page   1
 1                                   Wednesday, 28th October 2009
 2   (Morning session)
 3   (10.00 am)
 4                         HUGH MACPHERSON
 5               Examined by MR MOYNIHAN (continued)
 6   MR MOYNIHAN:  Good morning, Mr MacPherson.
 7   A.  Good morning.
 8   Q.  I have already been causing confusion by referring to
 9       you on the Inquiry Team as Mr Mackenzie so I do
10       apologise in advance if I give you the wrong name.
11           What I wanted to do before returning to the chart
12       that you prepared and spoke to yesterday afternoon was
13       to take a step back and look at this in a fairly
14       elementary way.  In fact, I've got notes written in
15       front of me here that end up having 12 steps before I
16       get back to where I probably was yesterday afternoon,
17       but if we take these 12 steps and see how we progress.
18           The first step it seems -- and these are all just
19       things for you to comment on -- is that fingerprint
20       evidence identifying individuals in a court context in
21       particular proceeds from the premise that the
22       fingerprint is unique; barring injury, it's constant
23       through life?
24   A.  That's correct, yes.
25   Q.  However -- second proposition -- that proposition
page   2
 1       strictly in fact applies to, firstly, a three
 2       dimensional pattern?
 3   A.  Yes.
 4   Q.  Secondly, literally in the flesh?
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  Point number 3 is that the comparison exercise that you
 7       as a Fingerprint Examiner undertakes, first of all, you
 8       do not study the finger in the flesh?
 9   A.  Correct.
10   Q.  Even what you have is not three dimensional; it is a two
11       dimensional?
12   A.  It is two dimensional yes.
13   Q.  Point number 4, that in fact what you are doing is
14       studying two two-dimensional images or impressions, each
15       more or less partial?
16   A.  That would be correct.  Even a ten-print form is not the
17       full gambit(sic), if you like, of the digits.
18   Q.  Even a ten-print form itself is two-dimensional?
19   A.  Yes.
20   Q.  Point number 5: in the flesh, the characteristics may be
21       constant throughout life but --
22   A.  Yes.
23   Q.  -- in fact, point number 5 is that the characteristics
24       are not static or stable in deposition; that is, they
25       can vary in the impressions depending on a number of
page   3
 1       factors, such as the manner of deposition?
 2   A.  Yes, if you're referring to pressure, deposition
 3       pressure.
 4   Q.  Yes.
 5   A.  Obviously, in some of the ridges there are a series of
 6       pores.  From those pores there's a continuous discharge
 7       of sweat.  Any receptive surface that's touched retains
 8       that latent impression.  It's almost like an invisible
 9       ink.  Obviously, what we use for identification purposes
10       are the ridges which stop, start, bifurcate and join in
11       a myriad of numbers in a small area and, obviously,
12       that's the Scene of Crime Officer's job.  He comes
13       along, he can either dust the area as has been done here
14       and lift it by means of adhesive tape or he can
15       photograph, as mark Y7 was done, in situ after being
16       dusted by black powder.
17           So on the one hand you have a chance impression from
18       a crime scene and on the other hand you have either
19       inked impressions or we now have since 1997 the
20       electronic capture of fingerprints or I should also add
21       I think I mentioned yesterday about the deceased Marion
22       Ross, her fingers would be dusted by means of black
23       powder and with the use of white tape the impressions
24       are lifted and then a vinyl is placed on to it.  So
25       there's many different ways of capturing a chance
page   4
 1       impression and obviously fingerprints.
 2   Q.  What I am meaning by the characteristics not being
 3       static is that depending on the pressure and the form of
 4       deposition, the movement involved --
 5   A.  Movement, yes.
 6   Q.  -- what is a ridge ending may in fact appear to be a
 7       bifurcation?
 8   A.  Yes.
 9   Q.  And indeed vice versa?
10   A.  Yes.
11   Q.  As you say, a crime scene mark is indeed a chance
12       impression?
13   A.  A chance impression.
14   Q.  But, indeed, even a police impression has an element of
15       chance in that if one takes a range of impressions and
16       puts them side-by-side, they will have variations in
17       them.  Some will show, for example, a characteristic as
18       a ridge ending, some will show it as a bifurcation?
19   A.  Yes, as I was talking yesterday about appearances, yes.
20   Q.  That is right.  So what I am trying to do is look at it
21       in a fundamental way.  The appearances may alter
22       because, in fact, the fundamental principle here is that
23       the characteristics on deposition are not, in fact,
24       constant, they are not static?
25   A.  I would agree with that, yes.
page   5
 1   Q.  Accordingly, point number 6 of this step is that when
 2       you are carrying out a comparison exercise, you are
 3       looking at, therefore, two impressions?
 4   A.  Yes.
 5   Q.  Each of which -- each of which -- may be variants on the
 6       impression in the finger?
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   Q.  Point number 7 is that one of the challenges to this
 9       Inquiry is, depending on the number of impressions used
10       by examiners, we in fact factor in the potential for
11       more and more variants, even assuming that we're looking
12       at the same finger.
13   A.  Yes.
14   Q.  Point number 8 then is that an examiner, when he's
15       reaching a conclusion, because he's looking at a minimum
16       of two variants, is in fact himself trying to decide if
17       he can reconcile those variations consistent with a
18       match?
19   A.  Yes.
20   Q.  Or cannot reconcile those variations resulting in a
21       conclusion of no match?
22   A.  Correct, yes.
23   Q.  We may have just slightly lost a breakdown of these, but
24       in trying to reconcile the variations, would you accept
25       that there comes a point when an examiner, based on
page   6
 1       skill and experience --
 2   A.  Yes.
 3   Q.  -- nonetheless has to make assumptions?
 4   A.  Assumptions based on your skill, training, experience,
 5       knowledge, yes.
 6   Q.  Back to my notes -- I may have broken down point number
 7       8 into two but I am now at point 9 of my notes.  What
 8       you are, in fact, then trying to do is to reconcile two
 9       variants based on skill and judgment involving
10       assumptions, but you do not know the true configuration
11       of the mark in the flesh?
12   A.  All I can say is this is where your seven years of
13       training comes in.  You talk about assumptions, but you
14       have to be definite in your own mind that what you're
15       marking or what you're seeing is correct.
16           I agree what you are saying, variations, but you
17       have to be satisfied.  I was always taught any
18       comparison that you make (elim, AFR, suspect), you can
19       end up in court and you have to be able to justify that.
20   Q.  Yes, but I am just looking at it in a very elementary.
21           One of the challenges is you are looking at two
22       variants and because you don't have a finger right in
23       front of your eyes, you don't know which of the two is
24       closer to the true?
25   A.  No, you don't, no.
page   7
 1   Q.  In a sense, if one is driving along in a straight line,
 2       one can go to the right or to the left and one knows
 3       that once to the right of the left of a straight line if
 4       the dual carriageway, for example, is still there, but
 5       here in your lab when you're looking at a fingerprint
 6       you don't know what the straight line is.  You don't
 7       have a finger in the flesh?
 8   A.  That's what I was trying to say yesterday, that the
 9       training now is down to, say, two years.  The only thing
10       for me that keeps you adept and keeps your expertise
11       current is by having a heavy workload and looking at
12       thousands upon thousands upon thousands of comparisons.
13   Q.  This is me on to my proposition number 10 now: if I look
14       at it, particularly in a complex mark, and I am asking
15       an examiner to look at a series of features and he works
16       out, goes round the clock from a starting point, he is
17       making a number of assumptions as he goes and will form
18       an overall conclusion at the end of that process of
19       reasoning following how many points are necessary to
20       form that conclusion.
21   A.  But unless these characteristics are in sequence and
22       agreement, you can't make the identification.
23   Q.  But do you accept -- this is now proposition 11 -- that
24       two examiners, each fully competent, acting in good
25       faith, as they progress through the analysis, making the
page   8
 1       assumptions, can in fact end up in a complex mark,
 2       because they have made a complex series of assumptions
 3       as they proceed, can in fact end up with two
 4       diametrically opposed or mutually inconsistent mental
 5       pictures?
 6   A.  I would hope not but can I give you an example?  After I
 7       had come back from being suspended in May 2002, some
 8       times after that we were allowed to do the full remit of
 9       a expert's duty, bar basically going to court.  We could
10       still make identifications, et cetera.  So on one
11       occasion I had a left thumb, funnily enough, which I
12       searched on the automated fingerprint recognition
13       system.  I identified this thumb and it then went to
14       two -- well, I remember it went to one further examiner
15       and he basically -- I could say I was happy I could see
16       16 in it.  I went to another examiner and he decided
17       that it was basically insufficient, you couldn't make
18       the identification.
19           At that time there was what was called the
20       Director's Ruling.  I can't remember which director
21       brought it in but anyway there was a Director's Ruling
22       that if one examiner decreed that a mark was
23       insufficient, basically you couldn't tell who the donor
24       of that mark was, if it was insufficient it stopped
25       there.  So that's what happened in that occasion.  This
page   9
 1       person's a fully trained officer but he couldn't see
 2       what I could see.  Funnily enough, it was a Mr Greg
 3       Padden that stopped the identification.  I still have
 4       the enlargements if the Inquiry would like to see them,
 5       when I was clearing out my desk in March 2007 I must
 6       have brought them home with me.  I still have those
 7       enlargements.  I don't know if they would be of any
 8       assistance to the Inquiry.  But there you have -- I
 9       don't know if that's an example of what you're talking
10       about, but I could see -- I had assessed the mark,
11       searched it on the AFR, identified it on the automated
12       fingerprint recognition system but another officer
13       deemed that it was insufficient.  So I don't know if
14       that answers your question.
15   Q.  It does in part because, if you will forgive me, that
16       takes me one step on to this.
17           First of all, before we get to that point where
18       there is a disagreement between the officers, first of
19       all, because it is a complex series of assumptions being
20       applied, you can at least conceive of the possibility
21       that two officers would arrive at the same conclusions
22       so they would be in agreement --
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  -- but, in fact, each would have a radically different
25       mental picture of the match?
page  10
 1   A.  Absolutely, yes.
 2   Q.  I will come back and look at that because this is where
 3       your Mr Padden example falls into place.
 4           It would follow, therefore, in such a process that
 5       it might not take much more of a change of assumption to
 6       have two officers who not only have different mental
 7       pictures but, in fact, have different conclusions?
 8   A.  With regards identity, I would hope that wouldn't happen
 9       but ...
10   Q.  Since, unfortunately, hope and experience tend to part
11       company in courts and legal proceedings, do you admit of
12       the possibility that as one follows the pattern and
13       makes assumptions, first of all, two officers may at
14       some point diverge but nonetheless arrive at the same
15       conclusion?
16   A.  Yes.
17   Q.  Equally, two officers might diverge and, in fact, end up
18       with opposite conclusions, one saying a match, the other
19       saying not?
20   A.  I've never had that experience.
21   Q.  Well, perhaps never had that experience until Y7?
22   A.  Correct.
23   Q.  Let us then look at that.  Let's begin with someone who,
24       if I understand it correctly, works in a similar sort of
25       way to you in relation to this.  If I understand your
page  11
 1       charting yesterday, what you did was start at a certain
 2       point, the arrow that you described in Y7?
 3   A.  Yes.  Well, that was just for the sake of yesterday's
 4       demonstration, yes.
 5   Q.  But you start at a point and, in a sense, any journey
 6       has to have a point of departure?
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   Q.  Your point of departure is the arrow?
 9   A.  Yes.
10   Q.  You then count down and around ridges and end up
11       building up an overall pattern?
12   A.  That's correct, yes.
13   Q.  You would trust that what you produced yesterday was
14       consistent with the charting which you did for this
15       Inquiry?
16   A.  I would hope so, yes.  I haven't -- I mean, I would be
17       quite willing to mark the characteristics from my
18       charting here and mark them on the demonstration I did
19       yesterday.
20   Q.  If you will forgive me because, again, as I have said to
21       you before, we're not in the realms of hope we are in
22       the realms of expectation.  What you have just suggested
23       is something I have asked that you be asked to do in the
24       fullness of time because, speaking for myself, I have
25       found it difficult simply because the points that you
page  12
 1       have marked are not numbered so, therefore, I found it
 2       difficult to do a direct comparison.
 3   A.  Well, that will be fine.  I will try and do that.
 4   Q.  I will leave that aside.  You would trust or hope that
 5       your charting of yesterday is consistent with the
 6       comparison exercise charting, yes?
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   Q.  Indeed, consistent with the chartings that were produced
 9       for the criminal trial?
10   A.  Well, I think when you asked us to do the comparative
11       exercise you asked us to replicate what we had marked
12       for the -- I can't remember, was it both trials?  Yes.
13   Q.  Let us just be clear about that because there's a
14       question of other images.  As I have said, the whole
15       process becomes more complicated the more variants we
16       actually have to look at.
17           Let us just look at the comparative exercise.  If we
18       bring up on screen FI0167A, which I think is to your
19       left just now so you can look at the original if that
20       assists you.  FI0167A.
21           This is something we have seen on a number of
22       occasions but we have not yet had an opportunity with
23       one of the witnesses involved in this process just to
24       get confirmation.
25           First of all, so far as the provenance of these
page  13
 1       items are concerned, are you aware and can you confirm
 2       that the image on the left is an image, in fact, that
 3       replicates what you had available to you in
 4       February 1997?  That is the image that has the
 5       manuscript notes on the back of Y7?
 6   A.  I believe it was from the negative of Y7.
 7   Q.  So you believe -- and that is my understanding as
 8       well -- it is from the negative of the Y7 which has the
 9       manuscript notes on the back, which for us is PS0002?
10   A.  I believe so.
11   Q.  The image on the right, the thumbprint of Ms McKie,
12       would it be consistent with your understanding that that
13       is taken from the police form obtained on
14       6th February 1997, which is ST0004H just for the
15       reference?
16   A.  You gave them to me so I'm taking your word for it that
17       that's ...
18   Q.  This is what I want you to confirm, Mr MacPherson: not
19       only did I give you those, in fact what I gave you was a
20       selection of images and asked you and your colleagues --
21   A.  Yes, you did.
22   Q.  -- to select from among the range images of quality that
23       you were satisfied with?
24   A.  Yes.
25   Q.  In fact, what the exercise has done is taken us back, as
page  14
 1       best we can, because we can't re-mark PS0002H, the
 2       photograph of the markings, we have gone back to the
 3       negative of that very photograph.
 4   A.  Was it a negative of the photograph?  Was the photograph
 5       photographed?
 6   Q.  No, it was a negative of the photograph and we have gone
 7       back to the actual print form.
 8   A.  Yes.
 9   Q.  So what we see on the screen is, as best one can, and
10       you have it in photographic form to the left, what you
11       have been looking at under your linen glasses in
12       February 1997?
13   A.  Yes.
14   Q.  So that is the provenance of these documents.
15   A.  Yes.
16   Q.  Let us then look at something else because what I want
17       to do is to focus on points 15 and 16 as charted and
18       point 3.
19           15 and 16 are easier to see, at least to my eye at
20       any rate (which is untrained), in Ms McKie's print.  15
21       and 16 --
22   A.  Yes.
23   Q.  -- are what we have come to call, with Mr Wertheim's
24       American assistance, the handshake.
25   A.  Yes.
page  15
 1   Q.  15 and 16 are to the right, two ridges away from point
 2       number 3?
 3   A.  That's correct.
 4   Q.  Two ridges away and to the right of point number 3?
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  If I can bring up, please, Mr Leadbetter's charting and
 7       if we just put this one to the side just now, TS0005.28,
 8       and I will begin by enlarging again a different
 9       thumbprint of Ms McKie.
10           First of all, what I want you to concentrate on is
11       what he has marked as points 13.  It would seem on this
12       image a small lake?
13   A.  Yes.
14   Q.  And 14?
15   A.  That's the ridge ending up.
16   Q.  A ridge ending?
17   A.  Yes.
18   Q.  Would you agree with me as marked by him those are to
19       the left and, in fact, below what I would understand to
20       correspond to SCRO point 3 where my cursor is just now?
21   A.  That's correct.
22   Q.  15 and 16 are those on the ridge ascending up from point
23       number 13 to a position just between lines 10 and 11
24       where my cursor is just now (indicated)?
25   A.  Yes.
page  16
 1   Q.  So, again, separated by two ridges to the right of the
 2       SCRO point number 3?
 3   A.  Yes.
 4   Q.  Then let us look at his charting.  Point number 13 he
 5       charts as being on the ridge above what SCRO mark in Y7
 6       as point 3?
 7   A.  Can you just repeat that again, Mr Moynihan?
 8   Q.  Point number 13, he charts as being on the ridge
 9       ascending from the bifurcation which SCRO mark as number
10       3?
11   A.  That would appear to be correct, yes.
12   Q.  Point number 14, he marks on the ridge adjacent and to
13       the left of point number 13?
14   A.  Correct, yes.
15   Q.  Let us bring it up as Mr Zeelenberg sees it, it is
16       simply a little bit clearer to follow, AZ0061 -- instead
17       of the one on the right -- slide 131.  It may be better
18       in PowerPoint, actually.
19           All that Mr Zeelenberg has done is taken a better
20       image of Y7 and he's replotted Mr Leadbetter's points so
21       that we can now clearly see -- can you confirm this by
22       comparing -- that Mr Leadbetter has somehow on the right
23       taken features which were to the right and below SCRO
24       point 3.  He's moved them to the left and up to the
25       point where point number 13 is above?
page  17
 1   A.  Is above point 3, yes.
 2   Q.  Point 3, and 14 is to the left?
 3   A.  And 14 is to the left, yes.
 4   Q.  By that same process, since points 15 and 16 (the
 5       handshake) are on the same ridge as his point number 13,
 6       he would accordingly place 15 at the two dots that
 7       Mr Zeelenberg has marked on the ridge ascending from
 8       point number 3.  Correct?
 9   A.  That's Mr Leadbetter's interpretation; it's not mine.
10   Q.  Is Mr Leadbetter correct?
11   A.  He disagrees with what I or what we have basically
12       plotted.
13   Q.  So if you are right, Mr Leadbetter is wrong?
14   A.  I have to say yes.
15   Q.  You have to say yes.
16           Is Mr Leadbetter a man of competence?
17   A.  Absolutely.
18   Q.  Acting in good faith?
19   A.  Yes.
20   Q.  And yet he would have, if I simply look at this, a
21       radically different mental picture of Y7 than you have?
22   A.  Yes.
23   Q.  He has reached the same conclusion?
24   A.  He has, yes.
25   Q.  I would suggest it might not take much for another
page  18
 1       expert of equal competence acting in good faith to look
 2       at that and say these are just not a match because the
 3       handshake (15 and 16) is not in the position on
 4       Ms McKie's fingerprint that Mr Leadbetter tells us it is
 5       in Y7?
 6   A.  Well, all I can say is it's his interpretation.  He was
 7       here so he has given his explanation to it.  It doesn't
 8       accord with my interpretation of the mark.
 9   Q.  I will stop it there in a sense, Mr MacPherson, just
10       with this one because what I am actually trying to
11       understand is because we saw, we actually witnessed
12       Mr Leadbetter do this, he proceeds round a clock from
13       his point number 1, counting ridges and, by implication,
14       making assumptions.  He can follow his ridge count all
15       the way round to point number 14 and if you are correct,
16       let us proceed on this basis, if you are correct then,
17       intending no disrespect -- I am not questioning
18       Mr Leadbetter's competence nor his good faith -- he has
19       deviated at some point because he has ended up with
20       points 13, 14, his 13 and 14, your 15 and 16, in
21       positions that are mutually inconsistent compared to
22       yours?
23   A.  Correct, yes.
24   Q.  Can we take it then that it might be that someone like,
25       for example, Mr Grigg, will he start from a certain
page  19
 1       position, counts ridges, might with competence and in
 2       perfect good faith arrive at a mental picture which is
 3       so out of match with your mental picture that he's off a
 4       little bit further than Mr Leadbetter in the argument.
 5       He's saying not only are these variants that
 6       Mr Leadbetter says, "I can ignore them because of
 7       movement; I'm happy to agree", Mr Grigg might say, "I've
 8       actually had to make some turns here on this process
 9       that just mean I am not matching.  There's something
10       discordant here".
11           Do you understand that?
12   A.  Yes, well I think Mr Grigg mentioned that he couldn't
13       see the lake in our charting, which is points 10 and 11,
14       but obviously that's a divergence there and I just don't
15       agree with it.
16   Q.  We will see as we look whether that is a critical point.
17       What I am just trying to do is to understand -- this is
18       the reason for the simplicity of this -- the process of
19       reasoning.  Because it has assumptions we can take
20       Mr Leadbetter as, if you like, as a middle figure.  He
21       can have different assumptions from you.  They must be;
22       is that correct?  They must be different assumptions?
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  A different mental picture it is, yes?
25   A.  Yes.
page  20
 1   Q.  Radically different mental picture from you?
 2   A.  Certainly with those points anyway, certainly, yes.
 3   Q.  Yet he is prepared, despite those variants and -- I will
 4       avoid the word differences -- despite those variants he
 5       is prepared to agree?
