation?
22   A.  Most certainly, yes.
23   Q.  What I want to do, therefore, is to look at the claim
24       here -- and I mean that in a scientific sense -- and to
25       understand what has happened.
page  67
 1           First of all, you explain in your statement that you
 2       have yourself worked in the area that you regard as the
 3       clearer area with less distortion and that, in fact, as
 4       you are aware, what that means that you use is in Y7
 5       itself, that is the image on the left, you use in a
 6       sense the outer two-thirds and you avoid the area which
 7       is the core?
 8   A.  Yes.
 9   Q.  If I just draw an arc just now and this is intended only
10       for illustrative purposes (indicated), the area you are
11       avoiding is the area that is to the left of my red line.
12   A.  Yes.
13   Q.  Why is it that that is an area, the area to the left,
14       that you avoid?
15   A.  Well, I think yesterday there was mention of a dog-leg.
16   Q.  Sorry?
17   A.  Someone mentioned a dog-leg angle.
18   Q.  Yes.
19   A.  Well, I believe that the way those ridges flow down
20       there is not natural and some of the -- even the
21       features look to me as though they are not placed
22       correctly in the ridge flow and I think something has
23       happened to the ridge flow in that area.  So I've
24       avoided it.
25   Q.  When you say "the features", which features to the left
page  68
 1       of the line do you think, do you regard as unnatural?
 2       If you point them out to Miss Allen then she will be
 3       able to highlight them for you.
 4   A.  Well, for example, you've got your red line in a bit of
 5       an area I wanted to go, actually.
 6   Q.  What we will do in that case, Mr Leadbetter, is we will
 7       save my image and then start again with a fresh copy.
 8   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2310.05.
 9   MR MOYNIHAN:  In that case if you can again bring up two
10       copies of TS0005.028.  I have started us back again with
11       two clean images.
12           What are the features you regard as problematic.
13   A.  There and there (indicated), then you miss a ridge and
14       there's a little sort of independent ridge ... in that
15       area there seems to be a ridge flowing up and stopping
16       abruptly and you miss a ridge and then there's what
17       appears to me to be a small independent and I think it's
18       just caused by an aberration in the ridge flow not being
19       natural.  Well, just generally the way it comes round so
20       abruptly I just felt it was an area I wanted to avoid.
21       It was a preference.  As Mr Swann said yesterday some
22       experts will choose some features, others will choose
23       others.
24   Q.  If we save what is on the screen just now.
25   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2310.06.
page  69
 1   MR MOYNIHAN:  Could we bring up a clean copy of TS0005.028
 2       on the left-hand side, please.
 3           What I want to do is to ask you to look at a
 4       charting that has been done by the Scottish Criminal
 5       Record Office on Y7.  I am not bringing it up on the
 6       screen.  Could you just have the original with you just
 7       now.  It is over there.  It is on the screen just now.
 8           What I want you to do is to follow with me
 9       something.  The reason why I am not putting anything up
10       for the public is it would just confuse matters.
11           I am going to start with Ms McKie's print.  I am
12       going to start at a feature where my cursor is just now
13       that's come to be somewhat inelegantly now described as
14       the banana.
15   A.  Oh, yes.
16   Q.  Point number 9.
17   A.  Point number 9, yes.
18   Q.  If you look at the screen is my cursor on point number
19       9?
20   A.  It is.
21   Q.  From the right leg of the banana I am going to move 1, 2
22       intermediate ridges and to the side there's a
23       bifurcation at the top which is numbered 5?
24   A.  Yes.
25   Q.  Below it what we assume to be a bifurcation, number 4,
page  70
 1       but it could be a ridge ending.  It matters not.  It is
 2       point number 4 marked in the SCRO chart.  I will move my
 3       cursor away.  So 5 is a --
 4   A.  Sorry, I'm looking at the wrong chart.  I beg your
 5       pardon.  Can we start again?
 6   Q.  If you find 5 marked --
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   Q.  -- and coming down the right-hand ridge a little way and
 9       there is what may be a bifurcation, may be a ridge
10       ending, it matters not, it is marked as number 4?
11   A.  Marked as number 4, yes.
12   Q.  That's where my cursor is just now.
13   A.  Right, okay.
14   Q.  I then move one intermediate ridge to the right and the
15       next feature is a bifurcation marked as number 3?
16   A.  Yes, yes.
17   Q.  That is right?
18   A.  Yes.
19   Q.  That then means where my cursor is just now for all
20       concerned I will mark an arrow (indicated), because that
21       is the point that matters to me, a red arrow, is the
22       SCRO point on Ms McKie numbered 3, yes?
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  Your points 14 and 13 are to the right of point 3?
25   A.  Yes.
page  71
 1   Q.  So we have now established that they are to the right of
 2       point 3?
 3   A.  Yes.
 4   Q.  If I go now to Y7, I will also mark with an arrow what I
 5       understand to be SCRO point 3 (indicated).
 6   A.  Okay, but I'm not sure about that.  It seems a long way
 7       from the core.  I mean --
 8   Q.  No, no, Mr Leadbetter, just listen to the question.
 9           First of all, is that the position that SCRO has
10       marked on its chart as point number 3?
11   A.  It looks like it, yes, yes.
12   Q.  Yes?
13   A.  I agree with that, yes.
14   Q.  So, looking at the SCRO charting, what they have on
15       Shirley McKie's print as point 3, your 14 and 13 are to
16       the right?
17   A.  Yes.
18   Q.  Whereas what they have as point 3 in Y7, you have 14 to
19       the left.
20   A.  Right.
21   Q.  14 to the left?
22   A.  Yes, indeed, yes.
23   Q.  And 13 you have marked on a ridge that ascends from the
24       bifurcation number 3 as marked by SCRO?
25   A.  Correct, yes.
page  72
 1   Q.  Can you explain to me how your points 13 and 14 go from
 2       the right of the SCRO point 3 to the top and to the left
 3       of SCRO point 3?
 4   A.  Not in simple words, no, other than to say that I
 5       believe that that area is -- the ridge flow is
 6       different, is not natural.  My sequence works out well
 7       and if you look at my mark point 13 on chart 11 ...
 8       (Pause)
 9   Q.  I am sorry, looking at your point 13, sorry?
10   A.  Point 13 on chart 11, which is there isn't it ...
11       (indicated)  (Pause)
12   Q.  Yes.
13   A.  Oh okay.  My point 13 here, if you follow it up you come
14       to what I think you called the handshake, two points,
15       one up, one down.
16   Q.  Yes.
17   A.  And likewise if you follow up from point 13 on this one
18       (indicated), you come to the same two points.  So all I
19       can say is up and to that point the ridge structure
20       flows naturally.  What happens after that I can't really
21       explain.
22   Q.  If you give me just a second ... (pause)
23           I am not following your evidence about the
24       handshake.  If I follow the handshake, let us just take
25       the easier example, which is Ms McKie's known print.
page  73
 1   A.  Okay.
 2   Q.  Is the pen at what you described as the handshake?
 3   A.  Yes, indeed.
 4   Q.  So let us make it a different colour.  We will make it a
 5       green arrow.  That is the handshake?  (Indicated)
 6   A.  That's right, yes.
 7   Q.  The handshake, one part of it, is on the ridge that
 8       ascends from point number 13?
 9   A.  Correct.
10   Q.  Yes?
11   A.  Correct.
12   Q.  If we take -- and this is where it becomes just a little
13       bit difficult because of the clarity of the image on the
14       left --
15   A.  Indeed.
16   Q.  -- what I suggest is if you look at the SCRO charting --
17       I will try to bring this up to the ladies and gentlemen
18       just in a second -- the handshake they have marked as
19       points 15 and 16?
20   A.  They have, yes.
21   Q.  The points 15 and 16 are above the ridge, the
22       bifurcation marked as 3?
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  But two ridges intervening to the right?
25   A.  Yes.
page  74
 1   Q.  So, again, there is something wrong, is there?
 2   A.  Yes, I think so, yes.
 3   Q.  It seems, however we look at this, your features 13, 14,
 4       15 and 16, the SCRO numbers, have in some way shifted to
 5       the left relative to the SCRO markings?
 6   A.  I've only got 13 and 14, not 15 and 16.
 7   Q.  No, no, but when you said to me if you look at the
 8       overlapping ridges I'm just calling them 15 and 16 for
 9       continuity.
10   A.  I beg your pardon, yes.
11   Q.  So SCRO 15 and 16, your 13 and 14, judged relative to
12       the SCRO bifurcation number 3, your charting relative to
13       SCRO has shifted these points to the left --
14   A.  Yes.
15   Q.  -- on Y7?
16   A.  Yes.
17   Q.  If I can save that image and bring up something
18       completely different.  I will save this image.
19   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2310.07.
20   MR MOYNIHAN:  If we can now go in PowerPoint, please, back
21       to Mr Zeelenberg ... just allow me a second.  It is
22       AZ0061, slide 131.
23           What Mr Zeelenberg has done is taken your image on
24       the right and he has, just for clarity, because some of
25       the points as we have seen in the previous image were
page  75
 1       somewhat difficult to see, he has recharted them on
 2       another image of Y7.
 3           Do you see that?
 4   A.  Mm-hm.
 5   Q.  Are you content with the accuracy of his replotting?
 6   A.  Well ...
 7   Q.  Perhaps if I can assist, what I am interested in are the
 8       points 13 and 14.  Again, if I would understand the
 9       bifurcation number 3 is present, as I've said, point 13
10       is on the ridge ascending from 13 and point 14 is to the
11       left.
12           Do you see that?
13   A.  Yes.
14   Q.  That is why, his image happens to be clearer for those
15       features.  Is he accurate in what he has plotted there?
16   A.  I think so, yes.
17   Q.  If we then proceed through his slide to the next,
18       please, let us just proceed.  Go back to 131.  (Pause) I
19       am sorry, I made mistake.  It is slide 126.
20           Again, the same point.  He has recharted these
21       features, again we you can see, if I go to, just put my
22       cursor (indicated) -- I can't mark because it is
23       PowerPoint -- the bifurcation number 3 is where my arrow
24       is just now, points 13 and 14 are marked on the ridge
25       ascending from the bifurcation with 14 to its left?
page  76
 1   A.  Yes.
 2   Q.  And the point of the banana is marked with a red dot?
 3   A.  Yes.
 4   Q.  Indeed, on both, the point of the banana is marked, both
 5       images, with a red dot?
 6   A.  Yes.
 7   Q.  We then proceed through slide 126.
 8           He has now added in the points that I am calling 15
 9       and 16, again, as a point of reference.
10           Do you see that?
11   A.  Yes.
12   Q.  Now if we proceed through he has got six ridges
13       intervening between the banana, which is SCRO point 9,
14       and the top of your point 13.  Then if we go to the next
15       slide, 11 ridges between the two corresponding points in
16       Ms McKie's print?
17   A.  Yes.
18   Q.  In fact, that would suggest that the shift to the left
19       is a total of five ridges?
20   A.  Yes, if the ridge flow is natural.
21   Q.  If the ridge flow is natural.
22           What explanation do you have then that would enable
23       one to say that there is a unique identity between the
24       two markings, left and right, that excuses that jump of
25       five ridges to the left?
page  77
 1   A.  Well, I can only offer what I said before, that I
 2       consider that there's some sort of movement which has
 3       affected the ridge flow there.
 4           Can I ask you, these two dots which I think you are
 5       calling the handshake, are they supposed to be both
 6       marked in the right place on both images?
 7   Q.  Sorry?
 8   A.  They are marked also on this image by Mr Zeelenberg?
 9   Q.  Yes.
10   A.  Well -- sorry, on Y7.  In that case, there's a
11       considerable distance between the banana and the two
12       dots, isn't there, which doesn't agree.
13   Q.  Sorry?  I think the point about 15 and 16, the two dots,
14       is that that is where 15 and 16 would be on your point.
15       If 15 and 16 are on the same ridge as number 13 then
16       that's where 15 and 16 should be on Y7.
