page 1 1 Tuesday, 27th October 2009 2 (10.00 am) 3 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we are going to begin with your 4 application, Mr Holmes, which was about the evidence of 5 Mr Wertheim. 6 MR HOLMES: That's correct, sir. I should say that I have 7 had a brief conversation this morning with my learned 8 friend Mr Smith and hopefully this can be dealt with in 9 relatively short order. 10 The first thing to deal with, sir, is the question 11 of Mr Wertheim's evidence to date. My learned friend 12 has asked me to confirm that I do not intend to make any 13 allegation Mr Wertheim perjured himself during the trial 14 of Ms McKie. I am quite happy to do so, sir. I asked 15 Mr Wertheim a question about whether he gave evidence 16 during Ms McKie's trial that he knew to be incorrect and 17 that was based on the fact that he had previously agreed 18 that certain points were within tolerance that he now 19 disputes. Of course the assessment of his credibility 20 in the light of his answers to that question is a matter 21 entirely for the Inquiry and I accept that without 22 making any kind of allegation. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 24 MR HOLMES: The second matter to be dealt with in relation 25 to this application is Mr Wertheim's evidence with page 2 1 regard to XF. I have put certain passages in the 2 application relating to Mr Wertheim's comments on XF and 3 I would like to ask him questions about those comments, 4 standing the fact that Mr Wertheim appears to have 5 examined the mark as early as 2000. I understand 6 there's no opposition to my asking him about his 7 comments on XF. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. The only reason I wondered about it 9 was, first of all, I thought it was relevant, the part 10 about when he spoke, I think, on the Panorama programme 11 or a television programme, I was interested to know 12 whether that was before or after he had actually seen 13 the gift tag, as we now know that he had, and that he 14 now accepts that he had. I think there was also some 15 written confirmation about him having seen it, which I 16 thought was relevant that that should come out. 17 The only reason I queried the other matters was, 18 first of all, there were some questions which I thought 19 came to comment, I mean, how would he know where the 20 jury had come to a decision. I'm well aware that he 21 wouldn't know about what made the jury decide the case 22 in a particular way so I was not really interested in 23 that. 24 Otherwise, I thought the other occasions when he had 25 said that he had not had access, they were all about page 3 1 2006, I think. After all, he was saying at the 2 beginning of this Inquiry that he had not seen it and 3 then accepting that he had when it was put to him. So I 4 just wondered is there much difference between what he 5 was saying in 2006 and 2009? 6 MR HOLMES: Indeed, sir. He has commented often and with 7 some force on the origins of XF and my intention would 8 be to simply put those comments to him and ask if he 9 accepts that he made them. In the light of his response 10 to those questions, it is again a matter for the Inquiry 11 to assess Mr Wertheim's credibility. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: If you are anxious to ask them I am not going 13 to stand in your way if you think it progresses the 14 matter. I leave that to you. 15 MR HOLMES: I am obliged, sir. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: There were then a number of questions, 15, 17 16, 17, 18, 19, which I have all allowed, so you want to 18 pose those questions. 19 MR HOLMES: Yes, sir. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I would just like to be absolutely clear that 21 so far as what was question 21 is concerned, what you 22 were proposing to ask in the light of what you discussed 23 with Mr Smith. 24 MR HOLMES: I'm afraid, I don't have a copy in front of me, 25 sir. I assume this relates to -- page 4 1 THE CHAIRMAN: The only point I wanted to make there was 2 that if you are cross-examining as to credit, the rule 3 with which I am familiar and I am advised is the same in 4 Scotland is that you are bound by the witness' answer; 5 in other words, when you are cross-examining to credit, 6 you can't go off on a diversion, if that is the way to 7 put it, on that particular subject. 8 When he, Mr Wertheim, has said the passage which you 9 have quoted at paragraph 21, that he chose to concede 10 the five points and let's move on from there and then he 11 said that he had done it in that context of the trial 12 but this was a more important occasion, I'm 13 paraphrasing, this was more important and that's why he 14 said what he had. 15 Now that seems to me, on cross-examination as to 16 credit, you can't take it further than that. So you are 17 not intending to. Is that the position? 18 MR HOLMES: Indeed not, sir. It is a matter, as you say, 19 for comment on his answer thereafter. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: So we can abandon that question really 21 altogether -- 22 MR HOLMES: Yes, sir. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: -- at 21. 24 Just so that I am quite clear now what we are left 25 with, is that the matters about XF that we have just page 5 1 discussed and the questions that you wanted to ask, 2 which were 15 through to 19, are about marks, that you 3 wanted to ask about marks, various points, 3, 4, 5, 8 4 and 14 -- 5 MR HOLMES: Yes, sir, those -- 6 THE CHAIRMAN: -- which I have agreed to. I have already 7 agreed that you may ask those questions about that. 8 MR HOLMES: Yes, sir. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: In the light of that, just so that we can 10 clear this matter up, would it be fair to say that in 11 the light of that it would not now be necessary for 12 Mr Wertheim to come back to Scotland? 13 MR SMITH: Yes, sir. I am grateful to Mr Holmes making the 14 position clear and just so that everyone understands 15 where I am coming from on this, I understand no further 16 questions will be put regarding the question of variance 17 in testimony and that, to the extent that any allegation 18 of perjury was put to Mr Wertheim, I think there is some 19 question mark over how far it got, I just wish to make 20 it plain that I understand that allegation, effectively, 21 to be withdrawn, had it been put. 22 If that is the position, I am fairly sure, having 23 regard to the conversations I have had with Mr Wertheim 24 since he was in Scotland, that there would be no 25 difficulty about him continuing with his testimony. page 6 1 I may say, sir, that obviously the extent to which 2 he may be asked to give further evidence will be very 3 limited and I would suspect that his position will be he 4 will be content, if he gives further evidence, to do so 5 by video link. Obviously, I haven't taken final 6 instructions on that in light of today's developments 7 but I am fairly sure that will be his position. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: I would prefer to do it that way for the 9 reasons that I have explained. 10 MR HOLMES: I certainly have no difficulty with that, sir. 11 For the sake of clarity, my position is that no 12 allegation was made to Mr Wertheim. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Good. That allows us now to move on. Thank 14 you for your help with that. Now we can have 15 Mr MacPherson. 16 HUGH MacPherson (sworn) 17 Examined by MISS CARMICHAEL 18 THE CHAIRMAN: As usual, if I could ask your for your full 19 names with the record. 20 A. It's Hugh MacPherson. 21 MISS CARMICHAEL: Good morning, Mr MacPherson. I think you 22 have produced two signed statements for the Inquiry; is 23 that right? 24 A. That's correct, yes. 25 Q. Subject to any changes that you want to make to those in page 7 1 your oral evidence today, are you happy to adopt those 2 as true and accurate? 3 A. Yes but can I just say in the initial statement I gave, 4 on page 7, these statements were done in rather a rush 5 so it's got on it I finished with the Bureau on 6 12th March 2007 and -- 7 Q. Yes, I see that. That is at paragraph 28. 8 A. Yes, that's correct. I actually finished my -- well was 9 made redundant, retired, on 31st March. Just something 10 I noticed when I was going through my statement. 11 Q. Thank you for that, Mr MacPherson. 12 You might find it helpful if you can get the 13 microphone just a wee bit closer to yourself. It's a 14 big hall and we tend to find, unless we hear ourselves 15 echoing round the hall, we're probably not audible to 16 people right at the back? 17 A. Okay. 18 Q. I would like to start by asking you, Mr MacPherson, a 19 bit about procedures, in the first place generally and 20 then perhaps with a bit more particular emphasis on some 21 of the procedures that were used in the Marion Ross 22 murder investigation. 23 I would like to take you first to paragraph 38 of 24 your first statement, which is FI0055. Paragraph 38 is 25 at page 9. page 8 1 You tell us at paragraph 38 that when you started -- 2 which I think from the earlier part of your statement 3 was back in 1970? 4 A. 2nd November 1970, yes. 5 Q. -- there was an SCRO handbook. But moving on to 1997 6 you say that you know there were written procedures but 7 no complete procedures manual. You say: 8 "Any changes to practice would be sent out in a memo 9 from the Chief Inspector and these memos would be kept 10 in a single place of reference where they could be 11 looked at." 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. I would like to ask you in the first place, to the best 14 of your recollection, what those written procedures 15 related to? 16 A. They basically related to how you operated a specific 17 team. Most of the procedures were general procedures 18 but if you, say, worked at the cheque fraud the 19 procedures might be slightly different from, say, a 20 volume crime team. 21 Q. Would the procedures have dealt with things like, for 22 example, how many points of similarity you needed to 23 make an elimination? 24 A. No, I don't believe so. 25 Q. So they would be related to specific types of crime that page 9 1 you would deal with, perhaps like a cheque fraud or 2 something of that sort? 3 A. Yes, motor vehicle, crime, house breakings, et cetera. 4 Q. So we wouldn't expect to find any assistance there as to 5 the way that you operated in terms of the procedures for 6 eliminations or identifications generally? 7 A. No, I don't believe so. 8 Q. I will move on then to ask you a little bit about 9 something that you tell us at paragraph 80 of your 10 statement. You tell us there about sending out strong 11 suspicion letters about the use of the 10 plus 10 rule 12 and about the use of the dire and crucial rule? 13 A. In the handbook that I referred to earlier which I was 14 supplied with in 1970, it mentions in that handbook 15 about the 10 and 10 rule. The 10 and 10 rule at that 16 time was if two impressions in sequence, say the number 17 7 and the number 8, if they could be identified on the 18 fingerprint form as the number 7 and number 8, as long 19 as there was a minimum of ten characteristics in each 20 and they were in sequence that was sufficient to be 21 presented in court. 22 I think I say in my statement that we had the 23 16-point standard but with provisos and that was one of 24 the provisos. 25 Further from that in the mid-to-late '80s, that 10 page 10 1 and 10 rule with regards to, say, cheque fraud, if you 2 had a serious of cheques and there were 30 cheques in a 3 book, if you had identified a person with ten 4 characteristics on one cheque and ten characteristics on 5 another, that was sufficient to proceed that for 6 evidential value for court. 7 Q. Was the 10 and 10 rule used consistently throughout your 8 time at SCRO? I appreciate you are telling us about 9 what was in a handbook when you started but thinking on 10 to the period, say, 1997 and later? 11 A. Yes, it was used. I heard evidence earlier that someone 12 had been told that we didn't use the 10 and 10 rule. 13 Well, they either weren't listening to the instructions 14 they were given or they were misinformed but the 10 and 15 10 rule was available for use. 16 Q. Was that in all categories of case? Would it be 17 restricted, for example, to special cases or serious 18 crime or did it apply to volume crime also? 19 A. Special cases, if designated by the management, if there 20 was a dire and crucial, "dire and crucial" would mean 21 there was no set number of characteristics for 22 proceeding to court. 23 Q. I wonder if you could explain a little bit more about 24 dire and crucial and how that was operated, in your 25 experience. page 11 1 A. I could give you an example of one case. The Mark 2 Sinclair case was a series of robberies in Ayrshire. 3 Mr Sinclair was identified, I think, on 11 4 characteristics and that was produced in court. 5 Q. Would I be right in thinking that was actually after 6 1997 -- 7 A. That was after 1997, yes. 8 Q. -- after the Marion Ross case. Thinking about the 9 period perhaps before that, how often in your experience 10 had you used the dire and crucial? 11 A. It was very limited. I don't believe I ever produced a 12 dire and crucial in a case in court. 13 Q. Were you aware of anybody else doing so? 14 A. I believe there was, yes. 15 Q. Returning to the 10 plus 10 practice, Mr MacPherson, 16 somebody like yourself who obviously had been in the 17 organisation for a very long time might be thought 18 perhaps to carry a great deal of knowledge in his head, 19 a great deal of perhaps past knowledge about procedures. 20 Is it perhaps possible that someone coming into the 21 organisation later, perhaps about 2000, simply might not 22 have been told of things that had perhaps become part of 23 your practice at an earlier stage in your involvement? 24 A. I wouldn't believe so. Trainees were mentored by 25 experienced personnel so I wouldn't see that happening. page 12 1 Q. I think you have referred to what Mr Luckraft said in 2 his evidence. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. The Inquiry also has a statement from a lady, Miss 5 Tierney, who came to the Bureau in 2000 who found 6 herself surprised on the basis of her previous 7 experience in other bureaux not apparently being to be 8 able to use 10 plus 10 and rather frustrated by that. 9 Can you explain how that might -- 10 A. No, I can't explain that, I'm sorry. 10 and 10, as I 11 say, was in in 1970 when I started. So I can't explain 12 that at all. 13 Q. You have explained that you were working to a 16-point 14 standard subject to the -- 15 A. With provisos, yes. 16 Q. -- to the exceptions you have told us about. 17 You heard I think also what Mr Luckraft said in 18 evidence and see what he said in his statement about a 19 concern that the need to find 16 points perhaps put 20 pressure, particularly on junior staff, to find all 21 16 points when they might not really be able to do so. 22 Do you have any comment on that, Mr MacPherson? 23 A. I don't believe any pressure was put on anyone. A prime 24 example is the Marion Ross murder where Mr Geddes could 25 not find 16. I didn't pressure him in any sense to find page 13 1 the 16. We had a discussion about it and it was left at 2 that. At that time I was quite within my rights to move 3 on to someone else if I felt I could get 16 in the mark. 4 Q. I will ask you a little bit more about that particular 5 example later. 6 Can I be quite clear that I am not talking about a 7 suggestion that you or any other individual person put 8 pressure on a junior person and said, "You must find 9 16 points", but the very fact that there was a need to 10 find 16 points normally to make a court identification 11 might have led to junior people feeling a pressure to 12 try and find those points, perhaps seeing points that 13 were either difficult to see or perhaps not even really 14 there? 15 A. I wasn't aware of that. If it was less than 16 you had 16 previously the strong suspicion which was sent out which 17 I believe was between 10 and 15. That would be sent 18 out. That eventually became what was known as an 19 intelligence letter. 20 I have to say you are asking process and procedures, 21 maybe the person -- Mr Dunbar was here on a previous 22 occasion, that might have been the person to ask 23 regarding all these questions. 24 Q. If there is something you don't remember or you can't 25 help us with, please, just say so. page 14 1 A. I'm afraid there are -- I've now been out the job for 2 nearly three years. You're talking now about nearly 3 13 years ago. I'm sorry, I just -- I don't want to 4 appear prevaricating but, I'm sorry, I just don't 5 remember certain things. 6 Q. You mentioned the strong suspicion letter or the 7 intelligence letter, Mr MacPherson. 8 How often in your experience were you aware of that 9 being used? 10 A. Well, that's one thing I do remember. A strong 11 suspicion was about 0.2 of the total idents that were 12 made in a year. I can't remember exactly how many 13 idents we used to make. It was maybe 3,000 or 4,000 14 persons were identified out of 12,000 cases. Again, 15 this is -- and I'm not too sure which year I'm talking 16 about but there were very slight -- also strong 17 suspicions were sent out when the form itself was not of 18 good enough quality. In other words, the mark had 19 possibly 16 or more characteristics in it but the form 20 you were comparing it against was maybe poorly taken and 21 didn't disclose the area in the mark that you were 22 looking for. So while it was a very, very small 23 percentage of the whole overall identifications made, 24 sometimes it wasn't just the mark that was poor, it was 25 the fingerprint form as well. So there were very small page 15 1 percentage. 2 That was one thing that come up in the Evett 3 & Williams report. In England and Wales they had what 4 they would call partial idents, between 10 and 15, and 5 they were running at maybe about 20 per cent. 6 I think Mr Moynihan touched on this earlier, 7 regarding what we constitute as a counting ridge 8 characteristic for court purposes. Since the inception 9 of SCRO in 1960 we have always used a ridge ending or 10 a bifurcation as a counting characteristic for court, 11 whereas down south I believe they would use lakes, 12 islands and spurs as one characteristic where, in actual 13 fact, we would use a spur, a lake, an island as two 14 characteristics. 15 It has been levelled in the past about us, we 16 wouldn't be able to prove one of the first 17 identifications made in a capital crime, which was the 18 Deptford murders down south in 1911, I think it was. 19 One of the Stratton brothers was identified and it was a 20 capital crime, they actually ended up being executed for 21 it. 22 I could be wrong about that but what -- the point 23 I'm trying to say is that we were accused, "Oh, there 24 was only 11 characteristics in that. You wouldn't be 25 able to make that identification. You have a higher page 16 1 standard, a numeric standard of 16", but actually when 2 you look at that, we would be able to interpret that, 3 for argument's sake, as 22 characteristics because if 4 the 11 characteristics they used were lakes, islands and 5 experts spurs we would be able to interpret that as 22. 6 Hopefully I'm me explaining this correctly. 7 Also the Chinese used to have a standard of 8 but 8 they would be 8 unusual characteristics, again, lakes, 9 islands and spurs and we would be able to basically get 10 16 from that. So 16 seems a numerically very high 11 standard to get but in practice it wasn't that difficult 12 to achieve 16 characteristics in sequence and agreement. 13 Q. That is why you would be running at, if I understand 14 rightly, point 2 per cent? 15 A. A smaller percentage than what was -- that's my 16 perception. We were running 0.2 for partial idents, if 17 you like; whereas in England and Wales they were running 18 at something like 20 to 25 per cent. 19 Q. You mentioned a Chinese practice involving what you have 20 described -- 21 A. I've mentioned that but that was many years ago. I 22 don't know what the practice is now. 23 Q. No. If I can finish the question, if you can't assist 24 then, please, do just say so but you mentioned unusual 25 characteristics and I wonder if you knew why the Chinese page 17 1 thought that the characteristics you mentioned were 2 unusual characteristics or if there were any studies 3 that would back that up? 4 A. Well, the main characteristics are ridge endings and 5 bifurcations. Each ridge unit is unique. It's formed 6 in the fourth month of foetal development and, as I say, 7 each ridge unit is unique and that's why in 1960 the 8 SCRO used the modern interpretation that these could be, 9 a ridge ending or a bifurcation, could be used as 10 counting characteristics for court. 11 Lakes, islands and spurs, particularly if you get 12 them in a small area, they are more unusual. They are 13 the original Galton details, if you like. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Just before we leave this topic, while I 15 remember, dire and crucial: who decided whether 16 something was a dire and crucial situation? How did 17 that come about? 18 A. It would be the senior management. They would make a 19 decision on that regarding whether a case would be 20 deemed dire or crucial or not. A dire or crucial ident 21 had to be given by a person of long experience within 22 the Bureau. It did seem rather strange that in a 23 special case you could go with less than 16, whereas in 24 a normal volume crime you had to have, basically, 16 25 ridge characteristics, albeit that that wasn't a legal page 18 1 requirement, of course. It was merely a guideline from 2 1953. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: But when you were examining would you say 4 against it this could be used in a dire and crucial 5 situation or would the police come and say -- 6 A. It was because there would only be one mark in the case 7 that was identified. It was purely in a single mark, if 8 it was a bloody impression from a crime scene and there 9 was only say 10 or 11 characteristics it would be down 10 to the management to decide that could be put forward as 11 a dire and crucial and a copy of the guidelines, 1953 12 guidelines, would be sent out with that to the 13 prosecutors. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: I see. Thank you. 15 MISS CARMICHAEL: Following on that point, Mr MacPherson, 16 you say it was a decision for the senior management but 17 who would ask the senior management to take that 18 decision? 19 A. You would have to go to them and say I only have one 20 impression here identified as whoever and leave it with 21 them. 22 Q. So the initial impetus would come from you as the 23 examiner that made that identification? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Is that something that you personally did, go to senior page 19 1 management on any occasion you can remember? 2 A. I don't think I ever did, no. 3 Q. Are you aware of anyone else having done so? 4 A. I believe so but I can't give you an example, I'm 5 afraid. 6 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't catch the last thing you said. 7 A. I can't give an example of that. The only example I can 8 give you is the Mark Sinclair case but that was not led 9 by the Crown. 10 Q. That is perhaps at a slightly later stage than we are 11 mainly concerned with here? 12 A. It wasn't just on our own behalf that it -- there seems 13 to be the perception there was a reluctance for us to go 14 with less than 16 but there was a reluctance in the 15 prosecution to actually prosecute a case with less than 16 16 as well. 17 Q. If I can just perhaps turn to that in a little more 18 detail, Mr MacPherson, when you have talked about a 19 strong suspicion letter, would I be right in saying that 20 the expression "strong suspicion" would perhaps be 21 something of a misnomer, as far as you as an examiner 22 were concerned? 23 A. Yes, that's correct. It was an identification but 24 mainly, yes, it was a misnomer. It's a bit like 25 non-numeric's a misnomer. Non-numeric you're still page 20 1 counting characteristics. So that's a misnomer as well. 2 Q. Please correct me if I am putting this wrongly but would 3 I be right in saying that even on what was a strong 4 suspicion basis, 10 to 15 points, you as an individual 5 would be 100 per cent sure of your identification? 6 A. Yes. Can I say, sorry, dire and crucial was obviously 7 used in special cases, murders, rapes, et cetera. 8 That's where the dire and crucial came in. It wasn't 9 used in volume crime. 10 Q. If I can explore the idea of the degree of certainty 11 with which you would make an identification, 12 Mr MacPherson, we have a statement where one witness 13 describes that as being fully confident that any other 14 examiner could come only to the same conclusion as you 15 yourself had. 16 Do you have any comment on that as an expression of 17 the degree of certainty with which you were working? Is 18 that something you would recognise? 19 A. You mean in relation to a strong suspicion? 20 Q. In relation to any identification that you made. 21 A. Well, no matter what the number, you had to be certain. 22 Any comparison you make, whether it was from 23 elimination, suspect, AFR, any comparison I was always 24 taught you could end up in court with. So you had to 25 be, certainly from my point of view, you had to be page 21 1 100 per cent certain that you had made an 2 identification, no matter what its source. 3 Q. There would never be any situation where you would say, 4 "Well, it is much more likely than not to be a match as 5 between the mark and the print but I cannot say with 6 100 per cent certainty that they come from the same 7 source"? 