 6   A.  Yes.
 7   Q.  It might not take much, I would suggest, for an expert
 8       of equal competence and equal good faith, simply to say,
 9       "There is one of these variants, one of these
10       assumptions, somewhere along this way that makes me
11       depart from Mr MacPherson to the point that I'd say
12       stop, this is not a match"?
13   A.  Well, that could be his opinion but this is the problem
14       where you have very, very poor quality marks such as Y7.
15   Q.  If I may, I would suggest just as a conclusion to this
16       particular simplistic approach, if I am trying to
17       understand what it is about complex marks that gives
18       rise to this risk, it is, I suggest, that the
19       assumptions that the expert requires to make are more
20       challenging because the detail in the mark is less
21       secure?
22   A.  Yes.
23   Q.  If I can then, before we look at Mr Grigg, can we just
24       look at some of the things about your charting
25       yesterday.  I am in fact going to concentrate, I hope,
page  21
 1       use of that word really on the comparative exercise
 2       material for a reason I will readily explain just now.
 3           Because I have said the more images we use the more
 4       complications we have of variants being thrown up, I
 5       want to step back and look at you, Mr Grigg and others
 6       on the same material so that the complication of image
 7       quality is removed.
 8           Do you understand?
 9   A.  Okay.
10   Q.  What I want to do is to look at the images that you used
11       yesterday.  If I understand correctly, the image of Y7
12       is TC2310.03.  That is the image you have of Y7.
13   A.  That's correct, yes.
14   Q.  With the dots and the green lines drawn in?
15   A.  Yes.
16   Q.  As I have said to you, in the fullness of time I will
17       ask you, please, to apply numbers to the dots because it
18       is quite challenging.
19           So far as Ms McKie's fingerprint is concerned, I
20       understand that the marked equivalent is TC2310.04 so we
21       can bring them up as a pair and perhaps one above the
22       other for once.
23           What I have brought up are the two chartings but
24       with the complete markings of yesterday; is that
25       correct?
page  22
 1   A.  That's correct, yes.
 2   Q.  Let's not go over what we discussed yesterday.
 3           The top one is a copy of a Mr Kent image.  The
 4       bottom is a reproduction of a section from a
 5       reproduction by Mr Swann, his chart M?
 6   A.  Correct, yes.
 7   Q.  What I am interested in is looking at image quality.
 8       First of all, unless one actually looks at the door, one
 9       would not know what the true image is of Y7?
10   A.  How do you mean "the true image of Y7"?
11   Q.  If I have, as I have, a number of different photographs
12       of Y7 all I can say is that they're different.  No-one
13       can tell which is the truer image of Y7 without looking
14       at the doorframe.
15   A.  Well, we normally didn't look at -- all we would receive
16       is either the lifted impression or the photographed
17       impression.  Yes, looking at the doorframe might give
18       you a hint as to orientation, et cetera.
19   Q.  Mr MacPherson, it is no more than this: one of the
20       challenges that has beset this particular debate is the
21       one could paper the walls with photographs of Y7 and
22       paper the walls to no purpose because one wouldn't know
23       which is the correct image.
24   A.  Well, the best for me would be from the original
25       negative.  I think at the time of the civil hearing --
page  23
 1   Q.  Mr MacPherson, if I just top you then.  The best one is
 2       not the one at the top?
 3   A.  Right.
 4   Q.  That's correct?  It's not the one at the top here?
 5   A.  No, that's Mr Kent's image, yes.  All I was saying was
 6       the hearing that never took place in February 2006, when
 7       Shona Bathgate came -- we had to do further enlargements
 8       of Y7.  Unfortunately, the negative, the original
 9       negative of Y7 was not available and we had to prepare,
10       I think it was a photograph of a photograph.  I could be
11       wrong about that but that's what I remember.  So for me
12       the best image would be from the original negative.
13   Q.  That is what you understand we have and that you have
14       used in the comparative exercise?
15   A.  Yes.
16   Q.  All I am saying is it is not the one on the screen?
17   A.  Not that one, no.
18   Q.  Equally, so far as the one on the bottom is concerned,
19       that is a reproduction by you of a reproduction by
20       Mr Swann of a fingerprint from Ms McKie?
21   A.  Correct.
22   Q.  Have you looked at and studied the blue inked original?
23   A.  I haven't, no.
24   Q.  I suggest that the best fingerprint to use in this
25       exercise would be an inked, since this is the period of
page  24
 1       inked originals, taken by the police?
 2   A.  Well, sometimes you would get elim forms in that were
 3       very, very poorly taken.  The best fingerprint forms in
 4       my experience that we used to get was from the
 5       Identification Bureau of Strathclyde Police because they
 6       basically took fingerprints day in and day out and they
 7       were the best images.
 8   Q.  Is there anything wrong with the fingerprint forms that
 9       you were supplied with by Strathclyde Police in
10       February 1997?
11   A.  No.  As you see, that's one that I used there; so no.
12   Q.  This is why we will come back in the fullness of time to
13       what I would suggest to you is a secure basis of looking
14       at a photograph derived from the original negative of
15       the photograph you looked at side-by-side with the
16       photograph derived from the original police form that
17       you looked at.
18   A.  Okay.
19   Q.  Let us just follow this through.  If I begin with the
20       Kent image at the top -- and I will try and keep this
21       relatively brief -- first of all, would you accept from
22       me that one of the reasons that one has to ask you to
23       mark this is that the banana does not appear as
24       prominently in this particular image as it does in
25       others?
page  25
 1   A.  I can still see it, yes.
 2   Q.  I don't disagree that you can still see it but it's not
 3       as prominent.  It's a little bit faint at the top where
 4       it might otherwise be joining the tree?
 5   A.  Possibly, yes.
 6   Q.  But this particular image, the Terry Kent image, there
 7       is marked by you an incipient, a prominent incipient,
 8       between the two descending ridges forming the banana?
 9   A.  That's correct.
10   Q.  What I want to do, because I don't want to lose this, I
11       am going to mark that with an arrow.  I am going to stay
12       clear of the legs of the bifurcation.  So my blue arrow
13       marks that incipient (indicated).
14   A.  Correct.
15   Q.  It would seem to the naked eye to be rather prominent
16       incipient occupying a good proportion of the space
17       between the two descending legs of the bifurcation?
18   A.  Yes.
19   Q.  If I understand it correctly, what you do in the McKie
20       print reproduced from Mr Swann is mark again an
21       incipient -- I steer clear of the ridge -- it is
22       opposite the point of my arrow, two red dots
23       (indicated)?
24   A.  Correct.
25   Q.  Such is the prominence of that incipient, is it a detail
page  26
 1       you would expect to be observed in an ACE-V comparison?
 2   A.  The problem with incipients is that they don't always
 3       show in the both impressions.  They are immature ridges
 4       which lie below the surface of the main two ridges and
 5       depending on the pressure, et cetera, they may be
 6       recorded; they may not be recorded.
 7   Q.  Such though is the size of this incipient in the Terry
 8       Kent image, would you expect to see such an incipient in
 9       a fingerprint form taken by the police under controlled
10       circumstances?
11   A.  If there's a lot of pressure in the mark from the crime
12       scene, it may show in the mark but it may not show in
13       the controlled impression that you talk about.
14   Q.  Do you know if this incipient is to be seen in any of
15       the police forms?
16   A.  I couldn't tell you.  I don't know without looking at
17       them again.
18   Q.  Firstly, if we could save this image, please.
19   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2810.01.
20   MR MOYNIHAN:  In the bottom, please, if we could bring up
21       ST0004H and if we proceed through and I will tell you
22       when to stop.  Stop there.  Sorry, the preceding one.
23           The left thumb is in the bottom of this particular
24       image and is, in fact, the image you have on the screen
25       beside you.  It is quite difficult to blow it up too
page  27
 1       much.  You have the photographic original beside you.
 2           Can you confirm for me that the incipient is not
 3       marked on that print?
 4   A.  No, it doesn't show.
 5   Q.  It does not show?
 6   A.  No.
 7   Q.  Just while we are there, if I go back to the Kent image
 8       at the top, below the right leg of the banana towards
 9       the bottom of where it's dark you have marked a second
10       incipient, a second incipient off the right leg of the
11       banana.  Is that correct?  I will show you it with a
12       green arrow (indicated).  You have marked a second
13       incipient off the right leg of the Kent image.
14   A.  That's correct, yes.
15   Q.  It is not on the comparative exercise image, ST0004H?
16   A.  At point 6 on the comparative exercise one there's a
17       slight bulge to the left which could be taken as what is
18       marked here but it's certainly not as strong.
19   Q.  Okay.  So that's a possibility but not as strong.  If we
20       can save that pair of images just now, please.
21   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2810.02.
22   MR MOYNIHAN:  Thank you.
23           In the bottom could we bring up now DB0008 and we
24       will have to scroll through to the same fingerprint form
25       in it.
page  28
 1           Again, what I will do, Mr MacPherson, is bring up,
 2       again, Ms McKie's left thumb.  The quality may begin to
 3       deteriorate, in fact perhaps the quality of this one is
 4       just not adequate for this particular purpose.  In fact,
 5       could we try DB0008H.  Let us proceed through.  Let us
 6       see ... it's the preceding page.  This may be a higher
 7       definition image.  It does look a little bit better.
 8           Do we see the incipient mark between the branches of
 9       the banana?
10   A.  Not from the banana one, no.
11   Q.  And the one that's off to the right?  This image may be
12       inadequate for that particular discussion?
13   A.  Again, you could say that, again, as I said, to the left
14       of it there's a slight bulging in the ridge which could
15       be a second incipient.
16   Q.  So one possible, the other not.
17           The final one of police forms is -- if we can take
18       the bottom one down -- DB0009H.  Again, I will try to
19       bring up the left thumb in this one.  First of all, I
20       will use the plain and then we will go to the rolled for
21       a reason.
22           Can you see again between the two limbs of the
23       banana and tell me if the incipient's present or not.
24   A.  Can you highlight it further?
25   Q.  I will try but, again, I am just conscious of image
page  29
 1       quality.  I will try.
 2   A.  It doesn't appear to be there, no.
 3   Q.  I suppose the second one, the one to the right of the
 4       incipient, the right leg?
 5   A.  No, it doesn't appear to be there either.
 6   Q.  The final one, just as a control, is Mr Leadbetter gave
 7       us -- in fact he gave us on Friday a gift -- gift seems
 8       to be the word that is used he -- the photographic
 9       original.  If we look back at Mr Leadbetter, this is
10       again in the bottom screen, TS0005.28, and I will
11       highlight his print, I understand this to be some form
12       of copy is I think the better way of putting it, some
13       form of copy of a photograph provided by Mr Wertheim of
14       what one assumes to be a Wertheim inked original?
15   A.  Yes.
16   Q.  So it's an inked original, photographed and copied.  So
17       that's the provenance of that so far as I know.
18           What again I am going to do is highlight the area
19       that would have the banana.
20           Can you confirm for me that the incipient between
21       the two legs of the banana is not evident?
22   A.  Well, can I ...?
23   Q.  Yes, help yourself, please.
24   A.  It's very, very faint but I don't know how I would
25       illustrate it but there does appear to be something
page  30
 1       there but it's not clear.
 2   Q.  So there might be something there but it's not clear?
 3   A.  It's not clear.  The other incipient does show to the
 4       left of the bifurcation down.
 5   Q.  So on this occasion where are you looking?
 6   A.  Just about there.
 7   Q.  Where my cursor is?  (Indicated)
 8   A.  Yes.
 9   Q.  Let us mark that so we have that for posterity.  Is it
10       about where the point of the pen is just now?
11       (Indicated)
12   A.  Just slightly to the ... yes, just slightly to the left,
13       yes.
14   Q.  What I am trying to do is stay clear of that because
15       there is ridge detail.  So it is in that vicinity?
16   A.  Yes.
17   Q.  What I have done, Mr MacPherson, if I can count, is I
18       have looked at -- oh sorry, the final one I should look
19       at -- first of all, if I save this and I will go one
20       step back.  Save this pair.
21   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2810.03.
22   MR MOYNIHAN:  If we could in the bottom, please, bring up
23       again DB0009H and proceed through to the same page.  So
24       it is DB0009H.04.
25           What I forgot to do was that this is the arrest
page  31
 1       form.  It is the form used in production 189 and it is
 2       obvious that, in this particular instance, a rolled
 3       impression was used in the production, not a plain.
 4           Do you recollect that?
 5   A.  Yes, from yesterday, yes.
 6   Q.  So what I should have done for completeness, which I
 7       omitted to do, was to bring up the rolled impression of
 8       Ms McKie's left thumb.  I had better go just a bit
 9       larger to make sure I have the right thing.
10           I am looking at her left thumb; is that correct?
11   A.  That's correct.
12   Q.  If I can then enlarge it, because this is a high
13       resolution image, I am looking at the banana again.
14           Any evidence of the incipient?
15   A.  No.
16   Q.  Looking at chance now, what I have shown you are three
17       police forms.  In one of the police forms I have shown
18       you a plain and a rolled, so that's four inked originals
19       taken under what would obviously be different
20       circumstances?
21   A.  Yes.
22   Q.  And I have shown you one Mr Leadbetter traced back to
23       Mr Wertheim.  I have shown you five?
24   A.  Yes.
25   Q.  Bar in one a faint hint you do not see the incipient in
page  32
 1       any of the other?
 2   A.  No, but that doesn't detract from the other 16 ridge
 3       characteristics in sequence and agreement that I've
 4       found.  Incipient ridges, by their nature, sometimes
 5       show, sometimes don't show.
 6   Q.  All I was saying, Mr MacPherson, was this -- and one
 7       could look at -- there's one other feature I want to
 8       look at for the moment.  We will just confine ourselves
 9       to what is on the screen just now at the bottom.
10           All I am looking at is showing, for comment, a
11       series of images so that the Chairman can see to what
12       extent, first of all, the debate about particular
13       features is itself dependent on the variant that one
14       uses, the image variant.
15   A.  Absolutely, yes.
16   Q.  The second one that I am interested in is, if I keep at
17       the bottom the rolled impression from the final police
18       form but we can use any other for this purpose -- it
19       matters not to me -- and bring up at the top the McKie
20       print that you reproduced from Mr Swann.  That is
21       TC2310.04.
22           What I am interested in on this occasion is, again,
23       I have to use, I confess, I have to use your green
24       lines, almost like the eyebrows, to find the top of the
25       banana.
page  33
 1   A.  Yes.
 2   Q.  Then we all know that above the banana, slightly to the
 3       left, is a lake, 10 and 11?
 4   A.  Yes.
 5   Q.  On this occasion, in the Swann reproduction it seems
 6       that someone's dug a channel to let some water out of
 7       the lake?
 8   A.  Yes, there's some sort of damage there, yes, that's
 9       right.
10   Q.  Not reproduced in any of the other fingerprints that we
11       have seen?
12   A.  Well, certainly that one is from 1999.  I don't know
13       when the other one was taken.
14   Q.  We will come back to that in a second.  So, first of
15       all, there is some sort of artefact coming north/south
16       from the lake (10 and 11) down towards the banana --
17       indeed, would collide with the banana?
18   A.  That's correct, yes.
19   Q.  That appearance is not in the rolled impression from
20       1998 that we see?
21   A.  The rolled impression would be from 1999.
22   Q.  No, it's 1998, in fact.
23   A.  Sorry, I beg your pardon.
24   Q.  That's okay.  It's from 1998 because she was arrested
25       one year before being put on trial.
page  34
 1   A.  Okay, right.
 2   Q.  Then the only other one that I have which may be -- and
 3       I stress may be --
 4   A.  Can I just interrupt you there?  There is the
 5       resemblance of some sort of damage just to the
 6       right-hand side of the lake but I agree with you it's
 7       not as is shown in the above.
 8   Q.  The appearance of channels coming down is not in --
 9   A.  No, it's not as distinct, no.
10   Q.  The only other one that may be a 1999 image is
11       Mr Wertheim's.  So if we return to Mr Leadbetter,
12       TS0005.28 -- in the bottom -- and I will just highlight
13       Mr Leadbetter's reproduction.  I am not sure how far
14       this will go for deterioration.
15           Can you confirm that, looking at this as a 1999
16       image, there does not seem to be that characteristic
17       channel?
18   A.  There doesn't seem to be, no.
19   Q.  So it may be that the characteristic channel in the top
20       image could, by some means we do not know, be an
21       artefact of the image?
22   A.  I don't know -- do you know when this top image was
23       taken?  Do you know what date?
24   Q.  All I can help you is if you look, please -- and we may
25       need to find the blue inked original.  Give me just a
page  35
 1       second.  If we bring up on the bottom of the screen a
 2       letter TS0009 and highlight the date, 3rd March 1999 is
 3       the blue inked one at the top and you will confirm that
 4       what is said in the letter is that on that date what is
 5       being sent to Mr Swann is a copy of Ms McKie's left hand
 6       thumbprint, yes?
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   Q.  Then you bring up in the bottom again, TS0010.  These
 9       are the blue inked images?
10   A.  Yes.
11   Q.  What I want to do, because you are using the rolled --
12       correct?  I will bring it up as best I can in its
13       original form.
14           For me, on the screen -- and no doubt to everyone
15       else in the hall -- it's not the most wonderful quality.
16   A.  No.
17   Q.  It's got areas of dark and areas of light patchiness?
18   A.  Yes.
19   Q.  Would you look, please, because you are now seeing for
20       the first time the inked original, can you confirm that
21       the inked original indeed suffers from the same
22       patchiness of detail?
23   A.  Yes, it does.
24   Q.  All I can tell you about the date is that I assume that
25       the inked originals had been prepared by that day,
page  36
 1       3rd March 1999.  Beyond that I cannot say and no-one
 2       knows.  At least, we have not -- that's incorrect.  We
 3       may in fact have to ask, it is a question we are going
 4       to have to ask, I think, my learned friend, Mr Smith, if
 5       he can make some enquiries to find out when that sheet
 6       of paper came into existence with the marks.  It was at
 7       latest 3rd March 1999 and Mr Wertheim, you may
 8       recollect, was doing work late February/early March 1999
 9       but I don't know beyond that when Mr Leadbetter's image
10       came into existence.  But it may be -- may be -- they
11       came into existence at roughly the same time.
12           One has the evidence of the channel; the other does
13       not?
14   A.  This one from '97 does not, no.
15   Q.  Yes, the SCRO charting, thank you.
16           But if I finish this particular line for a moment
17       and take away the blue inked -- that can go back up on
18       the screen.  We will declutter you.  We will take the
19       blue inked and the letter.
20           What I wanted to do is we have been through the
21       elementary process of looking at assumptions that are
22       required to be made and have said even in an ideal
23       situation a Fingerprint Officer is looking at one copy
24       of the mark, one fingerprint form, so he's got two
25       variants in front of him.
page  37
 1           The complication here is that one has, certainly I
 2       have put to you today, I think, six variants of
 3       Ms McKie's thumbprint?
 4   A.  Yes.
 5   Q.  Two variants of Y7?
 6   A.  Yes.
 7   Q.  I am afraid my maths gives up at that point as to how
 8       many combinations there are but if someone could work it
 9       out.  The problem is that what one could do is look at
10       any combination of those six sets of prints and two Y7
11       images, yes?
12   A.  Yes.
13   Q.  And the fact is, as we have seen so far as the incipient
14       is concerned, using that as our control point, one would
15       either see it as present in both, yes?
16   A.  Yes.
17   Q.  Or only present in one?
18   A.  Correct.
19   Q.  Depending on whether one wanted to rely on it as a point
20       in agreement, one could choose a combination of images
21       to say that it is present?
22   A.  One could, yes.
23   Q.  Equally, if someone wanted to contradict that
24       proposition they could choose a combination of images to
25       show that it's absent in the McKie print?
page  38
 1   A.  Yes.
 2   Q.  Coming back to the essential point here, which is that
 3       fingerprints are a unique form of identification because
 4       the characteristics are constant, can you tell his
 5       Lordship what value is attached to a fingerprint
 6       identification or indeed for that matter a disputed
 7       identification, if what is occurring is that there is a
 8       range of images available from which one can construct
 9       two opposite arguments with equal facility?
10   A.  All I can say is regarding the 16 characteristics, the
11       Second Level Detail that I have marked, to me proves
12       beyond reasonable doubt that they were made by one and
13       the same person.  Yes, there are variations as you have
14       demonstrated but that doesn't still, as I said before,
15       detract from the 16 that I've marked on the charts.
16   Q.  It is really a much more fundamental question I am
17       asking you, it is about the reliability of fingerprint
18       evidence in general, that it is both sides of the
19       argument, somebody saying it is an identification and
20       somebody it's not, both sides of the argument.  The fact
21       that each side of the argument can arm themselves with
22       material to support their proposition dependent upon the
23       image that they select.  Do you see the conundrum?