17   A.  Right.
18   Q.  If they are on the same ridge.  However, if you look at
19       the SCRO charting that you have, you will see that 15
20       and 16 are marked by them to the right of the position,
21       so again in the same relationship to the banana?
22   A.  Right.
23   Q.  Is that correct?
24   A.  It seems to be, yes.
25   Q.  So again the points 15 and 16 in your charting have
page  78
 1       moved to the left.  All it would come to is the whole
 2       arrangement that you have in the vicinity of 13 and 14
 3       and SCRO points 15 and 16 have shifted, I suggest to you
 4       for comment only, inexplicably shifted to the left?
 5   A.  It's possible, yes.
 6   MR MOYNIHAN:  Sir, that might be a suitable point.
 7   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  Since are going to be short of time I
 8       think we will sit again at 1.50 and just go through this
 9       afternoon as long as necessary.  So 1.50.
10   (1.05 pm)
11                      (Luncheon Adjournment)
12   (1.48 pm)
13   MR MOYNIHAN:  Mr Leadbetter, I am simply going to conclude
14       that point 13 and 14 and then move on to some other
15       details.
16           It would seem that there is here some issue that
17       requires to be resolved but since you have been aware of
18       this for a little while, do you have an explanation that
19       would explain the difference in ridge count that
20       Mr Zeelenberg has shown and that I demonstrated relative
21       to the location of point 3?
22   A.  I suppose the simple answer is no.  I suppose every
23       examiner approaches a thing differently and I have taken
24       the route that I have taken, assuming that those ridges
25       are not naturally flowing and that's the only reason I
page  79
 1       can proffer for that.
 2   Q.  If I can take one other point in relation to that, you
 3       demonstrated earlier on, as you went through your own
 4       features, that you have worked from a start point and
 5       then counted ridges down to an end point and the end
 6       ends up at point 14?
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   Q.  I put forward as another suggestion that one of the
 9       problems may simply be that such is the nature of Y7 if
10       it is difficult to count, reliably, ridges that may
11       explain why, when one goes through a combination of 14
12       moves of a chess board, one might end up with an end
13       result which is difficult?
14   A.  Yes, I'd like to think I've correctly counted them as
15       I've gone through but you may have a point, yes.
16   Q.  The other feature of this, this completely more general
17       actually now, not related to points 13 and 14, as you
18       yourself have been studying the mark Y7 -- and I will
19       ask you something about the print on the right-hand side
20       in a moment -- have you seen it as the product of a
21       single touch or have you seen it as the product of
22       multiple touches?
23   A.  I'm pretty certain it's a single touch.  It's not
24       occurred to me at any point it should be other than
25       that.
page  80
 1   Q.  The next point that I actually wanted to ask you about
 2       was in connection with the Rosetta but, before I do -- I
 3       am sorry, I will forget -- the fingerprint that you have
 4       on the right-hand side, I haven't asked you about that
 5       just yet.
 6           I understand that this is a reproduction of a
 7       photograph of Shirley McKie's left thumbprint?
 8   A.  I understand that to be the same, yes.
 9   Q.  What you have done is you have brought along with you
10       today the original photograph that you used.
11   A.  As I said earlier, Mr Moynihan, I received this through
12       the post from Mr Pat Wertheim.  That one (indicated) is,
13       I'm fairly certain, well, I am certain, that is the
14       Daily Mail impression and, in fact, I did read somewhere
15       amongst all this paperwork that Mr Wertheim admitted or
16       claimed that he took the one that appeared in the
17       Daily Mail.  How it got into the Daily Mail I've no idea
18       but that is the one he sent me and that is the
19       Daily Mail impression.
20   Q.  Again as we did with your colleague, Mr Swann, I will
21       ask if you will kindly leave these originals --
22   A.  Certainly.
23   Q.  -- because plainly the originals have a provenance for
24       us.
25   A.  Yes.
page  81
 1   Q.  So the image you are using as the left thumbprint of
 2       Ms McKie is the photograph that you received from
 3       Mr Wertheim?
 4   A.  Well, yes.  It is that image.  I think I've had other
 5       photographs done of it but it's the same image, yes.
 6   Q.  What I wanted to look at was the Rosetta which, on chart
 7       11, which is on screen just now -- it is the Mr Wertheim
 8       copy but it doesn't matter for the moment --
 9   A.  Are we looking at the print or Y7?
10   Q.  For the moment we will just look at the print which is
11       unaltered.  The Rosetta is point number 1 with, adjacent
12       to it, the dot which is point number 9?
13   A.  Correct.
14   Q.  What I would like to understand is, so far as the timing
15       is concerned, you told us that you took considerable
16       amount of time studying Y7.
17   A.  Yes.
18   Q.  You told us you received the letter from Mr Wertheim in
19       1999.
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  Can you tell me when it was that you actually started
22       work on Y7?
23   A.  Not with absolute certainty, to be honest.  I would
24       think I obviously looked at it out of curiosity -- well,
25       I remember looked at it out of curiosity when I first
page  82
 1       received it and thought this is pretty tough going.  I'm
 2       going to leave this for a while.  Then I looked at it on
 3       and off over, perhaps, a period of two or three weeks
 4       before I came to my conclusion.
 5   Q.  Did you come to your conclusion before you were aware of
 6       Mr Berry and the 66 degrees of rotation?
 7   A.  I think the honest answer to that is I was almost
 8       certain and when Mr Berry came up with that conclusion,
 9       I could see that everything fitted much more happy for
10       me.  But I had come to the conclusion that there was no
11       reason why I should see it was not her print.
12   Q.  The charting -- perhaps I should bring so we are not
13       distracted by Mr Zeelenberg's markings, if I bring up,
14       again, TS0005 and it will be .28, your chart 11.  There
15       is nothing that I have observed that enables me to date
16       these chartings.
17           Do you know roughly when you did these chartings?
18   A.  Oh absolute, yes.  I did these when I knew I had to come
19       to this Inquiry.  So that's this year.  I knew the
20       Inquiry would be looming and I started work on them
21       before I realised the actual date of the Inquiry but
22       certainly this year.
23   Q.  One of the reasons I am interested just in that date is
24       that Mr Berry -- we have already seen it in SG0093.6 --
25       this is Mr Berry's own article which has a date of 2002.
page  83
 1   A.  Right.
 2   Q.  You will see that, in what I have highlighted just on
 3       screen just now in the box, he draws attention to the
 4       Rosetta characteristic and the adjacent dot.
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  Indeed, what you have marked is the Rosetta
 7       characteristic and an adjacent dot.
 8   A.  Yes.
 9   Q.  Were you aware of Mr Berry's conclusions and, indeed,
10       the images we see here at the time when you were working
11       on this charting?
12   A.  The charting that I did this year?
13   Q.  Yes.
14   A.  Oh, yes, of course.
15   Q.  Because what I am interested in is the reproducibility
16       of various characteristics.  Fingerprints we understand
17       to be a good means of identification because the pattern
18       of a fingerprint is constant through life, barring
19       injury, constant through life, yes?
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  However, you have used a very interesting alternative
22       because what you say is the impressions created, whether
23       under controlled circumstances or in a crime scene, in
24       fact are not stable, they are not static.
25   A.  Well, it may happen that they are not static, yes.
page  84
 1   Q.  So the characteristics may vary?
 2   A.  Yes.
 3   Q.  Either side of the true fingerprint?
 4   A.  That's true, although the coincident sequence of the
 5       events will remain the same.
 6   Q.  So if we can take down Mr Berry's and go back to your
 7       chart, and if we can have it twice over so I can
 8       highlight, what I have actually done is gone a little
 9       bit wider for once so that I can bring in the legend
10       that you have helpfully provided.
11           Point number 1 and point number 9, the Rosetta and
12       the adjacent dot, we may in fact just have to highlight
13       it a little bit further so that you can see, the Rosetta
14       is point number 1?
15   A.  Yes.
16   Q.  We will have to highlight it further.  The adjacent dot
17       have you marked as number 9?
18   A.  I have, sir, yes.
19   Q.  What is it that you -- if I can again highlight the area
20       of Y7, are you satisfied with the reproduction on that
21       image of the features number 1 and number 9 --
22   A.  I am.
23   Q.  -- the adjacent dot?
24   A.  I am indeed, yes.
25   Q.  The adjacent dot is indeed not simply a pinpoint dot but
page  85
 1       has the appearance, it would seem by the spacing between
 2       the two lines of point 9, as something in the nature of
 3       a very short line?
 4   A.  Yes, I'd agree with that.
 5   Q.  Running in fact parallel to --
 6   A.  Yes, to the ridge.
 7   Q.  And the 128-degree descent --
 8   A.  Indeed. yes --
 9   Q.  Of the 125 train that Mr Swann is contemplating.
10           If I can show you now an alternative image, and that
11       is the one that I have been using regularly for this
12       Inquiry and it is Mr Zeelenberg's charting, FI0170.
13           Again, the only reason I use Mr Zeelenberg is that
14       it has a helpful pinpoint, a reference, number 14.  We
15       can get an unmarked version.  He has, it would seem by
16       common assent, marked as point number 14 the feature
17       that you would describe and I have come to describe as
18       the Rosetta characteristic; is that correct?
19   A.  Yes.
20   Q.  Do you see that adjacent dot or line running parallel to
21       the nose of the Rosetta in that image?
22   A.  Not exactly.  I mean, it could be construed that on the
23       ridge just above there is a little, sort of, almost a
24       sort of little nipple thing hanging down which could be
25       the end of it, but it's not there in the same style as
page  86
 1       on this one, no.
 2           Also, of course, as I said in my evidence earlier, I
 3       have used the Rosetta as both a bifurcation and a ridge
 4       ending and in the instance here on the right from
 5       Mr Zeelenberg it does appear to be more as a ridge
 6       ending.
 7   Q.  Again, do you still have the SCRO charting with you?
 8   A.  I think I do, yes.
 9   Q.  It is the same image because it is the comparative
10       exercise image so you can, therefore, look at point 14
11       without any markings on it.
12   A.  Yes.
13   Q.  Perhaps if I could bring up then, please, on the
14       other side, on the left, FI0167A.  I will just highlight
15       that.
16           Here we have now an unmarked copy, a copy that does
17       not have feature number 14 marked so we can, therefore,
18       have a clearer view of it.
19           Would you accept, again, that the feature that is
20       marked as the dot or the line running parallel is in
21       fact difficult to see?
22   A.  I would, yes.
23   Q.  Indeed, the characteristic nose at the angle of
24       128 degrees, the nose of the 125 train that Mr Swann was
25       contemplating is in fact difficult to see?
page  87
 1   A.  Absolutely, yes.
 2   Q.  It appears on this image, if we use the one on the left
 3       because simply the point is not otherwise broken or
 4       distorted by any red dot, it appears just to have the
 5       pattern of one of any number of ridge endings in this
 6       fingerprint?
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   Q.  The final thing I want to show you in relation to these
 9       prints -- and it matters not which one we use -- the
10       ridge immediately below the Rosetta characteristic
11       appears for much of its length to be an unbroken ridge?
12   A.  Indeed, yes.
13   Q.  Can we then look at your image and perhaps if I take
14       down the right-hand image which is disturbed by the
15       number 14 and bring up your TS0005 and we will start at
16       point 28.
17           What I am interested in is on the image which you
18       have, the Zeelenberg image on the right-hand side, if we
19       go to the ridge below the Rosetta --
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  -- does it appear that there is a gap in the ridge?
22   A.  It does, yes.
23   Q.  Which is not reproduced in the image on the left?
24   A.  Yes, correct, yes.
25   Q.  If I take then on to image number 30 on the right-hand
page  88
 1       side, slide 30, what I want to do is highlight the
 2       right-hand ...   (Pause)
 3           I want to highlight the right-hand side.  On the
 4       right-hand side, we have now the Rosetta which seems to
 5       have been renumbered, has it?
 6   A.  Yes, it's a different version, yes.
 7   Q.  In this instance, please, could you tell me what the
 8       number is of the Rosetta?