8 A. I personally wouldn't go -- you're talking about 9 probabilities here, maybe. It could be, it might not 10 be. It depends on the mark itself. I mean, a mark can 11 be subject to so much superimposition, double touch, 12 background interference, how much sweat has been left in 13 the first place, how it's developed. All these factors, 14 you have to take into consideration. But for me I had 15 to be certain. I don't see the point of going into 16 court and saying it's a probable identification and 17 somebody can just come in behind you and say it's not. 18 You have, for me, you have to be 100 per cent certain. 19 But if you're going to ask me what, how many 20 characteristics that would take, I couldn't say. You'd 21 have to show me the mark. 22 Obviously, we're non-numeric now. That would be -- 23 I've never officially worked under the non-numeric 24 system but I would imagine that would be the first 25 question that a defence lawyer would ask is how low can page 22 1 you go, basically. We've heard the example of the IAI 2 one where there's no Second Level Detail present at all 3 so ... 4 Q. I am not going to ask you yourself at this point about 5 whether you have a bottom line, Mr MacPherson, but would 6 you expect, having made an identification, that any 7 other examiner would come to the same conclusion as you? 8 A. I would hope that someone who had been trained in a 9 suitable fashion and had many years' experience of 10 comparing marks, crime scene marks against elim forms, 11 suspect forms, AFR, would come to the same conclusion. 12 Yes, I would hope so. 13 Q. I would like to explore how far that goes, 14 Mr MacPherson, because on the one hand you may be 15 expecting that the person will come to the same overall 16 conclusion as you as to who was the donor of the mark 17 and on the other hand there might be questions as to 18 whether you would expect another examiner to be able to 19 identify it in the same way and on the same points as 20 you had. 21 A. No. Each examiner has to use what characteristics that 22 he is satisfied with and it may be that you might 23 come -- two examiners may come to the same conclusion 24 but they may not have used the exact same 25 characteristics. page 23 1 Q. Would it follow from that then that it might be that 2 there might be characteristics within the varying 3 selections that the two examiners had about which they 4 might even actively disagree? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. I will return to that theme in a different context a 7 little later but at the moment I would like to ask you 8 particularly about eliminations and identifications and 9 perhaps differences of procedure in relation to those. 10 Leaving aside just for the moment the Marion Ross 11 murder investigation, was there normally a distinction 12 between the number of points you would need for 13 eliminations and the number of points you would need for 14 a full identification at the time we are talking about, 15 1997? 16 A. You could eliminate on less than 16. 17 Q. What was the number that was used that was less than 16? 18 A. I don't believe there was a number but it would be I 19 would imagine between 10 and 16. You could eliminate 20 maybe on less but ... 21 Q. In this context I am going to ask you what was your own 22 bottom line for elimination. 23 A. Again, it was down to the mark but I would say probably 24 between 10 and -- 10 and above. 25 Q. I would like to turn here to three of the marks that you page 24 1 dealt with in the Marion Ross investigation. I will ask 2 you first about XF, then about QI2 and then about Y7. 3 I would like you to look just now, please, at 4 CO1987, which should be the marked-up photograph of XF. 5 We see here that I think most of the writing on that 6 is yours, Mr MacPherson; is that correct? 7 A. It is, yes. 8 Q. We see that there are markings in black and markings in 9 red also. Yes? 10 A. I mean, you talked about what the bottom line for 11 elimination is. I mean, you were allowed to eliminate 12 in volume crime cases, in the main, on less than 16 but 13 what we're talking about here was a who-done-it murder. 14 Basically, when I identified someone in this I did it to 15 16 because I didn't know when this was identified or, as 16 it happened in this case, that Mr Asbury went from being 17 elim to a suspect, to an accused. That's why I applied 18 the 16-point standard to this. I didn't know who -- 19 also, it's obviously -- I'm not the final arbiter as 20 regards who's an elim. 21 If I had eliminated this on less and then 22 subsequently Mr Asbury became an accused, I would have 23 to have gone back again and got another four people to 24 sign this ident off the 16. So I was trying to be 25 efficient and effective and, basically, I eliminated it page 25 1 to the 16. So when I say eliminated, I mean identified. 2 In this case there was no demarcation between what 3 an elim and a suspect was. In the end there were 4 suspects quoted but there was no suspect 5 identifications, there was no AFR (automatic fingerprint 6 recognition) identifications. The only identifications 7 in the Marion Ross murder were crime scene marks 8 compared against elimination fingerprint forms. That 9 included the deceased, some family members. I think on 10 recollection we even identified one of the IB officers 11 who had left his print on the edge of a tape. It was a 12 lateral reversal. 13 Q. I think we heard that it was Mr Ferguson. 14 A. Right. Instead of cutting off, what they used to do was 15 cut off the tape so there would be no interference but 16 he left his mark. So we had to account for everything 17 and basically that's what we did. Sorry, I've forgotten 18 what your question was. 19 Q. It is helpful that you explain these things to us, 20 Mr MacPherson, but should we understand that at the 21 outset of this investigation somebody had made a 22 decision that everything was going to be done to a 23 16-point standard? 24 A. Certainly that's the way I started it off. I mean, when 25 it came to XF, you can see it's in black there page 26 1 eliminated as David Asbury and the reason it's been 2 changed is because he moved from being an elim to a 3 suspect and then to an accused and that's why it's then 4 done in red. But albeit it was eliminated, it was 5 eliminated on the 16-point standard. 6 Q. I am understanding you to say that you were proceeding 7 on the basis that you were doing things to a 16-point 8 standard. 9 How would other people involved in this 10 investigation know that they were working to a 16-point 11 standard with -- 12 A. It may have started off that people were just 13 eliminating on less than 16 but once XF, I believe this 14 was identified fairly early on in the inquiry but, 15 again, I don't know without the paperwork in front of 16 me. You might be able to tell me differently. 17 Q. I think I can help you that it was about 21st 18 January 1997. 19 A. I'm sorry, I can't remember when the murder was. 20 Q. The murder being about the 8th? 21 A. Okay. 22 Q. I think we are helped by the date 21/01/97 in black 23 writing on the screen here. 24 But would it necessarily be that the other people 25 whose initials appear here, people other than page 27 1 yourselves, would have known that they were working to a 2 16-point standard throughout -- 3 A. Yes, definitely. 4 Q. How would they have know that? 5 A. I'd probably have told them. 6 Q. The reason I am asking you about this is because one 7 might infer from the fact we have the black writing 8 apparently relating to an elimination of David Asbury 9 and then the red writing which you tell us is when he 10 comes under direct suspicion, that there was perhaps a 11 two-stage process here. 12 A. No. 13 Q. Would there have been any announcement, perhaps at a 14 team meeting or anything, of this sort to other SCRO 15 examiners about the need to use 16 points throughout on 16 all the marks in the case? 17 A. I don't think so, no. I don't believe so. 18 Q. So would you have spoken individually -- 19 A. Individually, yes. 20 Q. I may be able to find an example of this for you but I 21 think in this investigation you had a number of 22 elimination sheets that you were working with? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And there was in fact -- and I am hoping I can perhaps 25 get the number for you for this, Mr MacPherson -- there page 28 1 was actually a sheet that related particularly to people 2 who were regarded as suspects. I wonder if we could 3 have CO0197. I wonder if we can ... 4 What we are looking at here is a sheet that has, I 5 think the version on the screen has a lot of names taken 6 out of it to protect the privacy of people who are not 7 of any direct relevance to this Inquiry but we can see 8 on the sheet we are looking at, which is page 5, David 9 Asbury's name. I think I am right in saying -- and I 10 will be corrected if I am wrong -- that this was not, in 11 fact, the elimination sheet that related to the people 12 who had been designated suspects at that stage. 13 Would that accord with your recollection? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. If we can perhaps try looking instead at CO1446. Can we 16 scroll on, please. 17 We see something here that has certainly been given 18 a title I think in the Alba Investigation of Suspect 19 Page BY3 and if we scroll through, again it's perhaps 20 not very helpful to you today because it has been edited 21 so heavily but I think -- again will be corrected if I 22 am wrong -- but this was not the sheet that David Asbury 23 himself originally appeared on. 24 Would that be fair to say? 25 A. Because he come in on an elimination fingerprint form, page 29 1 yes. 2 Q. But there was a sheet with people who were designated as 3 potential suspects as well so it's perhaps not quite 4 right to say -- we see, in fact, on the top left corner 5 here that we have the word "Suspects", so it would not 6 necessarily be right that everybody simply came in as an 7 elimination, there would be some people who had been 8 drawn particularly to your attention as potential 9 suspects in the case? 10 A. Yes, that's 12 suspects that eventually came in through 11 the inquiry over many, many months. Those are 12 12 suspects that were quoted. 13 Mr Asbury wouldn't appear on there because he came 14 in as an elimination, on an elimination form. When he 15 identified as XF, I believe -- I didn't know this at the 16 time when I identified it -- that he denied being in the 17 house for a period of, say, two years since he worked in 18 the house. It was only when this was apparently 19 fingerprint was put to him that he had to amend his 20 statement and said that he actually had been in the 21 house a couple of days prior to the murder. I did not 22 know that when I made the identification by the way. 23 Q. At the moment I am simply trying to be clear about what 24 the procedures were and what we see from this is that 25 you did have some sheets that related particularly to page 30 1 people who were regarded as suspects -- 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. -- and I think we see a date range here from broadly 4 mid-January to mid-to-late February in terms of the 5 dates when these individuals were being checked against 6 marks? 7 A. Yes, and these were suspects, yes. Suspects, people who 8 basically were on file, if you like, who had unique 9 reference numbers. 10 Q. I will not ask you any more about the individuals 11 because, as I have said, we are not interested in those 12 particular individuals for today's purposes. 13 I would like to move on, still thinking about the 14 elimination to the 16-point standard, to mark QI2. I 15 would like to look, please, at DB0001. Can we scroll 16 through, please, until we get to the photograph. Can we 17 have this photograph up along with the next page in the 18 pdf as well, please, which should show writing on the 19 back of the photograph. 20 Again, we see I think annotations in your own 21 handwriting, Mr MacPherson? 22 A. Yes, that's correct, yes. 23 Q. I am interested in what we see "deceased's on screen 24 31/1/97", and we see your initials, I think Mr Stewart's 25 initials, Mr Geddes's initials and Mr Bruce's initials page 31 1 there? 2 A. That's correct, yes. 3 Q. We have heard evidence from Mr Bruce and we have 4 evidence from him in his statement and I hope -- and, 5 again, I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong -- 6 that I represent his evidence correctly as being that he 7 did not have any immediate recollection of his 8 involvement with this mark from 1997. He thought that 9 if he had identified the mark to 16 points he would have 10 signed the case envelope and, therefore, thought he may 11 not have done so because he had not found 16 points -- 12 A. No. As I think I tried to explain earlier, I couldn't 13 sit and wait to the end of this case to phone out or 14 have phoned out identifications. I had to make the 15 identifications, get them signed off by four people and 16 phone them out to keep the officers in charge of the 17 case abreast of developments. 18 Mr Bruce has signed that as the fourth person so he 19 would know that it was an identification to the 16-point 20 standard. 21 Q. If we can be perhaps a little precise about the language 22 we're using, Mr MacPherson, I think I am right in saying 23 that Mr Bruce did not recognise the writing of his 24 initials as his own writing. 25 A. No. page 32 1 Q. And that that would, in fact, be your writing. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Would that be correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. So are you saying that Mr Bruce must be incorrect in 6 inferring today from the fact he had not signed the 7 envelope that he had made an elimination on less than 8 16 points? 9 A. He'd made an identification. 10 Q. How do you know that he had identified this mark to 11 16 points, Mr MacPherson? 12 A. Well, I probably would have said to him that this is 13 obviously an important mark and -- you would only be 14 signing fourth or initialling or seeing it as a fourth 15 person if it was an identification because you needed 16 four people to -- before I could phone out an 17 identification, I needed four experts before I could 18 communicate that to the Senior Investigating Officer and 19 if you're the fourth person signing it, what other 20 reason would there be? 21 Q. We have heard also from Mr Bruce that, even with the 22 benefit of photographic enlargements in 2006 for the 23 civil action, he could not find more than 12 points on 24 this mark, which again might suggest that he is right 25 and you are wrong when you say that he identified to page 33 1 16 points. 2 A. Fair enough. All I'd say I wouldn't criticise Mr Bruce 3 in any respect. He's obviously having a small touch of 4 the pressures that myself and my colleagues have been 5 placed under for the past near 13 years and I would have 6 no criticism of him whatsoever. 7 I think you can tell by the evidence that he gave 8 that he was feeling a bit of that pressure, that he's 9 still working within the SPSA, he's been told that he 10 still supports -- albeit maybe his evidence didn't come 11 across as that -- he still supported two 12 mis-identifications, if you like, and I think he's maybe 13 feeling a bit of the pressure that we have been placed 14 under for many, many years. 15 Q. I would like to be quite clear what you are suggesting 16 about Mr Bruce's evidence, Mr MacPherson. Are you 17 suggesting that he was mistaken in what he said to the 18 Inquiry or are you suggesting that, as a result of 19 pressure, he has told the Chairman something 20 deliberately that is not correct? 21 A. All I can say is my understanding from what is on the 22 screen was that Mr Bruce saw that mark and saw it to 23 16 points. That's my evidence. That's what I believe 24 and I'm sure I would have said to him at the time, "This 25 is an important mark. I need four experts to sign it to page 34 1 the 16-point standard before I phone it out". Other 2 than that I don't want to make any further comment on 3 it. 4 Q. I would like to press you just a little, Mr MacPherson, 5 as to whether you have any recollection yourself -- 6 A. No, I don't have any. No, I don't. No. 7 Q. -- of having spoken to Mr Bruce about this at the time 8 at all? 9 A. That's -- obviously, there's four initials on it. Four 10 people have seen it and the only reason I would do that 11 would be to phone it out to the Senior Investigating 12 Officer. 13 Q. What I am suggesting to you is that there might be some 14 possibility that, for whatever reason, the message had 15 not got to Mr Bruce that, if you were dealing with this 16 mark you must be doing so to a 16-point standard? 17 A. No, I wouldn't believe so. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: When you say on the "deceased's on screen", 19 that means on the comparator? 20 A. The comparator, sir, yes. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Does that mean that those people would have 22 seen it on the comparator? 23 A. That's correct, sir -- or, well, eventually they could 24 see it on the comparator. If they didn't like it, they 25 could take it from the comparator and then put it back page 35 1 on. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: This is what I was interested to know, 3 whether you would go -- if I was number 2 or 3, as the 4 case may be, might I just see it on the comparator and 5 if I was satisfied with that that would be sufficient? 6 A. Satisfied, yes, absolutely, yes. 7 MISS CARMICHAEL: Again, just following that theme a little 8 further, Mr MacPherson, about the deceased's prints 9 being on the screen and the series of initials that we 10 see there, what would you have seen of the involvement 11 of Mr Stewart, Mr Geddes and Mr Bruce with the mark and 12 print after you had dealt with it personally? I take it 13 from what you said in your statement that you placed the 14 mark and the print on the screen perhaps -- and correct 15 me again if I'm wrong -- marked up for the next person 16 to see. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. We would understand from what we see here that that 19 would be Mr Stewart? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Would you then see what Mr Stewart did with the mark? 22 A. No. 23 Q. So it would follow that you wouldn't have seen either 24 what Mr Bruce did with the mark? 25 A. No, he would have probably brought it back to me, I page 36 1 would think, or he's left it on the screen and once 2 everyone's finished with it I would go -- I mean, the 3 reason for the initials on the screen is like a tracking 4 log to make sure that before I phoned anything out there 5 was four people had seen it, basically. 6 Q. But, for example, you would not know whether any of the 7 people who saw it after you had taken it away and looked 8 at it with glasses? 9 A. No. 10 Q. You would not know if they had decided to wipe the 11 screen of your markings so they could see it plain and 12 clear for themselves? 13 A. I may have probably left the points on. In SCRO we are 14 in a constant state of flux and at that time, with 15 changes, et cetera, at that time I believe I left them 16 on but that didn't preclude anyone from just basically 17 going and looking at those characteristics. They would 18 probably wipe them off and start again or they may have 19 used one or two of them as a starting point. 20 I mean, for example, if I can give you an example, 21 if I spent an hour and a half finding a piece of palm, 22 and it's very difficult -- or a piece of flexure or a 23 piece of palm, I would always on the screen put at least 24 two or three characteristics as a starting point. This 25 was a busy working office. I had 428 impressions to be page 37 1 dealt with in this case. If you're insinuating that 2 because you leave something on the screen, some 3 characteristics, you're influencing someone, I would 4 disagree with that. 5 As I say, a busy working office. It would maybe 6 take me an hour and a half to find out where this piece 7 of palm or piece of flexure is. I would always leave a 8 starting point, maybe two or three characteristics, for 9 someone basically again to be efficient and effective. 10 You've got to use the manpower and the time in the day 11 as best as you can. I don't know whether they saw what 12 I'd left on the screen or whether they had taken it off 13 or what they did. All I know is that once I had four 14 people who had signed it up, it was to the 16-point 15 standard and I could phone it out. 16 Q. When you say "signed it off", and thinking particularly 17 here about Mr Bruce who we have heard from, what do you 18 mean by saying that Mr Bruce signed it off? 19 A. Well, his initials would be on the screen. I've 20 taken -- I've written on the back of the form "EB", his 21 initials, but he would initial the screen itself and I 22 took from that that basically he'd seen it to the 23 16-point standard. 24 Q. Do you yourself have any explanation for how it came to 25 be that Mr Bruce didn't sign the case envelope that page 38 1 related to mark QI2? 2 A. Well, as I say, you had to go through the marks as they 3 were identified. I couldn't wait to the end of the 4 case -- I don't know how many months later -- I couldn't 5 wait until the end of the case and then phone out. If 6 somebody's identified and eventually they become an 7 accused, I can't leave it for a month or whatever, four 8 weeks, six weeks, to get the exact same person who saw 9 it on the screen to sign the ident envelope. It's just 10 not practical. 11 What would have happened if -- I'm not talking about 12 this case -- but in some other case where there's a 13 murder committed and a person comes in on an elim form, 14 it's identified and I don't do anything for it for six 15 weeks? What happens if somebody that person goes out 16 and murders someone else or rapes someone else? It's 17 just not practical to sit and wait and have the exact 18 same four people who have seen one mark out of a case of 19 428. They've seen one mark, wait for four to six weeks 20 and then sign up the envelope. It's just not practical. 21 Mr Bruce might not have been there. He might have 22 been on annual leave, he might have been on a different 23 shift or whatever when I wrote up the ident envelope, 24 but you'll find there's quite a few people who are 25 involved in the case but they don't eventually end up page 39 1 signing the ident envelope. 2 I think Ms McBride signed the ident envelope because 3 she was allocated the case for court; so she would have 4 to sign for seeing all the impressions on that 5 ident envelope and be satisfied with them. 6 Q. We can perhaps -- no, I will ask you maybe a little more 7 about that later. 8 Something I would like to just clarify with you just 9 to be quite sure about, you would have taken the 10 initials from the comparator screen of your colleagues 11 who had looked at the mark? 12 A. That's correct, yes. 13 Q. Would that necessarily then be recorded here in the same 14 order as what you saw on the comparator screen? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. That would reflect the order in which your colleagues 17 had seen the mark? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Again then, should we take it that when you came to mark 20 Y7, which was somewhat later -- 21 A. Sorry can I just say one thing? 22 Q. Yes, please. 23 A. If you see Mr Bruce's initials, it's "Accused's on 24 screen 31/1/97", it's myself, Mr Geddes and then 25 Mr Bruce and Mr Stewart so, again, would Mr Bruce be page 40 1 saying there that he's not signed that to 16 points? 2 Q. What we have Mr Bruce's evidence about and what I've 3 been putting to you is the part of QI2 that related to 4 Miss Ross's fingerprint. So that is why I have been 5 asking you about that, Mr MacPherson. 6 What I was going to ask you next was that should we 7 then again take it that you were looking for 16 points 8 also when you came to mark Y7? 9 A. Yes. Do you want me to give reasons why I did that 10 or ...? 11 Q. If you feel it would assist, then please go ahead, 12 Mr MacPherson. I don't want to try to limit your 13 evidence in any way. 14 A. It was personally because that's what I could see in the 15 mark itself but the mark was 2 feet away from where the 16 body had been discovered; so it doesn't take a top 17 detective to know that the officers in charge of the 18 case would probably be interested in it. I believe 19 there may have been some ramifications regarding it. 20 Needless to say, I didn't think that 13 years later 21 I would still be discussing the identification of mark 22 Y7 as Shirley McKie's left thumbprint but here I am 23 today, I'm still doing it. So at least if one thing 24 I've been proved correct in that that I applied the 25 16-point standard to it and I was right to do it. I page 41 1 could see criticism being levelled at me if I hadn't 2 done so. Mr Wertheim sat in this very chair and said I 3 get five points and then just threw it aside. I'd like 4 to refute that completely. I had found 16 points in it 5 and that was one of the reasons I knew there would be 6 ramifications and there were. 7 Q. What you are telling us there is that with mark Y7 you 8 appreciated that the detectives involved would be 9 treating this as of importance because it was near to 10 where Miss Ross's body had been found? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. But you are also telling us that as a matter of 13 principle in this investigation everything was being 14 identified to 16 points -- 15 A. Obviously I've done that for consistency basically, yes. 16 Q. If I can finish, I'm seeing possibly a potential 17 distinction between what you're saying as on the one 18 hand on principle we looked at everything to a 16-point 19 standard and then what you are saying that there was 20 perhaps some special reason why with Y7 you were doing 21 this. Do you understand what I'm saying to you? 22 A. Mm-hm. 23 Q. Was Y7 being looked at to a 16-point standard because 24 that was a principle you were working on in the case or 25 were you treating it in a special way because you page 42 1 thought it would be of particular importance for the 2 investigation? 