24   A.  Yes.
25   Q.  Do you wish to comment on that?
page  39
 1   A.  Well, as I say, until mark Y7 I've never known people to
 2       be able to hold diametric views.  Either one's correct
 3       or one is wrong.
 4   THE CHAIRMAN:  I suppose it really only arises when you get
 5       a complicated mark and if it's a straightforward mark --
 6   A.  Absolutely, sir, yes.
 7   THE CHAIRMAN:  -- the room for difference is not so great
 8       and if they are very distinct features --
 9   A.  Patterns.
10   THE CHAIRMAN:  -- as opposed to subtle differences so that
11       if you are dealing with subtle differences you may see
12       them on one and not on another.
13   A.  Yes.
14   THE CHAIRMAN:  But if you are looking at Level 2 Detail
15       which is, if I could call it straightforward but
16       well-recognised features, then the risk is reduced.
17   A.  Reduced, yes.  There shouldn't be a problem.  If you are
18       looking at copy book marks exactly with patterns, with
19       good features, there's no problem.  It's when you get
20       down to marks such as mark Y7.
21   MR MOYNIHAN:  What I want to do is just move the argument
22       on.  I used a phrase earlier on today that I wish to
23       adhere to, "officers of equal competence and good
24       faith", obviously over the unfortunate history various
25       allegations and bad feeling has built up.  I want no
page  40
 1       part of that.  I want to stand clear of that and,
 2       therefore, just look at the issue that we were talking
 3       about initially.  I've looked at your position, I've
 4       looked at Mr Leadbetter, two individuals who reach the
 5       same conclusion, both of not just competence, both of
 6       eminence and good faith, they've got diametrically
 7       opposed ultimate end results but reach the same
 8       conclusion.
 9           What I want to do now is look at the analysis of
10       some of the other Fingerprint Officers who arrive at a
11       different conclusion.  You don't have the break on you
12       that I am choosing to adopt.  I am choosing to adopt the
13       approach that all these officers are competent and
14       acting in good faith.  That's my approach.  You can
15       comment as you feel free.
16           What I want to do is to start with the most
17       elementary point and that is the understanding of the
18       target group idea.  If I understand it correctly, we can
19       best focus on the target group by looking at just, again
20       to remind ourselves, it could be any one of the criminal
21       trial productions.  I think 152 is the least confusing
22       simply because its numbers are the same as what we are
23       using just now.  It is ST0006H.
24           Could we take everything else down. if we proceed
25       through ... maybe work back ... work through because
page  41
 1       what I am trying to do is to find the images with the
 2       chartings on.
 3           This again just to remind ourselves is as good a way
 4       of identifying your target area; is that correct?
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  In fact, perhaps it's a little bit more broadly drawn
 7       than your original target area.  If I understand what
 8       you said to my learned friend, Miss Carmichael,
 9       yesterday is what sought your eye -- I've used a
10       different term of target area -- what caught your eye is
11       what I am now calling inelegantly the banana?
12   A.  Yes.
13   Q.  In fact, you saw it as a hump backed bridge?
14   A.  Yes, correct.
15   Q.  Which is one of the details that we will come to because
16       Mr Zeelenberg doesn't see it as a straightforward
17       banana.  He does indeed see it as a hump back at the top
18       of it.
19           You also mentioned -- and this was a source for me,
20       I confess, a degree of confusion but I think I now
21       understand it -- you also mention a lake as having
22       caught your eye?
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  You will forgive me because any time I hear a lake I
25       think of features 10 and 11 but, in fact, I think you
page  42
 1       were talking of something else.
 2   A.  Well, a lake can be a variance of size.
 3   Q.  Can we just stop.  First of all, when you are
 4       contemplating the lake what caught your eye wasn't 10
 5       and 11.
 6   A.  No.
 7   Q.  It was another one?
 8   A.  Yes.
 9   Q.  What, in fact, it was was the feature that my cursor is
10       on just now (indicated), just at the point of the
11       bifurcation number 9?
12   A.  That's correct.
13   Q.  There is a feature there, if I simply put in an arrow
14       just now (indicated) so that we can be record it and I
15       will come down so I stay away from all the other detail,
16       there is a feature just above the point of the arrow
17       that you are regarding as potentially a lake?
18   A.  Yes.
19   Q.  That's what caught your eye?
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  An alternative interpretation of that one might think
22       might be, for example, either an enlarged pore or more
23       than one enlarged pore?
24   A.  Possibly, yes.
25   Q.  Just to show the degree of subtlety that there is to
page  43
 1       this argument, if we think back to 1997 and the point
 2       you mentioned about a lake in Scottish practice.  If one
 3       interprets that feature as a lake, it would then be two
 4       bifurcations and will count as two points towards the
 5       16?
 6   A.  Correct.
 7   Q.  If it is regarded as an enlarged pore, it would not be a
 8       Level 2 Detail?
 9   A.  That's correct.
10   Q.  It would, in fact, be a Level 3 detail?
11   A.  Correct.
12   Q.  And would count as zero on the score for 16?
13   A.  Back then.  Now it would be -- well, back then it was a
14       supporting characteristic, if you like, but we weren't
15       able to use it, whereas now with non-numeric you would
16       be able to assign some value to that.
17   Q.  Today, as we have heard from other witnesses, it might
18       be a detail, a Level 3 detail, that would add
19       confidence --
20   A.  To the identification.
21   Q.  -- to the identification of other features?
22   A.  Yes.
23   Q.  That is just an example of a point we have had running,
24       that the interpretation has a bearing on how one counts
25       points under the old 16-point.  If it is regarded as a
page  44
 1       lake, it's two; if it is regarded as an enlarged pore,
 2       it's zero?
 3   A.  Yes.
 4   Q.  Beyond the banana and the large pore or lake, it matters
 5       not -- what is your prefer interpretation?  It matters
 6       not to me what we call it?
 7   A.  I would say it's a lake.
 8   Q.  Beyond the banana and the lake, do you recollect if
 9       there are any other features that caught your eye?
10   A.  The strongest features for myself, I believe were out to
11       the right of the core.
12   Q.  Features to the right.
13   A.  Yes.
14   Q.  Again, I don't want to put words in your mouth.  Can you
15       give me a description of what those features were or can
16       you give numbers now to them?  I appreciate it is very
17       difficult, Mr MacPherson, to be accurate 12 years back
18       so it suffices for my purposes if you can even tell me
19       today what is it that catches the eye in this?
20   A.  Well, that was the main as we talked about the hump
21       backed bridge and the adjacent lake.  That was what
22       first of all caught my eye.
23           Out to the right there are stronger characteristics.
24       Whether they caught my eye also at the time, I don't
25       remember but to me they were the strong ones out to the
page  45
 1       right and they would be 4, 5 -- 3, 4, 5 I would think
 2       they would be.
 3   Q.  So a run then and it may be of 3, 4, 5?
 4   A.  Yes.
 5   Q.  That is fine.  I don't wish to stretch your
 6       recollection.  It suffices.
 7   A.  Well, all I can say is I'm doing thousands and thousands
 8       of comparisons every year.  To try and isolate one
 9       comparison 12 years later ...
10   Q.  If I make myself clear, I am not in fact going to ask
11       you under oath to say that those were the points that
12       you first saw a dark day in February 12 years ago.  What
13       I am actually more interested in is the process.  So if
14       I work for just now on the basis that the prominent
15       features that would at least catch your eye just now are
16       the banana, the adjacent lake, 3, 4 and 5.
17   A.  Yes.
18   Q.  They are fine for my purposes.
19   A.  Yes.
20   Q.  What I want, I explained with your assistance earlier on
21       it was a process of two experts on this tour around and
22       why they might arrive at different conclusions and
23       they're making assumptions.  If I understand the way
24       that you are working is that you have identified a start
25       point by looking at the latent, the overall pattern and
page  46
 1       a start point.  You then bring in the known elimination
 2       forms and start to process through them and you are
 3       looking through your glasses binocularly at the latent
 4       and the known.  Is that correct?
 5   A.  You would only have one elimination form in front of you
 6       at a time.
 7   Q.  I am grateful to you.  One at a time?
 8   A.  Yes.
 9   Q.  Some you would rapidly dismiss if, for example, you
10       don't have the correct pattern whorl or loop or
11       whatever --
12   A.  Well, some could be all arches which just flow from one
13       side to the other.  XF for example, was a twin loop.  So
14       if you are looking at impression XF which was, I
15       believe, an almond-shape whorl or a twin loop, if you
16       are comparing that against a form which contains all
17       arch patterns, then the comparison is finished.
18   Q.  Forgive my ignorance.  I haven't asked anyone else this
19       question before; therefore, I don't know the answer.
20           For Ms McKie, just looking at her thumbprint just
21       now, what pattern is that?
22   A.  It could be -- well, I assumed it was a loop to the
23       left.
24   Q.  So let's just assume for the moment -- and you obviously
25       conclude that Y7 is the same, a loop to the left?
page  47
 1   A.  Absolutely, yes.
 2   Q.  Absolutely.
 3           So you would be excluding things just because they
 4       are not a loop to the left.  You then find something, as
 5       in Ms McKie, that's a loop to the left.  So it's a
 6       start?
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   Q.  You also find something that looks like the banana?
 9   A.  Yes.
10   Q.  With the lake?
11   A.  Yes.
12   Q.  You are then casting your eye in a binocular manner
13       further out right?
14   A.  Correct.
15   Q.  What I put to you again for comment is this: if you then
16       are doing a binocular comparison, what you are in fact
17       is doing is your eyes are going right/left,
18       right/left --
19   A.  No.
20   Q.  No?  What are you doing?
21   A.  You are looking through two glasses at the one time and
22       doing the comparison in your head.  I don't know how to
23       explain it.
24   Q.  It's okay.
25   A.  No, what you don't do is go left to right, left to
page  48
 1       right.  You look at both the mark and the known print
 2       simultaneously.  I think the Chairman has already
 3       alluded to the fact that that is a skill, yes.
 4   Q.  Yes, that's fine.  So if I am thinking of a
 5       tennis equivalent, you are not sitting in the centre
 6       line watching the ball go backwards and forwards?
 7   A.  Absolutely not.
 8   Q.  You are at one end of the stadium looking and watching
 9       the whole match without having to move?
10   A.  Yes.
11   Q.  That's fine.
12           Nonetheless, what I would suggest is something that
13       has to be considered if you are doing that binocular
14       comparison is that there is -- I put it no higher than
15       this -- a risk that when you are looking at an event,
16       which is obviously a generic term, an event and you are
17       trying to determine is that event a bifurcation or a
18       ridge ending, there is a risk in the binocular process
19       that what you are doing is interpreting the latent in
20       accordance with the known.  Is that risk present?
21   A.  Yes, I would say so but you've looked at the mark itself
22       in isolation before you begin your process.  But, as I
23       said to you before, you may have looked at it many, many
24       times and some of the characteristics may have stuck in
25       your head.  Yes, it's a risk but that's where your
page  49
 1       training comes in.
 2   Q.  If we then carry out just a slight comparison just to
 3       begin with -- and it is Mr Grigg I have in mind -- if we
 4       just retain on the top just now the Crown production and
 5       also bring up a charting that Mr Grigg did of FI2909.13,
 6       what I am going to do is just to highlight what he drew
 7       on Y7.
 8           Just to remind everybody, what Mr Grigg did in his
 9       evidence was he started by telling us what his initial
10       assessment would be of Y7.  We obviously have an initial
11       difficulty that on the left-hand edge the right lines he
12       is seeing as recurving ridges and he's not noticing the
13       banana as such form as a bifurcation.  Do you see that?
14   A.  That's correct.  He's made it a continuous ridge, yes.
15   Q.  He's made them as a continuous ridge.
16           However -- and this is the point why I was quite
17       content to take just the points you had mentioned just
18       as catching your eye today, if not necessarily back
19       then -- what Mr Grigg is also, it would seem, just very
20       broadly, doing is catching his eye on initial
21       assessment, as going right, a series of points that very
22       roughly might coincide with 3, 4, 5 and 6 -- very
23       roughly?
24   A.  Roughly, yes, that's correct, yes.
25   Q.  So it would seem that his first glance, what caught his
page  50
 1       eye was something similar, although he's already
 2       discordant from you because he is already thinking he
 3       doesn't see a banana, he sees recurving ridges?
 4   A.  I remember from Mr Grigg's evidence he did initially
 5       look at that but I think when he saw Terry Kent's image
 6       he then had to concede that, indeed, there was a banana.
 7   Q.  Exactly and I am grateful to you because that is my
 8       recollection as well and that is again where one comes
 9       into this complication of different images perhaps.
10   A.  Yes, absolutely.
11   Q.  If I can put it this way, the way I am doing it
12       simplistically, is that based on one image the
13       conclusion, the interpretation, the assumption that
14       Mr Grigg has is that the bottom left corner is a series
15       of, in effect, parallel recurving ridges?
16   A.  Yes.
17   Q.  As you say, looking at a different image he is prepared
18       to say, "Oh, yes, I do see it now more like a banana"?
19   A.  Absolutely, yes.
20   Q.  That is why, among other thing, that's what one would
21       expect an expert of competence and good faith to make
22       appropriate concessions if presented with evidence which
23       challenges his assumptions?
24   A.  Yes.
25   Q.  Then out, as I've said, to the right he is seeing and
page  51
 1       starting with the premise that there are, I will use the
 2       neutral phrase, events out to the right that are worthy
 3       of further scrutiny.  Do you see that?
 4   A.  Yes.
 5   Q.  In fact, this is where I was suggesting to you that we
 6       can perhaps use Mr Grigg as the man conducting the same
 7       journey as yourself and Mr Leadbetter.  First of all, we
 8       have to describe Mr Leadbetter because he doesn't go
 9       into this area.  He says this is too distorted, so he
10       drops out really?
11   A.  There is some distortion in that area, yes.
12   Q.  But not to the extent that you would steer clear of it?
13   A.  Absolutely not, no.
14   Q.  Absolutely not.
15   A.  No.
16   Q.  Because this is critical to your --
17   A.  That's where I've made my identification, yes.
18   Q.  So we have already in our journey parted company with
19       Mr Leadbetter but he may come back and join you at the
20       end, yes?
21   A.  Correct.
22   Q.  You have at least set out on the journey with Mr Grigg
23       following the same line as you?
24   A.  Yes.
25   Q.  What --
page  52
 1   A.  With the points to the right, yes.  His interpretation
 2       of the core is totally different from mine.
 3   Q.  But can you at least accept that what we are seeing with
 4       Mr Grigg is, because he makes a concession that you say
 5       when presented with the Kent image that what we, in
 6       fact, have here is the product of a man of competence;
 7       you don't doubt his competence?
 8   A.  I don't know anything about Mr Grigg, I'm sorry.
 9   Q.  Nor his good faith?
10   A.  Certainly not his good faith, no.
11   Q.  That is fine.  As I've said to you, I am approaching
12       everyone on that basis but you feel free to comment
13       otherwise.
14           Sir, in fact, this might in fact be a suitable point
15       to stop.
16   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  Just before we rise, if I could make
17       sure I have got it, when you are looking in this
18       binocular way, is one eye looking at the print and the
19       other eye looking at the mark?  I mean, it sounds to me
20       physically a very difficult notion or, without lifting
21       your head, do your eyes move from one to the other.
22   A.  Yes.
23   THE CHAIRMAN:  Both eyes move from one to the other?
24   A.  Yes.  You're looking at both images.  I just don't know
25       how to describe it, I'm afraid.
page  53
 1   THE CHAIRMAN:  I can see that one --
 2   A.  You are certainly not moving from one to the other.
 3       You're looking at both images simultaneously and you're
 4       building up your picture in that way, in that respect.
 5   THE CHAIRMAN:  I was just trying to get a notion of the
 6       actual physical thing.  I mean, is your right eye, say,
 7       looking at the print and your left eye is looking at the
 8       mark?  Which sounds to me an extraordinary skill that
 9       you may be able to build up or are both eyes looking at
10       the mark and both eyes moving --
11   A.  No, one-and-one, I would say.
12   THE CHAIRMAN:  One ...?
13   A.  One on the left mark and one on the right on the other
14       one.
15   THE CHAIRMAN:  So this is just a skill you build up over
16       your seven years of training?
17   A.  Yes.
18   THE CHAIRMAN:  Good.  Thank you very much.  We will sit
19       again at 11.50.
20   (11.30 am)
21                         (A short break)
22   (11.50 am)
23   MR MOYNIHAN:  What I now wanted to do was, in fact, to
24       proceed through Y7 and look at the thought processes
25       that build up to a conclusion.  We will see as we
page  54
 1       journey along the particular issues that arise that call
 2       for interpretation or, the way I am looking at it just
 3       now, assumptions to be drawn.
 4           Firstly, if we could bring up, please, the SCRO
 5       charting -- oh yes, if those are not already saved, save
 6       those.
 7   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2810.04.
 8   MR MOYNIHAN:  Perhaps I should just clarify this as we bring
 9       up FI0167A and perhaps bring it up twice just in the
10       usual way.
11           Mr MacPherson, I should just clarify this: so far as
12       the criminal trial productions are concerned (152, 180,
13       189) my only interest in them was to identify and
14       discuss with you this concept of a target group.  In
15       fact, what I am going to do as we debate Y7 is I am
16       going to use the comparative exercise material and at
17       least for my purposes I trust only the comparative
18       exercise material because you were asked and your
19       colleagues agreed to participate in this exercise for
20       precisely the discussion we are going to have.  So the
21       criminal productions, as far as I'm concerned, are in
22       the past, so far as our conversation is concerned.
23           What I wanted to do was to begin a discussion with
24       you and I am going to, in a sense, go round the clock
25       but in fact what I am going to do is, for a reason that
page  55
 1       will become apparent in a moment, I am going to begin or
 2       include as my starting points 15, 16, 1 and 2.  The
 3       reason for bracketing them together is they are, in
 4       fact, four points in roughly the same location.  As we
 5       blow up images we will in fact see all four points.
 6           Are you comfortable with that?
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   Q.  What I was going to do was thereafter simply go round in
 9       numerical order.  So we will proceed along what I now
10       myself refer to as the south coast, proceed along 4, 5,
11       6, the points that you had yourself seen and that
12       Mr Grigg also had picked up.  We will then go 7, 8, 9
13       and we will end up at number 14.
14           So far as 15, 16, 1 and 2 are concerned, perhaps if
15       I can enlarge.  The difficulty is enlarging without
16       losing any of the detail.
17           Are you comfortable enough with that detail?
18   A.  Yes.
19   Q.  What I want, in fact, to do is to do this in the correct
20       manner, as I would understand it.  The correct manner is
21       to look at the latent and see what the features are
22       rather than to start with the known but as you yourself
23       have said once things are committed to memory it's very
24       difficult to do it otherwise, so one might have a mental
25       picture.
page  56
 1           If I begin by confessing that 15 and 16 I obviously
 2       associate with the handshake and, therefore, the
 3       question is: is there to be seen here evidence of an
 4       ascending ridge that stops to the left of a descending
 5       ridge, which stops with the two overlapping?
 6   A.  That's correct.
 7   Q.  Can you explain your own position?  It may be that you
 8       want me to take the image on the left and then either
 9       reduce it or enlarge it.  Just you do it as you wish
10       just to explain how you seen 15 and 16.
11   A.  Just exactly as you have described, an ascending ridge
12       and an overlapping ridge descending.
13   Q.  Where on the image do you see the evidence of the
14       descending ridge?  If we begin with the descending one
15       is number 15, where do you see the evidence of the
16       descending ridge, number 15?
17   A.  I thought -- well, I was taking 15 as an ascending
18       ridge.
19   Q.  Sorry 15, you are quite correct, is the ascending ridge.
20       I am sorry.
21           Where do you see the evidence of the ridge that
22       comes down from the point 15 or ascends to the point 15?
23   A.  Exactly where I've marked it.
24   Q.  I suppose what I am asking you is can you point to what
25       I might refer to as the tail, ie the ridge that's
page  57
 1       ascending to that point?
 2   A.  It comes up -- where the cursor is at the moment
 3       (indicated) it comes up and terminates just at the dot.
 4   Q.  So if I draw in a very rough line perhaps, you are
 5       indicating that it goes ... very roughly again?
 6   A.  Yes.
 7   Q.  Like a drunk driver again but very roughly that is the
 8       ascending ridge?
 9   A.  Yes.
10   Q.  So far as number 16 is concerned, that is the descending
11       ridge?
12   A.  Yes.
13   Q.  Where is the evidence there of the remainder of that
14       ridge?
15   A.  Again, where the point is at the very end of that ridge.
16       Do you want me to mark ...?
17   Q.  Well, if the point is simply where the red dot is?
18   A.  Yes.
19   Q.  Then fair enough because that's understandable in
20       itself.
21           What about the ridge though, the rest of the ridge
22       structure that is above that that comes down to that
23       point?
24   A.  That would -- where the cursor is, it moves up in that
25       direction (indicated).  But this is where the movement
page  58
 1       that I was talking about is starting to come in.  I
 2       think in the comparative exercise we said that the
 3       movement was above points 14, 15 and 16, if I remember.