 9   A.  Of the Rosetta?
10   Q.  Is it number 6?
11   A.  Yes, number 6.
12   Q.  With the dot as number 7?
13   A.  Correct.
14   Q.  In this instance when you look at Y7 on the left, you
15       have marked the dot number 7 as beneath the point of the
16       nose of the 125 train?
17   A.  Okay, yes.
18   Q.  Not adjacent to it in parallel?
19   A.  That's because that's how it appears.
20   Q.  Sorry?
21   A.  That's because that's how it is.
22   Q.  It's how it appears on that image?
23   A.  Yes, yes.
24   Q.  But you accept from me that it has a different
25       appearance in that image compared with the other because
page  89
 1       in the other image the dot was adjacent to but parallel
 2       to the nose.  Here it's dropped down.
 3   A.  I'd agree with that but it's infinitesimal.
 4   Q.  What I am interested in is what you have described as
 5       the large pore.  I am having a little bit of difficulty
 6       with your drawing.  On your drawing --
 7   A.  That shouldn't be taken an exact.
 8   Q.  No, no.  On your drawing the nose of the Rosetta is
 9       still number 6?
10   A.  Yes.
11   Q.  The adjacent dot is number 7?
12   A.  Yes.
13   Q.  The large pore is apparently numbered 4?
14   A.  On the drawing, yes.
15   Q.  On the drawing, the large pore is on the ridge below the
16       Rosetta to the left of a gap?
17   A.  Yes.
18   Q.  On the line above the Rosetta there's a spot number 9?
19   A.  There is, yes.
20   Q.  What I would suggest to you is that there seems to be
21       some error in your marking of Y7 because, if I
22       understand your drawing correctly, the large pore is in
23       fact number 9, not number 4, because it's on the line
24       immediately below the Rosetta to the left of the gap?
25   A.  Well, that's probably just an error in my drawing which
page  90
 1       I'm not an expert at, of course.
 2   Q.  So the large pore is, therefore, number 9?
 3   A.  The large pore is ...
 4   Q.  Properly in Y7?
 5   A.  No, no.  The large pore is number 4.
 6   Q.  The large pore is number 4?
 7   A.  Yes.  In the Y7, yes.  It's number 4, yes.
 8   Q.  Well, there must then be, is there not, an error in your
 9       drawing?
10   A.  No, no.  You've got the large pore which is number 4 on
11       the drawing, on Ms McKie's print and indeed on Y7.
12   Q.  If I explain to you why I am suggesting it is an error,
13       we have the ridge running around that ends at point 6,
14       which is the Rosetta.
15   A.  Yes.
16   Q.  We come down one line, one ridge down, we have a ridge
17       running right to left with a space and then the large
18       pore mark where the cursor is just now number 4?
19   A.  Yes.
20   Q.  Then carrying on round.  Number 9 on this drawing is
21       marked above the line of the Rosetta.
22   A.  Yes, I can see that.
23   Q.  However, if I look to Y7, the cursor is on point 6
24       (indicated), the nose of the Rosetta.
25   A.  Yes.
page  91
 1   Q.  I follow that line up and what I find is you have now
 2       marked point 9 below the ridge of the Rosetta, not
 3       above.
 4   A.  Yes, I have to concede that.  The point's been put in
 5       the wrong place there.  It should be a fraction higher.
 6   Q.  Either that, I suggest, or the point marked on Y7 as
 7       number 9 is what you intend by the enlarged pore number
 8       4?
 9   A.  No, no.  I intend the large pore as where it is.
10   Q.  Because if I look at where the large pore is marked
11       number 4, it's not on the ridge below the Rosetta but
12       one ridge lower down.
13   A.  Yes.
14   Q.  Do you see?
15   A.  Yes, there is -- I think there's a problem with the
16       marking there.  The characteristics exist but I'm afraid
17       there is an error in the marking there, yes.
18   Q.  What I would like to concentrate on is that point number
19       9.
20   A.  Mm-hm.
21   Q.  If, as I suggest to you, we understand -- forget about
22       the drawing just now, just looking at Y7 itself, we are
23       looking at the ridge below the Rosetta for a gap to the
24       left of which there is an enlarged pore.
25   A.  Yes.
page  92
 1   Q.  On the control print that we are using, I have already
 2       taken from you, if I put my cursor where the Rosetta is
 3       there is no obvious gap in the ridge below in a
 4       corresponding position?
 5   A.  Yes, but there is on the ridge above, isn't there, yes.
 6   Q.  Well, not on the ridge below the Rosetta and there is no
 7       corresponding enlarged pore in that ridge.
 8   A.  There's certainly an enlarged pore on the lower limb of
 9       the Rosetta with a gap on both images.
10   Q.  Is that further round where my cursor is now
11       (indicated)?
12   A.  I would say so, yes.
13   Q.  So let's just mark that.  Is it where the pen tip is
14       just now?  Just above that where the pen tip is?
15       (Indicated)
16   A.  Yes, yes.
17   Q.  Just above the green arrow?
18   A.  Yes, that's about right, yes.
19   Q.  Is that an enlarged pore or simply a gap in the tracing?
20   A.  No, it's a pore, I would say, in my opinion a pore.
21   Q.  Is it in the same corresponding position as number 9 in
22       Y7 or is it further round?
23   A.  I actually think the enlarged pore we're looking at is
24       about an eighth of an inch to the right of that one.
25   Q.  Sorry?
page  93
 1   A.  I think the actual enlarged pore we've concerned
 2       ourselves is about an eighth of an inch to the right of
 3       your green arrow.
 4   Q.  So it's not in the same position?
 5   A.  No, that isn't, no.  You should move the arrow slightly
 6       to the right to get the one we're looking at.
 7   Q.  Let us just then run with this just now.  Could we save
 8       this image now, please.
 9   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2310.08.
10   MR MOYNIHAN:  What I am going to do is switch images of Y7
11       and use the control image that we tend to use, which is
12       Mr Kent's image that Mr Swann provided, that's TS0006.
13       Move to page 2.
14           What I am going to do is enlarge it.  I will enlarge
15       it again.
16           The Rosetta is where my arrow is pointed
17       (indicated)?
18   A.  Correct.
19   Q.  You say so far as the line is concerned, the dot in this
20       image, it is clearly to be seen as a line that is at the
21       same level as the descending nose of the Rosetta?
22   A.  Yes, indeed.
23   Q.  Indeed, it's not a dot; it's a line?
24   A.  Yes, you could say that.
25   Q.  Looking at the other image where you marked the dot as
page  94
 1       below the nose of the Rosetta -- do you remember?  You
 2       marked the dot as below the nose and you told me it was
 3       only marginal.
 4   A.  The dot had a slightly different appearance, didn't it?
 5   Q.  Well, a different location.
 6   A.  Well, slightly, yes.  With the flexibility of the skin
 7       and the different surfaces, I mean, it's not so uncommon
 8       that something like that should happen.  It's such a
 9       minute shift, it's quite normal to see that sort of
10       thing.
11   Q.  Let's then look at the mark Y7.  We come along the ridge
12       below the Rosetta?
13   A.  Yes.
14   Q.  So we are clearly on the ridge below the Rosetta?
15   A.  Mm-hm.
16   Q.  To the point -- is my cursor on the point you describe
17       as the enlarged pore?  (Indicated)
18   A.  Indeed it is, yes.
19   Q.  So that is why I was asking you about the numbering of
20       these points earlier.
21   A.  Yes.
22   Q.  I am going to put a green arrow there to the enlarged
23       pore.  (Indicated)
24           What do you say to the fact that on this wood in a
25       variety of places ...
page  95
 1   A.  Sorry, I didn't get that question.
 2   Q.  I'm just marking things just now.
 3           One finds black marks similar to what you have
 4       marked as the enlarged pore peppered right throughout as
 5       artefacts of the wood?
 6   A.  Okay.  I understand -- I never saw the original mark on
 7       the wood but I understand it was a black powdered mark;
 8       is that correct?
 9   Q.  Yes.
10   A.  So obviously there's black powder going to be picked up
11       by all sorts of artefacts on the wood around the mark
12       which will attract the powder and I suspect -- I can
13       only suspect because I haven't seen it -- that these
14       black marks are speckles of black powder or some other
15       artefact and the pore there which you've got arrowed is
16       obviously filled in and it could easily be filled in by
17       black powder.  But for one of these specks to
18       miraculously land on that ridge where that particular
19       enlarged pore is too much of a coincidence to accept, I
20       think.
21   Q.  Well, one other possibility, if one looks at the control
22       print, that in fact what one sees in Y7 as a broken
23       ridge below the Rosetta is, in fact, to be compared with
24       an unbroken ridge, bar the one that's a feature that is,
25       as you say, fractionally to the left of my green arrow
page  96
 1       just now, there is it would seem a pore.  It does not
 2       take much more than the width of the ridge itself?
 3   A.  Yes, I would agree with that, yes.
 4   Q.  Whereas what is marked in Y7 is a black circle much
 5       greater in width than the ridge.
 6   A.  Well, that would not be so unusual if it was filled in
 7       with black powder.
 8   Q.  If I leave that at that particular point and take you
 9       then on to the next point I wanted to ask you about --
10       in fact, sorry, we had better save.  Before I save it,
11       since I have got now a plethora of green arrows, the one
12       that is against the Rosetta I had better mark as red
13       rather than green to make the point (indicated).
14   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2310.09.
15   MR MOYNIHAN:  Mr Leadbetter, I think, because I am conscious
16       of the time, what I will do is ask you one more point of
17       detail and then I think I will give others the
18       opportunity to ask you questions rather than take up
19       much more of the afternoon myself.
20   A.  Thank you.
21   Q.  The one other point of detail I wanted to ask you about
22       is we have heard some evidence about Fingerprint
23       Officers in Aberdeen having access to an image of Y7
24       and, indeed, Shirley McKie's fingerprint ultimately of
25       Y7.
page  97
 1           There has been a suggestion by a Mr Luckraft that
 2       you were the source of the image that went initially to
 3       Aberdeen and perhaps to a Mr Major.
 4           Have you any recollection of supplying an image of
 5       Y7 to Mr Major?
 6   A.  Not exactly.  I can't be honest about that and say that
 7       I didn't send it but I certainly remember speaking to
 8       Mr Major about 2000/2001.  We had had a conversation
 9       about this as I was speaking to him about another issue
10       and I believe, from the way we were discussing it, I was
11       under the impression that he already had a copy.  But
12       it's quite possible that, even if he did have a copy, I
13       might have sent him another one.  I cannot honestly say
14       that I remember.
15   Q.  I haven't looked at the images that you have of Y7 that
16       are also included in the package.  From memory, and I
17       will be corrected if I am wrong, the Aberdeen image has
18       a characteristic ruler on it that Mr Wertheim explains
19       is something that he places when he is photographing a
20       photograph.
21           By chance do any of your images have that
22       characteristic sign?
23   A.  We can check because that would certainly resolve it,
24       wouldn't it?  That one does, yes.  That one seems to be
25       the only one.
page  98
 1   Q.  So you have one that does?
 2   A.  I do have one that does, yes.
 3   MR MOYNIHAN:  Again, as I have said, we will make
 4       arrangements through Mr Russell with these materials
 5       that were provided this morning if you wouldn't mind
 6       just leaving them with us and make them available to
 7       others.
 8           Sir, that I think would be a convenient point for me
 9       to stop and pass over.
10   THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr Smith, you would be first again.
11   MR SMITH:  Thank you, sir.  I do have an application that
12       broadly relates to two matters, one concerns the quality
13       of images and source material that the witness considers
14       is appropriate to give an examination opinion on and the
15       other relates to his Inquiry statement where he is
16       critical of, in particular, Mr Wertheim and
17       Mr Zeelenberg and on their behalf I wish to challenge
18       some of the things that have been said.
19   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, you represent Mr Wertheim so certainly.
20                    Cross-examined by MR SMITH
21   Q.  Mr Leadbetter, I think you were in the Inquiry yesterday
22       when Mr Swann gave his evidence.
