page   1
 1                                    Thursday, 29th October 2009
 2   (10.00 am)
 3                         HUGH MACPHERSON
 4               Examined by MR MOYNIHAN (continued)
 5   Q.  Good morning, Mr MacPherson?
 6   A.  Good morning.
 7   Q.  I was just going to carry on in the order in which we
 8       were proceeding yesterday, unless there's anything that
 9       arose out of yesterday you wanted to raise?
10   A.  I was wondering, with the indulgence of the Chairman, if
11       I could possibly refer to something that I referred to
12       earlier in my evidence regarding the 10 and 10 rule?
13   Q.  Yes, please.
14   A.  I came across a fingerprint handbook from when I started
15       on 2nd November 1970 and I was wondering if I could
16       possibly read just a couple of paragraphs from the last
17       page?
18   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, certainly.
19   A.  Just to make sure that my evidence I give to the Inquiry
20       is accurate.
21   THE CHAIRMAN:  That is very helpful.
22   A.  Thank you.  As I say, it is from 2/11/70 under the
23       heading of:
24           "Identity of fingerprints.
25           "The identical nature of fingerprints is not
page   2
 1       established by pattern alone but by agreement in the
 2       relationship of identical ridge characteristics one to
 3       the other.  When two prints are found to agree in the
 4       sequence of their ridge characteristics then these
 5       prints are said to be identical, that is, both have been
 6       made by the same area of the palmar or plantar skin
 7       surfaces.  Mathematical precision in the position of
 8       characteristics is not necessary in establishing
 9       identity as varying degrees of pressure or lateral
10       movement of the skin can alter the distance between
11       them.
12           "Varying opinions are held as to the number of
13       characteristics in agreement and sequence necessary to
14       prove identity but in this country proof of identity is
15       offered only when 16 or more such points are present in
16       two prints or when at least 10 such points in two prints
17       in sequence are present in another two prints also
18       recorded in sequence."
19           I think I mentioned that earlier in my evidence.
20       What it doesn't mention is dire and crucial or the
21       strong suspicion which I also mentioned, but I was
22       wondering if this could be submitted, if you like?
23           I also have, as I say, this obviously refers to the
24       1953 guidelines but as the 1953 guidelines were
25       constantly being reviewed, so the processes and
page   3
 1       procedures in SCRO were constantly being reviewed and I
 2       have a copy of -- I don't know if the Inquiry has a copy
 3       of the 1953 guidelines as laid down.
 4   MR MOYNIHAN:  We do have a copy of the Home Office minutes,
 5       in a particular section of file but if you your own copy
 6       or an extra copy then we will take it just for the
 7       avoidance of any difficulty.
 8   A.  I don't want to take up a lot of time but it refers to
 9       something I said in my statement so I would like to ...
10   Q.  Yes, we will take it because if I end up with duplicates
11       it's not a problem.  If we have a gap in our knowledge
12       then it is, so if you want to hand it in then that is
13       fine.
14           Do you want to clarify the point?
15   A.  Yes.  In 1953 there was a Home Office meeting and:
16           "It was desirable that a common standard should be
17       observed by all forces whose officers give evidence in
18       court about fingerprint identification in order there
19       should be little risk of such evidence being challenged.
20           "In the case of a single print, this standard should
21       be a minimum of 16 points of resemblance ...
22           "After discussion at subsequent National Conferences
23       of Fingerprint Experts the following was added to the
24       new standard:
25           "Where evidence is being given, and, in addition to
page   4
 1       any mark(s) with at 16 points in resemblance, there are
 2       also other marks from the same scene made by the same
 3       person, but with less than 16 points, these can also be
 4       mentioned provided each mark has at least 10
 5       characteristics in agreement with the finger/palm
 6       impression(s)."
 7           That would be the 16 and 10 rule.  I think I said in
 8       evidence before about in the late '80s if you had a
 9       series of checks you were entitled to put that forward
10       for prosecution if you had 10 characteristics from one
11       person on one check and 10 characteristics on a second
12       check in a series of checks.
13           That eventually evolved to be taken on by volume
14       crime and serious crime.  I believe in 1997 we were
15       still in the position that it was each mark was
16       16 points.  It wasn't down to the person, the same
17       person, having 16.  If you had one with 16 ridge
18       characteristics in sequence and agreement, if you had
19       other marks with 10 and above you could include those in
20       your joint report.