 4       I can't remember exactly but I think that's what we
 5       said.  The movement was above and to the right.
 6   Q.  You are correct.  In the comparative exercise you said
 7       the movement was above points 14, 15 and 16.
 8   A.  Yes.
 9   Q.  So far as what I would refer to as the tail of the ridge
10       which ends at 16, are you saying that that is evident,
11       observable, by someone such as me or are you saying that
12       that has been lost because of the movement?
13   A.  No, I would say I would hope it's observable by
14       yourself.
15   Q.  Therefore, can you, with Miss Allen's assistance or by
16       yourself, can you draw in for me, please, where I should
17       be looking in order to see the tail that descends to
18       this point.
19   A.  (Indicated)  That's it.
20   Q.  Is that the extent to which it is observable?
21   A.  You would have to blow it up a bit more but that ridge
22       may follow round and come to that point there
23       (indicated).  But, as I said, this is where the movement
24       comes in.
25   Q.  We will save an image when we come to the end of this
page  59
 1       particular chapter, 15, 16, 1 and 2.
 2           If I come down then in Y7 to the next one which is
 3       point number 1, first of all, can you tell me what the
 4       interpretation is of point number 1?
 5   A.  A bifurcation down.
 6   Q.  A bifurcation down?
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   Q.  Can you, therefore, indicate for me, please, the two
 9       legs of the bifurcation?  (Indicated)  You are
10       reasonably comfortable with that?
11   A.  Yes.
12   Q.  Similarly, in relation to point number 2, can you tell
13       me what the characteristic is and mark it for me,
14       please.
15   A.  It's a bifurcation down.  If you follow this ridge down
16       (indicated) and there's one intervening ridge to the
17       right-hand, point 1.
18   Q.  So far as that intervening ridge is concerned, where do
19       we actually see the intervening ridge?
20   A.  (Indicated)
21   Q.  So the intervening ridge is in the position of the green
22       arrow?
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  Again, so far as all of these details are concerned (15,
25       16, 1 and 2), are you saying that these are points that
page  60
 1       you would be able demonstrate to, in an ordinary court
 2       to a member of the jury, in this particular forum to me
 3       or perhaps more pertinently to the Chairman?
 4   A.  Well, I've said before, you can't make instant experts
 5       out of the jury but I would illustrate it and hope that
 6       they would be able to see it.
 7   Q.  If I just clarify that -- and I appreciate my learned
 8       friend, Miss Carmichael, asked you about this
 9       yesterday -- when you say you can't make an instant
10       expert out of the jury, there are two different stages
11       to this exercise: first of all, is there a feature, is
12       there a marking that is observable?  That's the first
13       stage.  Secondly, what is the proper interpretation of
14       that marking?
15   A.  Yes.
16   Q.  First of all, do you accept that before there's any
17       question of the interpretation, you must be able to
18       satisfy the lay person that there is a feature that is
19       capable of being observed?
20   A.  Well, as I say, you can't make an instant expert out of
21       the jury.  You put it before the court.  I mean, I gave
22       the example yesterday from July 2006 they don't have any
23       enlargements, so ...
24   Q.  Let us put it this way: let us say somebody says to me,
25       "Mr Moynihan, I'm a fingerprint expert.  I can see a
page  61
 1       ridge up at point 16, literally up at point 16", and I
 2       say, "Well, I'm sorry.  I don't see it.  It's just a
 3       white sheet of paper".  An expert might say,
 4       "Mr Moynihan, you can't see it because you're not an
 5       expert.  I'm telling you it's there."
 6           The alternative is somebody says, "Look, there is a
 7       shadow there.  Do you at least see the shadow", and I
 8       will say, "Yes, I at least see the shadow", and then the
 9       witness would say to me, "Well, Mr Moynihan, that shadow
10       is a ridge ending, a bifurcation", or whatever.
11           Is your evidence dependent on at least showing me
12       the presence of something that is at least observable by
13       me as a shadow?
14   A.  You would hope that the jury would be able to see it.
15       They are the final arbiters of your evidence.  They may
16       be able to see some of the characteristics that you have
17       illustrated; they may not.  But, as I said yesterday, if
18       you have got a bloody finger-mark on a knife, it's a
19       watery impression, whether it's photographic
20       enlargements or charting PCs they may not be able to see
21       it but it's down to the court whether they accept your
22       evidence.
23   Q.  I will not take that too much further.
24           So far as 15, 16, 1 and 2, I will just give you a
25       chance to look at it again and satisfy yourself with
page  62
 1       what you have drawn and then I will take you to what
 2       some of the others have drawn.
 3           Are you satisfied with what you have drawn?
 4   A.  Yes.
 5   MR MOYNIHAN:  In that case, can we save what we have.
 6       (Pause)
 7   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2810.05.
 8   MR MOYNIHAN:  So far as others are concerned, perhaps if we
 9       just leave your FI0167A up just now and if you allow me
10       just a moment.  (Pause)
11           Could we bring up, please, FI2209.14 on the
12       right-hand side.
13           What I have actually brought up is a charting that
14       Mr Wertheim did for the Inquiry.  We can see on the
15       right-hand side, if I simply enlarge that first, that he
16       has drawn 15 and 16, 1 and 2 with 3 just in for
17       convenience as well.  15 and 16 he has drawn as he
18       describes it as a hand shake, the two overlapping ridge
19       ends, 1 and 2 he has drawn as the two bifurcations.
20           No difficulty with what he has drawn so far as
21       Ms McKie's known print is concerned?
22   A.  No.
23   Q.  What he draws as his interpretation of the same area of
24       Y7 is a number of options.  First of all, so far as 15
25       and 16 are concerned you will see that he admits of the
page  63
 1       possibility, in fact more or less accepts I think that
 2       the ascending ridge (point number 15) there is indeed an
 3       ascending ridge ending at the point that you have
 4       identified but so far as the descending ridge is
 5       concerned (number 16) he sees it as simply one
 6       continuous ridge flowing upwards, round and beyond.
 7       Just at 15 and 16 just now?
 8   A.  Yes.
 9   Q.  You can at least see what he has drawn.  What comment do
10       you have on what he has drawn?
11   A.  That's his interpretation of it.  I don't agree with it.
12       He's taken no cognisance, I believe, in the phase 2
13       exercise or of the movement in the mark just above the
14       descending ridge.
15           Why he can't see point number 1 in particular -- he
16       seems to have come along and just conveniently stopped
17       at the point of -- sorry, point number 1.  He doesn't
18       seem to have taken any cognisance that there is an
19       actual bifurcation located in that position.
20   Q.  If I can speak for him -- but his evidence is perhaps
21       more important -- if I understand what he says at this
22       position, first of all, if we go back to 15 and 16.
23       First of all, the movement that you are describing is
24       above the point?
25   A.  Above, yes.
page  64
 1   Q.  The first point that we are seeing is that beneath the
 2       point where you have drawn number 16, beneath the point,
 3       he sees a continuous ridge running down and not, as you
 4       would say, a ridge that ends at that point?
 5   A.  I don't agree with that.
 6   Q.  Why is he wrong?
 7   A.  His interpretation is wrong.
 8   Q.  Why is he wrong?
 9   A.  That's the way he sees that.  You'd have to ask him.
10   Q.  Remember what I said to you earlier on is that at
11       certain stages in this journey, because of the lack of
12       clarity, the variance, as I described it, certain
13       assumptions have to be made.
14           Do you at least admit of the possibility when one is
15       looking at the spot, if I can use that neutral term, the
16       spot that is used for 15 and 16 that it admits some
17       interpretation?
18   A.  No.  My interpretation is it's a descending ridge and on
19       the outer side of that there is a ridge ending up.  Not
20       very far from the descending ridge is where the movement
21       comes in.  I was hoping to show you -- I have a couple
22       of charts that maybe I can describe that movement and
23       maybe that would explain --
24   Q.  I am quite happy to take in points of detail when you
25       wish.  First of all, I had started in the most
page  65
 1       elementary way.  Perhaps if on the left-hand side -- I
 2       have forgotten to note.  Perhaps if we save this pair
 3       just now and that will assist me.
 4   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2810.06.
 5   MR MOYNIHAN:  What I would like to do on the left-hand side
 6       is bring up an image of FI0167A.  Again, I will try as
 7       best I can to recreate what I had before so we can see
 8       the detail.
 9           If I understand the sort of language that was being
10       used in the criminal trial, Mr Findlay, no doubt for a
11       particular effect for the jury, spoke of what I am
12       calling the spot -- which has at either side 15 and
13       16 -- he used a pejorative term, a blob; is that
14       correct?
15   A.  I don't remember.
16   Q.  You see if I can start, just let's use the neutral term,
17       it's a spot, it's a black mark in the middle of the
18       image, do you at least admit of the possibility,
19       conceive of the possibility, that two examiners of equal
20       competence, both acting in perfectly good faith, could
21       say, one could say, "I see two points there", the other
22       could say, "I see only one"?
23   A.  No, I can't.  I'm afraid, I see an ascending ridge and a
24       descending ridge, so I'm sorry.
25   Q.  So you don't even see an argument about it?
page  66
 1   A.  No.
 2   Q.  Coming to point number 1, if I understand Mr Wertheim's
 3       evidence about point number 1, he has drawn an outer
 4       yellow circle, within it a red circle and, if I
 5       understand his evidence correctly, what he is saying is
 6       within the red circle there could be something occurring
 7       but it's at the edge of the print and he would regard
 8       that as unreliable.  In other words, he would not know
 9       with any degree of certainty what was going on beneath
10       the red spot because he was right at the edge of the
11       impression?
12   A.  I think I've already marked the characteristic as a
13       bifurcation down.  I would disagree that it's on the
14       edge.  Can I mark?
15   Q.  Yes, please.
16   A.  Something like that (indicated).  That's where I would
17       argue that the edge of the mark is and it's well below
18       the bifurcation.
19   Q.  So what you have done is you have now drawn in in green
20       within the yellow circle the area in which you see the
21       bifurcation number 1?
22   A.  That's correct.
23   Q.  I am grateful to you.  We will keep that image just now
24       and save it just a little bit later.  You have also
25       drawn a green line to the right which would mark the
page  67
 1       outer limits of the impression?
 2   A.  Yes.
 3   Q.  Again, so far as point number 2 is concerned, you will
 4       see that what Mr Wertheim has drawn is that point 2
 5       nestles between two ridges.  They are light blue in
 6       colour and, therefore, he sees no particular feature in
 7       that location.
 8           What is your comment on what he sees there?
 9   A.  I see the left leg coming down like so and it is thin, I
10       admit it's very thin, but the right leg like so
11       (indicated) and you would have the intervening ridge.
12   Q.  Where is then the ascending ridge that goes up from
13       there?
14   A.  That would be the intervening ridge.  Sorry --
15   Q.  The ascending ridge from point number 2?
16   A.  The ascending ridge would come up and stop at point
17       number 15.
18   Q.  Would you admit at least of the possibility that what
19       you have had to do, in doing that, is in fact take a
20       green line over an area between points 2 and point 15
21       where there is, in fact, no corresponding black marking
22       underneath?
23   A.  No, I wouldn't agree with that, no.
24   Q.  So you would, therefore, say that the Chairman can see
25       the underlying detail that you have drawn?
page  68
 1   A.  Yes.
 2   MR MOYNIHAN:  So that is 1, 2, 15 and 16, according to
 3       Mr Wertheim.  If we could save that image and we will
 4       just record that your additions are all in green to that
 5       one that has been of assistance.
 6   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2810.07.
 7   MR MOYNIHAN:  As far as Mr Zeelenberg is concerned, if we
 8       could bring up on PowerPoint is probably better
 9       AZ0061.49.  He has different numbers for the particular
10       features.  15 and 16, he calls 1 and 16, yes?
11   A.  Yes.
12   Q.  15 is point number 1 and 16, by coincidence, is also
13       number 16?
14   A.  Yes.
15   Q.  We descend the ridge from number 1 (that's SCRO 15) to a
16       point that he has marked as number 19.  That would be
17       your point number 2.
18   A.  Correct.
19   Q.  We then come the ridges intervening; is that correct?
20   A.  Are you going to the left?
21   Q.  When we go left, where is your point number 2?
22   A.  You've gone to the right for point number 2.
23   Q.  Sorry, point number 1, I apologise.  It's point number 1
24       I am looking at.  Point number 2 is his 19 so point
25       number 1, is that Mr Zeelenberg's number 2?
page  69
 1   A.  Number 2, Mr Zeelenberg's number 2, is our number 1.
 2   Q.  That is where, as I said to you, even though the charts
 3       are in common the numbers are confusing.  So what we
 4       want to watch, therefore, is what Mr Zeelenberg draws in
 5       relation to points his 2 (which is your 1), his 19
 6       (which is your 2), his 1 (which is your 15), and
 7       thankfully we're all back together, number 16.  Yes?
 8   A.  Okay.
 9   Q.  What I will see is if these allows me to control it as
10       we proceed.
11           So he is telling us that his points 1, 2, 16 and 19,
12       your 15, 1 and 16 but it does actually cover 2 as well.
13       So what he has drawn is a ridge structure.
14           First of all, are you content with what he has drawn
15       in relation to Ms McKie?  First of all, the overlapping
16       bifurcations -- let us use your numbers -- 15 and 16?
17       Yes?
18   A.  Yes.
19   Q.  Beneath that, the bifurcation which is number 2?
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  Then the next question of interpretation is point number
22       1.  He seems to have drawn as a green ridge ending?
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  There is a question of interpretation over what is
25       plainly observable to anyone.
page  70
 1           What is your view about whether it's tenable to
 2       construe, even what is on Ms McKie, as a ridge ending?
 3   A.  I can't see for the dots unfortunately but it looks like
 4       a bifurcation down to me.
 5   Q.  Is it tenable to look at it as a ridge ending?
 6   A.  Well, I think as we've already discussed, yes.
 7   Q.  What he then draws in Y7 is so far as 15 and 16 are
 8       concerned you will see is only one point?
 9   A.  Yes, he's just ignored the point to the right.
10   Q.  He hasn't, with respect, ignored the point to the right.
11       What he has done is he has interpreted that point to the
12       right as falling, in fact, on one continuous ridge.
13   A.  Well, I don't agree with that.
14   Q.  He has, therefore, seen only one point in that vicinity?
15   A.  I think it's quite plain to see that there's an
16       ascending ridge and there's a descending ridge.  I don't
17       see the difficulty.
18   Q.  Where is Mr Zeelenberg wrong in what he has drawn?
19   A.  He's not taken cognisance of the descending ridge.
20   Q.  Where is his drawing -- he has two green lines either
21       side of the yellow and the yellow seems to be in common,
22       the yellow is the yellow that is the ridge that ends at
23       number 15.  Where is he wrong in relation to what he's
24       drawn to the right?
25   A.  I can see a descending ridge.
page  71
 1   Q.  If we then come down that descending ridge from number
 2       15, he has drawn it as a continuous ridge flowing down?
 3   A.  Yes.
 4   Q.  With no bifurcation on its length corresponding to
 5       Ms McKie.
 6           Did you disagree with that?
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   Q.  Again, where is Mr Zeelenberg wrong?
 9   A.  There's a bifurcation down where it's marked on the
10       chart.
11   Q.  What error do you say is patent on the face of his
12       drawing?
13   A.  Again, he's not taken cognisance of what I see anyway as
14       a bifurcation down.
15   Q.  He does not show what you are saying is true --
16   A.  No.
17   Q.  Mr MacPherson, if I just explain myself.  I am going to
18       go through each of these points and give you an
19       opportunity to say not just you are right but why the
20       others are wrong, if you follow me.
21           Now, if it simply comes down to, "I am wrong; they
22       are wrong", then so be it but I'm giving you an
23       opportunity to go that step further and say, "They are
24       wrong because I can demonstrate to you this or that".
25           Do you understand?
page  72
 1   A.  Well, I thought that was the point of the comparative
 2       exercise and I've illustrated that, to me, it's a
 3       bifurcation down where I've marked it.
 4   Q.  This is where we've gone in this respect beyond the
 5       comparative exercise because what we have seen from a
 6       number of the experts is that they have done what
 7       traditionally you did not do.  They have traced ridges
 8       and they have said, "I can support my conclusion in this
 9       manner by drawing ridges".
10   A.  Well, if you want me to draw ridges, I'll draw ridges
11       for you.
12   Q.  Mr MacPherson, it is not what I want.  I am giving you a
13       chance to tell me what mistake Mr Zeelenberg has made.
14   A.  Well, they've not taken cognisance of what I see as a
15       bifurcation down.  That's all I can say.
16   THE CHAIRMAN:  Could I just ask for a moment, if you go back
17       to 15 and 16 where he has drawn in -- well, 15, you are
18       agreed.
19   A.  Yes.
20   THE CHAIRMAN:  The ridge adjoining which he has made
21       continuous --
22   A.  Yes, he's actually the ridge above.
23   THE CHAIRMAN:  -- you would stop to make a descending
24       overlap.  So he has got --
25   A.  Sorry.  What he has marked as the outer ridge, he hasn't
page  73
 1       taken cognisance at all of what I hope you can see is a
 2       descending ridge.
 3   THE CHAIRMAN:  But he's got the ridge right.  It's just he
 4       continues it where you would stop it?
 5   A.  No, actually it should come in.  What he's marked, it
 6       comes down and should come in just above point 15.
 7   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  So that the green spot --
 8   A.  The green spot, yes.
 9   THE CHAIRMAN:  -- which is just about 2 o'clock from the red
10       one, it should turn in about there.  Is that right?
11   A.  Just to the right of where the red dot is, yes, you
12       should turn in.  You're exactly right, sir, yes.
13           What he has marked with the green dots is actually
14       the green dots on the image, the right-hand image, 49.
15   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  I just wanted to make sure that he's
16       got the ridge right but he doesn't turn it at the point
17       coming down where you would.
18   A.  Yes.
19   MR MOYNIHAN:  If I had understood you correctly,
20       Mr MacPherson, what you referred his Lordship to was the
21       green ridge on the right-hand side, so that what
22       Mr Zeelenberg has drawn is the ridges in Ms McKie, the
23       ridges that form 15 and 16, he has as two yellow ridges,
24       sandwiched between continuous ridges, flanked on either
25       side by continuous ridges, which he has drawn in green.
page  74
 1   A.  Yes, so what he should have is descending yellow
 2       dots -- unfortunately, I take it I can't mark this or
 3       whatever?
 4   Q.  No, you can't.  If you give me just a second, please,
 5       because we can maybe get something that you can mark.
 6           First of all, what he has marked is, in Y7 he has
 7       marked only one central yellow ridge and he has marked
 8       two flanking green ridges, correct?
 9   A.  Yes.
10   Q.  First of all, do you agree with his two flanking green
11       ridges as he has drawn them corresponding to the
12       flanking green ridges on the right-hand image?
13   A.  No.
14   Q.  So where is it then that you disagree?
15   A.  He's not taken cognisance of the descending ridge below
16       the green there.
17   Q.  What we can do, one of the reasons for bringing this up
18       on PowerPoint is a question of an ability to control the
19       image because sometimes it gets obscured by the text.
20       Can I leave that and there is a reason for doing so and
21       I will come back and give you the opportunity to mark up
22       an image just now.
23           The reason that I want to just continue with what I
24       can see just now, the other point on which Mr Zeelenberg
25       differs from you is in relation to SCRO point number 1.
page  75
 1       What he has done on Y7 is marked it as a ridge ending,
 2       perhaps corresponding to the ridge ending that we have
 3       on the right-hand side but he has not drawn a
 4       bifurcation in that location.
 5           Is he wrong to see it on Y7 as a ridge ending?
 6   A.  Well, I think we've already discussed the interchange
 7       but for me it's a bifurcation down.
 8   Q.  So if I switch cars now just on the journey, if I tell
 9       you that Mr Swann told us that detail number 1 was a
10       ridge ending, that's how he sees it?
11   A.  Well, as I say, they can be interchangeable.  We've
12       already discussed.
13   Q.  We will come back in a minute to the point we were
14       looking at about 15 and 16 and number 2.
15           The theme that I am running with just now is, again
16       if we use Mr Swann, again I am going to regard everyone
17       in this way as exactly the same.  Mr Swann I regard as a
18       competent individual acting in good faith in all that he
19       does.  He has a difference of view to you on the
20       interpretation of this event.  He sees 1 as a ridge
21       ending; you see it as a bifurcation.
22   A.  Yes.
23   Q.  Do you see that even as we start here at number 1 there
24       is an assumption that you are making (namely that number
25       1 is a bifurcation) that differs even with Mr Swann?
page  76
 1   A.  Yes, but I think we've already discussed we had two left
 2       thumb impressions of Shirley McKie, one was a
 3       bifurcation, one was a ridge ending, you can't discount
 4       all the other hundreds of characteristics shown within
 5       that.  So there's an event in that area, a feature in
 6       that area.  Whether it's a bifurcation or a ridge
 7       ending (shrugged).