23   A.  I was, yes.
24   Q.  Yesterday did you see Mr Swann hand over a document to
25       the Inquiry which was the original material he had
page  99
 1       received from Levy & McRae solicitors?
 2   A.  I don't honestly recall that instance, no.
 3   MR SMITH:  I wonder if the original of that document which
 4       was handed in could be passed to Mr Leadbetter?
 5   MR MOYNIHAN:  Sorry, I was not listening.
 6   MR SMITH:  It is the document -- I think Miss Gilpin is
 7       aware of the one I am looking for.
 8   A.  I think I remember the instance where you were talking
 9       about quality come to think of it.  (Handed)
10   Q.  If you could just have that before you just now.  As I
11       understand it this is the only material that Mr Swann
12       was sent by Levy & McRae solicitors, upon which he came
13       to a firm view that there was an identification between
14       Y7 and Shirley McKie's mark?
15   A.  I've lost my glasses, actually.  There they are.
16           You're saying this was the material that he came to
17       the conclusion on that the mark was identical with --
18   Q.  Could I ask you to move a little closer to the
19       microphone?
20   A.  Could you put the question again, please?
21   Q.  Yes.  As I understand Mr Swann's evidence yesterday, he
22       said something to the effect that the document you have
23       in your hand just now was the limit of the information
24       provided to him by solicitors acting for Shirley McKie
25       and after I think he said about three days' examination
page 100
 1       of it, he came to the conclusion that there was indeed a
 2       match, a correct match, between one and t'other.
 3   A.  I remember that, yes.
 4   Q.  You remember that?
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  Seeing it just now in front of you, are you able to give
 7       any comment as to whether, had you been asked by
 8       solicitors to express an opinion on the accuracy of that
 9       examination, you would have been prepared to carry out
10       that examination and express a view?
11   A.  At what point?
12   Q.  At any point.  Would you be prepared to give an opinion
13       as to the match on Y7, on the information provided, as
14       against Shirley McKie's inked mark on what you have in
15       your hand just now?
16   A.  I don't ever recall specifically being asked to do that
17       by a solicitor.
18   Q.  No, forgive me, I am not asking whether you were asked
19       to do it.  Imagine that today that lands on your desk
20       and someone asks you for an expert opinion on whether
21       you agree that the left-hand image has a common donor to
22       the right-hand image.
23           What would your response be?
24   A.  I would be prepared to look at it.
25   Q.  You would be prepared to look at it?
page 101
 1   A.  Yes.
 2   Q.  Knowing what you know now about the image and in
 3       particular your concern with what is in the core area,
 4       which you have explained to us, are you able to confirm
 5       to the Inquiry that the images you have before you,
 6       especially in relation to Y7 mark, predominantly show
 7       the core area?
 8   A.  They do, yes.
 9   Q.  So I am a little mystified, Mr Leadbetter.  Are you
10       saying that you consider that that is sufficient to give
11       an opinion or it's not sufficient to give an opinion?
12   A.  It is sufficient to give an opinion, yes.
13   Q.  So you are now saying the core area is sufficient to
14       provide an opinion on?
15   A.  Well, every examiner will see a fingerprint comparison
16       differently.  There is an element of subjectivity in
17       this.  Some officers may prove(sic) to choose that but
18       they haven't gone out further from that, you know, they
19       have restricted themselves to that particular area.
20       When you try and link up with my area that seems to be
21       where the problem comes, due to movement.
22   Q.  I think you understand my difficulty, Mr Leadbetter.
23       Lest it is unclear let me put it again: your evidence to
24       this Inquiry earlier today when being asked questions by
25       Mr Moynihan, as I recall it, was to the effect that the
page 102
 1       core area was an area you avoided because you were
 2       concerned about the possibility of distortion or
 3       movement or something you couldn't explain?
 4   A.  That's correct.  I had that feeling, yes.
 5   Q.  What you have in your hand, as I think you confirmed to
 6       me a few moments ago, was a document that shows in the
 7       left-hand side image, ie the Y7 image, substantially the
 8       core area that you told us earlier told you were less
 9       than comfortable with?
10   A.  Indeed, yes.
11   Q.  So why is it you now say you would be prepared to
12       consider that image when you earlier said you were
13       uncomfortable with what was in the core area?
14   A.  I didn't like the idea of going from where I'd started
15       my marking-up through into that area because I thought
16       there was a problem with the ridge flow between the two
17       separate areas.
18   Q.  What is your position now as you look at that?  Do you
19       still think there's a problem with the ridge flow?
20   A.  Well, I mean, that is not very clear (indicated) but,
21       no, I suppose I don't.  I mean, I don't.  If that's just
22       the area that's been marked-up then, yes, that's okay.
23   Q.  So it is okay?
24   A.  Yes.
25   Q.  If you want me to go back and ask you to do the ridge
page 103
 1       count from the core area out to your point, I'm happy to
 2       do it.
 3           Do you understand the point that was being made by
 4       Mr Moynihan?
 5   A.  I do understand it completely, yes.
 6   Q.  There appears to be, to those of us who have been
 7       looking at this in quite a lot of detail, there appears
 8       to be a difference in ridge count in Y7 as compared to
 9       Shirley McKie's mark.
10   A.  There does.
11   Q.  You know what I'm talking about, don't you?
12   A.  I do indeed, yes.
13   Q.  I understand your explanation for the difference in
14       ridge count is the fact there is some kind of problem
15       with the core area which is the reason why you didn't
16       chart any significant points within that core area?
17   A.  That is correct in as much as I did not go right from
18       out the top right through into it.  The problem for me
19       was going from one area into the next area.
20   Q.  The core area that you have in front of you is
21       sufficient, is it, to give an opinion on a match; is
22       that your evidence?
23   A.  I believe so, yes.
24   Q.  Using that document in front of you, please, and we will
25       get this no doubt under the scope somewhere, could you
page 104
 1       please explain to us where you marked point 14?
 2   A.  Using this document ... yes, I can.  It's --
 3   MR MOYNIHAN:  If you allow me just a minute we can of course
 4       put it on the projector but there's no ability to mark
 5       on screen when using the projector, I am afraid.
 6   MR SMITH:  I am using a very low technology, I don't know if
 7       a little sticky label will do if a mark was put so as
 8       the witness can indicate where the point in question is.
 9   A.  You're asking me where I marked ...?
10   Q.  Point 14.
11   A.  I'm not sure it's even on this picture.  It would have
12       been somewhere down the bottom there (indicated).
13   Q.  Just keep that in front of you then if it's not on the
14       picture.  Can we have up the image, please, which is
15       your chart 11.
16   MR MOYNIHAN:  TS0005.28.
17   MR SMITH:  Using the image you have, if you wish, the one in
18       your hand that Mr Swann provided to the Inquiry, which I
19       understand you consider is sufficient for purposes, or
20       using the image in chart 11, can you please identify the
21       ridge count between point 14 and the centre of the core?
22   A.  Before we go on to that, I have to say that because I
23       didn't have the full image I have not got that in the
24       right place.
25   Q.  As I understand it, you are saying that, what we have
page 105
 1       been led to believe -- and I think it's fairly
 2       obvious -- is at least a second generation copy.  You
 3       would agree with that, that's what it looks like?  It's
 4       a photocopy?
 5   A.  It does look like that, yes.
 6   Q.  Are you saying that gives you better detail of the image
 7       on chart 11, are you?
 8   A.  Oh no, it's nowhere near as good, is it?
 9   Q.  Let's use chart 11 then.  Can we have both of them up,
10       in particular it is Y7 I am interested in for the
11       moment.
12           Point 14 to the core.
13   A.  Yes.
14   Q.  Can you tell us what the ridge count is, please, between
15       point 14 and the core?
16   A.  Okay.
17   Q.  Perhaps you can be given some assistance to draw little
18       lines where you think --
19   A.  I would say somewhere between eight and nine.
20   Q.  Eight and nine, very well.
21   A.  Bearing in mind the core isn't that clear.   (Pause)
22   Q.  I think we heard some suggestion that when one is doing
23       a ridge count it's appropriate when looking, obviously,
24       at the intervening ridges to exclude the starting point?
25   A.  That's correct, yes.
page 106
 1   Q.  Let us do it that way if you can.  Can you confirm from
 2       core to 14 what the intervening ridge count actually is.
 3   A.  Well, as I said before, eight or nine.
 4   Q.  Eight or nine.  Very well.  Can we have the inked mark
 5       up, the other half of the page, please?
 6   MR MOYNIHAN:  We had better be careful.  You may want to
 7       just save this image.
 8   MR SMITH:  Thank you.
 9   MR MOYNIHAN:  Just in case.  What I would suggest is you
10       bring up it up twice so you can enlarge one.
11   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2310.10.
12   MR SMITH:  Thank you.  Can we have, just on its own, the
13       other half of that charting --
14   MR MOYNIHAN:  Mr Smith, what I suggest, if we just bring up
15       an image again of.  28 and then we can enlarge.
16   MR SMITH:  Thank you.  Can we do the same exercise,
17       please -- if we just have the right-hand image up if we
18       can do that.  Now we have the left one saved I suppose
19       no major disaster will happen.
20           Again, no doubt a bit clearer here, can we do a
21       ridge count from 14 across to the core.  (Pause)
22           I wonder if we could have it expanded again so you
23       can count the ridges, please.
24           Just to save you doing the exercise are you able to
25       tell us how many intervening ridges there are on the
page 107
 1       inked mark?
 2   A.  About 17, I think.
 3   Q.  Mr Leadbetter, what possible explanation could there be
 4       for missing about nine or ten ridges?  What possible
 5       explanation could there be?
 6   A.  Well, I can't offer much more than I said this morning
 7       on this issue which I went over with Mr Moynihan that I
 8       still consider -- I considered at the time that there
 9       was some issue with the natural flow of the ridges in
10       that area thus I avoided going there.
11   Q.  Yes, I heard you saying that, Mr Leadbetter, but --
12   A.  Well, I can't say any more, frankly.
13   Q.  Can I make a suggestion to you?  The other possibility
14       is that the inked mark is not Y7.  It's not the same.
15       That's a possibility, isn't it?  They are not the same
16       is the other possibility, Mr Leadbetter, isn't it?
17   A.  I'm sorry, could you say that again?
18   Q.  The possibility is, is it not, Mr Leadbetter, that Y7 --
19       you know what Y7 is -- is not the same as the inked mark
20       of Shirley McKie?
21   A.  No, I repudiate that.  I disagree.
22   Q.  Provide me, please, with an explanation as to how we can
23       lose nine or ten ridges?
24   A.  I can only give you the same explanation I've already
25       given you.
page 108
 1   Q.  Well, please tell me again what the explanation is, not
 2       just that there's something gone wrong, something's
 3       happened, tell me what possibly could have caused these
 4       ridges to go missing?
 5   A.  Possibly movement as the finger's turned in rotation,
 6       pressure, all the usual things that can happen to a
 7       crime scene mark.
 8   Q.  What evidence is there on Y7, looking at Y7 on its own,
 9       what evidence is there of pressure, movement, twisting,
10       anything of the kind?
11   A.  We haven't got it on the screen now, have we?
12   Q.  If we can bring Y7 up --
13   MR MOYNIHAN:  If we save this one, please.
14   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2310.11.
15   MR SMITH:  You were going to tell us where the evidence is
16       in Y7.  Can we get Y7 expanded and you can tell us where
17       the evidence is in the core area of movement of some
18       kind that would justify the loss of nine or ten ridges?
19   A.  Obviously, we have this dog-leg effect here and the flow
20       of the ridges is not natural.  They are compressed up
21       there (indicated) and, obviously, it has moved at some
22       time and I believe that the ridge flow there has been
23       affected by that.  I can't tell you any more.  I'm
24       sorry.
25   Q.  The question I asked was where the evidence on Y7 was
page 109
 1       that there was movement of some kind or twisting or some
 2       kind of distortion that would lose nine or ten ridges.
 3       We can see on Y7 that's in front of us just now where
 4       your point 14 is.