21           It mentions about checks:
22           "As a result of debate [in] 1985 ... there were
23       three systems of multiple identifications on cheques
24       from the same chequebook.  Each was believed, by its
25       users, to be compatible with the standards laid down in
page   5
 1       1953.  In February 1997, the following decision was
 2       made:
 3           "'It must be acknowledged as a matter of fact, that
 4       evidence of identification based on 10 characteristics
 5       on one cheque and 10 characteristics on any other
 6       cheque(s) from the same book had been accepted as
 7       sufficient by courts in certain parts of the country for
 8       eight years ...
 9           "However, acceptance of the above norm did not
10       prevent any bureau from adhering to the original
11       standard."
12           That is what I'm trying to explain, that our
13       processes and procedures were in a continuous state of
14       flux, particularly in 1997 with the introduction of
15       LiveScan.  We also had every few years a change of Chief
16       Inspector, we would have a change of Superintendent, a
17       change of Chief Superintendent and they would bring
18       their own ideas to the mix, if you like.
19           What I said in my statement as regarding QI2,
20       there's a part of QI2 identified as Mr Asbury's but it
21       is in black with a line through it and that would be, if
22       an independent expert came along and looked that, I
23       could be asked in court why is that in black with a line
24       through it.  All it would mean was that it didn't reach
25       the national standard.  I could speak to it in court but
page   6
 1       I would be able to say it didn't reach the national
 2       standard.
 3           So it was just to try and clear up -- I think I said
 4       in my statement something like probably 10, I might have
 5       meant probably below 16.  I just want to be accurate in
 6       what I have said.
 7   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, perhaps when you have finished your
 8       evidence you would leave the copies and then we can be
 9       quite sure that we've got exactly what you were speaking
10       to.
11           If you could hand them over now it might help with
12       the transcript if we could put them there first and then
13       you can pass them.  (Handed)
14           Thank you very much.
15   MR MOYNIHAN:  Thank you, Mr MacPherson.  There are two other
16       points in relation to what you said.  First of all, just
17       as a precaution, if I could ask -- and we will do it at
18       the break -- if Miss Carmichael could see the original
19       handbook because there is this -- we will deal with it
20       at the break -- because she will look at it to see if
21       there's anything else that may be relevant in the
22       handbook that will relate to chapters she is dealing
23       with.  I am very grateful to you.
24           The second point I know we have taken the sheets
25       from you but you may be able to find it in the handbook
page   7
 1       that you still have with you.  What I was interested in
 2       was the formulation in the handbook of the 16-point
 3       rule, if I call it that.  I had started my questions
 4       with you the day before yesterday by asking you about
 5       differences and unexplained differences, et cetera.
 6           This first arose when Mr Graham gave evidence when I
 7       put to him a formulation of the 16-point rule, 16 points
 8       in sequence and agreement and no unexplained
 9       differences.  He, if I recollect correctly, replied to
10       me, "What's an unexplained difference got to do with
11       it".
12           I heard you read out the 16-point rule.  It was
13       simply a straightforward proposition: if there are
14       16 points in sequence and agreement, it didn't mention
15       unexplained differences.  Is that correct?
16   A.  That's correct.  I don't know -- I can't remember where
17       that possibly come in.  I'm sorry, I don't remember.
18   Q.  If you just re-check the formulation.  I think you said
19       at the end of the book about --
20   A.  This is just purely the back page of the book.  The
21       other two pages that I've given you, I don't know the
22       provenance of them.  I've just basically found them --
23   Q.  Don't worry, Mr MacPherson.  It's more if you just
24       repeat for my benefit with the clarity that there is in
25       the formulation of the 16-point rule in the handbook
page   8
 1       that is really just what I am interested in?
 2   A.  Do you wish me to --
 3   Q.  If you would just for my benefit, please.
 4   A.  "Varying opinions are held as to the number of
 5       characteristics in agreement and sequence necessary to
 6       prove identity but in this country proof of identity is
 7       offered only when 16 or more such points are present in
 8       two prints or when at least 10 such points in two prints
 9       in sequence are present in another two prints also
10       recorded in sequence."
11           I think I said in my evidence it would basically be
12       like the 7 and 8, you would have ten in one and ten in
13       the other.  That was the original ruling and then it
14       moved from that that it could be the same person from
15       the same scene.  You could have 10 in his number 7 and
16       10 in the number 8 but if they were from the same scene
17       that was suitable to be progressed for evaluation value.