 8   Q.  What we are looking at then and this would be a point to
 9       give you a chance to do a drawing, number 1 is an event.
10       One can argue, can one, whether it's a bifurcation or a
11       ridge ending?
12   A.  Yes.
13   Q.  If I come across and up, you, Mr Zeelenberg and
14       Mr Wertheim are agreed that there is an event?
15   A.  Yes.
16   Q.  That at least corresponds with point 15?
17   A.  Yes.
18   Q.  But they part from you on this journey because they say
19       that is the sole event in that location?
20   A.  Yes but they part from me on the journey completely when
21       they say there's no movement contained within this mark.
22   Q.  Why does the question of movement actually alter what
23       Mr Zeelenberg has drawn because this is the point for me
24       asking you --
25   A.  Because -- sorry.
page  77
 1   Q.  Sorry, let me just complete.  You see a ridge that
 2       ascends up beyond -- you see a ridge that comes down,
 3       sorry, somewhere where Mr Zeelenberg is drawing these
 4       green dots and ending.
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  So it's not as if what's above 15 and 16 is completely
 7       lost by movement, as I understand you.
 8   A.  What I'm saying is just above the descending ridge -- I
 9       can't demonstrate it here but --
10   Q.  It's okay, let's move --
11   A.  Just above that there's a compression of the ridges and
12       for me that's due to movement and they don't take
13       cognisance of any movement.  I think Mr Wertheim said it
14       couldn't be a left thumb because of ridge flow at the
15       top.  Well, I would disagree with that as well.
16   Q.  Mr MacPherson, I will give you the chance -- I can't
17       warrant that this will actually work but if we go now to
18       Trial Director with AZ0061.49 and we will see if we can
19       let you draw in a meaningful way.
20           That does seem that the picture is
21       actually ... there are fields where you can actually
22       draw.  I don't know if that helps you at all.  The
23       problem with this particular version, while we can draw.
24       It seems only to capture, I believe, one particular
25       still within a series in a slide.
page  78
 1           Does that assist you?  That is one in which you can
 2       draw.
 3   A.  That would be my interpretation of the descending ridge
 4       (indicated) but there is a compression of the ridges.
 5       Maybe this is the area Mr Findlay was talking about
 6       regarding a blob or a spot or whatever, I don't know.
 7       (Pause)
 8           (Indicated)  That is very rough and I wouldn't wish
 9       to be held to that but that for me, if you follow the
10       descending ridge up and it seems to merge with the green
11       dotted ridge that Mr Zeelenberg has indicated, to me
12       that is because of the movement.  I think I said
13       yesterday that just where I've put the line, maybe just
14       above that slightly, the ridge structure comes up and
15       it's like fallen trees.  Somebody's chopped down the
16       trees basically and they start going straight across.
17       It's very difficult to explain but, as we were
18       discussing earlier, if you are comparing these things
19       and, basically, that's how you discover this.  The
20       compression of the ridges is due to movement.
21   Q.  The other way we can look at this is on the right-hand
22       image, Shirley Ms McKie's, there's no doubt, it's decent
23       enough clarity, the ridge that descends from 15 down to
24       SCRO 2 has to its right two ridges, complete ridges,
25       running continuously before we encounter the point which
page  79
 1       is SCRO number 1.  So one requires two intermediate
 2       ridges completely flowing?
 3   A.  No, you would require one intervening ridge and then
 4       there's a bifurcation down, which is point 1.
 5   Q.  It's still the same, if I make that a bifurcation one
 6       needs only intermediate ridge, which is the green ridge
 7       running, yes?
 8   A.  Yes.
 9   Q.  Let us then look at what Mr Zeelenberg has drawn, if you
10       allow me just to use the mouse, Mr Zeelenberg has drawn
11       a point that ends at his number 2, your 1.  If one draws
12       that as a bifurcation, it takes the adjacent yellow line
13       out of the numbering of the adjacent ridges?
14   A.  Yes.
15   Q.  Then he has drawn in what is essential for these to be
16       in sequence and agreement, the intermediate green ridge?
17   A.  Yes.
18   Q.  For him and for Ms McKie that intermediate green ridge
19       must remain separate from the two ridges which form 15
20       and 16, yes?
21   A.  Yes.
22   Q.  That then means that in the area which you have drawn in
23       as number 16 one must envisage for the length that you
24       have drawn in, in what seems to be the favourite colour,
25       magenta, there must be a ridge running for a period, for
page  80
 1       a path, parallel to the green ridge.  There must be.
 2   A.  Yes.
 3   Q.  Is it evident, do you say, that there is a ridge running
 4       for any length parallel to what is drawn on the
 5       left-hand side as the green dots?  Sorry, by the green,
 6       if I take the mouse I will assist by putting an arrow
 7       in.  The green line that I am interested in is the one
 8       that I am putting an arrow to just now (indicated), the
 9       green arrow is the green line I am interested in.  That
10       is the one that is intermediate between what
11       Mr Zeelenberg has marked as points 1 and 2?
12   A.  Yes.
13   Q.  So what we are accordingly looking for is evidence
14       between that green line, the green line of dots, and the
15       next green line of dots to the left, if I can put that
16       in as a different colour of arrow.  I will put it in as
17       a blue arrow (indicated).
18           Between the blue arrow, one is looking for, at the
19       lower end, two intervening ridges because there's a
20       bifurcation?
21   A.  Yes.
22   Q.  And at the upper section one is looking for a ridge in
23       yellow on the right-hand side that continues up and
24       between those two green field of dots, running broadly
25       parallel?
page  81
 1   A.  Yes.
 2   Q.  That is what one is looking for?
 3   A.  Yes.
 4   Q.  You say you can see that?
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  Can you demonstrate it any more clearly than you have on
 7       this picture?  If you wish, we can start with a clean
 8       picture so you can redo it if you wish.  Will we save
 9       this and restart?
10   A.  I can mark it on, if you wish.  For me, the ridge comes
11       down and just about the yellow dot which I'm indicating
12       (indicated), it's very thin but that's how I see it and
13       the intervening ridge and then your bifurcation at
14       number 1.  Yes, I admit it's very thin, it's quite
15       watery but I can still see it.
16   Q.  What about the ridge above because what we want on the
17       ridge above, on this interpretation, would be the point
18       above where the red dot 1 is.  There is a ridge
19       continuing intermediate between the two lines of green
20       dots running for part of the journey parallel to those
21       two green areas of dots.  Where is that intervening
22       ridge?
23   A.  It's the one I'm pointing to at the moment (indicated).
24   Q.  Sorry, did you ask is it?
25   A.  Is that the ridge that you're referring to?
page  82
 1   Q.  On, Ms McKie --
 2   A.  There's a green arrow pointing to it.
 3   Q.  Let us look at this.  On Ms McKie I will reproduce -- if
 4       you give me control of the mouse, on Ms McKie I will
 5       draw in the corresponding arrows.  (Pause)
 6           Am I correct in what I've drawn, that there are two
 7       continuous ridges either side of the events that are
 8       SCRO 2, 15 and 16?
 9   A.  Yes.
10   Q.  Those correspond now both on the right and the left of
11       the image?
12   A.  Correct.
13   Q.  So, therefore, both at the bottom of the image -- sorry,
14       bottom of the image we have to have two ridges and you
15       have drawn in, in magenta, two ridges at the bottom?
16   A.  Yes.
17   Q.  What I am asking you about is at the top, if it indeed
18       coincides with Ms McKie, what we are looking for is a
19       ridge which for a path continues intermediate between,
20       in parallel to, the green ridges either side and that's
21       what I am asking you to indicate to us where you observe
22       that?
23   A.  Where I'm putting the cursor (indicated) that's the
24       continuous ridge right down and on the green arrow
25       there's the outer ridge but this is where the divergence
page  83
 1       comes.  Just above this point here (indicated) there's a
 2       compression of the ridges --
 3   Q.  When you say --
 4   A.  -- so, yes.
 5   Q.  Mr MacPherson, we will stop at this point.  You say,
 6       "Just above this point here".  Can you, using an arrow,
 7       please -- let's make it yellow, sorry, better not do
 8       yellow because some of the dots are yellow ... I don't
 9       know what will work.  Maybe just magenta.  Can you mark
10       for me, please, where you say the movement comes in and
11       therefore, deprives us of the yellow intermediate ridge?
12   A.  Are we talking about the top here where I've marked
13       where the movement is already?
14   Q.  Mr MacPherson, what I am asking you is at some point in
15       this -- let's start again.
16           On the right-hand image we see two green ridges?
17   A.  Yes.
18   Q.  One marked with a green arrow, one marked with the blue.
19       They sandwich yellow dots.  At the bottom, we have
20       covered a bifurcation.  At the top, after the area where
21       15 and 16 double up -- so therefore one would see two
22       ridge pieces at that point -- above that there is one
23       ridge of yellow dots?
24   A.  Yes.
25   Q.  I am asking you where on Y7 we see that continuous
page  84
 1       yellow dot ridge intermediate between the two green
 2       dots?
 3   A.  Well, it's not there because of movement where I've
 4       marked the blue line.
 5   Q.  We will just leave it.  Is that the explanation?
 6   A.  For me, yes.
 7   Q.  You did say and I stopped you at that point.  First of
 8       all, can we save this before we lose all the work.
 9   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2810.08.
10   MR MOYNIHAN:  I will explain to you where I was going,
11       Mr MacPherson, and then we will see whether it fits in
12       sensibly to depart from this order.
13           What I was going to do, as I said, was work round
14       the details just on the clock.  You have said to me you
15       have some other work about the pattern of movement.
16   A.  Yes.
17   Q.  It is relatively sensible to look at the pattern of
18       movement before we proceed.
19   A.  Mm-hm.
20   Q.  Is the pattern of movement essential to your
21       interpretation of these points and would you wish to
22       explain the pattern of movement now?
23   A.  Yes.  I mean, would it be suitable to call up the images
24       that we had the images from Mr Kent's image and
25       Mr Swann's image?
page  85
 1   Q.  Which image?  Are you referring to the two images that
 2       we referred to at the beginning of today?
 3   A.  TS0002 and TS0006 I think it was.
 4   Q.  TS0006 is Mr Kent's image.  It is what you want from
 5       Mr Swann, is it his M?
 6   A.  M for Mike.
 7   Q.  You want your excerpt of his photo M?
 8   A.  Say that again.
 9   Q.  Do you want your excerpt from chart M or do you want
10       Mr Swann's chart M?
11           I will show you what Mr Swann is TS0004, I hope, and
12       we will just have to proceed through until we find the M
13       document.  There is the totality of M.  Is that what you
14       want or do you want your excerpt?
15   A.  I can try and work from what's here.
16   Q.  Mr MacPherson, you are asking me to go to a particular
17       image.  Which image do you want to go to?
18   THE CHAIRMAN:  Take the one you would prefer to use.
19   A.  Okay.  (Pause)
20           That, for me, roughly is where I see the movement at
21       the top (indicated).
22           What I've tried to illustrate is where I see on the
23       left-hand side the movement, the characteristics that
24       we've been discussing.  This is the descending ridge 16
25       (indicated) and it goes like so.  The descending ridge
page  86
 1       as you move up but you're basically into, I would say, a
 2       black blob.  You're into what I would call a no-go area.
 3       The ridges maybe go into the area but they don't seem to
 4       come back out again.
 5   MR MOYNIHAN:  Are you happy with that?  There are a number
 6       of points that come from that that I would like to ask
 7       you about next but perhaps it is just as well we stop.
 8   THE CHAIRMAN:  Do you want to save this now?
 9   MR MOYNIHAN:  Save this.  Save it as a pair.
10   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2810.09.
11   THE CHAIRMAN:  Good.  We will resume then at 1.50.
12   (1.00 pm)
13                      (Luncheon Adjournment)
14   (1.50 pm)
15   Q.  Mr MacPherson, what I want to do just while we have the
16       images up just now, this pair which is FI2810.09, is to
17       ask you now about the movement.  We're now looking at
18       the upper part of the mark.  If it is convenient to
19       discuss that later then, please, just indicate.
20           First of all, what I was wanting to understand was
21       when I am looking at Y7, you have obviously drawn an
22       L-shape, if I can call it that, line in red that
23       covers -- it's fairly clear.
24           Do I understand that you are indicating that beneath
25       the red line the area of the mark is to be regarded as a
page  87
 1       single touch?
 2   A.  Yes.
 3   Q.  Indeed, a relatively static single touch?
 4   A.  Well, if it was placed first and then there's an
 5       anticlockwise movement to the tip, to the top, sorry, or
 6       it may have been the other way round, the tip was placed
 7       first, clockwise movement, and then placed again.
 8   Q.  If I could just put that image to the side just now and
 9       bring up Mr Mackenzie.  That is CO0059.  What I am
10       interested in bringing up, I think, is digital page 12.
11       Mr Mackenzie's CO0059 is the booklet.
12           First of all, have you had an opportunity to study
13       Mr Mackenzie's --
14   A.  I've never seen Mr Mackenzie's presentation until -- I
15       think I saw some of it earlier on.
16   Q.  What I am interested in is he has put in a series of
17       points, 1 to 22, in the lower section of the mark.
18           Do you see those?
19   A.  Yes.
20   Q.  First of all, would you understand those to fall within
21       the area you would have beneath the red line on Y7?
22   A.  Yes.
23   Q.  Therefore, consistent with having been deposited in the
24       same single touch?
25   A.  Yes.
page  88
 1   Q.  The other number of points which I am interested in is
 2       on the right-hand side where the line takes, in Y7, the
 3       right-angle turn, there was an area of ridge feature
 4       which is below the red line.
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  That, if I understand it correctly -- and if you want to
 7       see a paper version or an original version, no doubt you
 8       can, of what is on the screen from Mr Mackenzie -- I
 9       understand that to correspond to his area of charting,
10       33 to 37.
11           Do you see that?
12   A.  I see it, yes.
13   Q.  The way that you have drawn it, if I understand it
14       correctly, are you indicating you would regard the
15       points 33 to 37 as having been deposited in the same
16       single touch as the points 1 to 22?
17   A.  Yes.
18   Q.  So we, therefore, have 22 plus 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  So we
19       have a total of 27 points deposited in a single touch in
20       the lower part of the mark?
21   A.  Can I just say the area -- I can't actually see where 33
22       goes but that's maybe not an area I personally would
23       have gone into.
24   Q.  As you say, it may be a little difficult just on this
25       copy.  That why is I was wondering about giving you an
page  89
 1       original version.  I will show you my copy.  Even mine
 2       is only a photocopy.  (Handed)
 3           Mine has all the limitations of being a photocopy, I
 4       must say.
 5   A.  It could be the single, as you said earlier, yes.
 6   Q.  I don't wish to press this beyond it doesn't really
 7       matter too much to me whether it's 33 to 37 or 34 to 37.
 8       It doesn't really matter but some of those points -- if
 9       I could take the booklet back just now -- some of those
10       points, four or five of those points would fall into
11       the sequence.
12   A.  Yes.
13   Q.  We will come back to those points just in a moment.
14           What Mr Mackenzie has charted is a combined total of
15       45 points in sequence and agreement in Y7.
16           Are you in a position to comment on that charting?
17   A.  It's Mr Mackenzie's interpretation of the mark.
18   Q.  Are you able to comment?
19   A.  In what way, Mr Moynihan?
20   Q.  Let us come back --
21   A.  Could I just ask, you said before this exercise started
22       that we would only be referred to the charting that we'd
23       done but you seem to be asking me about other people's
24       interpretation of the mark which I don't quite
25       understand.  This was not involved in phase 2 of the
page  90
 1       comparative exercise that I agreed to do for the
 2       Inquiry.
 3   Q.  Okay.  I will tell you why I am doing this so that you
 4       understand.  We have taken a bit of a diversion on our
 5       journey round the clock because you wanted to look at
 6       the pattern of movement.
 7   A.  I was wishing to illustrate how I saw the pattern of
 8       movement, yes.
 9   Q.  So what I was wanting to do was therefore just to follow
10       detour to see if we can understand the pattern of
11       movement and then we will come back to the journey round
12       the clock.
13           If you want me to leave this to the end, I am quite
14       happy to --
15   A.  No, carry on.
16   Q.  Do I take it then you are unable to comment on
17       Mr Mackenzie's charting?
18   A.  It's very difficult just to look at a screen just to
19       give some sort of comment.  As I said yesterday, I've
20       always felt that the area that I've marked off in red
21       was fragmentary and insufficient for me.  That was back
22       in 1997 of course.
23   Q.  This is the reason why I am asking you to look at this.
24       If we take Mr Mackenzie has a total of 45, points 1 to
25       22 which are marked in the lower half take us down to
page  91
 1       23, left, a net 23.  We would then subtract a total of
 2       five may be, 33, 34, 35 and 36, which would take us to
 3       18 or subtract four because 33 is in doubt, would give
 4       us 19 points that he has marked in the upper part.
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  What is being put, therefore, for your consideration and
 7       for your comment is the same theme I'm running with all
 8       of this, whether you admit of the possibility that the
 9       conclusion about a mark is capable of legitimate
10       difference of personal opinion because you regard this
11       upper section as fragmentary and insufficient and
12       Mr Mackenzie, on this view of it, can find 18 or 19 not
13       only discernible points but so far discernible that he
14       can satisfy himself that they are in sequence and
15       agreement with --
16   A.  Are they second level detail points or are they Third
17       Level Detail --
18   Q.  If not in sequence and agreement that he can find that
19       these clusters correspond to features in Y7.  Are you
20       unable to comment on that?
21   A.  Not really, no.  Unless, as I gave the example earlier,
22       where I had made an identification with what I thought
23       were 24 characteristics and someone decided that it was
24       insufficient.  So ... that's all I can say.
25   Q.  If we then go back to the source and if we take down on
page  92
 1       the right -- let us leave on the left, if we take down
 2       on the right Mr Mackenzie and return ourselves, please,
 3       to TS0004, chart M (for Michael), the source of the
 4       particular chart that you are relying on on the
 5       left-hand side of the screen is Mr Swann's chart?
 6   A.  That's correct.
 7   Q.  We have on the left-hand image, between the red line and
 8       the edge of the mark, do you see four lines coming in?
 9   A.  Yes.
10   Q.  In fact, if we looked at Mr Swann's original, he has
11       points 5, 6, 7 and 8.  Do you see that?
12   A.  Yes.
13   Q.  If I understand Mr Swann's position correctly, where you
14       would suggest that that area of the mark has been made
15       in a single touch with the lower part of the mark,
16       Mr Swann is saying, in fact, that the features 1 to 8,
17       which includes 5 to 8, have shifted --
18   A.  Yes.
19   Q.  -- as a result of movement?
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  So your interpretation of this mark differs from
22       Mr Swann?
23   A.  Possibly on the right-hand side of where I've marked the
24       L shape, it should possibly go out a bit further to the
25       right but ...
page  93
 1   Q.  It would need to go right to the coast because otherwise
 2       you are going to encounter some of points that Mr Swann
 3       says it is essential to understand as being affected by
 4       the movement.
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  So you are in disagreement with Mr Swann?
 7   A.  I would have to say that I've always said that the top
 8       of the mark for me was fragmentary and insufficient.
 9       That's as much as I can say about it.
10   Q.  What you told me a bit earlier on is that part of it has
11       moved, depending on whether it is the bottom part or the
12       top part is first, if it is the bottom part first it's
13       moved anticlockwise; if its the top part that's
14       deposited first it's that the lower part has moved
15       clockwise?
16   A.  I would suggest it's not just moved once.  It's been two
17       touches at the top.
18   Q.  In relation to the particular detail in the top of the
19       mark that's moved, are you able, even today, to discuss
20       that in detail?
21   A.  I would have to basically put it under two glasses but
22       my feeling still is there's only two or three
23       characteristics up the top and it would still be
24       insufficient.
25   Q.  If I take you to a charting that you produced
page  94
 1       yesterday --
 2   A.  I think I'd said earlier there was one point in
 3       isolation.  When you showed me Mr Wertheim's overlay
 4       there was one, possibly two, characteristics in
 5       isolation.  You then couldn't count through what has
 6       come to be known as the blob and then you will come to
 7       Mr Swann's characteristics.  So if it's been put on two
 8       times that would bring in Mr Swann's characteristics at
 9       the top.
10   Q.  With this inconvenience, I suggest, that in fact you
11       have drawn that four of those eight points in an area
12       that as far as you're concerned has not moved relative
13       to the bottom?
14   A.  Well, I did say that was just a guide.  I didn't say it
15       was ... you'll have to forgive my shaky hand.  That
16       was ...
17   THE CHAIRMAN:  You would move that what I might call the
18       upright side of the red further over, would you?
19   A.  Maybe as it goes up, just before it goes out the
20       picture, sir, I would turn it to the right again.
21   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.
22   MR MOYNIHAN:  Mr MacPherson, if you can, what we will do is
23       enlarge -- which one do you want to use?  The known or
24       the unknown to replot this line?