3 A. It was a bit of both I would say. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Was any distinction being drawn between for 5 example somebody like Mr Asbury, who was a member of the 6 public, and police officers in general? I mean, was 7 every police officer or any police officer whose prints 8 were found eliminated to 16 points? 9 A. In this case, sir, yes. Eventually it ended up we were 10 requested by the Fiscal to prepare about 13 or 14 books 11 in this case each with at least one impression 12 illustrated to the 16-point standard. So you had Scene 13 of Crime Officers, relatives of the accused -- sorry, of 14 the deceased. Everyone basically had been identified, 15 there were 13 or 14 books prepared and each one had an 16 enlargement within the book prepared to 16 points. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: But that means 428 were done to 16 points? 18 A. No, 428 -- of that 428, I can't remember the figures but 19 over 200 were fragmentary and insufficient for 20 comparison. If anybody wants to look at them -- 21 THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, of course, but out of 228, let us 22 say, would they all have been done to 16 points? 23 A. 13 or 14 books would have had 16 points. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: I see. So whether they were beside the body 25 or not -- page 43 1 A. No -- 2 THE CHAIRMAN: -- is irrelevant. 3 A. -- because a relative was identified in the bathroom 4 door as well, so ... 5 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you, sir. 6 You have told us a little bit, I think, about why 7 you said Ms McBride came to sign the case envelope but I 8 would like to ask you just a little bit more about that 9 for completeness and I would like you to look please at 10 DB0529. I think this is the case envelope that is 11 relevant to XF and also to both of the parts of QI2, the 12 part that was identified as Mr Asbury's and the part 13 that was identified as Miss Ross's mark. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. We see your own signature, "ident by Hugh MacPherson" 16 about halfway down the sheet and then we see: 17 "Checked by Charles Stewart, Alistair Geddes, [I 18 think] Anthony McKenna ..." and then it's difficult to 19 see because of the sellotape but I think it is 20 Ms McBride's signature? 21 A. I believe so, yes. 22 Q. You have said that Ms McBride may have come to sign this 23 because she became involved in the court work in the 24 case? 25 A. Yes. page 44 1 Q. However, we also see there Mr Geddes's signature who was 2 of course somebody who did not become involved in the 3 court work for the case. Can you explain why his 4 signature would be there but not -- 5 A. Because he's -- sorry. 6 Q. Well, what we see is Mr Bruce's signature is not there 7 and of course you rightly say he didn't become involved 8 in the court work in the case, but we do see Mr Geddes's 9 signature there and he is again somebody who didn't 10 become involved in the court work for the case. I just 11 wonder if you can explain how it came to be signed in 12 the way that it did there. 13 A. This isn't obviously for the court work. This is 14 basically every impression that you see under "marks 15 identified" Mr Geddes has seen and signed for. It would 16 be at a later stage when the request came in for court 17 that the management would make a decision as to who has 18 been allocated the case. But Mr Geddes has quite 19 rightly on the envelope because he would have seen every 20 impression there under "marks identified". So he was 21 quite entitled to sign it. 22 Q. So are you suggesting that Ms McBride wouldn't have 23 signed until a much later stage then? 24 A. That's only -- I can't remember but I would believe that 25 was the reason for it. page 45 1 Q. Am I reflecting your position correctly if I say that 2 your position is that you simply can't tell us why it is 3 Mr Bruce came not to sign the envelope? 4 A. No, I don't know why not. He may not have been 5 available or whatever. I don't know. 6 Q. I would like to move away from the marks, although we 7 will come back to them in a little while, and ask you 8 again perhaps some more general questions about the way 9 that you went about the job of analysing and comparing 10 finger-marks and fingerprints. 11 The Inquiry has heard some witnesses talking about 12 ACE-V. Would I be right in saying that that was perhaps 13 not a term that was in currency in 1997 when you were 14 working on this investigation? 15 A. As far as I can remember it wasn't in vogue at the time, 16 no. 17 Q. We have heard that it stands for "analysis, comparison, 18 evaluation and verification". 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. Did you follow a procedure of analysis, comparison, 21 evaluation and verification at the time or was what you 22 were doing different from that in some way? 23 A. No, I don't think so. It's a bit like ridgeology. I'd 24 been to two or three ridgeology courses and the first 25 thing that they tell you is that you're doing nothing page 46 1 different from what you've been doing. Basically what 2 you're doing is basically verbalising what your 3 procedure is when you look at a mark. 4 Analysis: I would look at a mark, you would glean as 5 much information as you can from that mark. As I said 6 already, if there's distortion, how many 7 characteristics, double touch, slippage, the surface 8 that's involved. All these things would come under 9 analysis. 10 I think on the move to non-numeric they seem to hang 11 their coattails on ridgeology as if because you were 12 taking away this 16-point standard you have to have 13 something else along with it. But, as I say, any 14 ridgeology course I was on you were always told you're 15 doing nothing different and to me that's the same with 16 ACE-V. It's basically putting into words what you did. 17 You would analyse the mark, you would eventually find 18 something that caught your eye, you would then -- this 19 is all prior to looking at, as they say, the known 20 impression -- you would do all this prior to that, get 21 as much information as you possibly can, you would then 22 start your comparison -- 23 Q. Can I stop you there because I would like to just stay 24 on the analysis at the moment but I will ask you 25 questions and give you a chance to talk about the page 47 1 comparison as well, Mr MacPherson. 2 Just picking up on something that you said there, 3 you said you would find something that caught your eye 4 and I wonder if you could tell us what you meant by 5 that. 6 A. Possibly just a grouping of characteristics that would 7 catch your eye. When I started in 1970, everything was 8 done manually right up until 1991 when we were the first 9 bureau in Britain to have the Automatic Fingerprint 10 Recognition system brought in. Basically it did the 11 searching for you that you used to do manually. 12 But the beauty of working under a manual system was 13 that it honed your eye to pick up certain 14 characteristics and patterns and how they form, patterns 15 form themselves, their relationship one to another, how 16 to assess marks. Basically, under the manual system you 17 had to be nearly 10 out of 10. If you assess something 18 as a thumb or if you assess something as a forefinger, 19 you had to be spot-on basically because you only had one 20 chance. You didn't have -- like with the AFR you could 21 put in that it was a digit 1 to 10 and it would be 22 searching against the whole national database. 23 Under the manual system, it was what was called the 24 two hand collection. You would have to assess 25 which digit made the mark and basically search that page 48 1 against the two hand collection. It was a mini version 2 of the 300,000 persons that were kept on file. You 3 would have one shot at it basically so you had to be 4 pretty good at assessing which digit did the mark. 5 Q. Shall we take it then that this was really if you hadn't 6 done that, if you hadn't come to a view when you were 7 doing that sort of manual work in the past, then you 8 would have been looking at ten times the number of 9 fingerprints than you otherwise would have? 10 A. It was impractical, yes. 11 Q. So there was a reason in the interests of efficiency why 12 you would be keen to try to break it down from coming 13 from one particular digit. 14 A. Trying to asses which digit had made that mark. There 15 were guidelines but that's all they are, just purely 16 guidelines. If you want to go further and there's 17 obviously books -- Cummings and Midlow -- 18 Q. Sorry, I didn't catch the author. 19 A. Cummings and Midlow. All these -- Fingerprints and Its 20 Uses by Sir Edward Henry. All these books you would 21 read these up obviously when you first started and these 22 books would give you guidelines say like, for 23 example, in a whorl, an anticlockwise spiral is 24 indicative of being a right hand. It's not always the 25 case but things like that, guides that could help you page 49 1 determine which digit had made a mark. The height of 2 the mark, the relationship one to another, all these 3 things because you had to, as I say, you had one shot at 4 it. Whereas under the AFR system you could put a mark 5 in and search it as all ten digits against the national 6 database. 7 Q. So would I be correct in saying that you carried into 8 your general examination of fingerprints the habits that 9 you had learned -- 10 A. Under a manual system, yes -- 11 Q. -- that would help you to try to narrow a mark down to 12 coming from a particular finger? 13 A. I mean, even in the AFR system it helps. If you could 14 determine which digit had made a mark, if you were 15 positive that it was, say, a left thumb you would only 16 search that against, as I say -- well, I say the 17 national database. It was Scottish National database, 18 It's now UK-wide. But you would search it locally and 19 search it nationally but if you were certain that it 20 was, say, a left thumb you would only do it from a left 21 thumb. But you had have to be careful. Sometimes on 22 rounded objects, impressions roll, et cetera. I've seen 23 a little finger looks like a thumb. Everything was just 24 a guideline basically. 25 Q. But you mentioned things that would catch your eye. page 50 1 From what you said, perhaps certain patterns might catch 2 your eye as being more likely to come from one digit 3 rather than another, but you also mentioned when I asked 4 you further about it that there might be groupings of 5 characteristics that caught your eye? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. I wonder if you could explain more about what you mean 8 by that, Mr MacPherson? 9 A. Well, if I could take mark Y7 as an example, just above 10 the core there's a small independent -- a small lake and 11 next to that there's what has been referred to as the 12 banana characteristic but to me it's like a hump backed 13 bridge, if you like. 14 Q. The banana is what we've all come to know as 9. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. The lake above it as what we have come to know as 10 and 17 11. 18 A. Well, there's what's been called an incipient ridge but 19 I don't think it's an incipient ridge because there's a 20 pore in it but it's 11 and 12 I think possibly, but I 21 would have to see it. 22 Q. It might actually help us if we just put up FI0167A. I 23 think the detail of this will come to be more from my 24 learned friend Mr Moynihan but since you would like to 25 tell us about it at this stage we perhaps could put a page 51 1 little bit on record now. I think you have got it up 2 not just up on the screen but also on the board beside 3 you in your original marked-up copy. 4 As I say, the detail for this perhaps will be for a 5 later part of your evidence but just to make sure that I 6 am understanding correctly what you are saying here, 7 when we are talking about the banana or the hump backed 8 bridge we're talking about 9? 9 A. 9, correct, yes. 10 Q. When we are talking about a lake we're talking about 10 11 and 11 and when we're talking about what some people 12 have described as an incipient ridge, albeit you might 13 not agree with them, we would be talking about 12 and 14 13? 15 A. 12 and 13 is the incipient ridge, yes, and 11 is the end 16 of the lake going in to the left, yes. But it was 17 mainly number 9 that caught my eye at the start. 18 Q. I expect that Mr Moynihan will ask you more about that 19 but do I understand you to be saying that those are the 20 characteristics that caught your eye in the first 21 instance when we are looking at this mark? 22 A. As far as I can remember, yes. 23 Q. We can take that down for now. 24 Once a group of characteristics of that sort had 25 caught your eye, what would you do? Would you record page 52 1 that in any way? Is it something that you would carry 2 in your head? 3 A. I just carry it in my head, yes. 4 Q. So you would be carrying in your head a group of -- 5 well, for the sake of argument, we see there I think 6 five characteristics? 7 A. No, maybe not as many as that -- for me anyway. 8 Q. I am sorry? 9 A. Maybe not as many as that for myself, no. 10 Q. So there might be a particular characteristic that 11 catches your eye -- 12 A. Yes -- 13 Q. -- and you hold that in your head as you go forward? 14 A. Well, you've picked up a bundle of photographs. You've 15 picked up one elimination form or I don't know if there 16 was elimination forms and then you would start your 17 comparison. Obviously you've decided possibly this is a 18 left thumb because of the ridge flow, et cetera. You 19 would then place one magnifying glass over the mark and 20 one magnifying glass over, say, the left thumb. You 21 wouldn't limit yourself to that. I mean, as I say, it's 22 only guidelines. I can't remember. I might have looked 23 at it more than just the left thumb. But anyway that's 24 where you would start and you would try and see if there 25 was any correlation between the mark and the digit under page 53 1 examination. 2 Q. Again, just so that I can make sure I have understood 3 this probably, at the stage when you start looking with 4 the two glasses, it may be that rather than counting 5 every possible characteristic that you can find in the 6 mark there may be particular items that have jumped out 7 at you and that is what you have concentrated on? 8 A. Yes, but you have looked for as many characteristics as 9 possible because it may be that it might not be the one 10 that catches your eye that catches your eye in the known 11 print, if you like. You made a thorough examination, a 12 thorough analysis, of the mark prior to you starting 13 your comparison. 14 Now, the problem with in an ideal world -- I mean, 15 the problem is you may have looked at this elimination 16 form many, many times. So it's not as if you're 17 starting -- you can't start from the beginning every 18 time. Sometimes in the elimination form some of the 19 characteristics in that you can remember as well. 20 Q. I will ask you a little bit more about that because that 21 perhaps is a practicality of a large investigation that 22 we need to learn a little bit more about from you, 23 Mr MacPherson. 24 You say that you have looked at the mark and, apart 25 from the things that catch your eye, you will be trying page 54 1 to assess whether there are other characteristics also. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. But I would be right in saying that there would be no 4 marking-up of characteristics -- 5 A. No. 6 Q. -- on the crime scene mark -- 7 A. On the crime scene mark, no. 8 Q. -- at this stage. Would it be fair to say that it is 9 the characteristics that catch your eye particularly 10 that you would be carrying forward in your head as you 11 go on to the next stage of the examination. 12 A. This is from my point of view, yes. 13 Q. That is really all I am trying to learn, Mr MacPherson, 14 how you went about it. 15 You had started to tell us then about how you would 16 go on to use the two glasses. I wonder if you could 17 tell us just what you were doing as you do that, bearing 18 in mind that we know that you are carrying with you 19 certain characteristics that may have come to jump out 20 at you as you do this. 21 A. You're looking at it both the mark and, say, the left 22 thumb simultaneously. It's not as if you're using one 23 eye and jumping from the mark to the known print. You 24 are looking at them both simultaneously at the same time 25 so that you do not have to move. Basically, you don't page 55 1 move your head. Basically, you're looking at both one 2 and the same time. 3 Q. I am gaining a picture -- and, again, tell me if I am 4 wrong -- of almost like looking down a set of 5 binoculars? 6 A. Correct, yes. 7 Q. One eye over each glass at the same time? 8 A. And not moving your head, yes, so you can assimilate at 9 the same time. You don't go from one to the other which 10 I believe some folk do but that's not how I operated. 11 Q. So we should understand that one set of visual 12 information is, as it were, coming in one eye and 13 another set in the other; would that be correct? 14 A. I don't know how to explain it but you're looking at 15 them both at the same time. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that a skill you acquire over the years? 17 A. I believe it is, sir, yes. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: I wouldn't have thought most people would be 19 able to do that. 20 A. I think that's where your training comes in, you know. 21 MISS CARMICHAEL: If it helps you to explain the process to 22 say how you did it in relation to this particular mark 23 Y7, then please do go ahead. Again, I don't want to 24 create unnatural divisions that are unhelpful to you in 25 giving your evidence simply because of the way that page 56 1 Mr Moynihan and I have decided to divide up the work. 2 So if it helps you to use this example, then please do 3 so. 4 A. I don't see how I could basically. 5 Q. That is fine. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't 6 perhaps trammelling you in an unhelpful way, 7 Mr MacPherson. 8 So let us suppose that you are looking down the two 9 glasses on one hand at a mark, on the other hand at a 10 print. How does this develop when you start to see 11 something that you think is a similarity? Perhaps let's 12 take the example that you have got a particular 13 characteristic that's, to use my words, jumped out at 14 you from the mark, you carry it in your head and you see 15 something that you think is similar in the known print. 16 How do matters proceed from there? 17 A. Well, if say point 9 you find to be in the known print 18 also, I remember in mark Y7 to the right-hand side there 19 are maybe four or five characteristics which are quite 20 strong. You would see from number 9 if you went, say, 21 one intervening ridge to the right is there a 22 bifurcation or a ridge ending or is there an event 23 happening there? You would then go from that point, 24 say, another intervening ridge again out to the right, 25 is there again a feature, is there an event, is there a page 57 1 ridge ending, is there a bifurcation there and so on? 2 You would build up this picture in your head and 3 eventually you would come to a conclusion. 4 I have to say in mark Y7 it took me a long, long 5 time but what you're looking for are characteristics. I 6 mean, I don't know how far back you want me to go. Do 7 you want me to explain what is a fingerprint? I mean, I 8 don't know. 9 Q. I am not going to ask you about that. What I am trying 10 to understand is really the process that you go through 11 when you're carrying out this comparison and starting to 12 create your own picture that leads to an identification. 13 A. I mean, I've heard -- I mean, obviously biological 14 uniqueness, the features, the characteristics that we 15 use for identification purposes are formed before birth 16 and remain constant throughout life unless they are 17 badly damaged. They're permanent, they're unique. 18 So the problem with -- I've heard -- I don't like to 19 use the word "differences", "appearance" maybe is a 20 better word between, say, a crime scene mark and an 21 elimination form or a suspect form. They appear 22 different but it's all down to how they've been 23 recorded. It's the recording medium, if you like, that 24 shows that there may be some slight variations within 25 them. I mean, I've heard that a lot of people have page 58 1 referred to -- I think Mr Sheppard and Mr Wertheim -- 2 about the inked impression of Marion Ross. Marion 3 Ross's impressions were done by black powder being 4 applied to the digits and lifted by means of adhesive 5 tape. Now, to me, if you're doing scientific reports or 6 whatever surely you should be able to get the medium 7 right. But all I'm saying is the recording of these 8 features, as I say, it can be done differently. There's 9 LiveScan, electronic capture of them, there's ink and 10 paper. But mark Y7 is obviously a chance impression, a 11 sweat impression which is 98 per cent water, 2 per cent 12 oils and fats. It depends on the amount of sweat that's 13 been left. It depends on the developing agent. All I'm 14 trying to say is people have talked about differences 15 between the two, but the features are unique and 16 permanent. It's just the way that they are recorded is 17 the problem. 18 But, to go back to your question, you build up 19 eventually a picture in your mind of, say, four 20 intervening ridges out there, there's another event, 21 there's a lake, there's an island or whatever, and 22 eventually it comes to a point where you are satisfied 23 that the mark and the known print have been made by one 24 and the same person. 25 Where that is depends on the quality. What point page 59 1 that is at depends on the quality of the mark itself. 2 Sometimes you can come to your conclusion much sooner 3 than others. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: I wonder just before we take the break if I 5 could get it clear in my head. Do you begin with a 6 point like 9 and work out from that or do you look at it 7 and say there's a bifurcation there, there's a ridge 8 there? You see the distinction that I am making between 9 choosing a central point or a particular point and 10 working out from it or whether you look at the print as 11 a whole and see whether you can identify characteristics 12 that are repeated in the actual elimination forms there 13 was in this case? 14 A. Personally I would have my starting point and work from 15 that point and work, you know -- 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Work out from it? 17 A. Work out from that. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Thank you. I was just wondering which 19 way one would approach it. 20 Very good. Well, if we take the break if that is 21 convenient now and sit again at 11.50. 22 (11.30 am) 23 (A short break) 24 (11.52 am) 25 MISS CARMICHAEL: Mr MacPherson, you have been telling us page 60 1 about how you went about the comparison process and you 2 had started I think again by reference to Y7 to say what 3 you would have done and in terms of working out from the 4 banana from point 9. 5 Is that something that you actually remember doing 6 with mark Y7? 7 A. No, I can't say for definite. I would believe that's 8 what I did but I wouldn't like to say. I could have 9 started out at the points at the right and worked in but 10 I remember specifically that was what caught my eye, 11 first of all but as to whether -- I would imagine I 12 would start there and work out the way but ... 13 Q. But that is not something you can remember -- 14 A. I can't say specifically clearly 13 years ago, no. 15 Q. You told us that you spent what you said was a long time 16 with mark Y7. 17 Can you give the Chairman any picture of how long? 18 A. No, I'm afraid not. It was a long time. It wasn't -- 19 it wasn't hours, but it was a long time because I did 20 both. I looked at it originally under the glasses and I 21 also spent some time on the comparator with it as well. 22 So between the two I couldn't give you -- honestly, give 23 you a specific time. 24 Q. I know it would be very hard to give an exact time at 25 this sort of period but if you think of the time you page 61 1 spent with the glasses perhaps, I mean, would we be 2 talking about more than 10 minutes or more than 20 3 minutes or more than half-an-hour? 4 A. It would be a minimum of half an hour anyway I would 5 think, minimum of half an hour I would have thought for 6 me personally. 7 Q. Working with the glasses in the way you have described? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. It may, in fact have been -- 10 A. It may have been longer. 11 Q. -- been longer than half-an-hour. 12 Could it have been as much as an hour? 13 A. It could have been, yes. 14 Q. As you carried on with the process with the glasses that 15 you have described, at this point are you writing 16 anything up or taking any note to assist yourself? 17 A. No. 18 Q. How do you decide when to stop with the glasses? 19 A. As I said earlier, there just comes a point where you're 20 absolutely satisfied that the mark and the known print 21 have been made by one and the same person. 22 Q. I detect perhaps from something that you said earlier to 23 me that you might be reluctant to put that in terms of 24 numbers for me. 25 A. Yes. page 62 1 Q. Is there a number that you can give me as to the point 2 when you personally would become satisfied? 3 A. No, I'm sorry, there isn't, no. 4 Q. Thinking about Y7 as an example, if you can think back 5 to numbers -- and I appreciate it may be hard for you -- 6 at what point did you personally become satisfied? 7 A. No, I don't recall. 