18   Q.  I am grateful to you.  In that case, I will leave the
19       collection and reading of the handbook to Miss
20       Carmichael.  If there is nothing else in it beyond what
21       you have read --
22   A.  No.
23   Q.  -- that's okay -- that is of assistance to us we will
24       hand it straight back to you.  Otherwise we will speak
25       to you about taking additional copies?
page   9
 1   A.  It was purely on the pattern recognition and
 2       classification.
 3   Q.  We will deal with that later.  I am grateful to you.
 4           Therefore, unless there is anything else that you
 5       wanted to talk about, what I was going to do then was to
 6       resume at the point that we were yesterday, which was on
 7       Y7, point number 8.  We had yesterday the SCRO charting
 8       up and you were about to go to your own recharting.
 9           First of all, just so that I can take us back to
10       roughly where we were yesterday, if I bring up FI0167A
11       and perhaps just bring it up twice.  I have brought it
12       up again twice.
13           What we are looking at is the feature most clearly
14       seen in Ms McKie's left thumbprint, a feature in about
15       the core beneath and perhaps a shade to the left of the
16       bifurcation number 9.
17   A.  Yes.
18   Q.  Now, we have had some conversation and you did a drawing
19       for us yesterday relative to these particular images and
20       you were asking me then to move to the charting that you
21       showed us on Tuesday.
22           Is that what you wish to do, to further explain your
23       position in relation to point number 8?
24   A.  I think the drawing I did possibly explained it.
25   Q.  If you give me just a second.  It will about the last
page  10
 1       drawing from yesterday and it is FI2810.17.
 2   A.  Yes.
 3   Q.  I dare say what we should actually do is highlight the
 4       Y7 part of that rather than the -- I happen to have
 5       brought up now the drawing from yesterday on the
 6       left-hand side, then the original numbered Y7 on the
 7       right.
 8           So far as point number 8 is concerned, you have
 9       drawn in light blue an area.  Do you want to give a
10       further description of what you drew?
11   A.  That's a -- sorry, it's a ridge ending up.
12   Q.  Do you intend by what you have drawn that that
13       bifurcation up ends at the point which is marked number
14       8 but does proceed down and join the curving ridge?
15   A.  Yes.
16   Q.  Forming what, at least to my eye, looks to be something
17       in the nature of a lake?
18   A.  It's a bifurcation up, yes.  So point 8 would be a ridge
19       ending.  You would follow that down.  It would join the
20       right-hand leg and it would be a bifurcation up.
21   Q.  It is just the precise way it is drawn just now would
22       have the top edge of the line joining --
23   A.  There should be a slight gap there.
24   Q.  There should be a gap?
25   A.  Yes.
page  11
 1   Q.  Okay.  So there should be a slight gap so there's a
 2       ridge ending at the top --
 3   A.  A ridge ending up, yes.
 4   Q.  -- going into a bifurcation at the bottom?
 5   A.  At the bottom, yes.
 6   Q.  You were yesterday asking to look at the other images
 7       from Tuesday.  Do you wish to do so or ...?
 8   A.  Yes, okay, yes.
 9   Q.  The Y7 image is TC2310.03.
10           I don't know if having access to that particular
11       image assists in relation to this particular point or
12       not but if it doesn't assist we don't need to take any
13       time on it.
14   A.  Would I be able to ...?
15   Q.  You can have it so it's the only image on the screen, if
16       you wish.
17   A.  Okay.
18   Q.  If you are going to draw, perhaps that would be of
19       assistance to you.
20   A.  I've marked the bifurcation up with the red dot just
21       where the cursor is (indicated) and you would follow
22       that up and, again, where the red dot is there's a ridge
23       ending, like so (indicated).
24           Again, I'm sorry, I've joined that.  There should be
25       a gap.
page  12
 1   THE CHAIRMAN:  Is it a very small gap or --
 2   A.  It's a very small gap, sir, yes.
 3   MR MOYNIHAN:  First of all, we had better just save this
 4       image.  If we save that and we will have some words
 5       about it.
 6   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.01.
 7   MR MOYNIHAN:  Just while we are in that area, what you have
 8       drawn is a blue arrow at the bottom to draw our
 9       attention to the lowest most red dot that's relevant to
10       this.  You have then drawn in a mustard colour the lines
11       that, in fact, join up some of those dots in that
12       vicinity.  Again, we should understand that the drawing
13       is inaccurate in that we should understand a slight gap.