25   A.  Chart M.
page  95
 1   Q.  Sorry?
 2   A.  Chart M.
 3   Q.  So, therefore, if I enlarge what you drew for us before
 4       lunch on chart M, can you redraw for me, please, where
 5       the fault line you say runs.  (Pause)
 6           You may need something more contrasting than the
 7       magenta or maybe not.
 8   A.  Something like that (indicated).
 9   Q.  But still we encounter the difficulty that point 7 and 8
10       as Mr Swann draws are below your line.
11   A.  Yes.
12   Q.  So we can't avoid the difficulty that there is something
13       inconsistent between your interpretation and that of
14       Mr Swann?
15   A.  Yes, absolutely, yes.
16   MR MOYNIHAN:  If we can just save that image, please.
17   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2810.10.
18   A.  If the mark has been placed on, as I said with two
19       touches above my line, maybe Mr Swann's characteristics
20       may come into alignment.  But that was my difficulty I
21       had at the time with the mark Y7.  I wasn't sure about
22       the top of the mark so I didn't use it.
23   MR MOYNIHAN:  This is where I want to just follow this
24       through because even as of yesterday when you produced
25       the chartings, if you look again, please, at -- if we
page  96
 1       take this pair down and bring up side-by-side TC2310.03
 2       and TC2310.04.
 3   A.  Could I draw on this for you?
 4   Q.  First of all, you haven't heard the question yet.
 5   A.  Sorry.
 6   Q.  First of all, the question is this for your comment:
 7       that what you have, in fact, produced is a limited area
 8       of chart M that corresponds broadly to the lower area,
 9       albeit in oblong shape?
10   A.  Correct.
11   Q.  So the charting that your charting you produced
12       yesterday does not attempt to explain the upper part?
13   A.  That's correct.
14   Q.  Therefore, if I return you to Mr Grigg's original image,
15       which is FI2909.13, and just have that as a single
16       image, now I can explain to you we're about to spend the
17       rest of this afternoon, I suspect, looking at the lower
18       part of the mark where the circles are that Mr Grigg is
19       discussing.  But Mr Grigg has highlighted in the upper
20       part of the mark, by the long red arrow, the Rosetta?
21   A.  Correct.
22   Q.  Within the roughly yellow colour oval on Y7, the grander
23       blob, the area that's unclear?
24   A.  Correct, yes.
25   Q.  To the right he marks three features with red arrows,
page  97
 1       yes?
 2   A.  Yes.
 3   Q.  If we bring up as another one just beside that, if we
 4       bring up Mr Wertheim's original defence production
 5       number 2, DB0172H and proceed through to the one with
 6       the green circles.
 7           I think it is quite faint but what I will do is
 8       highlight it just now.  We can see the arrows, one arrow
 9       is in the vicinity -- in fact, we know the first green
10       circle to be in the area of the Rosetta?
11   A.  That's correct.
12   Q.  He draws three other arrows in the outer right, just
13       beyond the blob?
14   A.  Correct.
15   Q.  Taking it no further than this, there seems to be a
16       superficial similarity between Mr Wertheim's green
17       circles and Mr Grigg's arrows?
18   A.  Yes.
19   Q.  Mr Wertheim produced the lower document in the course of
20       the trial in May 1999.  Mr Grigg has obviously drawn
21       this in September this year.
22           But I take it that ten years on from Mr Wertheim
23       having drawn what is in the lower part you still do not
24       have to your own satisfaction an explanation for the
25       upper part beyond dismissing it as fragmentary and
page  98
 1       insufficient?
 2   A.  And there's movement, yes.
 3   Q.  But what movement?
 4   A.  Well, I was going to demonstrate that earlier today but
 5       I don't seem to have been able to do it so ...
 6   Q.  So beyond what you indicated earlier today you have no
 7       other explanation?
 8   A.  I could illustrate it for you.
 9   Q.  Please do illustrate.
10   A.  As I said, the Rosetta characteristic as it's now become
11       known to me, that was a point in isolation and then, as
12       I think I said yesterday, you can go through the black
13       blob but I couldn't count through the black blob and
14       then there may be two -- another -- as I say, you can't
15       count through it so there's no way of telling they are
16       in sequence and agreement.  The very top of the print
17       could have been a third touch but what I'm going to try
18       and illustrate to you is the movement that I see above
19       the points 15 and 16 that we were talking about earlier.
20   Q.  Okay.  Which image, therefore, do you want to use?  Do
21       you want to use the SCRO numbers?
22   A.  I could have used the images that I'd already started to
23       mark.
24   Q.  Okay.  Let us go back to the last saved image.  Is that
25       the image you want to go back to?
page  99
 1   A.  I would need, obviously, TS0006 as well.  I don't now
 2       what the saved image was of the --
 3   Q.  If you give me just a second.  TS0006 is Mr Kent's
 4       image.
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  That is one image that you require.  Do you also want an
 7       image of chart M?  Is that what you want?
 8   A.  Yes, I could take that one that's there.
 9   Q.  If you give me just a second.
10   A.  Yes, but --
11   Q.  Take down what is there and start again.  TS0006 on one
12       side of the page.  That is the image.  We will enlarge
13       the particular mark of Y7.  Then also enlarge -- I can
14       do that -- the mark.  You don't need the numbers, do
15       you?
16   A.  No.
17   Q.  Is that sufficient for your purposes?
18   A.  I hope so.
19   Q.  Could we just do one thing, just in case we have to do
20       this from time to time.  If we save this as a pair and
21       then we can come to this.
22   A.  Is there any way I can enlarge the right-hand image a
23       bit more?
24   Q.  Yes, you can.  What is it you want?  You can enlarge it
25       as you, please, before we save it.
page 100
 1   A.  That's fine.
 2   Q.  Can we save that, please?
 3   A.  I've not captured the image -- sorry, the right hand
 4       impression.  I've not captured the right area.
 5   Q.  Can we just stop the exercise.
 6           Let us go back then -- I will take you back to the
 7       start.  I will give you, to begin with, the whole of
 8       chart M, the rolled impression.  You take whichever part
 9       you wish.  (Pause)
10           So are you happy with that?  In that case if we
11       could save that, please.
12   A.  That's saved as FI2810.11.
13   MR MOYNIHAN:  Yes, Mr MacPherson.
14   A.  I think that was an area (indicated) that I'd marked
15       before.  The starting point for the chartings yesterday
16       was a ridge ending which is like a sharpened spear.  So
17       that would be the point I would wish to start and mark
18       Y7.
19           If we come up, 1, 2, 3, 4 intervening ridges to what
20       has now become known as the Rosetta characteristic.  The
21       corresponding ridge ending like a sharpened spear is
22       there (indicated).  If you count up from that four
23       intervening ridges 1, 2, 3, 4; 1, 2, 3, 4, that should
24       be the Rosetta characteristic with the dot.
25           In actual fact, what you have to do, same starting
page 101
 1       point, you go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, we therefore have now
 2       what's called the Rosetta characteristic and the dot.
 3           So I would imagine -- I said yesterday that I didn't
 4       remember looking at the Rosetta characteristic but, as I
 5       said to you, before I start my examination I've taken in
 6       as much information as possible but for me that is
 7       indicative of the movement in the mark.  Four
 8       characteristics -- sorry, four intervening ridges here
 9       and there's actually six or seven on the other side.
10           As I said yesterday, I think you can see the outline
11       of the movement which I've marked in the magenta colour.
12       Also, as I said, yesterday, the ridges come up and then
13       it's like a chopped down tree.  I can see actually the
14       damage to the ridge there.
15           So my interpretation is there's been movement.  You
16       can tell by the pressure -- there was deposition
17       pressure, the area I've marked in with the magenta line.
18       There's obviously been movement.  If you take that
19       Rosetta as being what it is, a ridge ending and a dot,
20       it's moved and I also mentioned for me there's basically
21       what I would term as a sort of no-go area or a red flag
22       indicated by the red arrow.
23           So there are the four reasons for me surmising that
24       there has been movement in mark Y7.  There's destruction
25       of the ridges; there's what I would call the no-go area,
page 102
 1       you go into it and you cannot tell how the ridges come
 2       out of that area and there also is a discrepancy in the
 3       ridge count between the mark and the known impression.
 4       So that's my explanation of certainly the movement in
 5       the bottom -- sorry, the movement in the top.
 6           What I was trying to say yesterday is I felt and I
 7       still feel that counting between the Rosetta
 8       characteristics and the characteristics at the top of
 9       the mark is problematic.
10           Now, Mr Swann has identified these at the top.
11       That's fine.  There could be -- because you can't count
12       through this black blob, there could be movement once
13       and then another subtle movement at the top.  But
14       certainly for me that is where the main area of movement
15       is (indicated), as I've indicated by the magenta line.
16           You've had the thickening of these ridges and the
17       pushing out of the ridges, there's been strong pressure
18       there.  You go up and just to the top of the arrow,
19       there's a lightening of the ridges, a lighter touch
20       which would indicate that the thumb has been lifted,
21       there's not so much pressure and then the thumb has been
22       put back down again and you've got the compression of
23       the ridges and it's very, very obvious that there's
24       compression of these ridges and there's a thickness
25       there.
page 103
 1           Now, it might have been put on once or it could have
 2       been put on twice but, as I said, I've always found this
 3       area of the mark to be problematic and that's why I've
 4       kept away from it.
 5   Q.  Before we come back to that, you have said there's an
 6       area in the bottom section where there is evidence of
 7       pressure.  It seems to be an area you were pointing to
 8       somewhere below the large magenta arrow where you
 9       observed thickening of the ridges.
10           Can you indicate for me, please, the area where you
11       observed the thickening of ridges?
12   A.  This appears to me to be thickening of the ridges just
13       there (indicated) and there's obviously a pushing out of
14       the ridges, a sort of bowing of the ridges.
15   Q.  So when you say a pushing out from the point of the
16       yellow arrow, which in fact is the right ridge of the
17       banana, number 9, are you indicating that there is
18       pressure --
19   A.  No, it's not the right ridge of the banana, no.
20   Q.  Sorry, okay.  So --
21   A.  It's two out from the banana.  I'm sorry, can we just
22       call it a bifurcation, please.
23   Q.  Okay.  Two out from the bifurcation number 9, two ridges
24       out there's an indication of pressure?
25   A.  A pressure, yes.
page 104
 1   Q.  Does that pressure prevail over the remainder of the
 2       mark as it goes right?
 3   A.  No, I would say that that's the main sort of main area,
 4       if you like.
 5   Q.  Localised to that particular point?
 6   A.  Yes.
 7   MR MOYNIHAN:  If we could stop and freeze this just now,
 8       please.
 9   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2810.12.
10   MR MOYNIHAN:  Let us look then at two slides that
11       Mr Zeelenberg prepared.  We will bring them up in
12       PowerPoint first just to make sure we can see what is
13       happening.  AZ0061 in PowerPoint.  Begin at slide 104.
14           Mr Zeelenberg has taken chart M which does not
15       include the Rosetta.  He has positioned the Rosetta by
16       my eye at the same point you position it, yes.
17   A.  Yes.
18   Q.  Then we will see he has also positioned the Rosetta on
19       Y7, yes?
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  What he has done is done a ridge count from the
22       bifurcation number 9 and we will see he agrees with you
23       that the ridge count is out relative to the position of
24       number 9?
25   A.  Yes.
page 105
 1   Q.  So that is, on any stretch, a difference between the two
 2       that requires explanation.
 3   A.  Because he has taken no cognisance of the movement in
 4       the mark.
 5   Q.  It's a difference.
 6   A.  It's a difference yes.
 7   Q.  And the explanation you advance is movement?
 8   A.  Correct.
 9   Q.  What he is simply saying, as I understand it, is he does
10       not see evidence of movement?
11   A.  That's correct, yes.
12   Q.  Then the point that you are making about the inability
13       to count beyond the Rosetta to the cluster of points on
14       the right that Mr Swann has charted, some of which you
15       associate with the lower section, yes?
16   A.  None of Mr Swann's associate with the lower section, no.
17   Q.  You have had a bit of difficulty drawing the fault line
18       to avoid these points, haven't you?
19   A.  I've had a bit of difficulty ... oh, as I say, as I
20       tried to say, the Rosetta could have been placed and
21       there could have been further movement at the tip.
22   Q.  Let us just look then at slide 111.  We will go from the
23       Rosetta to the points charted by Mr Swann.
24           Do you see that?
25   A.  I know what you're presenting me here with is a sort of
page 106
 1       fait accompli of what Mr Wertheim's conclusions are
 2       but ... I mean, most of it, it's obliterated.  It's a
 3       drawing.  How can I make any comment on that?
 4   Q.  Okay, if you can't comment on it then you can't comment.
 5       Basically, what I understand Mr Zeelenberg to be saying
 6       is that there is a problem counting from the Rosetta out
 7       to Mr Swann's cluster on the right-hand corner.
 8   A.  I think I've admitted that myself, yes.
 9   Q.  If Mr Swann's evidence is correct, there's a difficulty
10       in actually reconciling what he has drawn and Y7 and
11       what he has drawn on Ms McKie's thumbprint?
12   A.  Well, that's Mr Zeelenberg's interpretation and
13       Mr Swann's interpretation.
14   Q.  What I would suggest to you is this: that, first of all,
15       it would seem from this that Mr Zeelenberg has made
16       every effort to consider the alternative explanations
17       advanced, yes?
18   A.  Mm-hm.
19   Q.  He has also come up with reasons why he would differ
20       from these alternative interpretations, yes?
21   A.  Yes.
22   Q.  What reason then do you have to say that Mr Zeelenberg
23       is wrong and you are right?
24   A.  Because, again, he takes no cognisance of any movement.
25       That's what I took from his phase 2 exercise.
page 107
 1   Q.  What I would be asking you then is can you explain to me
 2       how movement produces the mark Y7 as we find it on the
 3       doorframe?
 4   A.  Well, I think I've tried to illustrate the movement to
 5       you with my own drawing, if you like.
 6   Q.  We will leave it at that.  If that finishes the
 7       digression through movement, if I can then return to the
 8       comparative exercise materials and, as I've said to you,
 9       it's not my intention when going round the clock with Y7
10       to use anything other than the comparative exercise
11       materials so if we bring up FI0167A twice, please.
12           What I am, in fact, going to do: we have covered, at
13       least for my purposes, unless you have anything to, add
14       points 15, 16, 1 and 2.
15           Is there anything you wish to add about 15, 16, 1
16       and 2?
17   A.  No.
18   Q.  Point number 3 there would have been a minor point I
19       won't take up your time with.  Mr Zeelenberg questions
20       the precise design and shape of number 3.  Mr Wertheim
21       is prepared to accept point number 3 so, therefore, I'd
22       rather concentrate on the other points of difference.
23       They bring in the points 4, 5 and 6, the points that
24       immediately caught your eye.
25           I don't want, in fact, to concentrate just on that,
page 108
 1       though.  What I am going to do is concentrate really on
 2       the run along the bottom of the mark, so 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
 3       6, 7, 8 and 9.
 4   A.  Yes.
 5   Q.  As I understand it, your interpretation of that run is
 6       that, bar number 8, this is a row of bifurcations?
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   Q.  So we have a row of bifurcations.  Any room for doubt
 9       that that is the correct view of these features?
10   A.  No.  Well, I don't believe so.  I did say that there has
11       been pressure just round about that area and point 6 may
12       have the appearance of a ridge ending but from -- my
13       belief is it's a bifurcation down.
14           I think if you look at the charts that I produced
15       yesterday, I tried to explain that.  In fact, when you
16       look at the charts it's quite obvious it's a bifurcation
17       down.
18   Q.  This is what I want to ask you about.  Number 1 we've
19       covered, number 2 we've covered, number 3 I am just
20       choosing at the moment to take Mr Wertheim over
21       Mr Zeelenberg and say let's not debate the precise shape
22       of number 3.
23           Number 4 we come to.  What is your interpretation of
24       number 4?
25   A.  That's a bifurcation down.
page 109
 1   Q.  In particular can you draw, please, the shape that you
 2       see as that bifurcation down.
 3   A.  (Indicated)
 4   Q.  So that's number 4.  If we take it up to number 5, what
 5       is number 5?
 6   A.  A bifurcation down.
 7   Q.  Again, can you draw that in for us, please.
 8   A.  (Indicated)
 9   MR MOYNIHAN:  Let us save that particular image, please.
10   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2810.13.
11   MR MOYNIHAN:  If I could go back.  For the moment what I am
12       primarily interested in is the upper of the two
13       bifurcations to begin with, which is point number 5.
14       That is the one in yellow.
15   A.  Yes.
16   Q.  Let's go back to a clear image so, therefore, on the
17       left-hand side bring me up, please, FI0167A.  I have
18       highlighted an area and blown it up.  The area where my
19       cursor is just now I've put an arrow in, it happens to
20       be a yellow arrow, is the area where one is debating
21       what is happening to point number 4.  Correct?
22   A.  That's correct, yes.
23   Q.  I will try and avoid the area but beneath my top yellow
24       arrow is the area one is trying to debate what is
25       happening at point number 5?
page 110
 1   A.  Yes.
 2   Q.  Beginning at point number 5, as it is just now, it is
 3       simply a black ridge ending with a gap into which the
 4       red dot is inserted?
 5   A.  I think you can see just above the red dot is very faint
 6       but the ridge kinks in and joins on to the ridge to the
 7       left.  Can I draw it in?
 8   Q.  Yes, please.
 9   A.  It comes down like so (indicated) and like so
10       (indicated).
11   Q.  What I have been talking about there is when one comes
12       to a feature such as 5, what you are doing is filling in
13       an area that was otherwise not as clear.  There is, as
14       you say, something faint.  There is a gap there?
15   A.  A very, very faint gap.  It could be a pore or whatever,
16       yes.
17   Q.  But it's nonetheless a gap?
18   A.  A slight gap but you can see the ridge is bending in
19       towards -- and as I've already said there's pressure
20       down at the bottom half of the mark.
21   Q.  Let us come to point number 6.  What I am going to do is
22       just put an arrow at point number 6, well below it
23       because I don't want to obscure any of the detail.  So
24       point number 6 is a yellow arrow on the ridge
25       (indicated).
page 111
 1           That ridge actually comes to a point, an ending?
 2   A.  Well, again it's very, very faint but I can see -- if I
 3       could draw it in -- this ridge comes down like so
 4       (indicated) and it is very, very faint but it comes down
 5       like so (indicated).
 6           The point I admit could be possibly further up but
 7       we were asked to replicate what we did with the charting
 8       PC and that's what I did.  The point could be, possibly,
 9       further up.
10   Q.  What that interpretation is preferring is that point
11       number 6 which, at the moment, is simply a black line
12       that comes to an end.  You accept it's at present a
13       black line --
14   A.  No, I don't agree with that, no.
15   Q.  Just on the picture, it's a black line that comes to an
16       end.
17   A.  I don't believe it comes to an end.
18   Q.  On the picture?
19   A.  Yes.
20   Q.  Okay.  Let us save what we have just now.
21   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2810.14.
22   MR MOYNIHAN:  Just if we complete this before the break, if
23       we bring up, again, FI0167A, please.  I have brought it
24       up again.
25           Is there simply no possibility that where my cursor
page 112
 1       is at the moment, at the head of the ridge which is
 2       number -- it has beside it point number 6 -- that you
 3       would concede that that could be looked on by a layman
 4       as simply a point that comes to an end?
 5   A.  It could be by a layman but, in my opinion, the ridge
 6       carries on and I think where the cursor is now you can
 7       see that it joins on to the ridge.
 8           I admit the point should possibly be further up to
 9       illustrate that fact.
10   Q.  That is an interpretation, is it not, which is not
11       attaching significance to the fact that between that
12       black point and to the right there is an area of black
13       that would appear to connect it to the ridge immediately
14       to the right?
15   A.  Well, I don't believe it does, no.
16   Q.  Why don't you believe that it does?
17   A.  Because I've just said, I believe it goes to the left.
18   Q.  Why do you ignore then the black that actually does
19       exist and, in fact, fills in the space between the two
20       ridges?
21   A.  To me that's an intervening ridge between this
22       bifurcation down (indicated), intervening ridge and the
23       bifurcation down here (indicated).  I said earlier that
24       there was a thickening of the ridge and I believe that's
25       what there is there.  There is a thickening of the ridge
page 113
 1       in that area.
 2   Q.  So A thickening of the ridge between where the cursor is
 3       just now, which for the sake of posterity I'll put in as
 4       an arrow, a yellow arrow?
 5   A.  Yes, that's correct, yes.
 6   Q.  Has in fact produced an apparent connection between the
 7       two ridges?
 8   A.  Yes, an apparent connection between the right-hand ridge
 9       but actually it is joined to the left-hand ridge.
10   Q.  Do you know the position of Mr Wertheim, Mr Zeelenberg
11       and Mr Grigg in relation to this point?
12   A.  I can't remember.
13   Q.  They say that point number 6 is either a ridge ending
14       or, if a bifurcation, a bifurcation tending to the right
15       not, as you say, the left.