 5           Could we have the area, please, down from -- yes,
 6       that area expanded.  Thank you.
 7           We see where 14 is.  Tell me, please, what we see
 8       around about the point 14 heading up in the direction of
 9       the digit 1, what the evidence is of movement or
10       twisting that would justify the loss of nine or ten
11       ridges?
12   A.  Only that it goes off at a sharp angle, we have
13       compression there (indicated) and, to me, the flow does
14       not look natural.
15   Q.  Just for the purposes of the notes I think you indicated
16       compression there.  Were you indicating an area just at
17       the edge of the print below the digit 1?
18   A.  Sorry?
19   THE CHAIRMAN:  It is just to record where you say the sharp
20       angle there.  We can't see --
21   A.  I see.  There's almost a white line going through there.
22       The angle starts like that, doesn't it?
23   MR SMITH:  Hopefully, I --
24   THE CHAIRMAN:  Perhaps we can just mark where you say this
25       sharp angle is.
page 110
 1   A.  Within that (indicated) area, to me, when I was doing my
 2       initial comparison, I did not feel that those points
 3       looked natural, the way they fell, so therefore I
 4       concluded that there was a problem with the natural flow
 5       of the ridges.
 6   MR SMITH:  That was evident, was it, from your looking at Y7
 7       itself?
 8   A.  Yes.
 9   Q.  You heard Mr Swann's evidence yesterday, didn't you?
10   A.  I did, yes.
11   Q.  I recall what he said.  He indicating that from Y7
12       itself he could see no evidence of any distortion or
13       twisting or something of that kind.
14   A.  Yes.
15   Q.  To that extent do you disagree with Mr Swann's evidence?
16   A.  Well, I can't do anything but, can I, in that extent
17       but, as I said, there is always a subjectivity aspect in
18       fingerprint identification.
19   Q.  I think that answer is a yes, you do disagree with him?
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  The extent of the distortion and movement such as to
22       obliterate some nine or ten ridges, intervening ridges,
23       I take it is a severe distortion of some kind?
24   A.  I would say so, yes.
25   Q.  Accordingly, if anyone was to use the bottom portion of
page 111
 1       that print in an analysis it would be something that
 2       would be highly questionable, wouldn't it?
 3   A.  Well, it depends if it's done in isolation.  If it's
 4       done in isolation without relation to the rest of the
 5       print, I don't think so.
 6   Q.  Sorry, it would be acceptable if it was done in
 7       isolation, just on its own; are you saying that, are
 8       you?
 9   A.  If you're using those characteristics in the area
10       without proceeding to the other area, yes, I think it's
11       okay.
12   Q.  Mr Leadbetter, you are telling us that you can see, on
13       what we are looking at on the screen just now, evidence
14       of distortion or twisting of some kind?
15   A.  It's my impression, yes.
16   Q.  What is your evidence about it?  You say it's your
17       impression.  Are you saying you can see that there is
18       evidence of some kind of distortion or twisting.
19           Are you saying you can see it?
20   A.  I don't know what more I can say other than that the
21       appearance of the ridges to me and the way the
22       characteristics fell I did not like so I decided I would
23       avoid it.
24   Q.  What I am asking you, Mr Leadbetter, is this, as I am
25       sure you are well aware: would any expert be able to see
page 112
 1       what you are telling you can see, evidence of distortion
 2       or twisting in the lower part of the print?
 3   A.  I don't know.  You would have to ask them.
 4   Q.  If another expert fails to see it, do you have any
 5       question mark over their competency?
 6   A.  Sorry?
 7   Q.  If any other expert, someone professing to be an expert
 8       in fingerprints, fails to see that evidence of twisting
 9       and distortion in the lower part of the print, do you
10       have any question marks relating to their competency?
11   A.  Probably not, no.
12   Q.  Why not?
13   A.  Because it's a subjectivity exercise, isn't it?
14   Q.  You won't agree with that proposition, Mr Leadbetter,
15       because you know that SCRO relied on the lower part of
16       the print.  That's why you are having difficulty with
17       this, isn't it?
18   A.  No.
19   Q.  How can you explain the position that a number of
20       experts from SCRO relied upon an area of a print that
21       you say you can see evidence of distortion of some
22       kind sufficient to obliterate nine or ten lines?  How do
23       you explain that?
24   A.  Well, it's very difficult, isn't it?
25   Q.  Well, either they are wrong or you are wrong, isn't it?
page 113
 1   A.  Well, I may be wrong about that area but I'm not wrong
 2       about the rest of it.
 3   Q.  Are you accepted that there may be no evidence of
 4       twisting or distortion in that area of the print?
 5   A.  There may be no evidence but I still had to go by my
 6       impression of it when I examined it.
 7   Q.  If there is no evidence of it how do you justify the
 8       ridge count difference?
 9   A.  I can't add anything to what I've said.
10   Q.  I would like to ask you if I can, Mr Leadbetter, about
11       some of the comments you have made in your witness
12       statement.
13           Could we have your witness statement up, please.
14   MR MOYNIHAN:  First of all, if we save the image just now
15       and then what you are ultimately looking for is
16       FI0148-02.
17   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2310.12.
18   MR MOYNIHAN:  No, it's -02.
19   MR SMITH:  This statement you have I think recently
20       confirmed you are adopting it as your evidence in this
21       Inquiry.
22           Do you remember being asked that?
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  I would like to go on -- unfortunately I don't have page
25       numbers marked on my copy but hopefully it will be page
page 114
 1       number 4.  Can you go on to the fourth page, please.
 2   A.  Page 4.
 3   Q.  It is the section that has Pat Wertheim's name on it.
 4       It is on the screen as well, Mr Leadbetter, if that
 5       would be easier to use.
 6   A.  Okay.
 7   Q.  I think we can see under your comments relating to
 8       Mr Pat Wertheim, I will just read out what you say there
 9       from the commencement:
10           "From almost the very beginning of this case one of
11       the American fingerprint experts hired by the McKie's,
12       Mr Pat Wertheim, made a public statement that he could
13       see in less than 90 seconds that the mark Y7 could not
14       have been made by Shirley McKie's left thumb."
15           You do acknowledge that's perhaps not verbatim.
16           "He then goes on to make an even more boastful
17       statement on BBC Television's Panorama programme and I
18       quote verbatim, 'I knew within a minute of looking at
19       this mark that it could not have been made by Shirley
20       McKie'.
21           "Frankly, for such a ridiculous and unprofessional
22       statement to be made so publicly by a practising
23       fingerprint expert is not only ludicrous but verging on
24       the totally idiotic."
25           Can I just be clear about it: are you sticking with
page 115
 1       the position after all you may have seen or heard in
 2       this Inquiry that Mr Wertheim's an idiot?
 3   A.  I've never said he's an idiot.
 4   Q.  What does the word "idiotic" mean?
 5   A.  You can make an idiotic statement without being an
 6       idiot.
 7   Q.  What do you mean by idiotic?
 8   A.  Because it's just a ludicrous statement to make.  The
 9       mark is so complex that to have made it in such a short
10       time is just ridiculous.
11   Q.  Your statement, as we will see, is full of somewhat some
12       people may consider intemperate language.  I want to
13       give you the opportunity to -- was this drafted in a
14       hurry?
15   A.  No.
16   Q.  It was considered, was it?
17   A.  Of course.
18   Q.  Reading on:
19           "I stated earlier the mark Y7 is extremely complex
20       and poses various issues that require the most careful
21       and studious analysis before any conclusion should be
22       reached: any competent Fingerprint Examiner would
23       appreciate this."
24           I would like just to understand, Mr Leadbetter, if
25       you appreciate the sequence of events that Mr Wertheim
page 116
 1       was involved in.
 2           As I understand his position and of course he has
 3       not yet finished his evidence but he has made this clear
 4       before in other areas, he looked at it, he came to a
 5       very swift conclusion but kept his mouth shut about it,
 6       he then examined the mark on the doorframe, which I
 7       don't think you had the opportunity of doing?
 8   A.  I haven't, no.
 9   Q.  He then took a large number or inked fingerprints from
10       Shirley McKie, he considered matters carefully, then and
11       only then did he commit himself to writing.
12           What is wrong with that approach?
13   A.  Nothing if you know about it but the impression that
14       comes across is this very boastful statement, "I could
15       see in less than a minute or could see in less than 90
16       seconds".
17   Q.  So if what I told you about Mr Wertheim's position is
18       correct, are you prepared to withdraw the allegation
19       that it was an idiotic statement to make?
20   A.  Well, I still think it's an idiotic statement to make
21       but if what you're saying is the way he did it, then he
22       did it correctly.
23   Q.  Because what this statement goes on to say is:
24           "For my part, I had spent countless hours of
25       examination, re-examination and meticulous scrutiny
page 117
 1       before I reached my final conclusion."
 2           I take it that you say you reached your final
 3       conclusion, you must at some stage in these hundreds of
 4       hours or countless hours have reached a preliminary
 5       view, did you?
 6   A.  Yes, yes.
 7   Q.  How quickly did you reach a preliminary view that it was
 8       correctly matched?
 9   A.  Perhaps after about two or three weeks of looking at it,
10       on and off.
11   Q.  Of course you would accept, would you, from me that if
12       someone looks at something that is patently different
13       one can easily, depending on the differences there are,
14       can easily conclude very swiftly that there is no match
15       between two items?
16   A.  You can when the things are simple to look at and clear
17       but this is not the case with this mark.
18   Q.  So the statement that a mark can be differentiated very
19       quickly of itself is a statement you cannot necessarily
20       take any issue with, just in isolation?
21   A.  No, not in isolation, no.  It's possible, depending upon
22       what you're looking at.
23   Q.  In your statement, just skipping the reference to the
24       Fingerprint Whorld magazine, you see the quotation is:
25           "As most experienced latent print examiners will
page 118
 1       recognise the comparison process does not cease at the
 2       first instant the expert reaches a conclusion."
 3           Now you go on to suggest that clearly Mr Wertheim
 4       does not seem to abide by his own maxim in respect of an
 5       expert reaching a hasty and erroneous decision but it is
 6       quite clear, isn't it, that he is saying you don't just
 7       go with your first view, you've got to be careful about
 8       it.  Do you agree that is what is being said?
 9   A.  He's saying that there, yes, and I have the article
10       where he says that but he still said he could see in
11       less than a minute that it was not Shirley McKie's
12       fingerprint.  What do we interpret from that other than
13       to believe what he said.  It took him less than a
14       minute.
15   Q.  The real point is, Mr Leadbetter, as you well know, that
16       he did not go public and express a view on that until he
17       had double checked, triple checked, had the primary
18       materials and only then did he give his opinion, you
19       know that, don't you?
20   A.  I didn't know that when I wrote this.
21   Q.  Are you going to retract what you say about Mr Wertheim?
22   A.  I think I already had if you listen because earlier you
23       asked me if I would retract that now that I knew what
24       you said and I said I agreed I would.
25   Q.  Are you retracting the word "idiotic" as well?
page 119
 1   A.  Yes, in that case, yes.
 2   Q.  You see, Mr Leadbetter, you are a gentleman whose
 3       profession, reputation depends on accuracy of
 4       information received and communicated.  That's right?
 5   A.  Yes, and that was the information that I received.  I
 6       saw it on Panorama.
 7   Q.  Did you not think of being a bit more careful about what
 8       the circumstances were before you called someone an
 9       idiot, effectively?  Did you not consider it was
10       appropriate to try and find the facts?
11   A.  I had not calling the man an idiot per se, just it was
12       an idiotic statement.  You don't need to be an idiot to
13       make an idiotic statement.
14   Q.  I would like to go on to the next page of the statement,
15       please.  There is a quotation just about a third of the
16       way down the page, again, bearing to come from
17       Mr Wertheim in Fingerprint Whorld:
18           "Regardless of the number of points found in
19       agreement, a single dissimilarity point is accepted to
20       prove exclusion.  If both the mark and the inked print
21       were made from the same finger there cannot even be a
22       single point present in one print but absent from the
23       other."