14   A.  Should I draw it again?
15   Q.  No, no, it's okay.  Well, we may in fact just do so for
16       a reason.  Yes, let's do that because I also want to ask
17       you to explain for me, if I can find the mouse, the red
18       dots that are adjacent.  Probably it would be better if
19       you did redraw so that we can actually see it as you
20       interpret it.
21           So if I bring up again TC2310.03.   (Pause)
22           Don't worry about the arrow at the bottom -- we've
23       lost that.  I wouldn't worry about the arrow at the
24       bottom because you have joined up the dots and they are,
25       in a sense, self-explanatory in any event.  So that is a
page  13
 1       more accurate representation.
 2   A.  Yes.
 3   MR MOYNIHAN:  Let us save that before we lose it.
 4   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.02.
 5   MR MOYNIHAN:  Mr MacPherson, again I don't wish to tie us
 6       all in knots but by this drawing there's another little
 7       point that I have to ask you about.
 8           Previously, the way the recurving ridge had been
 9       drawn had, in fact, connected three of the red dots.
10       Now only one of the three, that's the one to the
11       right-hand side, forms part of the recurving ridge.
12       Point number 8 is the third one in a row and is to the
13       left and is not connected to the ridge above.
14   A.  Yes.
15   Q.  On this redrawing there is then the middle red dot which
16       is not, in fact, in contact now with the recurved ridge.
17           Is that as you intended, that even that middle red
18       dot is not part of the recurving ridge?
19   A.  Are we talking about where the cursor is at the moment?
20   Q.  No sorry, I'm together about -- I will put an arrow in.
21       I am talking about the red dot that's opposite the large
22       blue arrow.
23   A.  I think that's the ridge recurving and coming down and
24       there's a small lake in that vicinity (indicated).
25   Q.  Could you assist me, please, by drawing now, perhaps use
page  14
 1       a different colour for the ridge structure associated
 2       with that red dot.  (Pause)
 3   A.  I'm afraid that's very rough but ... do you want me to
 4       try again?
 5   Q.  No, no.  Well, first of all, when you say "that's very
 6       rough", if it's not accurate then please feel free to
 7       start again.  (Pause)
 8           Are you satisfied with that?
 9   A.  Yes.
10   MR MOYNIHAN:  If we save that image as well, please.
11   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.03.
12   MR MOYNIHAN:  Just while we were on this image -- and it may
13       be this one is getting a little cluttered for this
14       purpose, in particular not assisted by my large blue
15       arrow -- but what I was going to ask you about is what
16       the dot is that's just off the left-hand side would this
17       be of the bifurcation number 9; is that correct?
18   A.  Yes.
19   Q.  So the dot that -- perhaps I will put an arrow in and I
20       will make the arrow on this occasion yellow.  I will try
21       and steer clear of the ridge detail (indicated).  I've
22       just drawn in in yellow to highlight the point.
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  What is the characteristic highlighted at that position?
25   A.  For me the characteristic is a long island, like so
page  15
 1       (indicated).
 2   Q.  You say a "long island" and by that you mean an
 3       incipient --
 4   A.  It could be an incipient ridge, yes.
 5   Q.  So what you have drawn in is that there will be an
 6       incipient ridge between the two red dots, in effect,
 7       coming down the right-hand side of my red arrow --
 8       sorry, yellow arrow?
 9   A.  Yellow arrow, yes.
10   Q.  There is an island roughly along the edge of the yellow
11       arrow.  In which case, can you then finally for me draw
12       what you would regard as the left leg, I take it, of the
13       bifurcation number 9?
14   A.  The left leg.  (Pause)
15           That's not very good.  The bifurcation coming down
16       the way should be further down but that's the left leg
17       of --
18   Q.  If you give me a second because I am interested in the
19       detail in this particular area.  Thankfully I have taken
20       away only one of the legs that you have drawn for number
21       9.  Take your time and show me where you see the
22       evidence of the bifurcation in the left leg of number 9.
23           It is just a straight arrow just now, is it, rather
24       than a drawing?
25   A.  Like so (indicated).
page  16
 1   Q.  So you're satisfied with that?
 2   A.  Yes.
 3   Q.  So that the interpretation now of that region, if I
 4       start in effect to the right of my yellow arrow, you
 5       would have the left leg descending from point number 9
 6       to a point where it bifurcates?
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   Q.  Immediately to its left, we would have an island?