16   A.  Well, I think I said yesterday if you look at the charts
17       that were prepared yesterday that would show that that
18       is inaccurate and incorrect.
19           Would it be possible to bring up the charting from
20       yesterday?
21   Q.  It's possible to bring it up but, first of all, on the
22       comparative exercise material which is what you asked me
23       a few minutes ago if I was going to look at --
24   A.  Yes.
25   Q.  -- can you at least accept that there is an area of
page 114
 1       legitimate difference as to point number 6?
 2   A.  It's not an area of difference.  I would say it's an
 3       area of interpretation.
 4   Q.  Sorry, that was my wrong choice of language.  An area of
 5       interpretation and judgment that might in fact produce
 6       an alternative view by other experts?
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   MR MOYNIHAN:  What we can do, sir, perhaps it is an
 9       appropriate point to adjourn and we will come back.
10   THE CHAIRMAN:  Do you want this saved?
11   MR MOYNIHAN:  Yes, sir we can save it.
12   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2810.15.
13   THE CHAIRMAN:  3.00.
14   (2.52 pm)
15                         (A short break)
16   (3.04 pm)
17   MR MOYNIHAN:  Mr MacPherson, I was discussing this row that
18       is 4, 5 and 6 and you asked to look at your own
19       chartings from yesterday.
20           If I can bring up, I think what you would want is
21       the Kent image; is that correct?  You won't need the
22       McKie print?
23   A.  It would be TC2310.01.
24   Q.  Or the one with green markings is .03.
25   A.  Yes, either.
page 115
 1   Q.  The one we used today has been the one with green
 2       markings, TC2310.03.
 3           Please, if the green markings don't assist then we
 4       can go back.  I am just trying to orientate myself.
 5   A.  No, that would be fine.
 6   Q.  The green markings maybe don't help.
 7           If we take your choice TC2310.01, here we have it
 8       with the markings.
 9           Can you then just assist us?
10   A.  What we were talking about earlier was point number 6.
11   Q.  Can I take you back?  First of all, am I pointing the
12       pen at point number 4?
13   A.  Yes.
14   Q.  So let us mark that with an arrow.  I will try and steer
15       clear of it (indicated).  So the yellow arrow is 4?
16   A.  That's 4, yes.
17   Q.  In order to follow, if I put in a red arrow and again
18       steer clear of the detail (indicated), the red arrow is
19       at 5?
20   A.  5, yes.
21   Q.  Now, have you drawn, put a green arrow, have you drawn 6
22       in the position you said you'd have preferred with the
23       dot a little higher up; is it where my pen is just now?
24   A.  Just slightly to the right.
25   Q.  Slightly to the --
page 116
 1   A.  Oh yes, sorry.
 2   Q.  I want to just steer clear, as usual, of the ridge
 3       detail.
 4           So point 4 is opposite the point on the yellow
 5       arrow, point 5 is down from the red arrow, I have
 6       steered well clear of it for a reason that will become
 7       apparent in a moment, and then the green arrow is
 8       opposite number 6?
 9   A.  Yes.
10   Q.  You were wanting to explain by reference to this image.
11   A.  It could be misconstrued that the ridge comes up to
12       where the cursor is at the moment (indicated) but you
13       can actually see, very faint I admit, that the ridge
14       bends in and joins just where the red dot is.
15           Would you wish me to draw on that?
16   Q.  If we leave it just now, we will come back.  If you can
17       give the full explanation then we will see what requires
18       to be drawn.
19           I was also looking at this image myself and I think
20       I picked you up yesterday as having said something also
21       that was of significance about point number 5.
22           Was I incorrect in picking up you saying something
23       about point number 5?
24   A.  I don't remember but I think you can see that point
25       number 5, again where the cursor is, it comes up and it
page 117
 1       bends to join to the top.  I think what I said yesterday
 2       was about there had been artificial yellow lines drawn
 3       in as if he had to force the outer ridge on to the inner
 4       ridge on both these points but I think, as you can see,
 5       that's not the case.
 6   Q.  First of all, so far as point number -- I am sorry I
 7       have taken over the mouse again -- so far as point
 8       number 5 is concerned, on this image there is between
 9       the black section of the ridge and the red dot there are
10       some grey or black little lines.  Is that correct?
11   A.  Yes.
12   Q.  Tending in a left direction?
13   A.  A leftward direction, yes.
14   Q.  Which would be consistent with the bifurcation joining
15       the ridge to the left?
16   A.  Correct.
17   Q.  In relation to point number 6 if I find it again, point
18       number 6, again so far as black colour is concerned, as
19       far as black is concerned, it comes to an end, yes?
20   A.  I wouldn't say it comes to an end.  I would describe it
21       the way you described point number 5.  It goes light
22       grey and then joins on to the left-hand ridge.  It may
23       be something to do with the way it has been developed
24       with black powder or whatever, I don't know.
25   Q.  What do you make, at least to my eye on the screen and
page 118
 1       it is no more than my eye on the screen, to the fact
 2       that there seemed to be almost as if this is a sort of
 3       caterpillar antennae coming up from its head and
 4       actually two grey lines, like the antennae of a
 5       caterpillar, if a caterpillar has antennae -- I don't
 6       know if they do -- a snail, yes, a snail perhaps is
 7       better, with grey horns going left to right; in other
 8       words, suggesting that, in fact, this bifurcation is
 9       heading in the direction that it's naturally pointing
10       left to right?
11   A.  It's going left to right.  I would agree with that, yes.
12       It's basically a thickening of the ridge there.  It's
13       black, it's gone lighter maybe not, the appearance --
14   Q.  Mr MacPherson, you are drawing it right to left.  Right
15       from where -- where the head of the snail is, is to the
16       right and you are drawing it going up to the left?
17   A.  Sorry, it's to the left.
18   Q.  Whereas what I am suggesting is the horns would suggest
19       that it's looking in the opposite direction?
20   A.  I think you can see there is a gap in between this ridge
21       down and -- I don't know how you refer to it, as a
22       caterpillar or snail -- going to the left and joining
23       this ridge (indicated), going down a way.
24   Q.  First of all, do you accept from me that in order to
25       match Ms McKie's fingerprint, we must in fact make each
page 119
 1       of the three assumptions that you have, in fact, made by
 2       the yellow, the red and the green arrows; namely, you
 3       must have point 4 as a right ridge turning slightly left
 4       at the yellow arrow, joining the ridge to the left at
 5       that point, turning up to the point where the red arrow
 6       is and deviating left.  That's how it must be to match
 7       Ms McKie?
 8   A.  That's my interpretation of it, yes.
 9   Q.  But it has to be in order to match Ms McKie?
10   A.  Correct, yes.
11   Q.  So far as point number 6 is concerned, first of all, it
12       would not match Ms McKie if it were simply a ridge
13       ending?
14   A.  No, I think we discussed that earlier on.
15   Q.  So it has to be a bifurcation, number 6?
16   A.  I believe it's a bifurcation, yes.
17   Q.  It has to be to match Ms McKie?
18   A.  I think we discussed earlier about how a bifurcation and
19       a ridge ending can be sort of interchanged.
20   Q.  If a bifurcation, it has to, number 6, deviate to the
21       left?
22   A.  That's how I see it.  I think anybody looking at it can
23       see that it's joined to the left.
24   Q.  But it has to in order to match Ms McKie?
25   A.  Yes.
page 120
 1   Q.  If it's a ridge ending it would be inconsistent with
 2       Ms McKie?
 3   A.  We've already had two inked impressions that one was a
 4       bifurcation, one was a ridge ending.
 5   Q.  But ridge counts might be out if it's a ridge ending?
 6   A.  If you mark it as a ridge ending on both the ridge
 7       counts wouldn't be out, no.
 8   Q.  If you marked it in both.  So you'd need to mark them to
 9       agree?
10   A.  Yes.
11   Q.  We will come back to that just in a second.
12           Even if we mark it as a bifurcation going to the
13       right, again it would not match because the ridge counts
14       would be out?
15   A.  Yes, but I think as I've already said you can see a gap
16       between this ridge (indicated) and the ridge as it goes
17       up and joins to the left, so there is a natural gap in
18       between the two.
19   Q.  Again, if we take just the opposite view -- and on this
20       occasion I will begin again with Mr Wertheim, if we
21       begin with Mr Wertheim FI -- sorry, save the picture
22       that is on the screen just now.
23   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's save as FI2810.16.
24   MR MOYNIHAN:  If we begin with Mr Wertheim and I will try to
25       cover all three in the one image go to FI2209.18.  As
page 121
 1       you say this is where we enter the world of yellow
 2       lines.
 3           Mr Wertheim has drawn, first of all, on Ms McKie the
 4       ridge structure, counting the ridge counts and so far as
 5       what he sees on Ms McKie's print, do you have any
 6       particular difficulty with what he has drawn there?
 7   A.  No.
 8   Q.  However, when he's drawing on Y7, I would understand
 9       this to be a somewhat complicated picture because
10       Mr Wertheim is admitting of a range of possibilities.
11       So, first of all, we begin at the right-hand side of
12       number 4 and, if I understand it correctly, though he
13       could see a bifurcation being formed with the right most
14       lower yellow line, his concern is the appearance of the
15       ridge is that it is the right hand ridge that continues
16       on up undeviated; whereas in Ms McKie, assuming it to be
17       a bifurcation at all, it's the left leg that continues
18       undeviated, not the right.
19           Do you see that?
20   A.  I do see it and I think he's wrong.  I think I've shown
21       you that the right-hand leg of the bifurcation moves in
22       towards the left and I would hope you would be able to
23       see that.
24   Q.  As we ascend to the bifurcation at the top -- that's
25       number 5 -- I think again the yellow is indicating where
page 122
 1       he is hesitant?
 2   A.  That was the yellow line, I was talking about that, yes.
 3   Q.  He is hesitant, among other things, because if we look
 4       at this image and if that is this image, we can in fact
 5       see an area of black that is to the right of the green
 6       line and, of course, the area that you have pointed to
 7       on the other image has a grey area tending to the left?
 8   A.  To the left, yes, that's correct.
 9   Q.  So, again, there is perhaps just an area of ambiguity in
10       this.
11   A.  Yes.
12   Q.  Then we come down to point number 6.  Mr Wertheim does
13       not seem to hold against you the fact, as you say, the
14       red point is in the middle.
15   A.  That's good of him, yes.
16   Q.  He's looking at the ridge ending that is truly point 6
17       and he is indicating two alternative interpretations:
18       either a green line to form a bifurcation to the right
19       or a red line to form a bifurcation to the left.  He
20       admits that there is that ambiguity.
21   A.  Mmm.
22   Q.  In fact, if I understand his evidence, his preferred
23       interpretation if it is going to be a bifurcation at all
24       would be the green to the right?
25   A.  Yes.
page 123
 1   Q.  Do you see that?
 2   A.  I see that, yes.
 3   Q.  What is your comment on what Mr Wertheim has drawn?
 4   A.  I think his interpretation is wrong.  As I say, I think
 5       I've shown that the right-hand leg of the bifurcation
 6       moves in towards the left.
 7   Q.  So you would prefer, maybe not as unnatural as the red
 8       line, but nonetheless a bifurcation going in that
 9       direction?
10   A.  Yes, the way he has marked that is, as you say,
11       unnatural, yes.
12   Q.  Then let us look at Mr Zeelenberg on the same point.  If
13       we begin with Mr Zeelenberg at this will be AZ0061,
14       slide 41 -- PowerPoint, just in case.  I will begin,
15       Mr MacPherson, with PowerPoint because I can navigate my
16       way through that.  If you wish to draw just indicate and
17       I will just change.  Slide 41 to begin with.
18           First of all, if I understand it, Mr Zeelenberg
19       begins with point number 3 on slide number 1.  Do you
20       see that?  That's SCRO point 3 in the bottom part where
21       the yellow dots are.
22   A.  Yes, that's right.
23   Q.  As I said, we are not going to take up time worrying
24       about the precise shape.  He would argue there is
25       something specific in the precise shape but I just want
page 124
 1       to move on to 4 and 5 and see what he says about
 2       point 4.
 3           First of all, if I understand this correctly, what
 4       Mr Zeelenberg is going to observe is that in some other
 5       images of Ms McKie's print there is, in fact, not a
 6       bifurcation at 4.  There is, in fact, a ridge ending.
 7       So he's brought up two other images of Ms McKie's print
 8       to show that at point 4 there is a ridge ending rather
 9       than a bifurcation.
10           Do you have any view about that?
11   A.  I think we've already discussed that.  Sometimes it can
12       be interchangeable, depending on the way it's been
13       taken, the amount of ink or black powder of whatever
14       it's been taken by, whether it's been LiveScan, you're
15       going to get these appearances that appears different.
16   Q.  So the nature of the event at 4 is a question.
17           Then you will see how he has drawn 5.  He has drawn
18       5 as simply a ridge ending.  Do you see that?
19   A.  He seems to have stopped short on the way up.
20   Q.  He has stopped short?
21   A.  Yes.
22   Q.  Maybe this is just because he is dealing with four just
23       now but we will carry on through the slides.  Now what
24       he is turning on slide 42 is point number 5.  On this
25       occasion you are quite correct now, Mr MacPherson, he
page 125
 1       has filled in that missing spot when he is turning to
 2       point number 5.  Correct?
 3   A.  Are we looking at the top left-hand image?
 4   Q.  No, looking at the bottom left-hand image where the
 5       yellow dots are.
 6   A.  Yes.
 7   Q.  He has now put in what had previously been the missing
 8       top yellow dot?
 9   A.  Yes.
10   Q.  If I would understand correctly, this is his
11       interpretation of that feature of the mark, on the
12       bottom right there is what he sees in Ms McKie, point 4,
13       whether a ridge ending or a bifurcation one could
14       debate.  Point number 5 he seems to have drawn as a
15       bifurcation.  You agree with that?
16   A.  So there's two in agreement, yes.
17   Q.  As I say, you might debate whether the lower one truly
18       is a bifurcation and we've moved beyond that.  Point
19       number 5, you agree he has drawn as a bifurcation.  You
20       agree with that?
21   A.  That's correct, yes.
22   Q.  Whereas what he draws for point number 5 is simply a
23       ridge ending?
24   A.  Well, I think even beyond the yellow dot.  The ridge
25       extends again, as I've already said, it's turning in
page 126
 1       towards the left to join the left-hand ridge.
 2   Q.  Then let us move beyond that.  Now we come to the area
 3       where he is looking at number 6?
 4   A.  He's interpreted that even more of an extreme than
 5       Mr Wertheim.  He's saying that there's only one
 6       intervening ridge to what he has marked as a ridge
 7       ending up but for me that's the continuous ridge down
 8       and on the left-hand side is the bifurcation which is 6.
 9       So, again, it's his interpretation but I think he's
10       wrong.
11   Q.  We will look at this a little bit.  What he has drawn
12       for us is, as we move from point 5, there is to its
13       left -- and we're looking at the top -- a ridge that
14       descends top to bottom which he is prepared, it would
15       seem, to accept as possibly an intervening ridge?
16   A.  Yes.
17   Q.  With immediately to its left a ridge ending, perhaps, or
18       a bifurcation?
19   A.  Yes.
20   Q.  Then, if I understand it correctly and I have some other
21       images that will help with this, the point that you
22       construe as or you mark as number 6 is, in fact,
23       immediately to the left --
24   A.  To the left, yes.
25   Q.  -- of where the red line ends.  On this interpretation
page 127
 1       he would agree with you that that ridge continues up
 2       tending in the left but he sees it as forming a
 3       continuous ridge and not a bifurcation.  If you want to
 4       mark, I need to move through --
 5   A.  No, can I just indicate with the arrow?
 6   Q.  Yes, please?
 7   A.  The ridge comes up and he's taken it that it merges on
 8       the right-hand side, where my contention is and as I
 9       think I've shown you the ridge comes up and you can see
10       it there, above this yellow dot, the ridge moves in and
11       joins to make a bifurcation down the way.  He's come
12       down those, the ridge, like so.  He should actually have
13       come down like so (indicated).  That would be your
14       intervening ridge.
15           This is the ridge going up and, as I think you can
16       even see on this image of mark Y7, it tends into the
17       left and that's the bifurcation there.
18   Q.  When you say it tends into the left?
19   A.  The ridge, sorry, moves in to the left.
20   Q.  So far as this is concerned, to what extent in the
21       process, because now we're going backwards and forwards
22       between Ms McKie and Y7, is there any risk here at this
23       point that what is now occurring is an interpretation of
24       this now series of issues to reconcile Y7 with Ms McKie
25       rather than simply an interpretation of what is to be
page 128
 1       seen in Y7 alone?
 2   A.  No, I don't think so.
 3   Q.  If I take your point in relation to point number 6, I
 4       have another presentation, a PowerPoint presentation
 5       relating to 3, 4, 5 and 6, if we can just look at that,
 6       please.  I will proceed through this.  I have used one
 7       of Mr Zeelenberg's slides as my base.  You will
 8       recognise, it may be slide 42, 3, 4, 5 and I have just
 9       left 3, 4 and 5 as he has drawn.
10           We then have, and he has drawn, one intermediate
11       ridge coming straight down adjacent to 4 and 5 and on
12       any view there is one ridge coming down.  The question
13       is whether 5 joins that ridge or not?
14   A.  Yes.
15   Q.  So thus far, other than the debate about 5, no
16       difficulty with what he's drawn?
17   A.  No.
18   Q.  This is what we want to debate, his particular drawing
19       of number 6, yes?
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  What I have done is cleared away his dots.  By my big
22       purple arrow I am intending to point to what you truly
23       intend as point number 6?
24   A.  Yes.
25   Q.  Then proceeding through an alternative view.  So that is
page 129
 1       Mr Zeelenberg, my slide 3 just now.  An alternative view
 2       coming up is point number 4 is an alternative view that
 3       now has the ridge counts working correctly, is that
 4       right, two intervening ridges from point number 4?
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  So that one could make the ridges to point number 4
 7       coincide but then just the question is where is number 6
 8       going?
 9   A.  Well, this looks like a different interpretation from
10       what he had previously.  Previously he had --
11   Q.  No, no, this is me; this is me.  If I can explain, I
12       have looked at Mr Mackenzie's charting, I've looked at
13       Mr Zeelenberg's charting, Mr Wertheim's charting and
14       Mr Grigg and I thought that a way of reconciling
15       Mr Mackenzie and Mr Zeelenberg would be to redraw
16       Mr Zeelenberg's as it's drawn here just now so that I
17       can get the ridge counts to work to point number 4 -- so
18       it's me.  Do you see that?  But it still leaves us to
19       wonder what is happening to point 4 --
20   A.  Point 6.
21   Q.  Point 5, first of all, and also point 6.
22   A.  Well, I think I've explained point 5.  If you go one,
23       two intervening ridges and then you follow up right
24       where I'm pointing the arrow is where point 6 would be
25       (indicated).  Just slightly up from point 4, one, two
page 130
 1       intervening ridges, bifurcation down.
 2           Point 4, one, two intervening ridges and a
 3       bifurcation down.  I can't say anyone more about it.  I
 4       think I've shown you and if you don't accept my
 5       interpretation, fair enough.
 6   Q.  As I said to you I am not here to challenge you.  I am
 7       just here to give you an opportunity to comment on what
 8       others have done.
 9           With Mr Grigg, if I show you Mr Grigg -- give me
10       just a second, I will check I've got the right one.
11   A.  You said yesterday, Mr Moynihan, that I had to prove or
12       was this to prove my identification.  I don't have to
13       prove anything to anyone anymore.  I lost my job in
14       March 2007 so, as far as I'm concerned, I don't have to
15       prove anything to anyone.
16   Q.  I am sorry, Mr MacPherson, what I think I said was -- I
17       was about to call you Mr Mackenzie, I apologise for
18       that -- what I said yesterday was in relation to the
19       chartings you produced yesterday afternoon, were these
20       the chartings you were going to defend your judgment by.
21       That's what I said.  I am not suggesting that you have
22       got anything to prove.  Plainly you haven't.  You are
23       assisting the Inquiry.
24   A.  I'm assisting the Inquiry and I think when I made these
25       charts up I asked you at the time could I mark in any of
page 131
 1       the other points or characteristics that I saw but you
 2       said, no, we had to replicate what we had done for the
 3       court productions.  Now you say the court productions
 4       are no longer in the mix, if you like, but that's
 5       exactly what this is.  These are a reproduction of the
 6       court productions.
 7   Q.  I think, Mr MacPherson, let us just clear up a number of
 8       things lest there be any misunderstanding.
 9           First of all, so far as the court productions are
10       concerned, questions have been raised about the accuracy
11       of the charting done by the charting PC; correct?
12   A.  Yes, questions that have been raised by people who have
13       never used the charting PC, I may say.
14   Q.  I thought questions had been raised by your colleagues
15       in SCRO?
16   A.  Absolutely, yes, yes, but outwith SCRO I was talking
17       about.
18   Q.  But within SCRO was a question not raised about the
19       inaccuracy of the charting machine?
20   A.  What I charted for the court productions were as
21       accurate as I could make them.  I believe they were
22       accurate.