8 Q. When you did reach that point of satisfaction, what did 9 you do then? 10 A. Once I was satisfied -- well, obviously in this instance 11 I was satisfied that there was a minimum of 16 in it. I 12 may have come to my conclusion earlier but I went on to 13 see there was 16 in it, a minimum of 16 in it. I would 14 then have taken it to the comparator and placed it on 15 the comparator and marked up the relevant 16 points in 16 sequence and agreement that I could see. 17 Q. So you have your stage of personal satisfaction which 18 may be before 16 -- 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. -- you then go on and look for 16 and you then take it 21 to the comparator and mark up 16? 22 A. Some marks may take you 16 or more to be happy. I mean, 23 it was a numbers game but it wasn't a numbers game, if 24 you like. Sometimes you're satisfied prior to, on quite 25 a few, less than 16, sometimes some impressions could be page 63 1 really, really difficult and you may have gone beyond 16 2 and you were happy with it. 3 Q. Again thinking back, if you can, to Y7 were you 4 satisfied before 16 or after 16 or -- 5 A. I don't remember. I don't remember. I'm sorry. 6 Q. Do you remember if you did any more of your comparison 7 on the comparator or whether by the time you got to the 8 comparator you were marking-up things that you were 9 already quite satisfied of in your own mind? 10 A. I would think I would be satisfied in my own mind by the 11 time I got to the comparator. 12 Q. Because we have heard that some people will actually do 13 some of the comparison on the comparator machine rather 14 than under the glasses and I'm trying to be clear about 15 where you fell in that spectrum on this mark? 16 A. It's down to individual choice, obviously, but I would 17 have been satisfied with my identification prior to 18 putting it on the comparator. 19 Q. What did you do with it when you got to the comparator? 20 A. I would mark 16 ridge characteristics in sequence and 21 agreement on it and then I would ask someone else to 22 look at it. 23 Q. Did you keep any record of what you had marked up? 24 A. No, no. 25 Q. When the person who follows you comes to look at it on page 64 1 the comparator, thinking back to how I suppose I started 2 this sequence of questions, which was asking about what 3 you did with what we would now think of as ACE-V. We 4 have heard from you about analysing the mark and we have 5 heard from you about comparing the two. I am wondering 6 where the evaluation comes in or whether there was any 7 distinct part of the process at that time that you would 8 regard as evaluation? 9 A. Evaluation in what respect? 10 Q. I suppose that is what I am asking you, Mr MacPherson. 11 A. No, I'm sorry -- as I say, it wasn't in vogue at the 12 time, ACE-V. Evaluation to me it what is done as a 13 first step. 14 Q. You mean when you are assessing the information that is 15 available in the mark itself? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. So would it be fair to say that using the two glasses as 18 between the mark and the print, you are perhaps 19 comparing and to some extent evaluating at the same 20 time -- would it be correct to make a distinction there? 21 A. I could be getting the evaluation stage completely 22 wrong, I'm sorry. 23 Q. I am not trying to put words in your mouth perhaps to 24 force the process that you did into boxes that it does 25 not fit in so if you think I'm doing that then, please, page 65 1 just say so, Mr MacPherson. 2 Mr Moynihan is telling me he cannot hear you very 3 well. I am sorry, it is a constant struggle with the 4 microphone so if I can ask you to put that a wee bit 5 closer to make sure that all those who are interested 6 can hear, Mr MacPherson. 7 So it comes to this really that evaluation as a 8 separate stage was not something that was in vogue at 9 the time and it's perhaps not a term that assists you in 10 describing what you did at the time? 11 A. Well, evaluation this was something that we did as we 12 were moving towards non-numeric. There was a 13 non-numeric pack came out within the Department and you 14 get to give your comments on how you felt things should 15 go with regards to non-numeric, whether there should be 16 enlargements still prepared, whether there should be a 17 CV prepared, just certain things like that, how the 18 joint report should be prepared. I've got here 19 evaluation: 20 "Satisfy yourself as to the definitive identity 21 using all available features, ie pattern, ridge 22 characteristics, poroscopy and edgeoscopy." 23 So, as I said, personally, I would have done that 24 all at the initial stage of my assessment. I'm looking 25 at every piece, every scrap of information that I can page 66 1 take from that mark and looking at it. So for me 2 evaluation is not quite in the right order if that 3 helps. 4 Q. By the time we get to other people looking at the mark 5 on the comparator, would this broadly be what is now 6 referred to as verification, other people checking? 7 A. Sorry, I missed that. 8 Q. No, I am sorry, I am probably not close enough to the 9 microphone. 10 By the time we get to other people looking at the 11 mark that you put on the comparator, would we be at a 12 stage that is broadly equivalent to what we would now 13 call verification? 14 A. Yes, that's correct, yes -- peer review, basically, yes. 15 Q. It is being suggested to me that if you copy the 16 position of my microphone which is, I suppose, at right 17 angles to the edge of the table in front of you it may 18 be easier for you to use it, Mr MacPherson. 19 A. Okay. I don't want my heavy breathing to be heard 20 throughout the hall. 21 Q. I'm afraid it's a struggle that we all have. We will 22 all have to excuse each other's heavy breathing, I'm 23 afraid. 24 I was about to ask you some more questions about the 25 use of the comparator in the verification process. If I page 67 1 can take you first to paragraph 55 of your statement -- 2 so that is paragraph 55 of FI55, page 12 -- you are 3 telling us there in the context of XF that sometimes 4 people would look at the identification under glasses or 5 on the comparator machine. You write that sometimes you 6 would put the mark and the form on the comparator 7 machine and mark up your points of comparison and that 8 it could then be examined from there by other experts. 9 You say you will return to this below when discussing Y7 10 because you remember using that method for that mark. 11 A. That's correct, yes. 12 Q. I would like to turn on also to paragraphs 119 to 121 13 which we will find at pages 27 to 28. 14 In that particular context in your statement -- that 15 is at page 27 and 28 -- you are talking about mark QI2 16 in paragraph 118 and then in paragraph 119 you tell us 17 that once you had identified the correlative match you 18 would then use the comparator machine to display the 19 points of comparison and at that stage the next person 20 would come along to check your finding. You go on to 21 say that the person would tend to do their first 22 assessment on the comparator. 23 Is that something that was a matter of normal 24 procedure in SCRO at the time? 25 A. Yes, if they weren't happy with it they were free to page 68 1 remove it and look at it under the glasses if they 2 wished. 3 Q. You go on I think to say that in paragraph 120: 4 "If they were not satisfied on the basis of the 5 displayed image on the comparator machine then they 6 would take the mark and the elimination form off and 7 look at them through the fingerprint glasses, as I have 8 described." 9 A. That's correct, yes. 10 Q. I just want to make sure that I have understood this bit 11 correctly, Mr MacPherson. Would it follow from what you 12 have written here that if the person was satisfied on 13 the basis of the marking-up that they see on the 14 comparator when they come to it, they would go no 15 further and just sign off by placing their initials on 16 the screen at that point? 17 A. That is a possibility, yes. 18 Q. Would it be only if they were unhappy in some way with 19 what they saw on the comparator screen that they would 20 take away the print and form and carry out their own 21 examination with the glasses or might they choose to do 22 that for some other reason? 23 A. It may be that they didn't quite see what had been 24 marked or whatever. I mean, each person has to make 25 their own decision. A fingerprint expert stands alone page 69 1 before the court. They don't have me at their back, you 2 know, coming in and holding their hand. Everybody has 3 to basically make their own personal decision with 4 regards identity. 5 Q. I think in something that you said earlier you perhaps 6 anticipated to some extent what I was going to ask you 7 here because you were anticipating or perhaps drawing 8 from what others have said in evidence some suggestion 9 that by leaving markings up on a comparison you might be 10 suggesting to the person who comes after you points that 11 they might not otherwise be able to see on their own and 12 thereby to some extent influencing them -- 13 A. Influencing, someone, yes. 14 Q. -- and I would like to have your own comment on that 15 suggestion. 16 A. Well, just what I said previously, each person has to 17 come to their own decision independently and that's it. 18 I mean, eventually I think the process was that you 19 wiped the screen clear. It must have been just around 20 about that time when it changed. But, as I've already 21 explained, if you spend an hour and a half looking for a 22 piece of palm, you have to give some indication as to a 23 starting point, if you like. That's not leaving all the 24 characteristics on, it's leaving some characteristics on 25 but you could still infer, I suppose, that you're page 70 1 influencing someone. 2 Q. Would you accept that sometimes someone will not see a 3 point for themselves but will become able to see it when 4 it has been pointed out to them by somebody else? 5 A. Yes. That's happened to myself. 6 Q. So it does perhaps follow from that that what the person 7 sees when they have seen a marked-up copy is not 8 necessarily what they would be able to see for 9 themselves alone, entirely independent and unaided? 10 A. Possibly, yes. 11 Q. So would you accept that, with that in mind, there may 12 be something in the suggestion that if somebody has seen 13 a marked-up fingerprint they may thereby be assisted to 14 see something that they would not without that help have 15 seen for themselves? 16 A. I would think that would be more applicable say in a 17 trainee/mentor situation. Obviously, you have to learn 18 the job in someway, so it's not as if you're influencing 19 people. You're basically just helping them train, if 20 you like. 21 Q. Again, correct me if I am wrong, but thinking 22 particularly of the marks QI2 and Y7, do you yourself 23 know how the other examiners who looked at those marks 24 went about dealing with them after you left them on the 25 comparator. page 71 1 A. No. The only thing I can say about Y7 was I think I 2 remember it came out, maybe at Justice 1 or whatever, 3 Fiona McBride had marked on the back of Y7. I don't 4 know if you have got it there. 5 Q. Yes, we can get that for you. It is PS0002. If we have 6 the second page of that, we will be able to see what 7 Mr MacPherson is telling us about. 8 There, I think, we see your initials and 9 Mr Stewart's initials? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. But not in -- I think what you are saying is those are 12 perhaps in Ms McBride's writing, although the date is in 13 your own writing? 14 A. I'm not -- certainly my initials and Mr Stewart's 15 initials, they have obviously been placed there by 16 Ms McBride. I think that's Mr McKenna's initials but 17 what you can see next to Ms McBride's initials are the 18 word "glass", and that obviously infers, as I said in 19 here previously, it was up to the person if they wanted 20 to take it off and look at it under fingerprint glasses 21 and that's obviously what she's done in that reference 22 there. 23 Q. I think just since we have this image up we can take it 24 then that perhaps unlike the QI2 writing on the 25 photograph that we saw earlier, this is not a situation page 72 1 where you yourself have taken it from the comparator but 2 Ms McBride has taken at least some of the initials from 3 the comparator, at least down to the stage where she has 4 dealt with the matter herself? 5 A. As I said earlier, a tracking log of who's seen it. 6 Q. I think we can take that down. 7 I am sorry, Mr MacPherson, I do have some particular 8 questions I want to ask you now about QI2 and about Y7. 9 The first question is one that you have dealt with to 10 some extent in your supplementary statement FI0056 at 11 paragraph 51 and 52, pages 11 and 12. 12 I am sorry, I am taking this in the wrong order. I 13 think you have already been asked about a document 14 DB0251.33. This was a form 13B which I think was shown 15 to you at the time your supplementary statement was 16 taken. It is DB0251.33B which should be a form 13B. 17 I think you were asked when you gave your statement 18 about the entry here that says: 19 "Ident required for deceased". 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. I think you tell us at paragraph 49 of your 22 supplementary statement that you had read this as a 23 request to compare the marks against Miss Ross's prints? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And that it should be read as requiring that a mark be page 73 1 identified as hers? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Had you ever seen a form with this form of words on it 4 before? 5 A. I may have done. I don't remember how many or whatever 6 but I may have seen the wording. It's not the best 7 wording, obviously. 8 Q. I am just trying to get a picture of whether this was a 9 form of words that people would use -- 10 A. Not commonly, no. 11 Q. Not commonly? 12 A. No. Because obviously there's space for elims and 13 suspects on the form so if you wanted it compared all 14 you needed to do was basically ... 15 Q. Fill in the bit of the form immediately after where you 16 see that? 17 A. Fill in the bit, yes. 18 Q. I wonder now if we could have could have paragraph 51, 19 page 11 up. Just leave both of those up for the moment, 20 please. 21 You point out rightly, of course, Mr MacPherson, 22 that an elimination can be requested on the form there. 23 Should we place any significance upon the fact that the 24 expression "ident" rather than "elim" or elimination is 25 being used there? page 74 1 A. I certainly didn't, no. But I don't know whether it's 2 been put on because sometimes the officer in charge of 3 the case, you would only compare certain marks against 4 certain elimination forms in this case, I think, and in 5 this instance there were marks from money and we only 6 had to compare a specific set of elims because, again, 7 trying to be efficient and effective, it may be that 8 only certain elims are worth comparing against the marks 9 from the money. So I don't know if that's what's tried 10 to be inferred here, that these specific marks should be 11 compared definitely against the deceased but that's how 12 I took it. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: But on QI2 in that area there were at least 14 three. There was allegedly the mark of Marion Ross and 15 then two others, so it would draw your attention to the 16 one that they were interested in? 17 A. Yes, I think the two -- 18 THE CHAIRMAN: One witness suggested that that's what "ident 19 required", really how that arose because it wasn't the 20 adjoining other marks in that immediate area that they 21 wanted to know if you could identify the deceased's mark 22 there. 23 A. All I can say is that's how it took it, sir, that I was 24 required to compare the deceased. I think the other two 25 marks you referred to were Mr Asbury's, I believe. page 75 1 THE CHAIRMAN: I can't remember what the other two were but 2 certainly there were other marks in immediate proximity 3 of the mark in question. 4 A. Yes. 5 MISS CARMICHAEL: Can I take it, Mr MacPherson, just 6 to follow-up from that, that at the point you would have 7 received this form you wouldn't have known which 8 particular part of the cluster of marks QI2 was thought 9 to be perhaps relevant to Miss Ross as opposed to 10 anybody else? 11 A. I don't know. I don't know when things were identified. 12 Q. Indeed, I think we've got a series of marks on this form 13 so it is not even -- it's not QI2 alone, that you are -- 14 A. It's that group from QB2 to QL2, by the looks of it. 15 Q. And your attention is being drawn in relation to that 16 series of marks -- 17 A. It's not one specific mark, no. 18 Q. You are told also Mr Asbury by that stage is a suspect 19 because he is named in the lower part of the form? 20 A. That's quite right, yes. 21 Q. You have told us at paragraph 51 of your statement that 22 you would have been aware of the background to the mark 23 QI2 when examining it and that you remember knowing that 24 the tin came from the accused's house, although you 25 can't remember seeing a handwritten note you were shown page 76 1 when given your statement regarding the police's hopes 2 regarding the tin. 3 Do you remember knowing anything else at all about 4 the tin, other than it came from Mr Asbury's house? 5 A. No, no. I mean, these 13s were filed away when they 6 came in. I don't know whether I would have seen this 7 13. The 13's come in with the photographs. They were 8 booked in. When you did your comparison of marks that 9 the 13 relates to, you didn't have the 13 in front of 10 you, if you know what I mean. They were filed away. 11 They were mainly for information later on when you made 12 up the letter to the Senior Investigating Officer. They 13 were used for dates, et cetera. 14 Q. Just following that through a little further, it does 15 look as if somebody has thought that that's an effective 16 way to get a message of whatever nature to the person 17 who is examining the fingerprints or finger-marks? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Are you saying that it is something that may have passed 20 effectively without being looked at by the first -- 21 A. Somebody, whoever booked it in -- I mean, I may have 22 seen it but I'm definitely not saying for 100 per cent I 23 saw it when I came in. That's all I'm saying. 24 Q. There is a further matter and it picks up on what you 25 were starting to tell us and I cut you off a little page 77 1 earlier that perhaps arises particular with mark QI2. 2 If we can go to paragraph 118 of your first statement, 3 FI0055 at page 27. 4 In paragraph 118 you tell us a little of what you 5 have given us in more detail today about the way that 6 you went about analysing and comparing marks. But what 7 you say in the final sentence was that sometimes you had 8 used a set of prints so often that you could memorise 9 certain patterns and points displayed within it. 10 I am afraid I cut you off when you started to tell 11 me about that earlier because I wanted to come back to 12 it here. 13 A. Yes. I think what I'm trying to say there is -- maybe 14 not very well -- but what I'm trying to say is in a case 15 like this you've maybe examined an elim form many, many 16 times and if there are new marks that came in sometimes 17 you were able to, usually by pattern, if there was a big 18 twin loop or a lateral pocket or an accidental pattern, 19 contained within the known print, to use that 20 expression, contained within the fingerprint form, you 21 may have looked at it so often that if a mark comes in 22 new to the case and it's a big twin loop, that has 23 possibilities and that's all I was trying to say there, 24 that you may be able to -- I'm not saying identify it 25 but, well, look, there's a twin loop in so and so's page 78 1 form. You may have had 160 elims but because you've got 2 that unusual twin loop pattern and you receive a new 3 mark in the case and it's a twin loop as well and it may 4 have certain similarities, you would basically go to 5 that elim form first, again, trying to be efficient and 6 effective in use of manpower and time. 7 Q. In this particular investigation would I be right in 8 thinking that Marion Ross's fingerprints were compared 9 against quite a large number of items for the very 10 obvious reason that she was the householder -- 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. -- and it was of interest to take her prints out of the 13 picture as far as marks at the crime scene itself were 14 concerned? 15 A. Yes, that's correct, yes. 16 Q. And would I be right also to say that you would have 17 yourself viewed Miss Ross's elimination prints on a 18 number of occasions before you came to look at mark QI2? 19 A. Absolutely, yes. But that's where -- in an ideal world, 20 you know, you assess the mark and you're not influenced 21 by the known print but it just doesn't happen like that. 22 Q. In a sense, this is why I am asking you about this 23 because we have here a real crime investigation where 24 people are, for reasons that may be very good, looking 25 at the same elimination prints over and over again and, page 79 1 in a sense, it's to bring perhaps a sense of reality 2 back here to us in understanding how you go about this 3 in a real investigation. 4 A. Absolutely, you just can't get away from that fact. 5 That's just the way things are. 6 Q. But is there with that some danger that by seeing a 7 known print so often, by, as you say, memorising 8 patterns and points displayed within it, that you may 9 then come to be influenced in some way when you come -- 10 A. I don't believe so, no. 11 Q. -- to look at crime scene marks? 12 A. No, I don't believe so. That's where your professional 13 judgment comes in. No, I would say not. 14 Q. Because I am putting something that is perhaps very 15 complicated in an oversimple way, for which I hope you 16 will forgive me, but there are some lines of research 17 which indicate that perhaps because fingerprint 18 examination is such a visual matter that if one has one 19 particular visual image in one's mind and one then turns 20 to look at something else that may look, to some extent, 21 like it, you may be drawn to think that there's a 22 similarity where none truly exists? 23 A. You just used the word there "similarities". They're 24 not in sequence, in agreement. They don't correlate 25 with each other. They don't appear in the same page 80 1 position, in the same sequence, you know, the same area, 2 the same position and in the same relationship to each 3 other unless they are identical. So there may be 4 similarities. It's like identical twins, they may have 5 similar patterns but within those patterns the 6 characteristics contained within those patterns are 7 different. Each person's fingerprints are unique so ... 8 Q. Again, it was a point that I perhaps did not take you up 9 on when you started to tell us about it but you 10 mentioned, under reference I think to evidence that some 11 other people had given about what they had described as 12 differences but I think you wanted to describe as 13 appearances that might vary between different 14 impressions. We know that appearances may vary, to some 15 extent, even amongst different inked prints from a given 16 digit -- 17 A. Well, I think that was shown earlier on in the Inquiry 18 when Mr Moynihan had two left thumbs of Shirley McKie, 19 one showed a bifurcation, one showed a ridge ending. If 20 you say that's a difference then do you discount the 21 hundreds of thousands of characteristics contained 22 within the two ten-print forms and say, "That's a 23 difference. Sorry, the identification must stop there"? 24 That's ludicrous so ... 25 Q. Indeed. We then come on to variations, if I can call page 81 1 them that, which may arise because a finger has been put 2 down in a certain way, there has been development with a 3 particular medium, a whole range of variables that we 4 have heard about in the Inquiry. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. It follows from that that someone in your position is, 7 to some extent, carrying out a process of interpretation 8 in drawing conclusions as to where things do not appear 9 exactly similar, perhaps for the sorts of reasons that 10 we have been discussing, but feeling able to draw a 11 conclusion that, despite a variation in appearance, the 12 two items come from the same source. So there is a 13 judgment, an interpretation -- 14 A. Yes, definitely. 15 Q. -- that comes in in that process? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Why would it be that one might not come to be influenced 18 in that process of interpretation and judgment by 19 perhaps having a firm image in one's mind from something 20 such as a print that you have looked at, for good 21 reason, many times? 22 A. I can only put it down to your training and experience. 23 That's why I spent seven years training before I was 24 allowed to give evidence in court, before I became an 25 expert. You are now down -- well, it was reduced to page 82 1 five years. It's now down to two or three years or if 2 you're adept at the job. You now don't have a 16-point 3 standard and you now don't have any enlargements, so ... 4 For me, your experience comes from as many 5 comparisons as you can make against crime scene marks 6 against fingerprint forms, in whatever form, and that's 7 to me where you gain your experience. That's what my 8 expertise is in. 9 Q. What is it, if there is one thing that, if you will 10 forgive me for the expression, put your finger on in 11 training that would guard against the risk of you being 12 influenced in the way that I have described? Could you 13 tell us what it is? 14 A. Just that you've seen so many different marks and so 15 many variations, all the things that we've talked about 16 previously, that hopefully, within your professional 17 judgment, you're able to discern what is genuine and 18 what is not genuine. 