 9   A.  Yes.
10   Q.  Drawn in to the side of my yellow arrow?
11   A.  Yes.
12   Q.  Proceeding left you then enter the area which is coming
13       to the core where point 8 is, to the upper part, just
14       opposite the tip of the blue arrow there is a small
15       enclosure?
16   A.  Correct, yes.
17   Q.  To the left of that and above is point number 8, a ridge
18       ending disconnected from the recurving ridge above them?
19   A.  Yes.
20   MR MOYNIHAN:  So if we save that picture, thank you.
21   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.04.
22   MR MOYNIHAN:  What I would like to do, Mr MacPherson, again
23       is as of the order of proceedings yesterday, is to give
24       you an opportunity to view and then to comment on what
25       has been made available to the Inquiry by others.  So if
page  17
 1       I could put this image just to one side and also call up
 2       an image that was drawn by Mr Wertheim, which is
 3       FI2309.05.
 4           What we will actually see here at the foot as
 5       FI2309.05 is some notes that Mr Wertheim actually
 6       prepared back in March 1997.
 7           You yourself and your colleagues at SCRO did not
 8       have the practice of preparing notes; is that correct?
 9   A.  That's correct -- detailed notes, no.  There were diary
10       pages.  I believe they've got diary pages now which they
11       may take notes on but not detailed notes, no.
12   Q.  I think this will defeat me unless I bring up
13       Mr Wertheim's notes as the only image, in fact.
14           We have to make an allowance for the fact that
15       Mr Wertheim is, on this page, looking at production 189
16       so, therefore, we have to adapt the numbers somewhat
17       because the numbering in production 189 is not the
18       numbering we have been using.
19           He has here a page that deals with points 13 at the
20       top and 12.  Those are the same for us, 13 and 12, which
21       is the incipient ridge just above point number 9 for us.
22           He then speaks of 11 and 9.  11 is the same for us.
23       9, in fact, for us is 10.  So speaking of 11 and 10,
24       which is the lake above point 9.  Number 10 in 189 is
25       now 17 for us and if I then come down in his notes, 8
page  18
 1       is ... give me just a second while I double-check.
 2       (Pause)
 3           8 is 9; 7 is 8; 5 is 6; and 6 is 7.  Not the most
 4       delicate of drawing but we can see roughly what the
 5       position is.
 6           So what we have been looking at just now is what he
 7       has been studying.  We see the date in American notation
 8       at the top of the page.  It is 27th March 1997,
 9       03.27.97, and this is his reading of the prints.
10           For point 8 which we have just been looking at he
11       has it at 7, he says:
12           "On very edge of print possible recurving ridge,
13       possibly with perhaps upstanding rod adjoining under
14       recurve."
15           Then he says:
16           "Not plotted above."
17           Then he sees on something else one assumes -- I
18       can't remember now which is which here -- he has in the
19       next line:
20           "With curving ridge with rod on inner recurve", and
21       then he writes, "in tolerance."
22           So it seems that he has envisaged or seen something
23       that is not dissimilar from you, a recurving ridge with
24       what he describes as a rod?
25   A.  Yes.
page  19
 1   Q.  That would be not dissimilar from you?
 2   A.  That's correct, yes.
 3   Q.  What I am also interested in is what is written above in
 4       relation to point number 9 because point number 9 is
 5       immediately adjacent.  He writes:
 6           "Possibly bifurcation with ridge ending beneath.
 7       Possibly two unbroken ridges, possibly two ridges and a
 8       cross-over."
 9           He has now helpfully drawn in for us the three
10       possibilities he was looking at for point number 9.  So
11       it's a possible bifurcation with a ridge ending beneath,
12       that would be the green one; possibly two unbroken
13       ridges, that's the red one; then the blue is possibly
14       two ridges and a cross-over beneath.
15           Do you see that?
16   A.  Yes.
17   Q.  The one that for me for the moment, when we are looking
18       at point number 8, that interests me is the top one
19       where there's a possibility between points 8 and 9, as
20       drawn by you, that there is a ridge ending as an
21       alternative interpretation.
22           Do you see that?
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  If I go back to what you had drawn, the last saved
25       drawing from today, what interests me about this, again
page  20
 1       on the question of perhaps the lack of clarity leading
 2       to possibilities of alternative interpretations, you
 3       have drawn in the left-most leg of number 9, the
 4       bifurcation number 9?
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  You then come beneath that and there are the three dots.