23   Q.  Mr MacPherson, do you know that colleagues at SCRO in
24       part blamed the outcome of the McKie case on the
25       charting PC's inaccuracy?
page 132
 1   A.  Yes.
 2   Q.  So, therefore, the decision --
 3   A.  I wouldn't say inaccuracy, it's pure quality overall as
 4       compared to photographic enlargements and that's why it
 5       was scrapped in 2000.
 6   Q.  That is why it was understood that if we were going to
 7       debate whether Ms McKie's fingerprint was correctly
 8       identified relative to Y7 it was thought that to use the
 9       criminal productions would not assist because there was
10       some uncertainty at the very least of the clarity if not
11       the accuracy of the charting; correct?
12   A.  Okay.
13   Q.  Then the next stage was to take alternative images and
14       we went back to the originals, having found what had
15       been lost at the time of the civil case, the negatives
16       of Y7?
17   A.  Yes.
18   Q.  And the original inked prints to start again, yes?
19   A.  Yes.
20   Q.  For reasons of continuity, because you and your
21       colleagues had given evidence under oath that 16 points
22       in sequence and agreement could be found in Y7 and
23       Ms McKie's print, you were asked to reconstitute those
24       16 points with clarity and accuracy to overcome any
25       deficiency there might have been in the criminal
page 133
 1       productions, yes?
 2   A.  Okay, yes.
 3   Q.  Because those were the 16 points that, under oath, you
 4       were happy to tell the jury proved to 100 per cent
 5       certainty that there was a common authorship between Y7
 6       and Ms McKie?
 7   A.  Well, they were an illustration of how I came about,
 8       basically how I came about my ident but the proof, as I
 9       said yesterday, is my evidence, my joint report and the
10       finger and palm-print form and the actual photograph.
11   Q.  I take your point entirely about --
12   A.  They are illustrations for the court.  They're not the
13       evidence, if you like.
14   Q.  Mr MacPherson, if we take aside how practice is today
15       and we will ask questions later why enlargements were
16       not produced, if we take aside the enlargements, leave
17       them aside, it simply becomes a bald assertion by a
18       witness that two things are identical if there are no
19       demonstrative chartings?
20   A.  Absolutely and that's why I said yesterday I still think
21       they should produce case-specific enlargements.
22   Q.  If we take Mr Leadbetter as an example, if we did not
23       have Mr Leadbetter's chartings for this Inquiry, we
24       would not perhaps even know that he differed from you in
25       respect of his route?
page 134
 1   A.  Yes.
 2   Q.  And we would not have been in a position to question
 3       whether he had a secure foundation for his opinion?
 4   A.  All I was saying, I think it's a rather academic
 5       question that for three years they have been producing
 6       joint reports, fingerprint and palm-print forms,
 7       photographs and the evidence of the expert themselves.
 8       That's why I say the enlargements are only for
 9       illustration purposes.  Some people use generic
10       enlargements which just show the ridge endings,
11       characteristics.
12           As I said, I think I said yesterday as well, we were
13       the only bureau in Britain, the Glasgow Bureau was the
14       only bureau in Britain that produced case-specific
15       enlargements but we were still criticised for it,
16       cropping, all the rest of it.  But the criticism that
17       came about the cropping, et cetera, that was how -- the
18       people who made these criticisms had never used the
19       charting enlargements.  One of them, Mr Gary Dempster,
20       didn't even produce enlargements in the Aberdeen Bureau.
21       As I say, the Glasgow Bureau were the only ones because
22       of the Fiscal Service in Glasgow wished us to produce
23       them, that's what we did.
24           I was also accused of being underhand by Mr Wertheim
25       by producing three enlargements for the one case.  I
page 135
 1       didn't produce three enlargements for one case.  I don't
 2       just produce enlargements off the top of my head.  I
 3       produce enlargements when I'm requested to do so by the
 4       Procurator Fiscal.
 5           So there's been a lot of criticism basically coming
 6       from outwith and people don't know the procedures that
 7       we went through.  I think Mr Sheppard criticised four
 8       people looking at the one enlargement but that's how we
 9       did things.
10           If people had maybe looked into our processes and
11       procedures, maybe a lot of the criticism would not have
12       been levelled at myself and my colleagues in the Glasgow
13       Bureau.
14   Q.  Can I explain to you then just the process that the
15       Inquiry team has undertaken.  Conscious of all we have
16       said so far, first of all, the Inquiry team has been
17       seeking to consider whether the identification of
18       Ms McKie's left thumbprint is one that was supportable
19       by reference to the material available to SCRO at the
20       times when the official reports were prepared.
21           You would accept that as a legitimate question?
22   A.  Yes.
23   Q.  Hence, if one is asking that question, what one requires
24       to do is to get back to the material that was available
25       to you and your colleagues at the times when the
page 136
 1       official reports were being undertaken?
 2   A.  Yes.
 3   Q.  That is the images that are the comparative exercise,
 4       yes?
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  Above and beyond that, the Inquiry team has recognised
 7       that some individuals, perhaps Mr Swann, Mr Leadbetter,
 8       maybe even yourself, might say even if it was not a
 9       supportive identification by reference to the original
10       material available to SCRO, it was nonetheless a correct
11       identification by reference to a number of other
12       sources, hence we have in the course of the last month
13       been prepared to look at a variety of other sources.
14           Do you understand?
15   A.  Yes.
16   Q.  So, do you have a difficulty in the Inquiry
17       investigating, with your assistance, what the basis was
18       for the original conclusion that Y7 was indeed the
19       fingerprint of Ms McKie?
20   A.  No.
21   Q.  That just explains fully why I am looking at it in the
22       stages I am.  I am looking at it primarily by reference
23       to the comparative material for reasons of continuity.
24       I'm not looking at the criminal productions because
25       there is some question over their clarity, accuracy, it
page 137
 1       doesn't matter.
 2           You have with your colleagues, at our request, at
 3       considerable trouble to yourselves, recreated that so we
 4       can have a proper debate about these details uncluttered
 5       by that complication.
 6   A.  Yes.
 7   Q.  As you have said, I have told you that other material
 8       can be used, in particular I had anticipated other
 9       material being used to set up your view relative to that
10       of Mr Wertheim, Mr Zeelenberg, Mr Grigg and others and
11       that is what we are proceeding through this afternoon.
12       Okay?
13   A.  Yes.
14   Q.  Coming back then to what I have done on screen as slide
15       5 of this particular presentation, you will see in
16       effect that what this comes to is that I myself, in
17       trying to understand the difference of opinion among the
18       experts, have been able to reconcile the ridge counts by
19       redrawing, in particular, point number 6, yes?
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  What I want to then show you is, moving away from what I
22       have redrawn, coming to another occasion where the
23       yellow line entered the Inquiry, if I take you to
24       Mr Grigg at FI2909.19, what I am primarily interested in
25       is the left-hand drawing.  The right-hand drawing is
page 138
 1       somewhat complicated.  If I explain to you what's
 2       happened is that Mr Grigg has tried to count out from
 3       the core and we had the initial difficulty we had
 4       noticed that the bifurcation number 1 he did not
 5       recognise initially as a bifurcation so he's trying to
 6       count out points and, as you will see, he has had a
 7       difficulty with the point number 8 which, on one view,
 8       is your number 4 and he has seen it simply as occurring
 9       on a straight ridge as opposed to being the point of a
10       bifurcation.
11           Do you see that?
12   A.  I don't see what he's marked as 8.
13   Q.  He's marked nothing, in a sense, as 8 because by the
14       ridge counts he is doing he comes up against a
15       nondescript ridge.  So he is finding it difficult to
16       actually see a feature.
17   A.  No, I'm afraid, I'm finding it difficult to decipher
18       exactly what he's talking about.
19   Q.  I will tell you what happened with Mr Grigg.  Mr Grigg
20       spoke to a difference in ridge counts out from the core
21       and, in particular, a difference in ridge counts to the
22       point which is, let us use the red numbers in the
23       left-hand side, which is your point number 5?
24   A.  He seems to have -- is that as far out to the left as
25       you can go?  The core seems to be obliterated.
page 139
 1   Q.  I can't remember, I think maybe the blue arrow in the
 2       top left-hand corner --
 3   A.  I mean, if his interpretation of the core is incorrect,
 4       I can't see it because it's off the edge of the page.
 5   Q.  I think what he was doing from that point, you see in
 6       each of the two, right and left, he's got a blue arrow.
 7       Do you see that?
 8   A.  His blue arrow on the right-hand side is a continuous
 9       ridge up and over the core.  For me the core is down one
10       more, just down to the left.
11   Q.  I don't think it matters really, Mr MacPherson, because
12       what he is doing is by reference to the ridges that are
13       indicated by the blue arrows right and left, he's
14       carrying out a ridge count.
15   A.  Okay.
16   Q.  No difficulty about seeing those as a common point from
17       which correctly to count ridges?
18   A.  So he goes to the right and there's one, two intervening
19       ridges to the bifurcation down, which he has indicated
20       as number 2.  He also has done what was shown
21       previously.  He's taken the leg of the bifurcation down,
22       which is point 6, and has put it on to the leg coming
23       down.  I've already explained I believe that the leg
24       going up here (indicated) goes up to where I'm
25       indicating.  He has come up and has placed it here
page 140
 1       (indicated) so, therefore, his ridge count would be out.
 2       His ridge count would be three and, obviously, the ridge
 3       count -- sorry, I don't know what his ridge count would
 4       be but it's one, two, three to the bifurcation down.
 5       I'm afraid, I can't see exactly what he's pointing at
 6       there.
 7           But to me this ridge comes up and goes in to the
 8       left, as I already explained, and there's one, two
 9       intervening ridges to where he has marked point 4 which
10       is one, two intervening ridges to point 7.  Follow 7 up
11       and you get up to, it looks like number 3, he's marked
12       it as.
13   Q.  If I tell you what happened, if I remember it correctly,
14       Mr Grigg was telling us about his differences in ridge
15       count and, as you say, he went through 6 and then
16       carried on to 5 and spoke of a difference in ridge
17       count.  I then put in the yellow line you see beneath 5
18       and removed his difference in ridge count to the
19       point 5.
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  Because if you join it to the left the ridge count will
22       become correct, that bifurcation to the point that he's
23       mentioned near the core.  Yes?
24   A.  Where you've put the yellow marker in there's one
25       intervening ridge and then in there is a bifurcation.
page 141
 1   Q.  Mr MacPherson, it's perhaps me and it's the time of the
 2       afternoon.  As it is shown on the left-hand side, if one
 3       assumes that point 5 joins the ridge adjacent on the
 4       left by something like the yellow line, not intending
 5       that to be a natural feature but just joins that ridge,
 6       is there any problem with the ridge counts left?
 7   A.  If he is indicating that point 2 is a ridge ending, no,
 8       there wouldn't be a problem with the ridge count because
 9       there's one intervening ridge, if you interpret that as
10       a ridge ending, and point 2 could be interpreted, again,
11       there's a pore just where I'm -- there's a pore just
12       where I'm placing the cursor and you could interpret
13       that as coming up and stopping.  So if that's a ridge
14       ending up, you would go one intervening ridge to the
15       bifurcation down, which is number 3.
16   Q.  Or 5 for you.
17   A.  Or 5, yes.
18   Q.  I understand Mr Grigg to accept that if the ridges are
19       joined then the pattern would follow from the insertion
20       of the yellow line that the ridge counts would be
21       consistent as between Y7 and Ms McKie?
22   A.  Okay.
23   Q.  Would you accept that?
24   A.  Okay.
25   Q.  However, Mr Grigg was momentarily thrown and then when
page 142
 1       we moved on he said, "Stop, I understand what you've
 2       done.  You've made the ridge counts the same by putting
 3       that yellow line in to the left"?
 4   A.  Mm-hm.
 5   Q.  "My interpretation had been that the ridge counts were
 6       out because I'd understood point number 5 to connect to
 7       the right".
 8   A.  Okay.
 9   Q.  That is just, again, demonstrating the area of
10       interpretation.  Mr Grigg is a man who's prepared to see
11       that there are issues here but he's saying his preferred
12       interpretation, consistent with Mr Wertheim and
13       Mr Zeelenberg, is that point 5 goes right and, indeed, I
14       would understand that you yourself have observed he
15       would say point 6 similarly goes right and the ridge
16       counts would be out?
17   A.  Mm-hm.
18   Q.  If either of those two ridges goes right, the ridge
19       count is out?
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  Again, I can stop at this particular point.  We will
22       take some of these other points very quickly and maybe
23       conclude them this afternoon.  If I understand it
24       correctly now, we have gone along much of the length of
25       what I call the south coast of Y7 and we've found that
page 143
 1       in order to have Y7match Ms McKie there is a necessity,
 2       a requirement, that each of these points, that they be
 3       interpreted in a particular manner, each of which is, I
 4       suggest, open to debate?
 5   A.  You are making it sound as if I've -- using the word
 6       "assumptions" but that's how I see it.
 7   Q.  Assumptions can be a wrong word in this context.
 8       Perhaps a more neutral phrase is each of these points
 9       calls for judgment and interpretation?
10   A.  Yes, definitely.
11   Q.  In order for there to be a match, the judgments have to
12       fall, first of all, in the manner in which you yourself
13       have made them?
14   A.  They have to be in sequence and agreement, yes.
15   Q.  If any one of these judgments is different, then the
16       match collapses at that point?
17   A.  Yes.
18   Q.  All that I've done, in fact, in going along the south
19       coast, as I have described it, from 1 bringing in 15 to
20       16, now all the way, I've reached number 6, all I'm
21       showing you is that the experts who take the opposite
22       view from you have advanced reasons, bar perhaps number
23       3, they have advanced reasons why on each of these
24       points they differ from you.
25   A.  Okay, yes.
page 144
 1   Q.  That was the thesis I started out with this morning,
 2       that you and Mr Leadbetter are agreed even though there
 3       is a radical difference in your chartings but you are
 4       nonetheless agreed about the conclusion?
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  Whereas Mr Zeelenberg, Mr Wertheim and Mr Grigg disagree
 7       in the conclusion and an understanding of this is they
 8       disagree in the conclusion simply because their judgment
 9       on each of these points cumulatively is different from
10       yours?
11   A.  Is incorrect, yes.
12   Q.  Each of their judgment is different from yours?
13   A.  That's correct, yes.
14   Q.  If I understand Mr Grigg -- and this may be a point that
15       maybe not worth stopping at -- but if I understand what
16       Mr Grigg said in relation to point number 5, the yellow
17       line, was at this point he wasn't prepared to make the
18       assumption of the ridge going to the left because there
19       was too much else, in particular in the upper part, that
20       was discordant?
21   A.  The upper part meaning?
22   Q.  The upper part of the mark, that's the Rosetta and the
23       points above?
24   A.  Hmm.
25   Q.  Too much else that was discordant that he wasn't
page 145
 1       prepared by this point to make the assumption that was
 2       necessary to match, in other words, in a sense, the
 3       yellow line is the straw that breaks the camel's back?
 4   A.  I think we spoke earlier that Mr Grigg saw a clear image
 5       of Mr Terry Kent's image and he sat here and said that
 6       there was no banana, no bifurcation there, but when he
 7       saw a clearer image he was able to change his mind
 8       regarding that.  Perhaps if he was to look at the
 9       chartings that I have now prepared maybe he may be
10       willing to change his mind regarding point 5 and
11       direction of the ridge to the left.
12   Q.  By sheer coincidence someone else in the hall asked me
13       yesterday if we might send your chartings to Mr Grigg so
14       no doubt we can give some consideration to that.
15   A.  I asked for that yesterday and I thank the Inquiry for
16       having the chance to prepare further things because,
17       obviously, I've had no chance to do anything since.
18   Q.  In fact, it wasn't you, it was somebody else who shall
19       remain anonymous but had asked that that particular
20       matter be considered.  No doubt we can give
21       consideration to that.
22           Maybe with the five minutes that are left I can move
23       on because what I want to do is to just complete the
24       southern section and then the run, tomorrow, through the
25       rest of Y7 should be relatively quick and we will get
page 146
 1       down to QI2.  What I want to look at are SCRO points 7
 2       and 8.
 3           If I bring up again the charting FI0167A twice,
 4       please.  So far as 7 and 8 are concerned -- please don't
 5       feel constrained by time.  If you prefer to deal with
 6       these tomorrow morning, then please just indicate.  I
 7       don't think I need take you to other drawings
 8       immediately in connection with 7 and 8.  There is a
 9       point about number 8 where some drawings would
10       intervene, but if I understand one of the main themes in
11       particular about 7 is this: it is towards the edge of
12       the impression and therefore at a point where one is
13       wondering whether what is to be seen is a ridge ending
14       or simply the end of the fingerprint impression.
15           So, therefore, the question is at point number 7 and
16       to some extent also point number 8 whether the clarity
17       of the image at this peripheral location is sufficiently
18       clear to admit of the recognition of features.  If you
19       want to explain, again you can use this image to begin
20       with and then other images if you prefer, but if you
21       begin with this one for reasons I explained earlier.
22   A.  I would say that the edge or the periphery of the mark
23       is roughly along that area (indicated).  The ridge comes
24       down and bifurcates like so (indicated).
25   Q.  Again, Mr MacPherson, if you are content with that as
page 147
 1       your charting on number 7, what about number 8?  What
 2       sot of feature is it that you see at point number 8?
 3   A.  Number 8 is a ridge ending exactly where the dot is.
 4       It's very, very faint.
 5           My interpretation of the core is this ridge comes up
 6       and round.  That's roughly how I see it.  So this is a
 7       ridge ending there.  That's basically how I see
 8       characteristic number 8, as a ridge ending.
 9           I know maybe you don't want me to refer to the
10       charts that I did yesterday but just --
11   Q.  Please, as I said to you, I am more than happy to do it
12       in two.  My reason for doing it in two stages is no more
13       than this: for chronological reasons, I'm interested in
14       the judgment that you formed relative to the material
15       available to you prior to May 1999, prior to the chart,
16       particularly in February 1997.  That's this material.
17       If you want to look at other material to show me your
18       opinion today and to illustrate it better because you,
19       Mr Wertheim, Mr Zeelenberg and Mr Grigg have a
20       difference of view, then please use whatever material
21       you wish.
22   THE CHAIRMAN:  I think it is important to Mr MacPherson to
23       appreciate that although we are saying the material that
24       was before you at the time that you were giving your
25       original opinion, where you have made an assumption --
page 148
 1       and I appreciate you don't like the word "assumption" --
 2       but where you have used judgments, made a judgment or an
 3       interpretation, then if later samples of the print show
 4       that or rather confirm the interpretation that you
 5       made --
 6   A.  Absolutely --
 7   THE CHAIRMAN:  -- at the original time, then that would be
 8       of interest to me also.
 9   A.  Okay.
10   THE CHAIRMAN:  In other words, as I say, where you said, "I
11       think it went left" if some later print shows it did go
12       left, then that's fine.
13   A.  Well, I wonder, sir, if I could --
14   MR MOYNIHAN:  Can I just interrupt?  Sorry, sir, if we save
15       what is on the screen just now and then, Mr MacPherson,
16       we will bring up your images in a second.  We will save
17       this one first.
18   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2810.17.
19   THE WITNESS:  I was wondering if it would be in order -- I
20       know yesterday, sir, you didn't have a photocopy of the
21       chartings that I've done that you're referring to since.
22   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, you mean these ones?
23   A.  Would it be in order -- can I give you the originals of
24       them, please?
25   THE CHAIRMAN:  I think we can be able to make sharper copies
page 149
 1       of them.
 2   MR MOYNIHAN:  I think, sir --
 3   A.  These are much better than what you have in front of
 4       you.
 5   THE CHAIRMAN:  If you have the originals yes, please.  I
 6       think they would be very helpful.  But you may want to
 7       work from them.
 8   MR MOYNIHAN:  Allow me just a moment.
 9   THE CHAIRMAN:  I think if I take them.  (Handed) Yes, the
10       dots are clearer.  I had some trouble trying to find all
11       the dots last time.
12   MR MOYNIHAN:  Sir, what I was going to suggest it is just
13       after 4.00.  What I would suggest is that we adjourn at
14       this point.  It is plainly not beneficial to rush this
15       particular point.  I think Mr MacPherson is inviting you
16       to consider his originals overnight.  What we will do --
17   THE WITNESS:  He can have them for as long as he wants.
18   MR MOYNIHAN:  It's okay.  We will come back in the morning.
19       What I will do is explore with the Inquiry team whether
20       it is possible to get better images than you have
21       available on the system, otherwise tomorrow morning I
22       will return your originals to you and we can --
23   THE WITNESS:  No, I don't need them back.
24   MR MOYNIHAN:  At that point it is probably just as well we
25       invite you to adjourn.
page 150
 1   THE CHAIRMAN:  Good.  Well, you have had a long day so we
 2       will stop now and start at 10.00 in the morning, please.
 3   (4.07 pm)
 4        (Adjourned until 10.00 am the following morning)
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25