19 Q. I am going to move on and ask you some questions that 20 relate specifically to what happened with Y7 and the 21 examination of that, Mr MacPherson, and in particular 22 what happened when Mr Geddes came to view the mark 23 because I think he was the first person that saw the 24 mark and the print on the comparator after you had 25 carried out your examination? page 83 1 A. Yes, that's correct. 2 Q. After you had given it to Mr Geddes, did you leave him 3 to his own devices with it or did you stay with him? 4 A. I absolutely left him to his own devices, yes. 5 Q. So how did it come about that you learned he had not 6 been able to see the 16 points that you had? 7 A. He came back and told me. 8 Q. What did you say to him? 9 A. Well, I tried to -- I said, well -- we had a discussion 10 about it and I tried to illustrate the points which I 11 saw in the mark. We had a professional discussion. 12 Alistair still felt that he was only with the ten that 13 he saw at that time and that was it. That was fine. 14 He was basically identifying the mark but just not 15 to 16. 16 Q. At that point you consulted Mr Stewart, one of your 17 other colleagues? 18 A. I was entitled at that time to move on to someone else 19 if I wished, yes. 20 Q. It was not recorded anywhere that Mr Geddes had seen Y7 21 and come to the view that he had about it? 22 A. No, I don't believe so, no. 23 Q. You may have been here -- 24 A. Sorry, I should say we had diary pages for special cases 25 at that time but they were just really for any contact I page 84 1 think you had with outside officers or whatever. The 2 diary pages now obviously may reflect more of that sort 3 of information but at that time diary pages were only in 4 special cases and they weren't really used for -- I know 5 a lot has been made of making notes, et cetera, but 6 there was nothing of that then. 7 Q. What we have heard from Mrs Greaves and Ms Climie, the 8 two fiscals who gave evidence earlier on, is that they 9 would have been rather interested to know, not just 10 about Mr Geddes but certainly about Mr Geddes and the 11 fact that he had seen the mark and had not been able to 12 come up to the 16 points which was the standard at the 13 time. 14 A. I don't remember being precognosced. Obviously, there 15 is a precognition on the system. I don't -- honestly, I 16 saw is it Mrs Greaves giving evidence but I don't 17 remember the lady. Maybe it was over the phone I gave a 18 precognition or whatever. I don't remember. But what 19 would I have said to her, that somebody agrees with me? 20 Q. What is in my mind, and perhaps you can comment on this, 21 is that at some stage it must have become obvious that 22 Y7 was going to have to be presented to a jury and 23 perhaps not at the stage of precognition, if we can 24 perhaps even jump ahead of time by the time you were 25 nearing Ms McKie's trial you would have known that Y7 page 85 1 was going to have to be presented to a jury and that 2 they were going to have to hear evidence about the 3 identification of Y7 as Ms McKie's mark? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Certainly by the time you got to within a couple of days 6 of the trial you knew from Mr Murphy (now Sheriff Murphy 7 who gave evidence here) that there was going to be a 8 dispute about it, in the sense of American experts 9 coming and saying that your identification wasn't right? 10 A. Well, I'm not sure what the -- I honestly can't remember 11 what the challenge was. Initially the challenge was 12 that it had been planted. The other challenges are 13 obviously that it's either insufficient or it's not that 14 person but I don't -- I can't honestly remember what the 15 challenge to our evidence was. 16 Q. At some stage you must have become aware that you were 17 going to be cross-examined about the mark and that it 18 was going to be suggested to you that you were wrong? 19 A. In some fashion, yes. 20 Q. So you would know the mark was going to have to be shown 21 to a jury? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And that they were going to have to be satisfied on the 24 standard at the time that there were 16 points in 25 sequence and in agreement? page 86 1 A. That's why I had four people sign it to the 16-point 2 standard, yes. 3 Q. So what is in my mind is if on the one hand you have not 4 been able to show to Mr Geddes that there are 16 points 5 there, bearing in mind that he is albeit junior to you 6 but a man with training and experience in fingerprints, 7 if you have not been able to show him the 16 points I 8 wonder if it did not occur to you that, perhaps, there 9 might be some difficulty the demonstrating them all to a 10 jury? 11 A. The enlargements that are mainly for illustration 12 purposes. There's no way that I can have a jury see 13 everything. Sometimes if it's a clear mark they may be 14 able to interpret what I have shown them but they won't 15 be able to interpret every characteristic I wouldn't 16 think, particularly if you get a bloody mark from a 17 knife that's very, very watery or a bloody mark from 18 anywhere, no matter whether it's done by charting PC or 19 by photographic enlargements it would be very, very 20 difficult -- and no disrespect to anyone, a lay jury or 21 whatever, to see what I see. If that's the case why 22 bother having any experts at all. Why did I train for 23 seven years? To me it's a bit of a fallacy now because 24 since July 2006 they haven't produced any enlargements. 25 At that time, the Glasgow Bureau were the only page 87 1 Fingerprint Bureau in Britain to produce case-specific 2 enlargements. When I started in 1970, we had to produce 3 enlargements for every case whether it was summary, 4 Sheriff and jury, or High Court. Summary or solemn 5 procedure we had to produce enlargements. 6 In 1983 there was a ruling came out from Crown 7 Office that we could stop doing for summary trials but 8 we still had to do them for Sheriff and jury and High 9 Court and that lasted right up until July 2006. 10 So, as I said before, you've now got a 11 non-numeric system, you've now got no 16-point standard, 12 you now don't have to produce enlargements at all. So 13 there's no way, I believe anyway, that I could 14 illustrate all my 16 points. I'd try my best but I 15 don't think with regards a lay jury they would be able 16 to see them all. You would hope they would but that is 17 merely there as an illustration as to how I came about 18 my decision. 19 Q. I will ask you a little bit more about the question of 20 enlargements in a moment. Just thinking through perhaps 21 what the position of the Advocate Depute Mr Murphy was 22 before the trial, he is going to trial to try to show a 23 jury, I suppose, that you are right -- 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. -- and to show the jury that there are the 16 points page 88 1 which are, after all, marked-up on the productions that 2 are available to the jury. What I am suggesting to you 3 is that it might have been relevant for you to tell him 4 that there had been a situation where someone in your 5 own office had not been able to see all of the 6 16 points. 7 A. Well, they couldn't but I had four people who could see 8 the 16 points; so they would be going to court with it 9 and that's what happened. I mean, the evidence is not 10 the enlargement. The evidence is the photograph, the 11 form and myself giving evidence. That's the evidence. 12 Any independent expert who comes along can look at your 13 enlargement, can look at whatever, they can look at the 14 photograph of the form, but if I can tell you from 15 personal experience I've been told not to coach the 16 jury. I believe it was -- I can't remember his name 17 now. They made a film about it, The Stone of Destiny. 18 I think it was a Mr Hamilton -- 19 Q. I think you are talking about Mr Ian Hamilton, QC. 20 A. Ian Hamilton, that's correct. I can't remember what 21 they called it. I don't know whether it was 22 illustrating my enlargement to the jury and I had to go 23 in front of the jury and show them the points. 24 There was at one point in time for High Court trials 25 they would make copies of the IB (that is Identification page 89 1 Bureau), Strathclyde Police would make copies for all 2 the jurors of your enlargement and they would go in 3 front of the jury. Each jury would be given an 4 enlargement and I can't remember what was happening but 5 I think I was illustrating or trying to show the jury 6 the characteristics that I had used to make my 7 identification and I was accused by Mr Hamilton of 8 coaching the jury. 9 So there's only so much -- I don't understand it, 10 I'm not a lawyer, but there's only so much you can do. 11 As I say, for me, enlargements are only as a means of 12 illustration and enlargements have been done away with 13 for three years, so I don't know how -- over three years 14 now, so I don't know how they do it now, how they 15 illustrate their identification, whether it's in five 16 points, six points, whatever it is, in a non-numeric 17 system. 18 Q. You will be relieved to know I do not have to pursue 19 that with you today, though I think that is a chapter 20 yet to come in the Inquiry as to what the current 21 practice actually is. 22 Just staying on this theme, if I may, Mr MacPherson, 23 do I understand you rightly that you say that there will 24 be situations where you will simply not be able to 25 demonstrate to lay people what you have seen? page 90 1 A. Well, I can see it but maybe the jury -- they've not had 2 seven years of training or whatever so they may not be 3 able to see it. 4 Q. Is that even with your assistance? Leaving aside the 5 situation with Mr Hamilton, QC, do I understand you to 6 be saying that even if you are standing there with an 7 enlargement of whatever sort pointing to what you have 8 been able to see -- 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- your position is that you may not be able to 11 demonstrate that to the jury themselves? 12 A. They may not be able to see it. 13 Q. Why should the jury accept something that they can't see 14 with their own faculties, Mr MacPherson? 15 A. Well, as I say, the evidence is the joint report, the 16 form and the photograph and my evidence so ... it's down 17 to them to either accept it or not. 18 Q. The jury may require to hear evidence to enable them to 19 determine whether they should accept what is, well, at 20 the time marked on the face of an enlargement or 21 reported in a report. I take it you would accept they 22 may not just be taking those entirely at face value? 23 A. Absolutely not. 24 Q. So if we accept that there may be situations where they 25 are being shown something and in order to accept your page 91 1 opinion, they may have to be able to detect and accept 2 the evidence of their own eyes? 3 A. All I'm saying is I may have pointed it out to them but 4 they may not accept it. I don't know what else I can 5 say. 6 One thing I would like to raise is we talked about 7 non-numeric and there's no enlargements. The most 8 important fingerprint case was HMA v Robert Hamilton and 9 that was appealed in 1933. I don't want to bore you but 10 anyway -- 11 Q. No, no, please. 12 A. It held that one fingerprint uncorroborated by other 13 evidence was sufficient to convict a person but with the 14 caveat providing the court accepts the evidence. So 15 Mr Bradley gave a talk -- a Fiscal gave a talk at one of 16 the first Scottish Fingerprint Service conferences and 17 he said that case should be held uppermost in any 18 fingerprint experts' mind. It's a bit like in 1933 19 Scotland did their own Daubert hearing. Daubert held 20 that permanence, uniqueness, et cetera, was established 21 but the fact that it was down -- the final arbiter 22 regarding the evidence was the court and that's exactly 23 what happened in 1933. So that's all I'm saying. It's 24 down to the court to accept the evidence. They may see 25 the enlargement; they may not see it. I don't know. page 92 1 Q. But if they are to accept it, it must at least be 2 capable of demonstration to them? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. I am going to turn to this a little bit later but it may 5 be a convenient point to do it since we are touching on 6 the scheme and you are wanting to tell me a little bit 7 about enlargements and their purpose. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. What is your position about what the purpose of 10 enlargements was back in 1997? 11 A. It was to show the characteristics that you had used to 12 come to your conclusion. That was ... 13 Q. When you did the charting -- and I'm thinking here 14 particularly -- sorry, I should clarify with you. 15 You were the examiner who did the chartings of Y7 16 for both the trials, the Asbury trial and Ms McKie? 17 A. I believe so, yes. The McKie trial, though, I was on 18 holiday and I know Mr Stewart did the charts with 19 Mr Bradley, the Fiscal. I could be wrong about this but 20 there was a booklet prepared but that could have been 21 for the Asbury trial. I'm sorry, I'm getting mixed up. 22 There was a booklet prepared regarding how we came about 23 with findings as in there was an elim form and a 24 fingerprint form, an illustration of enlargements and 25 the characteristics we used but I'm sorry, I can't page 93 1 remember whose trial it was prepared for. 2 Q. We will maybe go back. The more general form of 3 demonstration booklet was for the McKie trial? 4 A. Well, that's what I was saying. Mr Stewart had 5 discussions with the Fiscal. I was on holiday and he 6 sort of took the lead in that trial. 7 Q. When we are talking about the chartings of Y7 itself -- 8 A. I think I did the chartings, yes. 9 Q. That was yourself? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. When you did those, were you happy that they were 12 accurate chartings? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Because you have made some mention in your statement of 15 difficulties with the charting PC. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. But should we take it that, notwithstanding those 18 difficulties, you were happy that what came to be 19 charted was an accurate representation of the points 20 that you had seen? 21 A. Of the points. They may not have been specifically a 22 millimetre. They may have been a millimetre or so out. 23 It was a difficult machine to use. 24 Q. But not something -- 25 A. No, not something that would invalidate the page 94 1 identification, no. I tried to make them as accurate as 2 I possibly could with the restrictions that the machine 3 had. That was what was involved at the time. That's 4 what we were told to use, "It cost £30,000. Use it" and 5 that was basically it. That's what I did: I used it. I 6 think in 2000 it was basically scrapped. 7 Q. Throughout the trial, did you remain happy with the 8 representation of the points as charted in the 9 productions that you had prepared? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. As far as you were concerned, the charting of them with 12 the machine did not cause any difficulties in the trial? 13 A. Not that I'm aware of, no. (... Inaudible ...) Sorry. 14 Q. You have mentioned, I think, the dispensing of 15 enlargements in more recent times. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Would I be right to understand that SCRO examiners had 18 wanted to dispense with them perhaps for some time but 19 there had been perhaps some perception that the Crown 20 wanted to keep them? 21 A. Not that I'm aware of. There was quite a few examiners 22 would still wish that. Personally I wish to retain 23 case-specific enlargements -- personally. I don't know 24 what the general feeling is. I'm not quite sure about 25 that. page 95 1 Q. I think we will pick that up from other things we have 2 looked at, Mr MacPherson. I should stick perhaps to 3 what your own view of that is. Why would you want to 4 hold on to them? 5 A. Again, just to illustrate your identification and 6 particularly if you've got less than 16. I don't know 7 how many points, whatever. I think it would have been 8 worthwhile. It's just my personal point of view that it 9 would have been better. It's maybe an old-fashioned 10 view or whatever but I think they would have been better 11 retaining enlargements, particularly when you move away 12 from a standard. I know some people even wished to 13 retain some kind of standard. 14 In the wake of the Brandon Mayfield case, I know 15 there was an article in the Washington Post and it 16 stated that the American authorities were looking at 17 going back to a 12-point standard, but I don't know if 18 anything's happened about that. But it would be quite 19 ironic because the GCRO (which is the Glasgow Criminal 20 Record Office that was set up after 1933 and the Robert 21 Hamilton case) they used a 12-point standard, albeit I 22 have to say the Robert Hamilton case, if you read the 23 judgment, all the -- it was two officers came up from 24 New Scotland Yard to prove the first fingerprint ident 25 in Scotland and it's all done to 16-point standard. page 96 1 It was mentioned earlier in evidence is there an 2 empirical whatever for using ridgeology on its own. 3 When I started, there was all these stated cases. There 4 was Robert Hamilton, George Harold(?) Rowley for a palm 5 print, William Gourley and Jim Walker Adams for sole 6 prints and toe prints. These are all stated cases and 7 we needed to learn about all these stated cases before 8 we, you know, gave evidence at court. I don't know of 9 any stated case that is based on a non-numeric standard. 10 I know 16 points isn't a legal requirement but for me, 11 before they moved away from the 16-point standard, they 12 should have been talking about what constituted a 13 characteristic for court. I think Mr Zeelenberg said 14 they had 10 plus 2 but I think his 10 was 10 unusual 15 characteristics. I could be wrong about that. 16 But, to me, before they went to non-numeric they 17 should at least in Europe have a level playing field 18 with regards what is a characteristic for court 19 purposes. But I've gone off the beaten track now. 20 Q. I was going to follow up what you had said along that 21 theme, Mr MacPherson, because you had said that you 22 thought perhaps especially with non-numeric it would be 23 useful to have an illustration, an enlargement, and I 24 would just like you to perhaps expand upon why you say 25 that is? page 97 1 A. Well, again just to illustrate the points you've used. 2 I know some places use generic enlargements but they are 3 only illustrating what a characteristic is; you know, 4 whether it's a ridge ending or bifurcation. That's just 5 my own personal view. 6 Q. What I will do now is perhaps go back a little bit 7 because we have, I think for good reason, gone down that 8 particular line and take you back further into the 9 history of the matter. There are one or two matters 10 which you may be able to assist us with about which 11 perhaps we are not quite clear yet in the history of Y7 12 in particular, Mr MacPherson. 13 We heard evidence back on 17th June from Stuart 14 Wilson who had been involved in taking some further 15 pictures of Y7 on 12th February 1997. He told us about 16 getting those developed at Pitt Street and taking them 17 across the corridor to SCRO where they were examined, he 18 told us, by several male fingerprint examiners looking 19 at the photo and prints with an eye glass. He was only 20 able to tell us about one individual who was a small 21 chap with glasses and a beard. 22 I wonder if you would be able to help us with who 23 that might have been? 24 A. No. I have the glasses -- I didn't have glasses at that 25 time right enough. I've got glasses now but I didn't page 98 1 have a beard either. 2 Q. Do you have any recollection of being involved in that 3 yourself? 4 A. No. I think the ident for Y7 was 11th and this is the 5 12th. No, I don't recall that at all. 6 Q. I would like to move on to asking you about court 7 reports and some particular court reports and 8 enlargements. Generally speaking, regarding the reports 9 for court, you tell us at paragraph 66 of your statement 10 that it was a management decision who should write the 11 court reports in the case? 12 A. Who was allocated a case to prepare for court, yes. 13 Q. Do you know why the four individuals (yourself, 14 Mr Stewart, Ms McBride and Mr McKenna) came to be the 15 individuals involved in the cases of Asbury in the first 16 instance and then Ms McKie? 17 A. Not really. I can only guess it was because the four 18 initials on the back of Y7 were those persons, was 19 ourselves. 20 Q. Because, as we know, Mr Geddes and Mr Bruce had both 21 been involved with QI2 at the earlier stage? 22 A. Yes, that's right. 23 Q. A concern that has perhaps arisen in some minds over the 24 years -- and I would like your comment on it -- is that 25 there may have been some conscious decision not to use page 99 1 Mr Geddes because he had not seen 16 points on Y7 or 2 perhaps not to use Mr Bruce because he had not seen 3 16 points in QI2. 4 A. That's possible but certainly I don't know what I said 5 earlier but my impression was that Mr Bruce had seen 6 16 points in QI2. 7 Q. If we leave Mr Bruce out of it and just think about 8 Mr Geddes, who we know had seen only the 10 points in 9 Y7, is there any possibility that there would have been 10 a conscious decision not -- 11 A. You would have to ask the person that made the decision 12 regarding that. I don't know who allocated the case. 13 Q. I see. 14 Moving on to particular queries about reports and 15 productions, Mr MacPherson, I would like you to look, 16 please, at DB0004 and if we scroll on and if you take a 17 moment to satisfy yourself perhaps looking at this page 18 and we can then put the next page up to its right-hand 19 side. We've got a report that bears to be dated 27th 20 March 1997 from yourself, Mr Stewart, Ms McBride and 21 Mr McKenna relating to Y7? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. We have learned I think that this is a report that never 24 came to be a court production itself and -- 25 A. I notice Mr Stewart's written up "report without book" page 100 1 so I don't know. 2 Q. So you are identifying the red writing on the first page 3 as Mr Stewart's writing? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. We can maybe ask him more about it as well then, 6 Mr MacPherson. I think we have learned and it is not in 7 dispute that this itself never came to be a court 8 production and also that it contains a sentence that 9 does not appear in the versions of the reports that did 10 come to be court productions. That is the final 11 sentence on the second page there which reads: 12 "From examination of the photographed impression 13 itself and examination of the locus photograph of the 14 impression Y7 in situ, it was ascertained that the top 15 of the left thumbprint, which was identified, was facing 16 in an inward direction, relative to the bathroom." 17 A. Yes. Can I ask what I said about this in my statement? 18 I don't recall why we made this -- 19 Q. I'm sorry, you don't -- 20 A. I don't recall why -- obviously, we were asked to do 21 this report but I don't know by whom. 22 Q. There have been various suggestions about this that it 23 may have been a preliminary report requested by -- 24 A. By the Fiscal. 25 Q. I don't think we have any clear explanation of where it page 101 1 came from or rather how it came to be in existence. 2 A. I don't remember, I'm afraid. 3 Q. It is really the last sentence that I would like to ask 4 you about further because I think I am right in saying 5 that you were one of the officers who had actually been 6 out to the locus? 7 A. Myself and Mr Geddes went down to the locus to look at 8 an unusually shaped horseshoe print on an armchair. At 9 the time I think there was some suggestion that somebody 10 had been looking out of the window and they may have 11 lifted the armchair -- well, we only discovered that 12 basically when we went to the locus and looked at the 13 mark in situ and it was this area (indicated), I can't 14 remember if it was the left or the right but it was this 15 area anyway. This area didn't show on the deceased's 16 form, the original elimination form so we had to request 17 another set be taken. 18 Q. But am I right in thinking also that while the focus of 19 your inquiry that day may have been the mark on the 20 armchair you were also made aware of Y7 and it's 21 location? 22 A. We would have seen it, yes. I don't think -- it wasn't 23 identified at that point. I can't remember when I went 24 to the locus. 25 Q. I think we know it was 17th January 1997 from -- page 102 1 A. That it was before it was identified, yes. 2 Q. It is the last sentence I would like to ask you more 3 about and in particular what you say about the 4 orientation of the left thumbprint as facing in an 5 inward direction. 6 I would like you to look for me, please, at an image 7 FI2710.01. I should explain to you and everybody else 8 what that image is when it comes up. 9 If we take away the page that's on the right there 10 and have the images on the left larger. 11 What we have on the left-hand side of the screen at 12 the moment is the first page of PS0002, which is the 13 image of Y7 which has the writing on the second page on 14 the back. On the right-hand side of the screen at the 15 moment we have page 189 of CO0345 which is a Strathclyde 16 Police disciplinary report by a Mr Wilson which contains 17 what appear to be locus photographs showing the mark in 18 a wider perspective. 19 You will correct me if I am wrong, but would it be 20 fair to say that the label that I am marking now with a 21 highlight on the left image is depicted where I'm 22 marking with a highlight on the right image? 23 A. Yes, that's correct. 