 7       Number 8 is the left-most one at the top?
 8   A.  Yes.
 9   Q.  There is then the middle one and then there is a dot
10       beneath it --
11   A.  Yes.
12   Q.  -- that you have drawn as part of a recurving ridge
13       coming down?
14   A.  Correct.
15   Q.  We will look at another drawing in particular by
16       Mr Zeelenberg and one of the questions that arises is
17       whether an alternative interpretation would be that what
18       you have drawn in blue as a ridge that comes beneath
19       your green area on the left-hand side, comes above point
20       number 8 but does not touch it.  You then having it
21       coming immediately down to form an enclosure.  One
22       alternative interpretation would be that that ridge
23       comes down and ends at the middle dot opposite the blue
24       arrow.
25           Do you see that?
page  21
 1   A.  Mm-hm.
 2   Q.  Is that a possible alternative interpretation?
 3   A.  It's not the way I see it.  I can only mark it as I
 4       believe it to be so and that is how I see it.
 5   Q.  I appreciate, Mr MacPherson, that that is as you see it
 6       and, therefore, that is as you have drawn it.
 7           One of my recurring formulations of question is
 8       simply this: is it possible in your view that there is
 9       an alternative interpretation of those features?  Is
10       that something you can see as a possibility?
11   A.  No.
12   Q.  It is just impossible?
13   A.  I don't see it, no.
14   Q.  I appreciate you don't see it but do you at least admit
15       of the possibility that there could be an alternative
16       interpretation there?
17   A.  Well, somebody has taken that as an alternative
18       interpretation but that's not my interpretation and I
19       don't see that as a possibility.
20   Q.  If I look and again just bring it up on PowerPoint,
21       please, Mr Zeelenberg's PowerPoint, AZ0061, and I am
22       looking to slide 44.  I may have to just proceed
23       through.
24           Now he is drawing in the bifurcation which is point
25       number 9.  If I understand correctly, the inserts that
page  22
 1       arrived at the top, Wertheim and Kent, is that showing
 2       that different images have different clarity in relation
 3       to this particular point.
 4           Would you accept that?
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  The bifurcation number 9 does not seem as clearly
 7       defined in the Kent image, for example, as it is in the
 8       comparative exercise image.  Correct?
 9   A.  It's still there, yes.
10   Q.  Good, I appreciate it's still there.  What I find
11       interesting is your assistance yesterday, in particular
12       I think it may have been the day before with
13       Miss Carmichael, where you were telling us about the
14       impact that memory has, that you can memorise prints
15       that then later assist with the identification.
16   A.  Yes.
17   Q.  Reflecting on that, even I have come to think that point
18       number 9, I can actually see in various images,
19       irrespective of the clarity, perhaps for the reason you
20       have indicated, that I now have that embedded in my
21       memory.  If I see anything that remotely looks like
22       point number 9 I can immediately see it and I can
23       immediately see it as seen in the clearest of the
24       images.
25           Is that the type of issue that you are raising?
page  23
 1   A.  Okay, yes.
 2   Q.  So far as point number 9 is concerned, if we then
 3       proceed to see what he is explaining, he has now brought
 4       up on this presentation using Wertheim and Kent images a
 5       plotting, in fact two plottings on each with, on the
 6       right-hand side in yellow dots in each, the bifurcation
 7       number 9, beneath that is drawn in yellow lines a ridge
 8       ending.
 9           Do you see that?
10   A.  Yes.
11   Q.  With beneath that again, a recurving ridge?
12   A.  Yes.
13   Q.  Do you see?
14   A.  Yes.
15   Q.  Do you have any comment on what he has drawn, again, as
16       his interpretation of the features?
17   A.  Not really, other than to say I wouldn't agree with it.
18       Can I draw on -- no, I can't draw on this.
19   Q.  If I finish this sequence then I will give you the
20       opportunity to draw so we will come back so we can draw.
21       I will just explain again when it comes up, I am not
22       sure, when it comes up on Trial Director which version
23       of slide 49 will come up but we will attempt it at any
24       rate.
25           If I proceed through this just to a
page  24
 1       conclusion ... we have in fact just reached the end.
 2           If we bring it up on Trial Director as AZ0061, slide
 3       44 ... I am afraid this is the problem.  This is why we
 4       use the PowerPoint.  It has come up as one particular
 5       sort of version on Trial Director with the words right
 6       across part of the image.
 7           Is that of any assistance to you in drawing or ... I
 8       don't know.