24           Now, do you not understand that what is being
25       suggested is the question of if there's an inexplicable
page 120
 1       difference then there has to be a non-match between the
 2       known and the unknown?
 3   A.  Well, I don't agree with that and I don't see the word
 4       "inexplicable" there.
 5   Q.  Well, I think you haven't quoted the whole article but
 6       you are saying that that's somehow the entire context.
 7       He's saying even if there's an explicable difference,
 8       then they can't match; is that what you are saying the
 9       thrust of that article is?
10   A.  Even if there's  ...?
11   Q.  An explicable difference.
12   A.  You mean one that can be explained?
13   Q.  Yes.  Are you suggesting Mr Wertheim's is communicating
14       in that article that if there's a difference between the
15       known and unknown that can be explained, he is saying
16       there's no match?  Is that what you are saying that
17       article suggests?
18   A.  That phrase there suggests that.
19   Q.  Yes, but the phrase has to be read in the context of the
20       article, Mr Leadbetter.  I'm suggesting to you that what
21       Mr Wertheim is making clear is it's only where there is
22       a difference that cannot be explained that you have to
23       come to the conclusion that the two fingerprints are not
24       of common authorship?
25   A.  Well, I don't agree with that because there are
page 121
 1       inexplicable situations as we went through this morning.
 2   Q.  Mr Leadbetter, I am not asking about the truth or
 3       falsity of the statement at the moment.  I am asking
 4       about the context of the article that was written by
 5       Mr Wertheim.
 6           Do you agree that all he was saying in that article
 7       was where there is an inexplicable difference?  You may
 8       not agree with his opinion.  I'm just asking about the
 9       article for the moment.  There is an inexplicable
10       difference that then you have to conclude that there is
11       no match between the known and the unknown?
12   A.  Okay, yes.
13   Q.  Of course we can see a reference to an article further
14       down the page, I don't think from Mr Wertheim.  It is
15       one you quote from and you quote further.  You see the
16       last two sentences in the quotation, what is said by the
17       authors is this:
18           "But differences that we cannot explain certainly
19       cause a problem!  We must be able to give a reasonable
20       explanation for any significant difference we observe."
21           Do you agree with these two sentences?
22   A.  Yes, yes.
23   Q.  Just to be clear about it, the reasonable explanation
24       you provide in this case is there is the 66-degree
25       twist, correct?
page 122
 1   A.  Somewhere between 60 and 70 anyway, yes.
 2   Q.  How long did it take you to come up with this reasonable
 3       explanation?
 4   A.  That was not my explanation.  That was -- Mr Berry first
 5       did that and once I saw that I could see that there was
 6       significance in easing the identification and making it
 7       more, you know, making it much more simple to see.
 8   Q.  So you didn't come up with the reasonable explanation?
 9   A.  No, I never have said that I did.
10   Q.  Well, the curiosity about this, Mr Leadbetter, is if
11       it's such a reasonable explanation why you didn't come
12       up with it.  Can you help us with that?
13   A.  No.
14   Q.  One explanation is it's a wholly unreasonable
15       explanation.
16   A.  No, I disagree.
17   Q.  So despite the fact it wasn't you that came up with it,
18       Mr Berry came up with it and you go along with it, you
19       consider it's a reasonable explanation, is it?
20   A.  No, I had already come to the conclusion that the marks
21       were identical but that did solve a lot of the issues.
22   Q.  What were the issues?
23   A.  That there seems to be differences in the pressure and
24       the orientation and the pressure and the flow of the
25       ridges didn't look right and the way the top of the
page 123
 1       ridges looked like they could have been flowing in the
 2       wrong direction.
 3   Q.  So, in short, the issues were there were differences?
 4   A.  Not within the ridge structure.  There are adequate
 5       matching ridge features but there are differences in the
 6       appearance between the two images.
 7   Q.  Mr Leadbetter, you looked at it, there were differences
 8       you couldn't explain until Mr Berry came up with an
 9       explanation?
10   A.  At first, possibly, yes.
11   Q.  Instead of concluding that these were not of common
12       authorship because you didn't have the explanation, you
13       waited around and tried to force an explanation in
14       conjunction with Mr Berry, didn't you?
15   A.  Not at all, no, not at all.  It's quite common practice
16       for examiners to share their views and analyse things
17       together.  There's nothing sinister or sordid about that
18       at all.
19   Q.  Just looking at the statement below the quotation I have
20       just read, you say you:
21           "... also have to call into question Mr Wertheim's
22       ability to correctly take inked impressions which are
23       deemed suitable for comparison purposes."
24           Have you seen the inked prints Mr Wertheim took?
25   A.  I have.
page 124
 1   Q.  All of them?
 2   A.  Not all of them, no, because apparently he took 100 and
 3       we've never seen those anywhere.  Why you would take 100
 4       I don't know.
 5   Q.  I will come on to the explanation for that in a moment,
 6       but you question his ability to correctly take inked
 7       impressions which are deemed suitable for comparison
 8       purposes?
 9   A.  Not -- sorry.
10   Q.  Not what?
11   A.  Not his ability to take them but to take suitable prints
12       for this comparison.
13   Q.  I am just reading your statement, Mr Leadbetter.
14           "I have to call into question Mr Wertheim's ability
15       to correctly take inked impressions which are deemed
16       suitable for comparison purposes."
17           It is your statement.
18   A.  Yes.
19   Q.  Is there any of that you wish to withdraw or clarify?
20   A.  For comparison purposes in this particular case.
21   Q.  You realise of course that Mr Swann, having heard his
22       evidence, didn't take inked impressions personally from
23       Shirley McKie.  You are aware of that?
24   A.  He did take prints.
25   Q.  He didn't.  As I understand it, he did not take inked
page 125
 1       impressions?
 2   A.  I don't know.
 3   Q.  It was left to someone within a solicitor's office to
 4       provide inked impressions.
 5   A.  Well, I didn't know that.
 6   Q.  Do you have any comment on whether that's a good
 7       practice, to allow someone perhaps untrained who's never
 8       seen a fingerprint in their life to take an inked
 9       impressions for the purposes of a perjury trial?  Do you
10       have any comment on that?
11   A.  I would say it's a bad practice for any untrained person
12       to take fingerprints if they are required for any legal
13       reason.
14   Q.  I take it, following through from that, it would be bad
15       practice to rely on fingerprints taken possibly by an
16       untrained person?
17   A.  Well, it does depend, doesn't it, really.  It depends
18       what you get in the end.  You wouldn't rely on letting
19       someone do it for you, not knowing what you might get.
20   Q.  So you just see what comes out and see if it's good
21       enough?
22   A.  I've seen fingerprints taken by police officers that are
23       terrible and appalling and can't be used and they are
24       supposed to be trained.  We're faced with this problem
25       all the time in fingerprint bureaux.
page 126
 1   Q.  Let us go on with the statement about Mr Wertheim, the
 2       last two lines on that page and on to the next page:
 3           "In March 1999 Mr Wertheim took nine inked
 4       impressions of Shirley McKie's left thumb, presumably
 5       for comparison with the mark Y7.  It is my professional
 6       opinion that none of these inked impressions reaches the
 7       required quality and quantity of friction ridge detail
 8       for comparison with the mark Y7.  In such circumstances,
 9       the person taking the thumbprint should have ensured
10       that all areas of the friction ridge detail on the left
11       thumb should have been carefully recorded."
12           The fact is, Mr Leadbetter, you have no idea if
13       Mr Wertheim took rolled impressions, do you?
14   A.  I think I've got a copy of the ones he took somewhere.
15   Q.  I don't wish to spend too much time on this,
16       Mr Leadbetter, but the ones that you have seen, you have
17       not seen all of the prints that Mr Wertheim took?
18   A.  No, I'm sure that true.
19   Q.  So if he was to say that he is pretty certain he took
20       rolled impressions, again, do you have any comment or
21       criticism of him?
22   A.  Well, as I say, the only ones I've seen were plain
23       impressions taken by him, which didn't adequately
24       provide the area that you needed to compare up on the
25       top right-hand side.  If he took rolled impressions,
page 127
 1       correctly, they would have disclosed these
 2       characteristics at the top and that may be one good
 3       reason why we've never seen them.
 4   Q.  What are you suggesting?
 5   A.  Well, that if you get a rolled impression, as Mr Swann
 6       was doing in his evidence yesterday, there's a clear
 7       cluster of six characteristics at the top which are
 8       clearly identifiable with the rolled impression which
 9       was taken in the blue ink.  Why have we never seen any
10       rolled impressions taken by Mr Wertheim?
11   Q.  Please be very careful, Mr Leadbetter.  Are you
12       suggesting that Mr Wertheim has concealed something from
13       this Inquiry and from the criminal trial?  Are you
14       suggesting that?
15   A.  No, I'm not saying that but there is a good reason --
16       there is a good reason for him to show us the rolled
17       impressions, isn't there, surely?
18   Q.  Please don't do anything by implication, Mr Leadbetter.
19       What are you suggesting about the fact that the rolled
20       impression has not been produced?  What are you
21       suggesting?
22   A.  Because the normal thing, when you take fingerprints for
23       comparison purposes you take a rolled impression.  You
24       do not take plain impressions.  It's the normal
25       practice.  You may take plain impressions as well as
page 128
 1       rolled impressions but you would certainly want to see
 2       rolled impressions as well.
 3   Q.  Mr Leadbetter, be very careful, please.  Are you
 4       suggesting that Mr Wertheim concealed something from a
 5       criminal trial and concealed it from this Inquiry?
 6   A.  No.
 7   Q.  Now Mr Wertheim, his position, as I understand it, is he
 8       looked at Y7; he saw where the core was; he saw the area
 9       of Y7 and he took numerous impressions, up to maybe 100
10       or 150, repeatedly checking the position, the side, the
11       tip, the flat surface, near the core, towards the top,
12       so that he was getting every conceivable area he
13       possibly could.
14           Do you have any criticism of him doing that to try
15       and replicate?
16   A.  None at all.  That's how it should be done.
17   Q.  Because he has the advantage, doesn't he, that he knows
18       approximately the area of the thumb that was being
19       suggested belongs to Shirley McKie and the obvious thing
20       is to repeat and repeat and repeat to see if you can see
21       the same detail?
22   A.  Indeed, yes.
23   Q.  I think it is suggested in your precognition -- in your
24       statement rather, in the second paragraph on that page,
25       if we can have the second paragraph brought up, you say:
page 129
 1           "Mr Wertheim also reported he had taken more than
 2       100 inked impressions from the left thumb of Shirley
 3       McKie.  Again, no self-respecting Fingerprint Examiner
 4       would ever need to resort to such a ridiculous procedure
 5       as it must be quite obvious, even to a complete layman,
 6       that after taking several impressions, for example ten,
 7       no more detail could be achieved by taking another 90."
 8           Having regard to what I've told you, are you
 9       prepared to withdraw that as a criticism of Mr Wertheim?
10   A.  Well, I withdraw it now that you've told me what you've
11       told me, yes.
12   Q.  The point is, Mr Leadbetter, you were prepared to use
13       language like "ridiculous procedure" and "no
14       self-respecting Fingerprint Examiner" when you didn't
15       know why he took over 100 fingerprints?
16   A.  Well, it did seem rather strange, I have to say.
17   Q.  Mr Leadbetter, you're making a very serious allegation
18       and attacking the character of someone without knowing
19       the facts.
20           You understand that that is an extremely dangerous
21       thing to do?
22   A.  I do, yes.
23   Q.  Because we've now had the withdrawal of at least two
24       things in your statement which were serious attacks on
25       Mr Wertheim's character.
page 130
 1   A.  I should add I have been under constant attack for
 2       several years on the web, various vile and slanderous
 3       remarks.
 4   Q.  Is that why you did this?
 5   A.  No, of course not.  I've never responded to any of them.
 6       I only wrote this when I knew I was required to be
 7       giving evidence here.