24 Q. That is with yellow highlights in both cases and, if I 25 can change the colour of the highlight, that the label page 103 1 that I'm marking with a red highlight on the left image 2 is where I'm marking with a red highlight on the right 3 image? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. So we can take it that we have the two images, as it 6 were, the same way up -- 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- on the screen. 9 If you take it from me that looking at the 10 right-hand side image here, the left-hand side of that 11 image is the interior of the bathroom? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Would you accept that the mark does not appear to be 14 pointing into the bathroom but rather is either pointing 15 straight up or slightly out of the bathroom? 16 A. What you're highlighting there at the moment is the very 17 extreme tip. 18 Q. Sorry, when you say highlighting, you are talking about 19 where I've put my pen? 20 A. The cursor, the pen, yes. That's not the area that I 21 was referring to when we made up the report. I could 22 only talk about the part of the mark which was the top 23 of the mark, the top of the mark but just above the 24 core, not the extreme tip, just here (indicated), along 25 here where we had identified. page 104 1 Q. What I am wondering is if you would be able to show us, 2 perhaps using one of the drawing tools here on the 3 screen, what you are pointing to -- the time has been 4 pointed out to me. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: I was going to let you finish the subject but 6 if this is convenient -- 7 MISS CARMICHAEL: It may be we can mark this up over 8 lunchtime. 9 Mr MacPherson, I am sorry to have kept you. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: We have run on a bit so we will sit again at 11 1.55 not 1.50. 12 MISS CARMICHAEL: Can we save this in its current form and 13 perhaps come back to it after lunch, just in case we 14 lose it. 15 MISS BAHRAMI: That's saved as FI2710.04. 16 (1.05 pm) 17 (Luncheon Adjournment) 18 (1.55 pm) 19 MISS CARMICHAEL: Thank you, sir. 20 Mr MacPherson, I think you have been trying, with 21 Miss Allen's help, to indicate on the image that is 22 currently on the screen, which is an enlargement of 23 PS0002, what we were talking about before lunch which 24 was the part of the fingerprint you have been talking 25 about in your report when you were discussing page 105 1 orientation. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. What you have now got is an image bearing a light blue 4 line and a light blue circle. 5 I wonder if you could tell us what the light blue 6 circle shows us? 7 A. That's the area to the right of the core. It should be 8 slightly over and a little bit more of an oval shape but 9 that's roughly the area that I'm talking about when we 10 said we identified and that's what I mean by it's facing 11 inwards to the bathroom. 12 Q. So what you are actually meaning is the core is the part 13 that is nearest to the bathroom? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. But correct me if I am wrong, does that mean that the 16 part immediately to the right of the core would be the 17 tip of the finger? 18 A. That's the area, the tip, yes -- or the middle to tip, 19 yes. 20 Q. The part which, looking at a thumb pointing upwards, 21 would be the part above the core? 22 A. Just to the very right of the core. 23 Q. I am sorry, I shouldn't put words in your mouth. 24 Perhaps the best thing I could do is perhaps try to add 25 a marking of my own if I may, Mr MacPherson, and see if page 106 1 others agree or disagree with what I am saying. 2 If I choose a circle of a different colour, red, you 3 would be denoting this sort of area, the red circle, as 4 the area to the right of the core (indicated)? 5 A. Yes, but it's at the very core and to the right of it. 6 Could I try and do it myself? 7 Q. Yes. I will take my marking off because if it is 8 unhelpful it is better if it is removed I think. If you 9 would like to try to mark this in a way that you are 10 happier with, we can take away the light blue circle as 11 well and try again. 12 A. If I also put some arrows in to show you the ridge flow 13 across the lines. 14 Q. We have found using the free hand tool can sometimes 15 help with marking the ridge flow, Mr MacPherson, if 16 that's of help to you. 17 We can start again with a clean image perhaps. 18 Perhaps if we bring up PS0002 and start again. PS0002H 19 I think may blow up rather better and be in higher 20 definition for these purposes. If we can rotate it, we 21 may find this enlarges rather better for these purposes. 22 A. That's roughly what I'm talking about (indicated). It 23 should go further into the core and a bit up above the 24 core but that's what I'm trying to say, what we've 25 identified is facing in an inward direction and -- page 107 1 Q. What I do need to do is just get your markings into the 2 record here so we can marry things up with the image 3 when we save it and then I will ask you another question 4 about that, Mr MacPherson. You have drawn a series of 5 five dark blue arrows. 6 Can you tell me what those show? 7 A. Those signify the ridge flow and it's facing in towards 8 the bathroom when it's been deposited. 9 Q. And the light blue circle ...? 10 A. Is roughly the area that's been identified but not 11 exactly. 12 Q. So focussing on this lower part of the mark then, which 13 part of the thumb did you mean to indicate was pointing 14 into the bathroom? 15 A. I think it says in the statement the part that's 16 identified is pointing in towards the bathroom. 17 Q. This is what I am slightly unclear about, Mr MacPherson. 18 If I think of a thumb pointing into the bathroom, I 19 think of the tip of the thumb pointing into the 20 bathroom. 21 Is that what you are trying to show here or are you 22 trying to show something different? 23 A. It's not the extreme tip, it's just to the right of the 24 core. I don't know what I've said in my statement. I 25 can't remember. page 108 1 Q. We can easily go back to that. 2 Save this, please. 3 MISS BAHRAMI: That's saved as FI2710.05. 4 MISS CARMICHAEL: Sorry, to assist you, Mr MacPherson, we 5 should go back to DB0004 and to the final page of that. 6 What you said was it was ascertained that the top of 7 the left thumbprint which was identified was facing in 8 an inward direction relative to the bathroom. 9 A. Okay. 10 Q. To the lay person perhaps one might think that if a 11 thumb is pointing -- if the top of a thumb is pointing 12 into the bathroom, the tip would be directly inwards 13 towards the bathroom and I'm still a little unclear as 14 to whether that's what you're indicating on the image 15 that we have been looking at. 16 A. If we take this as the bottom (indicated), as you go 17 towards the core we're going towards the tip and then 18 you have the very extreme tip, which is, the ridge 19 flow is showing it's going in the opposite direction but 20 that's something that happens in a left thumb. Normally 21 you have fault lines or fault ridges they're called and 22 in a left thumb, when you have a rolled impression of a 23 left thumb, the fault ridges at the top of the left 24 thumb slope to the left. That's an indicator that shows 25 you it's a left thumb but in this instance it's not this page 109 1 area (indicated) on the left-hand side that's come in 2 contact with the door surround, it's this area 3 (indicated). 4 Q. You are indicating -- 5 A. The very tip is what's showing the ridge flow in an 6 opposite direction, if you like. 7 Q. If we can go back to the image, please. If we had to 8 draw on this freehand a thumb to show us the outline of 9 where somebody's thumb was on it, would you be able to 10 do that for us, perhaps using the free hand tool -- just 11 the shape of a thumb, just so we can understand where 12 you say, perhaps what we as lay people would understand 13 the tip of the thumb to have been. 14 A. You want me to draw a thumb. (Pause) 15 Normally on a left thumb at the left-hand side of 16 the thumb you have these fault ridges that I'm going to 17 describe (indicated) -- 18 Q. I'm sorry, I have been unclear in my question. What I 19 am asking you to do is try and superimpose the shape of 20 a thumb over the part of the mark that you identified to 21 try and give us a picture of where you say the person 22 who made this mark put their thumb and in what 23 orientation. 24 A. What I'm showing there, if the left-hand side of the 25 left thumb had been shown, the ridges would have sloped page 110 1 in that direction but what you are seeing here is a 2 thumb that's been either put on, lifted and then rolled 3 up to the tip in that direction (indicated) or it's been 4 put on and you can see from the lighter ridges, lifted, 5 slightly turned and put back down again. I can only 6 speak to the area that I have identified. From my own 7 perspective the tip roughly of the line which I've shown 8 you -- 9 Q. This is the red line in the -- 10 A. This red line here (indicated). Roughly in that area. 11 I'm not saying it's exact in case it gets thrown back in 12 my face that it's not exact but that area to me is 13 subject to compression of ridges, probably the bone at 14 the tip of the thumb has pressed really hard when it's 15 been deposited and caused that compression. You 16 basically have now what's become called the Rosetta 17 characteristic. It's there in isolation and possibly a 18 bifurcation above it but you can't, for me anyway, I 19 can't count through this to -- there's one or two 20 characteristics up the top. These to me are 21 insufficient. That's always been my belief, I think, if 22 you look at transcripts from the trial originally. 23 That's always been my belief that they are fragmentary 24 and insufficient. So the only area I can speak to is 25 the area that I identified. The area I identified is page 111 1 pointing in an inwards direction to the bathroom. 2 I know its been said that because of the ridge flow 3 it cannot be a left thumb. That's just not the case. 4 And you don't make an assessment, an initial assessment 5 and just say, "Oh, the ridges are going the wrong way. 6 It can't be a left thumb". 7 If you look at these ridges here -- 8 Q. Would it help you to mark what you're indicating? 9 A. Sorry, if you look at the ridges here, they are all 10 flowing in that direction (indicated). That is 11 indicative of a left thumb. If it was a right thumb, 12 somehow, if you could get a right thumb, on there ... 13 (Pause) 14 Q. What you have just been marking when talking about the 15 ridge flow is a series of red lines inside the pale blue 16 circle? 17 A. Yes. A right thumb, the ridges would be flowing in that 18 direction (indicated). 19 Q. What you are just marking just now is a series of pale 20 blue lines. 21 A. Pale blue lines, yes. 22 Q. In the bottom right-hand corner of the image. 23 A. Again, this is just an indicator. If you have a right 24 thumb that was a nutant loop, a nutant loop is a radial 25 loop on the thumb, the ridges may flow as indicated on page 112 1 the right or if it was a right forefinger the ridges 2 again may flow in that direction, but that is -- they're 3 a nutant loop on any of the thumbs is very, very rare, a 4 radial -- a radial loop in a left thumb. 5 So the ridge flow there I've indicated by red lines 6 and by the blue arrows indicate to me that that is a 7 left thumb. The size and shape of it also indicate to 8 me that it's a left thumb. 9 I don't know -- there was a demonstration done 10 previously using the door standard. I don't know if you 11 want to replicate that demonstration or ... I don't 12 know. 13 Q. Just give me a moment, please. (Pause) 14 THE CHAIRMAN: What about the ridge flow in the top part of 15 the mark? It seems to be consistent with your drawing 16 of the ridge flow for a right thumb. 17 A. Yes, that's the confusion, yes, and yet that's something 18 that you have to be aware of when you're ... everything 19 is just a pure guide, fault lines, anticlockwise, 20 spirals, size, shape. You have to be very careful when 21 you're doing these examinations. It looks like that 22 should be a right thumb but it's not. It's just the way 23 the mark has been placed on the door surround. 24 MISS CARMICHAEL: At the risk of asking a very simplistic 25 question here, just to try to understand how you say the page 113 1 thumb was placed on the lower part of this mark, 2 Mr MacPherson, can you show us on this image where the 3 thumbnail would be. 4 A. This is just a guesstimate. I don't know if you want me 5 to paint it or wherever ... that's the area. 6 (Indicated) 7 Q. I appreciate the difficulties of drawing in free hand 8 but in answer to my question about the thumbnail what 9 you have drawn is a shape, free hand, in green lines at 10 the top right-hand corner of the page and that certainly 11 clarifies things for me, Mr MacPherson, so I will not 12 labour this topic any further but thank you for that. 13 Can we now save this image, please, with 14 Mr MacPherson's markings on it. 15 MISS BAHRAMI: That's saved as FI2710.06. 16 MISS CARMICHAEL: If you can take the image down and go back 17 to the last page of DB0004, which is how we got to this 18 topic. 19 This was, I hope you will take from me, a sentence, 20 the last sentence, that does not appear in other 21 reports, in the other report in the case. Do you recall 22 whether anybody asked you to include this description of 23 the orientation or a description of the orientation in 24 the report? 25 A. Yes. Who it was I don't recall but we were certainly page 114 1 what our feelings were on how the mark had been 2 deposited on the door surround and that's how we came up 3 with this. I mean, obviously I can't go any further but 4 I don't know whether it was facing in the way or was 5 coming out the bathroom or whatever I wasn't there 6 but ... 7 Q. As to why that sentence comes to be absent from the 8 later report, can you help us with that? 9 A. It's just a pro forma joint report that we made up at 10 the time. Obviously, we've done this for someone. We 11 would pass this on. What they did with it after that 12 was not down to us. If the prosecution services had 13 wanted us to add that in to a report we would have done 14 so. 15 Q. But do you recall being asked specifically to do a 16 report without that sentence in or anything of that 17 sort? 18 A. No, but the joint reports or pro formas didn't have this 19 information in it. Perhaps that's why it was asked for. 20 I don't recall. 21 Q. I will leave DB0004 and ask you about another document 22 where we are not necessarily entirely clear where it 23 fits into the picture and see if you can help us with 24 that, Mr MacPherson. 25 Could we look, please, at DB0011. Scroll through to page 115 1 the third page, first of all. 2 We see that that is production number 180 from the 3 case against Ms McKie. If we carry on further, we see 4 the front page of an SCRO photograph booklet but unlike, 5 I think, most of the booklets in the criminal cases we 6 don't see four signatures, we only see two, for yourself 7 and Mr Stewart. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. I think you were asked yourself when you gave your 10 statement as to how this apparently extra production 11 came into being and at paragraph 167 onwards you were 12 being asked about it under the reference SG0125 but it 13 is the same document as this. 14 You say in paragraph 167 that it might have been 15 prepared because of the March report that we've looked 16 at and you weren't sure why it was signed only by two 17 experts. 18 There are at least two other possible explanations 19 which have emerged for this document being in existence 20 and I would like to put each of them to you for comment. 21 The first of them I have taken from something that 22 Mr Stewart said at Ms McKie's criminal trial in his 23 evidence. He thought that it may have been meant to 24 illustrate a comparison of prints taken on 18th February 25 but, in fact, used the prints that were taken on the page 116 1 earlier date, 6th February, because the 18th February 2 prints had been poorly taken. 3 Is that an explanation that would ring any bells 4 with you? 5 A. I'm sorry, it's possible. I really don't know why it 6 was only signed by two people. 7 Q. Can I put one other possible explanation to you for your 8 comment as well, Mr MacPherson, and it might be help you 9 at this point to see CO0345.13. 10 What we have here is an excerpt from Mr Wilson's 11 internal disciplinary report from Strathclyde Police and 12 what we have at paragraph 6.43 is mention of you 13 confirming that you positively identified photograph 14 impression number Y7 as being identical with the left 15 thumbprint of Detective Constable Cardwell and it says 16 you have provided the relevant book containing the 17 fingerprint for comparison. 18 If we take 6.44 and 6.45 together, please, we have 19 Mr Stewart similarly confirming his identification of Y7 20 and signing the relevant book. Again, if we take that 21 down we then have a mention of Ms McBride at 646 but no 22 mention of her signing. I won't bring up the statement 23 from Mr Wilson but I think I am right in saying that 24 Mr Wilson confirmed to the Inquiry that notwithstanding 25 the content of a slightly confusing police statement he page 117 1 had not had a book that was signed by Ms McBride as 2 well. I will corrected if I am wrong about that. 3 What that may suggest is that a book bearing the two 4 signatures of yourself and Mr Stewart may have been 5 handed over to Mr Wilson for the purposes of his 6 investigation. Is that something -- 7 A. Well -- sorry. 8 Q. Is that something that you recall happening? 9 A. From reading that, it seems likely. I think I've said 10 in my statement because it was only for information and 11 that may tie in with this, that only two of us signed 12 it. Maybe only two needed to sign it at the time. So 13 that may be a possible explanation for it. 14 Was there a report that went with this book? 15 Q. I think not, is the answer. My focus in looking at this 16 has been trying to tie in the book with it. What I can 17 say is the Inquiry asked if Mr Wilson or Strathclyde 18 Police had retained that book with the report and the 19 answer to that was no, Mr MacPherson. 20 If we scroll on another page I may be able to help 21 you with the report question. There is certainly, third 22 from the bottom of the section, just before 8, I 23 think -- 24 A. Yes, that looks as if it's for the Asbury trial. I have 25 to say over the years all these reports, production page 118 1 books, they've all become mixed up over the years so I 2 wouldn't have prepared the book unless I was asked by 3 someone in authority to do so and that's what I did. 4 Q. I would like to put up, please, an image of what was 5 production 152 in Mr Asbury's trial, which was a book 6 prepared relating to Y7. The image would be ST0006.7 7 alongside the image from production 180. I think we 8 have a pre-prepared image of FI2710.02. So if we can 9 just bring up on the right what is on the screen, 10 please, what we are seeing at the top is image 11 ST0006.007. We should have originals for you to look at 12 as well here but for the purposes of those who are 13 viewing on the as screens I will give go on with the 14 description here, the top image is from what was 15 production 152 and the bottom image is from production 16 180, which is what we have just been looking at. I hope 17 we have got original images for you to look at. 18 (Handed) 19 If you just want to take a moment with those so you 20 are happy with looking at what we are looking at as 21 well, Mr MacPherson. (Pause) 22 Would you agree that the chartings in each of these 23 seem at least to be very similar to each other and 24 certainly to seek to identify the same points as between 25 the two booklets? page 119 1 A. Yes, that appears correct, yes. 2 Q. Again, correct me if I am wrong but the only difference 3 that I can detect between the two is that in production 4 152 the picture of Y7 itself seems to be located 5 slightly further up the image, if I can put it that way, 6 than its equivalent in 180? 7 A. Yes. They basically look identical. The charting PC 8 had a facility where the images would be stored for a 9 certain period of time and it may be -- I'm not saying 10 for definite -- but it may be I was asked to prepare the 11 bottom one, which is the one signed by two people, I may 12 have been asked to provide a further enlargement, 13 production, whatever and it may be that rather than go 14 through all the bother of basically marking it up again 15 the stored image has simply been printed out again. 16 Q. That is something that could happen, you could simply be 17 pressing the button and essentially getting the same 18 thing out? 19 A. I can't remember how exactly it worked but obviously 20 they are not the exact same. You had to recapture the 21 area again, I think. It may be that the area was 22 slightly different. 23 Q. I was going to ask you how, if it were simply a case of 24 pressing the same button, it would come to be that we 25 see the difference between the two images of Y7 that we page 120 1 see there? 2 A. No, I don't think it was just a case of pressing a 3 button. You had to go through some of the system to 4 basically print out another copy. 5 Q. If I can explore that a little further as to how far 6 through the system you would have to go, would you for 7 example have to mark each of the points on again or is 8 that something that you would be able to avoid on this 9 second run through? 10 A. Well, it doesn't look as if I have. They look exactly 11 the same, so ... 12 Q. But do I understand you correctly to be saying there may 13 be some point in the process in terms of the section of 14 the image that you capture that may vary as between the 15 two? 16 A. It's very similar as to the IT stuff you have here. You 17 have to capture a certain area or a smaller area and it 18 blows it up in a, sort of, half-decent way. If you go 19 too big, it pixillates. It's just exactly the same as 20 what's happening here. So that's from memory. That's 21 what I remember anyway. 22 Q. Again on the image appearing further up on production 23 152 than it does on the image of Y7 on 180, it follows 24 that the charting must be adjusted to some extent, if 25 only to allow the lines to be extended sufficiently far page 121 1 for us to see them and the numbers in the positions that 2 we do in 180. Would that be correct? 3 A. I don't know. I can't help you any further about that. 4 Basically that's what I remember and, sorry, that's ... 5 Q. If you cannot assist us further, I will not ask you any 6 more questions about that. 7 I would like to ask you now, please, about a 8 production that was prepared for Shirley McKie's trial 9 using an arrest form from March 1998. Again, we have an 10 original of that for you to look at. The rest of us, I 11 think, can look at DB0012.6. The charting here -- I 12 think it is not disputed -- is different from the ones 13 we have seen in the previous items and it uses the 14 arrest form image of Ms McKie's fingerprint. 15 Would I be right in saying that the known left 16 thumbprint used in the last two items we looked at, 17 production 152 and 180, was a plain impression rather 18 than a rolled impression? 19 A. I believe so, yes. 20 Q. What we see on the right of this image, can you help me 21 as to whether it is a plain impression or a rolled 22 impression? 23 A. I don't know. 24 Q. What I can't give you, unfortunately, is an original 25 fingerprint form because I understand those are page 122 1 elsewhere at the moment, but what I can do, and it may 2 be of some assistance to you at least, is put up on 3 screen DB0009.3. 4 I understand there may be a high definition ... if 5 we put up DB0009H.3 I think we may get a better image 6 for Mr MacPherson. I do not know if it assists you at 7 all to have the left thumb enlarged on this. I am not 8 sure how well it will enlarge for you. 9 A. Yes, it certainly looks like the rolled, yes. 10 Q. So it looks as if the rolled print has been used 11 in that. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Can you recall whether using the rolled image made any 14 difference to your assessment of matters when you came 15 to use it for the charting for production 189? 16 A. My assessment -- 17 Q. Did anything new reveal itself to you? Did your view 18 alter in any way at all by reason of using the rolled 19 impression for this rather than the plain impressions 20 that you had used in the previous production? 21 A. The only difference that I recall was that we didn't use 22 exactly the same characteristics as I'd used previously. 23 Q. I think, again we know that there is one characteristic 24 from the previous production that is not used and a new 25 one that comes in and I think that probably falls more page 123 1 to Mr Moynihan's chapter than mine to investigate that 2 further with you. I suppose my question to you is a 3 more general one, as to whether you found this of any 4 particular assistance? 5 A. No, obviously, again to illustrate the enlargement, I've 6 used the best thumb, there are only two thumbs, but 7 obviously if you want to highlight the plain impression 8 of left thumb it may give you an idea of why I used the 9 rolled impression. 10 Q. Yes, certainly. Please, we take that out to the larger 11 form and identify the plain left thumb which is just on 12 the bottom there. 13 A. It seems slightly cut-off towards the right. So I would 14 believe that's why I've used -- yes. Basically, it's 15 cut off some of the characteristics that I would be 16 using so -- maybe just one or two -- but I've obviously, 17 again to assist the court, I've used the clearest 18 impression. 19 Q. So what that would come to be for you is a choice 20 between what you thought the better of the two images 21 was from this particular arrest form? 22 A. From that form, yes. 23 Q. There is just one further matter I would like to ask you 24 about before I hand over to my learned friend, 25 Mr Moynihan. That is about your meeting or meetings page 124 1 with Mr Murphy (now Sheriff Murphy) before Shirley 2 McKie's trial? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. If I can take you to paragraph 172 of your statement. 5 That would be page 39 of FI0055, page 39 on to page 40, 6 what you tell us is that prior to HMA v McKie you say: 7 "We spoke to a representative of the Crown." 8 If I can just clarify who do you mean by "we"? 9 A. It was Mr Charles Stewart. 10 Q. And yourself? 11 A. And myself, yes. 12 Q. You say you believe it was Mr Sean Murphy: 13 "It was a brief discussion regarding the fact that 14 there was an expert disagreed with our opinion on mark 15 Y7. I don't recall a discussion about the basis for our 16 opinion or looking at any production books, et cetera, 17 with the Crown representative. I believe we were shown 18 Mr Pat Wertheim's enlargement of mark Y7 with a brush 19 stroke through it, which had a clear plastic overlay 20 attached to it. There was no discussion about the best 21 way to present my evidence; Charles Stewart had 22 discussions with the Procurator Fiscal." 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. There are a number of parts of what Mr Murphy (now 25 Sheriff Murphy) has told the Inquiry which I would like page 125 1 to put to you for your comment and to see if it 2 refreshes your recollection or alters it in any way. 3 The first point is that Sheriff Murphy tells the 4 Inquiry in his statement that he first met with you and 5 Mr Stewart on 30th March 1999, that being the earlier of 6 the two meetings that he had with you. 7 What he tells us is that the meeting was a general 8 briefing for him where you and your colleague explained 9 to him what you were looking for when you were examining 10 a fingerprint and he noted that at that meeting that you 11 would like time to consider defence materials and 12 methodology. 13 Do you recall that earlier meeting that is at a 14 stage before Mr Wertheim's production has come in? Do 15 you recall that taking place at all? 16 A. No, I don't. I don't recall it. I don't know if 17 Mr Murphy said he attended SCRO or something for that 18 meeting, I don't know, but I certainly don't remember 19 it. 20 Q. But would you accept that that is something that may 21 well have happened if Sheriff Murphy is telling us that 22 it did? 23 A. It may well have done but I don't recall it. 24 Q. If we can move on then to the second meeting, that was 25 the meeting -- well certainly, the second meeting as page 126 1 Sheriff Murphy has it -- which was a meeting of an 2 afternoon in a courtroom with yourself and Mr Stewart. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. This was at a stage when the defence production from 5 Mr Wertheim had become available. 6 A. Yes. What I remember, I think Mr Swann was shown a 7 booklet. All I remember was seeing the exact same as 8 Mr Swann so I was -- 9 Q. Sorry, I am becoming a little confused. You are 10 mentioning seeing something that was the same as 11 Mr Swann? 12 A. Yes. He was handed a booklet, a booklet from 13 Mr Wertheim with about three or four pages in it. 14 Q. I am sorry, was that during the Inquiry that you saw 15 Mr Swann's statement? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Sorry, I misunderstood you. 18 A. All I remember seeing -- again I could be wrong but all 19 I remember seeing was the photograph with the brush mark 20 through it and then a plastic overlay with some drawing 21 on it. That's all I remember seeing. 22 Q. What you told us in the passage that I have just read 23 out is that you don't recall any discussion about the 24 basis for your opinion or looking at production books. 25 Sheriff Murphy's account was one of perhaps quite a page 127 1 detailed discussion with you about Mr Wertheim's 2 production and that there was discussion particularly of 3 the top part of the mark being fraught with difficulty 4 and that it shouldn't be relied on. 5 Do you remember any discussion of that sort with 6 Mr Murphy? 7 A. That would tie in with, basically, what I've said about 8 10 minutes ago about I've always felt that the mark was 9 insufficient. 10 Q. Would you accept that you may have had a fairly lengthy 11 and detailed discussion with Mr Murphy that afternoon? 12 A. That's not how I remember it. I remember it as just a 13 brief discussion. I went down, there was a challenge 14 to -- I think I spoke already about this morning or this 15 morning about a challenge to the evidence. I'm not too 16 sure what the challenge was but I don't recall it being 17 a lengthy meeting. 18 Q. You recall being handed the defence production? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. You would understand from that that that was reflecting 21 a view that a defence expert was going to be putting 22 forward. 23 A. It was to do with basically this was a bifurcation, we 24 had it marked as a bifurcation, he had it marked as a 25 ridge ending. That sort of thing. That's what I page 128 1 remember. 2 Q. But you would understand that this production had been 3 made because somebody else, Mr Wertheim, was going to 4 come along and contradict what you and Mr Stewart were 5 going to be saying about the identification of Y7? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. There was discussion of the content of that production? 8 A. There would have been, yes. 9 Q. Do you recall discussion about the process of running 10 the lines along the acetate tracing? 11 A. I've heard the phrase "run the ridges" but I don't 12 recall them using that phrase at the time. I know 13 Mr Wertheim's used it before. 14 Q. Leaving aside the use of the phrase -- and I am sorry if 15 I have confused matters by using that, Mr MacPherson -- 16 do you remember a discussion about the lines that 17 Mr Wertheim had drawn on the production that you were 18 shown that day? 19 A. Only in what I've said, "That looks like a bifurcation; 20 that looks like a ridge ending". That was all. 21 Q. Do you remember either yourself or your colleague 22 perhaps suggesting to Mr Murphy that this process of 23 tracing the ridges on the acetate could introduce an 24 unnecessary element of human error? 25 A. Well, for me, fingerprints are not suitable for page 129 1 geometrical drawings. The skin is flexible, elastic. 2 For me, because you can draw a line, that's still your 3 opinion of how these ridges flow. I don't know if it's 4 some sort of confirmation you're looking for, the way 5 you've drawn the lines, but again when I started in 1970 6 again in the handbook that we were handed out is 7 "fingerprints aren't a matter of mathematical precision" 8 and that's always stuck with me. 9 Q. But if Sheriff Murphy remembers a discussion about 10 whether or not it was appropriate to carry out this 11 tracing process, he might be right about that? 12 A. Yes, he might be right. 13 Q. Similarly, if he remembers discussion about the 14 striations or markings on Mr Wertheim's image at that 15 meeting, again he might be right about that? 16 A. Yes. 17 MISS CARMICHAEL: I don't have any more questions for you at 18 the moment but Mr Moynihan will certainly have some 19 questions at this point. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I just wonder would it be sensible to take 21 the short break now and then let Mr Moynihan begin at 22 2.55. 23 (2.45 pm) 24 (A short break) 25 (2.55 pm) page 130 1 Examined by MR MOYNIHAN 2 Q. Mr MacPherson, just so that others understand, the split 3 that I have agreed with Miss Carmichael -- I expected 4 your evidence would have started on Friday of last week 5 and not today -- was that she would explore the general 6 factual sequence and then I would simply carry on with 7 you as I had with other experts and discuss the analysis 8 of Y7 and QI2. 9 A. Okay. 10 Q. So that explains the tag match that has just taken place 11 in the interval. 12 I was going to proceed in the order Y7 first and 13 then QI2, before I come I wish to actually look at some 14 of the general points just as an introduction to Y7. 15 What I want to begin with is an understanding of the 16 16-point rule as you were applying it. I follow that 17 the 16-point rule looks for 16 points in sequence and 18 agreement and we will look at what that means 19 specifically when we come to look at Y7 and QI2. 20 Where I want to begin the discussion though is the 21 understanding of differences. If I understand it 22 correctly, at least the proposition I have been putting 23 to witnesses and I have had a couple of different views 24 of this so I put it to you in general, the 16-point rule 25 is that for a unique identity to be proven there has to page 131 1 be 16 points in sequence and agreement between the 2 latent and the known print and no unexplained 3 differences. 4 First of all, is that a formulation of the 16-point 5 standard that you would agree with? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Obviously, there can be a variety of reasons for a 8 difference, the term you used earlier on today is that 9 characteristics can take on different appearances due to 10 a variety of circumstances, even the same characteristic 11 can take on different appearances, for example different 12 inked impressions of the same finger can have different 13 appearances but just what I am wanting to understand 14 from you is where you stand in relation to the existence 15 of inexplicable differences. That is differences for 16 which there is no known or immediate explanation. 17 Can you conceive of the possibility that you might 18 have as many as 16 points truly in sequence and 19 agreement between a latent and a known and yet there to 20 be no match because of a single unexplained difference? 21 A. Personally, no. Particularly with LiveScan now you have 22 sometimes rogue characteristics that you just cannot 23 explain why they are there. I've seen it on one or two 24 occasions, a ridge ending or a bifurcation, possibly 25 towards the periphery of the print, right enough, that page 132 1 you just cannot explain. But as I think I tried to say 2 earlier that doesn't negate the hundreds of thousands of 3 other characteristics that are contained within the 4 other nine impressions. So as far as Y7 is concerned 5 the area that I identified, there were no differences. 6 Q. First of all, you have answered my question by reference 7 to LiveScan, electronic or digital fingerprints? 8 A. Mm-hm. 9 Q. In 1997 with Ms McKie, and for that matter Marion Ross, 10 you were dealing with inked prints. 11 Is your answer the same, that if you had 16 points 12 in sequence and agreement between a latent and an inked 13 print of a known individual you would regard it as 14 impossible to have an unexplained difference? 15 A. That would be my take on it, yes. 16 Q. I appreciate that you covered with my learned friend, 17 Miss Carmichael, the question whether there can be any 18 minimum number back then for an identification in 19 fingerprint practice. 20 I understand your position to be that, depending on 21 the print, it could be between 10 and 16 points is the 22 minimum number consistent for unique identity. 23 Is that correct? 24 A. Yes. Well, I don't think I specifically said -- I can't 25 remember what I said, if I would be happy with 10 or page 133 1 above. I mean, you would have to show me the mark 2 itself whether I would be happy with maybe less than 10. 3 The problem with the AFR system now it searches 4 purely on characteristics and what you have to be very 5 wary of is what some folk refer to as lookalikes. There 6 may be three or four characteristics that are very 7 similar but they are not in sequence and agreement and 8 with the introduction of the AFR you have to be very 9 careful with, when you've sent back a respondent list of 10 15 to 20 persons. It searches purely on 11 characteristics, not on pattern or -- you can put that 12 in but sometimes you would end up with what was termed 13 as lookalikes, which they may have characteristics which 14 are similar but they are not actually in sequence and 15 agreement. 16 Q. The term you have used is "lookalikes", the term I have 17 used with other witnesses is a close non-match? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. It is the same term? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. What I am interested in is plainly your view is if you 22 have as many as 16 points in sequence and agreement then 23 any alteration in appearance, by which I mean that's a 24 difference, cannot be inconsistent with a match because 25 16 points in sequence and agreement is sufficient for a page 134 1 unique identity? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. What I am trying to understand is whether you would say 6 the same proposition can be true with fewer than 7 16 points in sequence and agreement. 8 Did I understand you to say that the same can be 9 true; in other words, if you have a sufficient number of 10 characteristics in sequence and agreement, you could 11 arrive at a conclusion of a unique identity even with 12 the presence of one unexplained difference? 13 A. Yes, yes. That would be my view, yes. 14 Q. Where we enter the grey area is what a sufficient number 15 of common characteristics would be for that conclusion? 16 A. Yes -- very difficult, yes. 17 Q. I will not press you because I think it satisfies me 18 that I understand what the principle is that we are 19 working with. 20 What -- 21 A. Sorry, it's just when you get to a sufficiency of 22 characteristics that are in sequence and agreement you 23 know within yourself that the two have been made by one 24 and same person but where that comes in that is all down 25 to the quality, et cetera. page 135 1 Q. What I am, in fact, wanting to concentrate on is the bit 2 that is silent in all of that. You could reach that 3 inner conviction, if I can call it that, even if there 4 is staring you in the face a difference between the two 5 that you cannot explain? 6 A. It would have to be outwith that area. You couldn't 7 have, say, 11 characteristics and in the middle of that 8 area there's one characteristic that is totally alien. 9 I would say then you couldn't make that identification. 10 It's where there's movement, like this print, where 11 there's movement, distortion, et cetera. 12 Q. Let us just help, for sake of argument. If you give me 13 just a second ... I don't know if you still have 14 production 152. (Handed) ST0006H, if we could have 15 that up, please. Just keep proceeding and I will tell 16 you when to stop. It is probably the last image. Just 17 stop there. 18 I have brought up ST0006H.007. That is the charting 19 that was prepared for David Asbury's trial. It was also 20 one of the productions in Ms McKie's trial. So it is 21 common to them both and, as I understand it, it may well 22 be the earliest charting. Correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. While we are just looking at it, this would be an area 25 of Y7 and Ms McKie's thumbprint which you have concluded page 136 1 has 16 points in sequence and agreement and no 2 unexplained differences? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. With other witnesses we have called this sort of area a 5 target area. Is that a term that you are comfortable 6 with? 7 A. Well, just characteristics that would catch my eye, I 8 think I talked about previously, yes. 9 Q. Let us take one step back from this. You have looked at 10 Y7. You obviously have to start by looking at Y7 as a 11 mark. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. My learned friend asked you about ACE-V? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. So we are looking at the original analysis as that 16 acronym has now come to be understood. 17 Your friend, Mr Geddes, simply said before the 18 acronym was coined it was just common sense. 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. In 1997, would you yourself have said that you practised 21 ACE-V or would you simply say you were practising as you 22 had been trained and others may have called it ACE-V but 23 you practised as you had been trained? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. You practised as you had been trained? page 137 1 A. Well, as I think I tried to say earlier, ACE-V was just 2 verbalising what you did, basically, the same with 3 ridgeology. Basically nothing is new under heaven and 4 earth, especially ridgeology. I think we have already 5 heard about Edmund Locard back in 1912 identified seven 6 or eight cases purely by the means of poroscopy. He 7 also was a sort of leading expert in edgeoscopy. In his 8 book, the Criminalistic, he discusses seven or eight 9 cases that he actually identified using pores on their 10 own with no Second Level Detail. So if anybody could be 11 called the father of ridgeology it would be probably 12 Edmund Locard. 13 Q. I don't want to confuse things by introducing acronyms 14 that may have had no actual relevance to what you were 15 doing. 16 Let us then start then in the way that Y7 has been 17 looked at. If I understand Mr Swann's evidence 18 correctly, as the best sort of analogy for me to use, 19 what he said is he would look at a mark such as Y7 and 20 QI2. He would need to look at it first because 21 otherwise he does not know what he is searching for. 22 When he is looking at the mark he is looking at its 23 overall pattern, is it a whorl? Is it a loop? He is 24 trying to decide that. 25 A. Yes. page 138 1 Q. He is also trying to decide if there is a target area to 2 home in on, an area of, a combination of particularly 3 clear characteristics? 4 A. Yes, characteristics that would catch your eye, yes. 5 Q. I do not really want to put words in your mouth but is 6 that as you would have practised with the initial 7 analysis of the mark, to look at its overall pattern, 8 having looked at its overall pattern to decide an area 9 that you would home in on? 10 A. Absolutely, yes. 11 Q. Having homed in on an area, you then carry out this 12 binocular comparison you have described between that 13 mark -- it happens to be Y7 in this case or QI2 -- and a 14 series of suspect for elimination prints? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. You would, first of all, have been considering the 17 overall pattern of the suspect or elimination print -- 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. -- and are you also in your binocular comparison looking 20 at the area you have homed in on, the target area? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Let us just assume for sake of argument that in the 23 target area you find, as we see on the screen just now, 24 16 points in sequence and agreement between the two, do 25 you stop at that point? page 139 1 A. Well, you certainly have confirmed identity by that 2 time. 3 Q. So you have confirmed -- 4 A. But I have I think already said this morning that you 5 glean all information that you possibly can from the 6 mark before you begin your comparison. 7 Q. Yes, but let us look at what we have got on the screen 8 just now, which is ST0006H.007. There is what I am 9 calling a target area. It has got 16 points in sequence 10 and agreement. You would agree with me that it's only 11 part of the mark Y7? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. It is only part of Ms McKie's print? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. However, if I understand your position, because there 16 are as many as 16 points in sequence and agreement with 17 no differences in that locality -- 18 A. That area, yes -- 19 Q. -- these two must be -- must be -- identical? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. There would, therefore, be no need to carry out a close 22 study of the remainder of Ms McKie's thumbprint? 23 A. Well, because of movement -- I was going to come on to 24 how I see the movement in the mark but you seem to 25 have -- I mean, I can still do that eventually but there page 140 1 was one or two characteristics which weren't in 2 alignment but I perceived that as being down to movement 3 but, as I said already, the type of the print for me was 4 insufficient. It's not that I ignored the 5 characteristics but they were not differences because of 6 movement. 7 Q. Yes, we will come to your charting just in a moment but 8 I just want to understand this. 9 First of all, if I understand what you are saying, 10 you would not confine your attention to the area that 11 happens to be charted in these images? 12 A. No, you would be looking at the whole mark itself. It 13 could be that it's two marks, one placed on top of the 14 other. It should be superimposition. I think 15 Mr Leadbetter showed you some very good examples of the 16 left-hand side of a mark and the right-hand side of a 17 mark but there was no perceivable difference or there 18 was no perceivable movement but the left-hand side of 19 the mark was identical with one person and the 20 right-hand side of the mark was identified as another 21 person and that does happen. There are some subtle 22 movements in marks that you just cannot explain. 23 Q. That takes us then to the next stage. If we go outwith 24 the areas that are on these charts, did you study them? 25 A. Yes. page 141 1 Q. On both Ms McKie and Y7? 2 A. I would think I would have done, yes. 3 Q. Why do you say you think you would have done? 4 A. Well, I would have done, yes. 5 Q. First of all, the reason why I am asking you did you is 6 this: if 16 points in sequence and agreement in a 7 limited area like this is enough for a unique identity 8 even if you find elsewhere an inexplicable difference, 9 one might think you wouldn't even bother to look 10 elsewhere because it wouldn't make any difference to you 11 what you find elsewhere? 12 A. It's possible it wouldn't make any difference to me but 13 it's for your own satisfaction. 14 Q. When you looked elsewhere did you find elsewhere 15 appearances that were inconsistent as between Ms McKie 16 and Y7? 17 A. I can't remember if I saw -- now you're speaking 18 specifically about the Rosetta characteristic or ...? 19 Q. Not yet. 20 A. No. 21 Q. I am trying to avoid the word "differences". Did you 22 find any appearances in the remainder of Ms McKie's left 23 thumbprint and Y7 that were inconsistent between the 24 two? Do you remember? 25 A. I don't remember, really. page 142 1 Q. As you may recollect -- this is why I am being very 2 careful -- Mr Swann, I understand, didn't even initially 3 look outwith this target area because what we see on the 4 screen is something like the photocopy he was given. So 5 he didn't even know initially that there were 6 differences. Do you follow? 7 A. You said "differences" again but -- 8 Q. Yes, I know I've said "differences". 9 A. -- I don't think there were differences. 10 Q. The reason why I say "differences" is when it comes to 11 the issue whether the difference can be explained or 12 not, one needs to have the question in mind, first of 13 all, namely there are differences and the question is 14 can I explain them or not and, if I understand 15 Mr Swann's evidence, he did not even know at this stage 16 because he hadn't looked elsewhere there was a question? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Let alone had he considered the answer? 19 A. Right. 20 Q. This is what I want to know from you: at the time of 21 your initial identification of Ms McKie's left 22 thumbprint in February 1997, were you conscious that 23 there was a question over the remainder of the print or 24 not? 25 A. I can't remember. Sorry. page 143 1 Q. When did you first yourself become aware that there was 2 an issue about the remainder of the print? 3 A. I'm not too sure. 4 Q. If I show you -- and I can give you the original -- 5 Mr Wertheim's DB0172H, so that is defence production 6 number 2. If we proceed through it, it is the one with 7 green circles we will stop at. So it is DB0172H.008. 8 This is an image of Y7, over which we lay acetates 9 and if you can lay the acetate such that you can see it 10 as on the screen just now -- do you see that? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Do you recollect this from the criminal trial, the McKie 13 trial? 14 A. As I said earlier, I believe I saw just this page at the 15 meeting with Mr Murphy. 16 Q. You believe you saw just this page? 17 A. I think so, yes. That's what I recall anyway. 18 Q. Because if I understand it correctly, what this shows is 19 Mr Wertheim's attempt prior to Ms McKie's trial to do 20 three things: firstly, to plot on Y7 the 16 points that 21 were being relied on. It happens to be production 189 22 not 152 that you have before you but it matters not. So 23 he is trying to plot the points that you and your 24 colleagues were relying upon, yes? Do you agree? 25 A. Yes, it looks like that. page 144 1 Q. Secondly, he is actually trying to run the ridges and to 2 see if he can reproduce by reference to the underlying 3 image of Y7, a coherent interpretation of the ridge 4 structure consistent with pinpointing these as prominent 5 characteristics, yes? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. That running of the ridges, tracing of the ridges, is 8 something that you and your colleagues never did do? 9 A. No. 10 Q. The third thing that Mr Wertheim has done is, having 11 studied all the material, he has pinpointed by green 12 circles four points of difference, one of which is the 13 Rosetta characteristic? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. If I simply had been the person, been Sheriff Murphy 16 that first time of meeting you when I handed you that 17 sheet, would this have been the first time you had 18 really studied the top of the mark closely to see if 19 there were specific differences? 