 9   A.  Again, coming up from the bottom would be the
10       bifurcation like so (indicated) and to the right of that
11       is the small enclosure that I was talking about.  That's
12       how I see it.
13   Q.  That's okay.  So now we have Ms McKie's print on the
14       screen --
15   A.  Yes.
16   Q.  -- can you point to me on Ms McKie's print where the
17       bifurcation is, if I can put an arrow.  I will insert a
18       red arrow.  Can you show me on Ms McKie's print where
19       the bifurcation is you have drawn opposite the red
20       arrow?  (Pause)
21   A.  You have the ridge ending -- sorry, the ridge coming up
22       like so and just as you come up here there's a
23       divergence of the ridge and the ridge ending is there
24       (indicated).
25   MR MOYNIHAN:  If we could save that, please.
page  25
 1   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.05.
 2   MR MOYNIHAN:  This final point I think we can take moving to
 3       point number 9 itself, if we can do with the same image
 4       that's on the screen at present.
 5           First of all, I have already taken and we have seen
 6       Mr Wertheim's notes that he admits of a number of
 7       possibilities in relation to the shape of number 9, one
 8       of which is a bifurcation, one is simply two parallel
 9       ridges and the other was a cross-over.
10           As we have seen with Mr Grigg, he initially drew
11       number 9 as two recurving ridges and then, as you say,
12       shown Mr Kent's image, he accepted it was more likely to
13       be a bifurcation.
14   A.  Yes.
15   Q.  So we are looking at that range of opinion.
16           So far as Mr Zeelenberg's point is concerned, if I
17       understand him correctly, what he is looking at is the
18       difference in the comparative shapes of the right-hand
19       leg of the bifurcation number 9 and, in particular, I
20       think he would accede to the suggestion or the
21       terminology you use, that in Ms McKie's print there is
22       to be seen what you have described as a hump backed
23       bridge?
24   A.  Yes.
25   Q.  Whereas as drawn on Y7 there is simply a smooth
page  26
 1       descending curve so that the hump backed bridge is
 2       missing.
 3           First of all, just taking it in stages, do you agree
 4       with him that there is that difference in the precise
 5       shape?
 6   A.  Would it be in order to draw again?
 7   MR MOYNIHAN:  Yes, you can.
 8           First of all, have we saved this image?  Let's save
 9       this image relating to point 8.
10   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.06.
11   MR MOYNIHAN:  Yes, you wish to draw?
12   A.  The left leg in relation to point number 9 come up like
13       so (indicated), a small enclosure and then the right
14       leg, a small enclosure, then I follow the right leg
15       down.  So that would be the hump backed bridge I was
16       referring to.  I think I can also put it on here
17       (indicated).
18   Q.  I think we can see the hump backed bridge, the shape is
19       drawn.
20   A.  A small enclosure then you follow the left leg down.
21   Q.  In fact, my next question was going to have been if
22       there was a difference in shape whether that would have
23       made any difference to the overall interpretation, given
24       what you have read out from the handbook about the
25       flexibility of the skin?
page  27
 1   A.  Of the skin, yes.
 2   Q.  Would a difference in shape of this precise nature make
 3       a difference?
 4   A.  As I say, skin's flexible.  You're not going to get an
 5       exact replication between the two.
 6   MR MOYNIHAN:  So if we finish just this particular point
 7       then I want to step back just to look at one of
 8       Mr Zeelenberg's slides at point 8, just in a minute, to
 9       complete this, but if we save this slide.
10   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.07.
11   MR MOYNIHAN:  What I would like to do and let us try it just
12       on Trial Director, if we could go, please, to slide 58.
13           In relation to point number 8, just to complete
14       this, what Mr Zeelenberg ultimately says in relation to
15       point number 8, he has a red arrow in the bottom left,
16       to point to what he understands to be point number 8 and
17       he says in relation to the image Y7 the blob is regarded
18       as an ending ridge in the mark.  In the print it's a
19       dot.
20           I think if, I understand his evidence, what he is
21       actually seeing here is the absence of the recurving
22       ridge above the dot so it's, again, an alternative view
23       of this.
24           Have you covered this sufficiently?
25   A.  I think I've shown that between point 8 and point 9
page  28
 1       there's a recurving ridge, one intervening ridge between
 2       point 8, the ridge ending up, and point 9 which has been
 3       referred to as the hump backed bridge.