 8   Q.  Another serious allegation about Mr Wertheim relates to
 9       the quotation, a report from CLPEX, and I will tell you
10       now on Mr Wertheim's behalf it is accepted this was said
11       by him on CLPEX, he says:
12           "I was in NO WAY qualified to testify to fingerprint
13       identifications when I was first accepted in court as
14       'an expert' in the late 1970s."
15           He explains he attended a two week class in unique
16       classification which also touched on latent print
17       development and latent print identification.
18           "Our comparison exercises were inked to inked.
19       After that there was no OJT in my department and I had
20       to teach myself.  Within two years I was testifying to
21       identifications.  I never had a senior examiner check my
22       work and never had a single proficiency test."
23           You go on to say this:
24           "From this it is quite clear that Mr Wertheim,
25       although himself realising that he was in no way
page 131
 1       qualified to testify, was still willing to take the
 2       stand and deceive the US courts and justice system."
 3           Do you wish to with draw that, Mr Leadbetter?
 4   A.  Yes, I will withdraw that, yes.
 5   Q.  Why?
 6   A.  Because there's no proof that he intended to deceive.
 7   Q.  There's no proof that he deceived anybody.
 8   A.  No, but his training wasn't exactly that professional,
 9       was it?
10   Q.  That's not the point I am seeking to make.  Mr Wertheim
11       tells the world on the Internet that way back in the
12       1970s he didn't feel he was properly trained.
13   A.  Yes.
14   Q.  Mr Wertheim's position, on whose behalf I act, has
15       indicated to me that not only were the prosecution told
16       about what his training was or lack of it, the defence
17       was told, the judge was told and the jury was told.  If
18       that's correct, where is the deceit?
19   A.  There's none.
20   Q.  Why did you make an allegation that he appeared to
21       deceive the US courts and justice system without finding
22       out what the facts were, Mr Leadbetter?
23   A.  Well, I have to say I made a mistake, didn't I.
24   Q.  You go on to use words like you're, "disgusted that
25       Mr Wertheim and others have attempted to throw doubt on
page 132
 1       the fingerprint system".  Is that the feeling you have
 2       towards Mr Wertheim?  You are disgusted with him?
 3   A.  I'm not at all, no.  I have no personal aspect in this
 4       at all.
 5   Q.  You say in your statement that you take no pleasure in
 6       criticising other experts.  Would you agree with me that
 7       you are certainly pretty enthusiastic in your statement
 8       with criticism?
 9   A.  I suppose I'm enthusiastic but I take no pleasure in it.
10   Q.  I do not intend to deal with all the people you
11       criticise but Mr Arie Zeelenberg is the next, you have a
12       go at his character.  You have:
13           "... serious concerns regarding this expert's
14       experience and competency.  I base this mainly on his
15       involvement with the Evett Williams fingerprint survey
16       of 1987 but also his unconventional, weird, examination
17       of the latent mark Y7."
18           What was weird?
19   A.  Well, I understand from reading the report from
20       Justice 1 that he applied a grid system on one mark and
21       superimposed it on another, which is something I've
22       never heard take place within fingerprint identification
23       in my life.
24   Q.  Where did you get that understanding from,
25       Mr Leadbetter?
page 133
 1   A.  Well, I seem to remember reading that from the Justice 1
 2       report.  I'm not sure exactly where.
 3   Q.  You see we have obviously heard from Mr Zeelenberg.  Did
 4       you read his testimony before this Inquiry?
 5   A.  No.
 6   Q.  Let me put to you what he says the purpose of the grids
 7       was.  As I recall it, he indicated that a grid was put
 8       up over Y7 and a grid was put up over the inked mark and
 9       it was used as a reference point so that when everyone
10       is sitting round a table someone can say, "Let's talk
11       about the bifurcation at point A3.  Do we see a
12       bifurcation at all in that area on, let's say, Y7", and
13       everybody knows what they are talking about.
14           It's not used as some kind of map it's used just to
15       save everyone going up and having to point and say, "I'm
16       talking about this bit here".  It's not an analysis
17       tool.
18           Do you understand what I'm saying?
19   A.  I understand exactly, yes.
20   Q.  Nothing weird about that, is there?
21   A.  Wouldn't seem to be, no.
22   Q.  So we remove the "weird examination" bit, we get to the
23       Evett Williams information.
24           You gave evidence to the effect that Evett Williams
25       was not a competency test.  Is that your understanding
page 134
 1       of Evett Williams?
 2   A.  I never saw it as a competency test, no.
 3   Q.  I don't wish to go to it but it is in Mr Zeelenberg's
 4       statement if we have to where he gives the quote -- I
 5       think, in fairness, we should just go to it.
 6           Mr Zeelenberg's statement FI0115, page 28, please.
 7           We can see he quotes from the conclusion of Evett
 8       within this and I will just read it out.  This is Evett
 9       as I understand it:
10           "There is a widespread view among UK Fingerprint
11       Experts that because they work to a higher number of
12       points than most of the rest of the world their
13       'standards' are in some sense higher.  The collaborative
14       study showed this to be a mistaken view.  If standards
15       are measured by the avoidance of mistaken
16       identifications then experts in Holland and Germany are
17       more cautious than their UK colleagues -- even though
18       they declare a lower number of points for identity."
19           Just pausing there, if I may, is that something you
20       recall within the opinion of Evett?
21   A.  I don't recall it.  I did take the Evett Williams test
22       but it was back in 1988.
23   Q.  Is that different to what was going on in the Evett
24       Williams report?  Are you saying you were part of the
25       cohort that had to examine the images?
page 135
 1   A.  Yes, I was, yes.
 2   Q.  We can see that what Mr Zeelenberg says at 121 is that
 3       before the quotation that I read out:
 4           "In consultation, we found out that our conclusions
 5       were in line with those of the experts of the LKA in
 6       Germany who have a roughly equivalent position to our
 7       own organisation."
 8           Were you aware of that?
 9   A.  Only when I came here.  I wasn't aware that Germany took
10       part until I came here.
11   Q.  You see, the difficulty is you were using Evett Williams
12       as a suggestion that Mr Zeelenberg personally is in some
13       way incompetent?
14   A.  Well, it seems just highly incredible to me that anybody
15       could not make those identifications.
16   Q.  As Mr Zeelenberg explained to us they were given two
17       images and all that was being asked is whether they
18       would be prepared to draw an identification, not to go
19       through an exercise of identification, whether they
20       would be prepared, as a matter of standards, to go to
21       court with that identification.
22   A.  Having read what I have, I still find it incredible the
23       conclusions he came to were so far off our mark.
24   Q.  You see the quotation very clearly implied if not
25       expressed that the difficulty is or one conclusion is
page 136
 1       that experts in the LKA in Germany and the Dutch
 2       National Police Force are more cautious than what might
 3       be viewed as being a somewhat gung ho attitude by UK
 4       experts?
 5   A.  Not at all.  I've been taught to be cautious as well and
 6       we are not gung ho at all.  We have a very, very high
 7       reputation in our fingerprint work.
 8   Q.  Did anywhere in the Evett Williams report the authors
 9       suggest that the Dutch police or, indeed, Mr Zeelenberg
10       were to any extent lacking in competence?
11   A.  I can't recall but I'm sure they didn't.
12   Q.  They didn't?
13   A.  Well, I'm sure they would not have said that.
14   Q.  Mr Evett is a statistician, isn't he?
15   A.  He is indeed, yes.
16   Q.  He was looking at it from a statistical point of view
17       and an overall methodology rather than any sense
18       incompetence?
19   A.  I would imagine that's definitely the case, yes.
20   Q.  I think in the course of this Inquiry, in your evidence
21       earlier today, you suggested with regard to one point of
22       detail that Mr Zeelenberg was either incompetent or
23       seeking to deliberately mislead this Inquiry.  Do you
24       remember saying that?
25   A.  I do, yes.
page 137
 1   Q.  Is that something that you are prepared to say in front
 2       of this Inquiry, draw a conclusion like that?  Are you?
 3   A.  Well, I suppose I should withdraw that, yes.
 4   Q.  I just have a few more questions.  I will not be much
 5       longer, sir.
 6           I would like to ask you to look at a comment of
 7       Mr Kent in his Fingerprint Inquiry statement.  I think
 8       it is FI0052, please.  I would like, if we can, to go to
 9       paragraph number 47.
10           I will just read this out:
11           "In document [and he gives the reference] letter
12       from Terry Kent to Owen Taylor, I made reference to
13       trials carried out with 60 experts in relation to their
14       ability to locate characteristics on digitised images.
15       The experiment I designed in collaboration with Juliet
16       Rason, who did much of the hard work, is probably the
17       most objective evaluation of the interpretation of
18       fingerprint images by UK fingerprint experts.  The Evett
19       & Williams study which preceded it was an interesting
20       experiment, although somewhat flawed.  It sought to
21       review the 16-point standard in England and Wales and,
22       as a part of that review, sent out a number of print
23       pairs for comparison to fingerprint experts as a postal
24       exercise.  One of the flaws was that due to the postal
25       nature it was essentially uncontrolled and there were
page 138
 1       anecdotal tales of exercises being passed around whole
 2       fingerprint teams as opposed to being simply one
 3       expert's work."
 4           You recognise that even Mr Kent has some concerns
 5       over the methodology of the Evett Williams study?
 6   A.  Apparently so, yes.
 7   Q.  That is something you are not in a position to dispute,
 8       that there is some concern over the methodology, are
 9       you?
10   A.  No.
11   Q.  You are fairly free with your criticism in your
12       statement of a number of expert witnesses as we have
13       seen, Mr Leadbetter.  I would like to ask you this: what
14       of the experts that you have not named in this who have
15       come to the contrary conclusion -- I will put their
16       names to you in a moment -- what is your comment to
17       this?  Mr David Ashbaugh: is he someone you consider is
18       experienced and qualified to express a view?
19   A.  I would say so, yes.
20   Q.  As far as Mr Ashbaugh is concerned, I need not trouble
21       you with it but there is available to this Inquiry an
22       e-mail written by him in 2000 to the Crown Office in
23       which he indicates, very much like Mr Wertheim, it took
24       him a matter of minutes to conclude there was no match
25       between Y7 and Shirley McKie's print but, again, he kept
page 139
 1       his mouth shut and went away and considered it.
 2           If Mr Ashbaugh has come to the view there was no
 3       match, do you not have respect for that view at least?
 4   A.  Well, that's his opinion, isn't it?
 5   Q.  I think in the e-mail Mr Ashbaugh says that once the
 6       images became public, he had passed it out in his
 7       training programme.  Have you ever trained with
 8       Mr Ashbaugh?
 9   A.  I have actually, yes.
10   Q.  Do you have confidence in his training programmes?
11   A.  I say "training".  I attended one one-week course at the
12       Metropolitan Police where he gave a week's instruction
13       on ridgeology.
14   Q.  As far as his training course is concerned, as I
15       understand the e-mail, he says out of some 500 experts
16       who had come along to the training course, not one
17       identified these two as a match.  Does that surprise
18       you?
19   A.  Somewhat, yes.  It depends how long they had to look at
20       it and what sort of material they were supplied with, of
21       course.  When I was on the course at the Yard, it was
22       just flashed up on the board for a matter of minutes and
23       we were told it was not identical.
24   Q.  Mr Grigg gave evidence to this Inquiry as I understand
25       it.  He was of the firm view that Y7 wasn't correctly
page 140
 1       identified.  Do you have any criticism of his
 2       competence, capability, his independence?
 3   A.  I've never worked with him.  I couldn't comment.
 4   Q.  What about Mr Sheppard?  Do you know Mr Sheppard?
 5   A.  Yes, I know Mr Sheppard, yes.  I know Mr Grigg.
 6   Q.  Any question of their capability of competence?
 7   A.  Well, I can't say because I haven't work with them.  I
 8       know they've been in training for years and haven't done
 9       actual fingerprint work for some time.
10   Q.  What about David Grieve then, who gave evidence in
11       Shirley McKie's case?
12   A.  Yes, I know David Grieve.
13   Q.  Any comment about his capability and experience?
14   A.  I can't comment on him because I haven't worked with
15       him.  I know he's done a lot of writing and he's a
16       manager.