20 A. No. I've already said I examined everything within the 21 mark. You have two characteristics below what's become 22 known as the black blob or the blob. As I said earlier, 23 I couldn't count between that one characteristic or 24 possibly two characteristics up to the top right. So 25 basically for me it was insufficient. Two page 145 1 characteristics. I didn't ignore them, I looked at them 2 but two characteristics in isolation and then another 3 two characteristics in isolation did not invalidate my 4 mark. 5 Mr Wertheim has run the ridges but he shows no 6 cognisance of the movement within that mark and I 7 believe there is movement and that would explain why the 8 characteristics have moved over. 9 Q. Let us take it then in turn. 10 First of all, there are in the top right between the 11 numbers 14 and 15, there are three green circles in an 12 arc. Yes? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Those happen to be above and to the right of the area 15 that's blank in the ridge tracings, the area that 16 Mr Wertheim refers to as the blob? 17 A. The blob, yes. 18 Q. So that if I take your point of reference, which I 19 understand to be the banana? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. It so happens confusingly in production 189 to be called 22 point number 8 but for us it's point number 9. 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Is that correct? 25 A. Yes. page 146 1 Q. Your point is that because of the blob in the middle you 2 can't count ridges up to any one of these three -- 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. -- so that you can't form any view about the association 5 between those three points and the core? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. However, the Rosetta is beneath the blob? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. You can count the ridges from the top of the banana to 10 the Rosetta? 11 A. Again, if at some point we were to show you these on the 12 overhead projector and I'll show you the ridge count and 13 I'll show you that it's out. 14 Q. What is out? 15 A. The ridge count is out to the Rosetta characteristic. 16 Q. When you say it's out, do you mean that it does not 17 accord between -- 18 A. It's not in sequence and agreement; therefore, I can't 19 use it. 20 Q. This is what I was wanting to ask you about, 21 Mr MacPherson. First of all, you can count the ridges? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Secondly, if one compares Y7 on the one hand with 24 Ms McKie's thumbprint on the other, the Rosetta is in a 25 certain position on Y7 relative to the core and there is page 147 1 no corresponding feature in the same position relative 2 to the core on Ms McKie's thumbprint? 3 A. That's correct, yes. 4 Q. Do you accept from me that that warrants the description 5 "a difference"? 6 A. It's an explainable difference, but it's ... yes. 7 Q. Mr MacPherson, let us just take it in stages. It is a 8 difference. 9 A. It's not a difference contained within the area that 10 I've identified, no. 11 Q. If we take it as literally as that, it's not a 12 difference within the area that you have identified and 13 established -- 14 A. You see if you -- 15 Q. Mr MacPherson, you have established that you would not 16 even be troubled by it because if you have 16 there has 17 to be a unique match, even if -- 18 A. Yes, that's correct. 19 Q. -- even if it is inexplicable? 20 A. Yes, that's right. 21 Q. So we come back then to it is a difference, yes? 22 A. An explainable difference. 23 Q. An explainable one. 24 What is the explanation for that characteristic, the 25 Rosetta? page 148 1 A. It's movement. 2 Q. What movement? 3 A. Movement either anticlockwise or clockwise -- very, very 4 slight, almost imperceptible but there is a movement. 5 When you put two glasses on it and you've spent seven 6 years looking at these things or, sorry, 36 years, yes, 7 there is movement. 8 Q. If I were to look at your evidence at the criminal trial 9 of Ms McKie would I find that you engaged with the 10 Advocate Depute, Mr Findlay, on a precise argument about 11 how the Rosetta had moved or did you simply discount the 12 whole of the upper part, including the Rosetta, as 13 something that was fragmentary and insufficient? 14 A. I think I did, yes. 15 Q. So if I put it to you the transcript says that you 16 dismissed the whole of the upper part as fragmentary and 17 insufficient for comparison, that would be correct? 18 A. That would be correct, as far as I remember, unless you 19 quote me now and say that's not accurate. 20 Q. Don't worry, I wouldn't mislead you. That is my reading 21 of your evidence. 22 A. That's fine. 23 Q. So what we are now doing by focussing on the Rosetta as 24 a point of difference which can actually be pointed to 25 and for which some specific explanation is required, is page 149 1 a degree of sophistication to this argument that you did 2 not engage in at the time of the McKie trial? 3 A. I probably didn't, no. 4 Can I just say, I don't know -- I haven't got the 5 production in front of me but certainly the Rosetta 6 was out to the right. I know you've spoken before about 7 the Rosetta and the dot to the right of it and why it 8 doesn't appear but, as far as I remember, on the elim 9 form it was at the very edge of the print and because of 10 pressure, et cetera, the Rosetta or the dot may not have 11 been recorded. 12 Q. Let us look at the particular document, if we put the 13 document we have here just to one side and bring up 14 FI0170A. We will highlight -- this is the regular one 15 that I use for this purpose. It is Mr Zeelenberg's 16 charting. I use it simply because it's got the 17 convenient number 14 that points to the Rosetta 18 characteristic, yes? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. We see, just if we compare side-by-side what Mr Wertheim 21 has marked as the green arrow -- perhaps I should 22 highlight that for comparison -- his green arrow is -- 23 you have got the original there so you can just check -- 24 his green arrow -- I can't somehow bring up thick enough 25 arrows. (Pause) (Indicated) page 150 1 Maybe that is just sufficient for my purposes. The 2 arrow just now is on the Rosetta and we go to the other 3 side. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Now, history might record that today you can debate 6 whether point 14 as Mr Zeelenberg has marked it on 7 Ms McKie's thumbprint is or is not the same as 8 Mr Wertheim's green circle, yes? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. What we have on the right-hand side is Ms McKie's left 11 thumb from the elimination form of 6th February, yes? 12 A. Okay, yes. 13 Q. Therefore, that point was there to be observed when you 14 first examined Ms McKie's thumb? 15 A. Yes, yes. 16 Q. Are you accepting that you did not see that association 17 at that time? 18 A. I don't believe I did, no. 19 Q. What I am asking you -- I will give you a chance to pass 20 over to your own charting shortly -- but because your 21 target area was identical as far as you were concerned, 22 and of course is below the Rosetta, yes? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Whether you even entertained the question about the 25 Rosetta at that time? page 151 1 A. I don't remember. I possibly didn't. I don't remember. 2 Q. You have some chartings that you want to display? 3 A. Yes, please. 4 Q. Perhaps with that in mind, if I let you display the 5 chartings that you have. 6 A. Yes. Hopefully, most people have in front of -- 7 Q. Give me just a second, I will explain. I think people 8 around the hall should have copies of some chartings. I 9 don't know if they are available for members of the 10 public. They are about to be bring up on the overhead 11 projector so that they can actually be seen. They are 12 on the system. 13 A. Yes. TC2310 ... 14 Q. I am sorry, I apologise. I follow the references. I 15 should be looking in the bottom right-hand corner. If 16 we start as you wish to start, TC2310.01? 17 A. Unfortunately, I tried to -- if people have this in 18 front of them, if they could keep the mark on the 19 left-hand side and rotate the mark in an anticlockwise 20 direction using the top -- no, I don't need this 21 rotated, sorry. 22 I tried to rotate this impression but unfortunately 23 when it was rotated it lost some definition so, 24 unfortunately, it's not exactly what you have in front 25 of you. page 152 1 If you rotate -- 2 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't appear to have it. 3 A. If you rotate the mark in an anticlockwise direction to 4 try and align there's a characteristic that is a ridge 5 ending that looks like, basically, a sharpened spear. 6 If you can rotate that and align it with the thumb 7 print, what -- all I was hoping -- 8 MR MOYNIHAN: Sorry, I don't see, when you said there's a 9 characteristic that looks like a sharpened ... 10 A. I am now pointing to the characteristic (indicated) 11 that's like a sharpened spear. 12 Q. Let's put an arrow -- 13 A. I was hoping just to go through this mark and then go 14 through the left thumbprint without putting anything on 15 it because once you start putting anything on it and 16 numbers, et cetera, it detracts completely from the 17 identification. 18 Q. What we can do -- it is easy enough -- what we can do, 19 we have done with others, is we can mark on one version 20 so we can just record what you are referring to and then 21 take that away and bring up a clean version of it so 22 that we can progress from there. All I wanted to do was 23 to record the start point of your evidence. 24 So the start point is the red dot? 25 A. Yes, but unfortunately now you have put an arrow in page 153 1 there which is obliterating the -- 2 Q. That's okay ... 3 First of all, am I correct in my understanding of 4 where you want to start? 5 A. Yes, that's correct. 6 MR MOYNIHAN: Can we save that image, please. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you want to record it? 8 MR MOYNIHAN: Yes. It is being saved, sir. 9 MISS BAHRAMI: That's saved as FI2710.07. 10 MR MOYNIHAN: What we can do, Mr Mackenzie (sic), is return 11 to the original image -- 12 THE CHAIRMAN: You have become Mr Mackenzie now. 13 A. He's slightly older than me so -- 14 MR MOYNIHAN: I apologise. I do this all the time. I get 15 the two names confused. I do apologise. You call me 16 Mr Carmichael if you wish! 17 TC2310.01 I believe is the original image and if you 18 can just enlarge it. So we are now back to a clean 19 image. 20 A. So basically the starting point and adjacent to what 21 I've referred to as a sharpened spear there is a v-shape 22 one ridge ending above it and one ridge ending below it. 23 We then go intervening ridge and we come to what is a 24 Galton detail, namely a spur, which is a bifurcation 25 going to the left and it goes along and stops a short page 154 1 distance. 2 If we follow down the ridge from the bifurcation we 3 come to a ridge ending up and underneath, again with one 4 intervening ridge, we have an island or a long 5 independent ridge. Underneath that, again one 6 intervening ridge, there's a small, I have to say, which 7 looks like an incipient ridge. 8 Again we go one intervening ridge and there is 9 another long island. I believe those are 10 characteristics 12 and 13 on the SCRO chart that was 11 prepared. 12 Q. Which are characteristics 12 and 13? 13 A. That one (indicated) and that one (indicated). 14 Just below that there's a bifurcation and if we 15 follow that ridge round, it comes to another bifurcation 16 so that would be points 10 and 11. Interestingly, in 17 between the two characteristics there's damage to the 18 ridge and we will be able to look at that on Shirley 19 McKie's left thumbprint also. 20 Above point 10 we have -- I think this was the one 21 that was used as an extra characteristic in the actual 22 perjury trial, number 17. The ridge comes along and 23 bifurcates and that's point 17. 24 If you go back to I think it was 12 or 13, on this 25 this descending ridge it's as if this ridge here -- page 155 1 sorry these characteristics (indicated) are sort of 2 piggy-back on that ridge. There's a ridge ending, you 3 follow that down and you come to another ridge ending. 4 We then go to the intervening ridge and what has been 5 referred to as the banana or I've said myself a hump 6 backed bridge, there's a bifurcation. 7 Moving along from that, there's what is a small 8 island which is marked as basically two bifurcations -- 9 sorry not an island, a small lake to -- marked with the 10 two dots. 11 If you follow this right leg down we come to a small 12 day or independent ridge. On the inside of that there 13 is a long island, again marked with two dots and to the 14 right of that island there's a bifurcation down. 15 To the left of the island there's a bifurcation up 16 and if we trace that ridge up, it takes you to what 17 would be point 8, I believe, on the SCRO chart. 18 Significantly, next to that there's a small lake 19 that I've marked with two dots. If we go back to the 20 small independent ridge, you've go one intervening ridge 21 and, again, there's a small island. Next to that 22 there's a bifurcation down. Now, I'd seen in previous 23 presentations the placement of yellow lines to show this 24 ridge comes up and admittedly there is a lot of force, 25 it's been pushed out the way, but if you actually follow page 156 1 that up, that ridge up, it comes up and joins to the 2 ridge to the left. 3 Now there was earlier evidence that you had to put 4 in some kind of yellow line to show that's how it joined 5 but I think looking at that you can see it's very dark. 6 It goes light but it goes back in and joins the ridge to 7 the left, so it's a bifurcation down. 8 You go just above the bifurcation down -- sorry, go 9 to the left, just above the small island there's a kink 10 in the ridge which I'll show you when I come to the left 11 thumbprint. We then go one intervening ridge and 12 there's a bifurcation down. Follow the right leg -- oh, 13 sorry. 14 Q. It's the cross. If you -- sorry, you have done it. 15 A. If you follow the, again, I think artificial yellow 16 lines were put in but I think if you look at that you 17 can actually see it's very faint and there has been 18 pressure, there's been movement towards the right-hand 19 side but you can actually see the ridge kinking in to 20 the left and joining, so that's a bifurcation down. 21 You follow that bifurcation down and we come to 22 another bifurcation. Go one intervening ridge and 23 there's another bifurcation down. We then move two 24 ridges out and we come to what I would term as an 25 overlap, one ridge below the other, one ridge above the page 157 1 other and if you follow that down, admittedly it's not a 2 great characteristic but there is a bifurcation there 3 which you can see marked with a red dot. 4 We then go one intervening ridge and it takes you to 5 another bifurcation down. To the right-hand side of 6 that there's an elongated lake I've marked with two red 7 dots and to the right of that there is a ridge ending 8 up. 9 If you follow that out one, two intervening ridges 10 there's a ridge ending up and a ridge ending down. I 11 have further charts which I would like to show which I 12 believe show the movement in the mark but if I could 13 call up TC23100.02 -- 14 Q. Mr MacPherson, could you help me actually because I'm 15 staring at it just now. Where is the movement in this 16 mark? Roughly in what area? 17 A. Well, I'm only going to mark this very roughly. (Pause) 18 I'll just draw it in roughly. 19 Q. Yes, please. 20 A. That's very rough. That's very rough. (Indicated) 21 Q. That's fine? 22 A. I think you can see the black shape that I've tried to 23 outline and I was wanting to show you this later but if 24 you count one, two, three, four you come to the Rosetta 25 characteristic but on the mark -- sorry, on the left page 158 1 thumbprint of Shirley McKie, I can't remember now, I'd 2 have to put it up but I think it's five or six. So 3 that's indicative of movement. 4 You also can see the ridges to the right here come 5 up and it's like as if they have been chopped down. 6 It's like a tree that's been broken. You can see where 7 I am at the moment, the ridges are basically it's like a 8 chopped tree, they've been chopped down and to me that's 9 indicative of some movement as well. So that's roughly 10 where I see the movement. 11 MR MOYNIHAN: Can we just save this image, please. 12 MISS BAHRAMI: That's saved as FI2710.08. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: What sort of movement do you say would create 14 this? 15 A. The thumb's been placed on, lifted ever so slightly and 16 turned either that way (indicated) or that way 17 (indicated). 18 THE CHAIRMAN: But is it lifted and turned or -- 19 A. I would say lifted because of the ridge count. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Just wait, is it turned in situ or is it 21 lifted clear and turned. 22 A. Very, very slightly lifted and turned, I would say, and 23 that would account for the ridge count being out. 24 If I could call up the thumbprint now. 25 MR MOYNIHAN: Do you want to just have the thumbprint alone page 159 1 or do you want it with the marking? 2 A. It's with the dots. It's TC2310.02 and, again, it's 3 just a case of -- if I could go through it again, I have 4 the -- 5 Q. Can we just stop. I am looking down at a sheet of paper 6 I have. First of all, the marking that you have done on 7 Y7, I understand that that is taken from Terry Kent's 8 image? 9 A. It's Mr Kent's image, yes. 10 Q. What we are about to look at as the thumbprint of 11 Ms McKie, what is the base for this? 12 A. It's taken from Mr Swann's chart M, M for Mike. 13 Q. M for Michael? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Is it just copied from his chart, is it, or ...? 16 A. Yes, it is. I mean, I'd never seen these images before 17 so I just thought they were some of the best images I've 18 seen so this is what enabled me to do this basically. 19 Q. If you allow me just a second, please. (Pause) 20 I am just trying to recollect, the M would be 21 Mr Swann's use of a rolled impression? 22 A. It certainly looks like a rolled, yes. 23 Q. That's okay, if we proceed just on that basis. 24 A. So the starting point was the ridge like a sharpened 25 spear. Above it and below it we have the v-shape, we go page 160 1 one intervening ridge and there's the spur, the 2 bifurcation with a ridge ending and a very short 3 distance, we come back along the ridge and above that 4 there is a ridge ending, one intervening ridge to the 5 long island, one intervening ridge to the one that is 6 probably, I would say, an incipient ridge but it's still 7 there and it's in both impressions. 8 Follow along there and we come to the bifurcation 9 which I think was 17 in the chart. Follow back and you 10 come to another long island and then we have the ridge 11 that I was saying was sort of piggy-back on another 12 ridge. This long island that's on sort of piggy-back of 13 this ridge below it. Come along and there's a 14 bifurcation and at the other end there the other 15 bifurcation which are points 10 and 11. But, as I said 16 previously, you can see the damage. There's a break in 17 the ridge there which also corresponds to the mark. 18 Below that we have the hump backed bridge, the 19 bifurcation and to the left of that we have the lake. 20 You follow the hump backed bridge down, when it comes to 21 the small dot, one intervening ridge and come to a long 22 island and to the left of the island is the bifurcation 23 up where if you trace and it comes to a ridge ending and 24 to the right of that ridge ending is the lake at the 25 core. page 161 1 To the right-hand side of the ridge ending up 2 there's a bifurcation down and follow that, there's 3 another bifurcation down there. You follow that up and 4 it comes to a small dot with the bifurcation next to it 5 and just above that dot is the kink in the ridge which I 6 haven't marked but there's a few more things that could 7 be marked in it but I didn't want to clutter it 8 completely. 9 So just above that dot there is a kink in the ridge 10 which appears in both. There's a bifurcation, you go 11 out one ridge and you have a bifurcation down, follow 12 the right leg and there's a bifurcation down, one 13 intervening ridge, bifurcation down, two intervening 14 ridges to another bifurcation down and if you follow 15 that up, you come to the overlapping ridge, one ridge 16 under another. 17 The right-hand leg there, the ridge ending down, you 18 go one intervening ridge to a bifurcation down and to 19 the right of that bifurcation down is a long lake with a 20 ridge ending at the right of it and you move two out and 21 you come to the ridge ending up and ridge ending down. 22 As I say, I had never seen these impressions before. 23 I don't know what the protocol is. Obviously, I would 24 like both these impressions to be sent to every 25 fingerprint bureau in Britain and see what the result page 162 1 might be but I don't know if that's ... 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Could I just ask while I remember, the damage 3 that you show on this, does that show on any of the 4 plain prints? 5 A. I don't know, sir. As I say, this is the first time -- 6 THE CHAIRMAN: I was just wondering whether on the one you 7 used originally whether it shows on that. 8 A. I don't know. I don't know when this impression was 9 taken, if it was adjacent to when the mark may have been 10 deposited and that's why there's such a correlation 11 between the two. I don't know. 12 If I could carry on, I've just another couple of -- 13 if you look at TC2310.03, all I've tried to illustrate 14 here is that's the same sequence of dots and I think I 15 said earlier that it was the hump backed bridge and the 16 lake next to it that caught my eye and that's exactly 17 what you can see that I've marked, the hump backed 18 bridge and next to it we have -- well, it's a small 19 lake. 20 If we go out one and on the second ridge out from 21 that you see there's basically what looks like -- this 22 is I think somebody said earlier in evidence that edge 23 shapes are very important and I think that's quite 24 correct. If you follow that it's like a zig-zag on that 25 ridge and I'll show you that in a minute or two. page 163 1 Below the spur, the bifurcation and the ridge 2 ending, below that spur, this ridge here (indicated) 3 comes along and there's an unusual shape to it. I don't 4 know, it looks like a backwards 3, if you like, and, 5 again, I would like to show you that on Shirley McKie's 6 left thumbprint. 7 If we could call up TC2310.04, as I say this is what 8 caught my eye originally, hump backed bridge and we have 9 adjacent to it a small lake. We go out one ridge and we 10 have the zig-zag shape to the ridge. If we go back one, 11 two intervening ridges there is also just above the dot, 12 as I said, there's a kink in the ridge and hopefully you 13 can see that where I'm pointing to at the moment, 14 there's a small -- just a kink in the ridge. 15 If you follow the zig-zag ridge up, you come to the 16 backward 3. The reason for just dotting two of the 17 images, obviously if somebody maybe can't see this, if 18 they take away -- look at the original mark and the 19 thumb they will be able to see that unusual shape of the 20 ridges. 21 There are other characteristics. If you go above 22 the v-shape and along this ridge, there's a gap in the 23 ridge which also shows on the mark but, as I say -- and 24 some people may wish to use -- there's also this ridge 25 ending which I'm pointing to (indicated) which is to the page 164 1 right of the V and if you follow that down it takes you 2 back to what I called the overlap. But for me it's 3 starting just to get into the part of slightly starting 4 to get into movement there. So I haven't marked that. 5 Some people may wish to mark that. Some people may wish 6 to mark the break in the ridge there. There may be 7 other things that people see. If you follow this ridge 8 down, to me it's like possibly a lake but it's possibly 9 more pores rather than lakes but that is how I see the 10 mark. That's all I can say really. 11 Q. Is it by reference to these documents that you have just 12 shown us you primarily wish to defend the identification 13 of the mark Y7 as Shirley McKie? 14 A. No. All I was trying to show was when you have perhaps 15 a well-taken form and a good image. I've just marked as 16 much on it as I possibly could. When we made these 17 enlargements we were constrained by 16 points, if you 18 like. 19 Q. Mr MacPherson, do you know by whom the mark of Shirley 20 McKie that's currently on the screen was taken? 21 A. No. 22 Q. How do you know that it's well-taken? 23 A. It's very clear. 24 Q. Very clear because it happens to show the details that 25 you wish to see? page 165 1 A. Yes, that could be argued, yes. 2 Q. Do you know whether you have on the screen a first 3 generation, second generation or what generation of copy 4 of that mark? 5 A. No. Does it really matter? I still have my chart here 6 that I believe is showing 16 points in sequence and 7 agreement. I think Mr Mackenzie labelled it as the 8 shackles being taken off when they went non-numeric so 9 all I've tried to do here -- if you didn't want me to do 10 it, fair enough. 11 Q. I am just asking you, you have gone through the detail 12 of this and one can then look at this as a copy of a 13 mark that may be Miss McKie's compared with a copy of Y7 14 and what we know about each of these two copies, 15 whatever generation they are, you had neither of them in 16 February 1997. 17 A. That is correct. I mean, I only took the provenance of 18 them to be accurate because they were on your database. 19 I basically printed these out on my own home computer. 20 MR MOYNIHAN: I think what we will do, sir, I see the time 21 is simply invite you to adjourn and come back tomorrow. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is 4.00. We will return tomorrow 23 morning, please, at 10.00. 24 (4.00 pm) 25 (Adjourned until 10.00 am the following morning)