17   Q.  Devon & Cornwall Police: we saw a letter from them
18       saying that their Identification Department concluded
19       that there was no match between Y7 and Shirley McKie's
20       print.  Have you any comment about that?
21   A.  That was a reply to a letter from Mr Harry Bell who sent
22       out the marks to all the bureaux round the country.
23       Keith Townsend responded and I think he was the only one
24       who did respond as far as I'm aware.
25   Q.  I think the evidence on that was somewhat vague.  Who is
page 141
 1       Steve Haylock?
 2   A.  Steve Haylock.  He's just retired as the Head of the
 3       City of London Fingerprint Bureau.
 4   Q.  Yes.  He's an experienced and qualified expert, is he?
 5   A.  Indeed, yes.
 6   Q.  If there was to be evidence before this Inquiry that he
 7       also concluded that there was no match between Y7 and
 8       Shirley McKie's --
 9   A.  Well, I work for the City of London from time to time
10       and he told me that he still hadn't come to his
11       conclusions.  That's what he's told me.  I can't add
12       anything more than that.
13   Q.  Well, I'm going to put to you specifically -- and we
14       will produce this to the Inquiry -- that he expressed a
15       view that there was no match between Y7 and Shirley
16       McKie's mark.  He said that he found the unfolding of
17       events, and he is addressing Iain McKie in regards this
18       case:
19           "... almost beyond belief and that fingerprints
20       experts I had spoken to find it inconceivable that an
21       'incorrect identification' could get as far as it with
22       the results that it did.  I fully support the findings
23       of the experts employed by HMIC for Scotland having been
24       shown copies of both the marks to which you refer."
25           Now, are you saying that he has at some stage
page 142
 1       indicated he has no view on it?
 2   A.  No, I haven't said that.  What I said was that he had
 3       not come to a conclusion.  That's what he told me.  If
 4       that's different from what he's put in that letter, I
 5       can't add anything more than that.
 6   Q.  Mr Leadbetter, finally, I am suggesting to you against
 7       the large number of experts throughout the world who
 8       have come to the conclusion that Y7 has not come from
 9       Shirley McKie, do you accept any possibility that you
10       might be wrong in your analysis?
11   A.  I do not, no.
12   Q.  Absolutely none?
13   A.  Absolutely not.
14   Q.  So by implication David Ashbaugh, Mr Grigg, Mr Sheppard,
15       Mr Grieve, Devon & Cornwall, Steve Haylock are wrong?
16   A.  Well, I have to say yes.
17   MR SMITH:  Thank you.
18   THE CHAIRMAN:  Miss Grahame, have you any application?
19   MISS GRAHAME:  No thank you, sir.
20   THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr Holmes?
21   MR HOLMES:  No thank you, sir.
22   THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr Russell?
23   MR RUSSELL:  Sir, I would just perhaps wish to put one
24       matter to Mr Leadbetter which follows on from Mr Smith's
25       examination, which is the issue of why Mr Leadbetter
page 143
 1       might have responded in such terms as to the conduct of
 2       Mr Wertheim.  It's a single question which will take no
 3       time.
 4           There's the issue of allegations having been made by
 5       experts and the impression given by Mr Smith is that
 6       Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg are lily-white and would
 7       never have resorted to such language; whereas it is a
 8       matter of record that Mr Wertheim has, for many years,
 9       made allegations of criminality against named SCRO
10       officers and, in respect of a fingerprint conference
11       which Mr Leadbetter attended, said that SCRO had about
12       it the odour of corruption.  The most heinous,
13       horrendous allegations have been made against named
14       Fingerprint Officers --
15   THE CHAIRMAN:  I don't want a statement, I just want the
16       question.  As I understood the witness, he said he had
17       come under a great deal of, well, if I say abuse but
18       criticism and, no doubt, abuse over the years.  Do you
19       want to suggest to him that some of that had been
20       created by Mr Wertheim?
21   MR RUSSELL:  Sir, what I am suggesting is that the
22       atmosphere of experts, may I say, attacking one another
23       is something that, notwithstanding what Mr Smith has to
24       say, has been almost entirely created, precipitated by
25       Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg and the fact that they
page 144
 1       have had some harsh response is not surprising since
 2       they have consistently made horrendous allegations
 3       against UK fingerprint experts.
 4   THE CHAIRMAN:  That really could be the question then just
 5       as you put it.
 6   MR RUSSELL:  That is the question.
 7                   Cross-examined by MR RUSSELL
 8   Q.  Mr Leadbetter, are you aware of the fact that over many
 9       years Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg have made a number
10       of very serious allegations as to the honesty/conduct of
11       UK fingerprint experts, particularly those of SCRO, and
12       that there have been very specific allegations against
13       named officers of dishonesty and criminality?
14   A.  Yes, I have heard that, yes.  I'm aware of that, yes.
15   Q.  Is it reasonable to say that your response, as recorded
16       in your statement, has perhaps been precipitated by that
17       atmosphere?
18   A.  To a degree, I believe that's the case.  I've never
19       actually responded to any of the allegations that have
20       been made.  In fact, there was one published last week
21       on the net stating that they doubted -- whoever it was
22       who stated it and anonymously, I believe, although the
23       name of Colin might have been used -- they stated that
24       they were curious to know why I should be here, what was
25       my competency basically and they looked forward to a
page 145
 1       day's entertainment when I appeared on the stand.  That
 2       was what was said and I thought that was a very, very
 3       inappropriate statement to make when we are considering
 4       such grave and serious issues.
 5   Q.  The fact is that over many years Mr Wertheim in
 6       particular has made the most serious, grave allegations
 7       against named SCRO fingerprint experts?
 8   A.  Indeed, yes.
 9   MR RUSSELL:  Thank you.
10   THE CHAIRMAN:  Do you have any questions remaining?
11   MR MOYNIHAN:  No thank you, sir.
12   THE CHAIRMAN:  I want to ask one question, which perhaps at
13       this stage of the Inquiry is somewhat naive, but one
14       repeatedly hears how you can see features if you look at
15       one copy of the print, one copy of the mark, but it's
16       not to be seen on another and so on and sometimes when
17       it's reproduced it isn't as good as it was the first
18       time and so on.
19           Do fingerprint experts ever go -- and I fully
20       understand that Mr Swann did go and examine the original
21       mark and indeed Mr Wertheim and others have done so --
22       but do they ever go and conduct their examination on the
23       actual mark which, in a sense, is the best evidence?
24   A.  Most certainly but primarily this is done by Scenes of
25       Crime Officers who are not generally fingerprint
page 146
 1       experts.  In Cambridgeshire and certainly when I was at
 2       Hertfordshire, if we had a serious offence we had a team
 3       of experts who would be specifically ordained to go to
 4       that particular crime.  But we do also get lots of
 5       exhibits come into the Fingerprint Bureau which still
 6       have the marks on them.
 7   THE CHAIRMAN:  But what I am really wondering is do you go
 8       and look through your glass or whatever you use and
 9       actually look at the mark?  You see, sometimes I am
10       being told, as indeed you did and I can understand, that
11       that could be black powder or it could be filling in the
12       mark where a pore was, but it seemed to me that all
13       these issues could have been or could be resolved if you
14       actually look at the mark itself rather than relying on
15       what is portrayed in the representation of the mark.
16   A.  Certainly, sir -- most valid, yes.
17   THE CHAIRMAN:  That is why I am asking you in a difficult
18       mark do examiners actually go and conduct their
19       examination of the mark itself?
20   A.  It has been known, yes, but it's not sort of a normal
21       routine.
22   THE CHAIRMAN:  I can see it is not always possible --
23   A.  Of course --
24   THE CHAIRMAN:  -- but where possible I can see that there's
25       some sense in doing it, especially if you get in a
page 147
 1       situation which we have been in in which various
 2       reproductions of the mark reveals something and others
 3       don't.
 4   A.  Most certainly.  When I was at Cambridgeshire, we had
 5       the case of the two girls that were murdered at Soham
 6       and I made the identification on that which was on the
 7       original exhibit on a black polythene bag.  I examined
 8       that and made that identification myself.  So there is
 9       an instance where we do actually look at the mark.
10   THE CHAIRMAN:  So it is possible to conduct the
11       examination --
12   A.  Most certainly, sir.  In many cases if the article bears
13       fingerprints where they cannot be lifted at the scene,
14       the articles will be sent up to the fingerprint
15       laboratory and taken into the photographic studio.  So
16       the item is always there available for the officers to
17       look at.  Likewise, with any documents which need to be
18       chemically treated you can always look at the actual
19       item.
20   THE CHAIRMAN:  The only other matter I want to ask you is
21       the same question as I asked Mr Swann.  In your very
22       considerable experience, is what we have called the
23       Rosetta mark something that is unusual or common or you
24       have seen in other places?
25   A.  Of course, each feature is quite unique but it is an
page 148
 1       unusual one in that it chips so sort of at a 45 degrees
 2       angle.  The normal flow of fingerprints is for things to
 3       flow gently and not be angled.  It is rather an unusual
 4       feature in some respects, yes.
 5   THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you very much and thank you for coming.
 6       We are now going to be able to let you catch the train
 7       as hoped.  Thank you very much indeed.
 8           Do you want to start Mr Macpherson today?
 9   MR MOYNIHAN:  No, sir.  There is one other matter just to
10       raise.  I wasn't proposing to start Mr Macpherson at
11       this time of the day but we could if necessary.  The
12       other piece of business that is unresolved that is
13       carried also perhaps for Tuesday morning is the
14       unresolved question about Mr Wertheim, the issues is to
15       be raised with him and the consequences of that.
16           I don't know whether, sir, you are prepared to do
17       that on Tuesday morning or deal with that now.  It is
18       entirely a matter for you.
19   THE CHAIRMAN:  I am quite content to deal with it.
20       Mr Leadbetter, you are absolutely free to pack up and
21       go.
22                      (The witness withdrew)
23   THE CHAIRMAN:  I am anxious not to lose time on Monday --
24   MR MOYNIHAN:  On Tuesday.
25   THE CHAIRMAN:  -- or to keep Mr Macpherson waiting while we
page 149
 1       deal with it.  Are you both in a position to deal with
 2       it today?
 3   MR SMITH:  I may say, sir, I was not anticipating having to
 4       discuss it today but there's actually a couple of cases
 5       that I might wish to present to you, sir, which I didn't
 6       bring copies of which relate to the issue of experts
 7       witnesses and --
 8   THE CHAIRMAN:  Well, it looks as if -- I think the sooner we
 9       deal with it the better because arrangements have to be
10       made.  I think I should indicate that one aspect I have
11       been exploring is I have to be very careful about public
12       expenditure and the cost of bringing Mr Wertheim back.
13       If we can do it by video link that recommends itself for
14       two reasons: (1) not just the public expenditure but
15       also the inconvenience to somebody having to fly from
16       the United States here and back when he has already been
17       here on one occasion.  If we can to it that way, I would
18       at the moment be very much minded to adopt that
19       approach.
20   MR SMITH:  I may say, sir, that I have obviously been in
21       discussion with Mr Wertheim and the position that he is
22       adopting is that really on my advice it depends very
23       much on your decision, sir, as to what questions can be
24       put as to his preference would be either to coming over.
25       Clearly if an allegation of criminal conduct was to be
page 150
 1       put to him, then he would be prefer to be here.  If that
 2       was something ruled upon and was going to feature, then
 3       I think he would be more than happy to accommodate by a
 4       video-link, as I understand.  He is keen to assist as
 5       much as he can.
 6   THE CHAIRMAN:  Obviously I can't answer that question before
 7       we deal with the main issue.
 8           We will just have to reserve that.  Would you like
 9       that dealt with on Tuesday before we begin the evidence?
10   MR SMITH:  Yes.
11   MR HOLMES:  I am quite happy to deal with it then, sir.
12   THE CHAIRMAN:  We will sit again at Tuesday morning at
13       10.00.
14   (3.36 pm)
15       (Adjourned until 10.00 am on Tuesday, 27th October)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25