 4   Q.  I am grateful to you.
 5           If we then move then, please, to points 10, 11, 12
 6       and 13, I think we can cover these together.  If I
 7       return to FI0167A, and bring it up twice, 10 and 11 are
 8       the lake above point number 9, 12 and 13 the incipient
 9       ridge; correct?
10   A.  10 and 11 are the lake.  I don't believe it's an
11       incipient ridge.  I think there's a pore contained
12       within that ridge so I would say it's a normal ridge.
13   Q.  So far as the detail is concerned, because it may
14       matter, can you indicate to us where the pore is?
15   A.  Just there, just where the cursor is (indicated).
16   Q.  So if I put an arrow in you are indicating that there
17       is -- is there just one pore?
18   A.  Just one pore by the looks of it, yes.
19   Q.  So there's one pore just above where I have inserted --
20   A.  Just above.  There's two pores next to each other, if
21       you like, but right in the middle I would say there's a
22       pore between 12 and 13.
23   Q.  Sorry, as I look just now, just my eyesight, there are
24       three sort of whiter almost circles in that area.  One
25       just immediately above and to the left of the tip of my
page  29
 1       red arrow, one above it, and then to the left-hand side
 2       just beneath what would be the line for point number 12
 3       there is again another area, perhaps, of lighter colour.
 4           Is that what you're referring to?
 5   A.  The arrow's -- where the cursor is at the moment I would
 6       say that is a pore.  Can I put it in?
 7   Q.  Yes, just draw it in please, as you would wish.
 8   A.  Yes, just arrow it, there  (indicated).
 9   THE CHAIRMAN:  So it is the upper one of the two that are
10       one under the other.
11   A.  Yes.
12   MR MOYNIHAN:  So are you indicating though that there are
13       two pores in that area, one on top of the other?
14   A.  Yes.
15   Q.  So as a consequence of the presence of those two pores,
16       what you are indicating is that the feature 12 and 13
17       that I have up until now been calling an incipient you
18       would regard as an island; is that the correct term?
19   A.  An island, sometimes in incipients pores appear or they
20       don't appear.
21   Q.  But so far as an island is concerned ...?
22   A.  It's basically two ridge endings but of varying length.
23       If there's only one pore usually it's referred to as a
24       dot.  It's very, very small.
25   Q.  What would your description then be of the feature
page  30
 1       12/13?
 2   A.  I would say it's an island.
 3   Q.  And, accordingly, two points?
 4   A.  Yes.
 5   MR MOYNIHAN:  If we save that picture then, please.
 6   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.08.
 7   MR MOYNIHAN:  What I want to do is to look at Mr Wertheim's
 8       notes in relation to 10, 11, 12 and 13.  Insofar as
 9       Mr Wertheim's notes are concerned, if I bring them up in
10       their original form FI0118.24.  This just happens to be
11       page 1.  We will see again the notation 03.24.99.  So
12       these are notes that he wrote or began to write on 24th
13       March 1999.
14           If I then proceed through to page 31, we will see at
15       the top that on 27th March at 4.15 in the afternoon he
16       is turning to consider the charted enlargement of the
17       state's 189, so that is production 189 and that,
18       therefore, leads me on to the next page of his notes,
19       page 32, where I'd previously written on another version
20       of this but it doesn't matter some of the conversion
21       points, some of the numbers changed.
22           What interests me is what he wrote in relation to 13
23       and 12.  The numbers are unchanged.  11 and 9 we should
24       now read 11 and 10 to make it coincide with our
25       numbering here.  So he is talking about what you have
page  31
 1       described as the island, 12 and 13, and the lake, 10 and
 2       11.
 3           So far as 12 and 13 is concerned, he says:
 4           "It's a smudged area not noted above."
 5           Then in relation to, presumably, yes, on the
 6       latent -- sorry, I am seeing now immediately above on
 7       the latent he sees, "a smudged area not noted above".
 8       In the inked chart he sees an incipient short ridge.  He
 9       evaluates it, it is saying, "not dependable but within
10       tolerance".  So it's perhaps a contradiction in terms
11       there about whether it is dependable or not?
12   A.  Yes.
13   Q.  But then so far as 10 and 11 is concerned, he sees in
14       the latent, "a smooth ridge not noted above", and in the
15       inked he sees an enclosure and it's out of tolerance.
16           So if I understand it correctly in 10 and 11 he is
17       simply seeing what he calls a smooth ridge, that is a
18       continuous ridge, compared to the enclosure in the inked
19       print and, as I say, there's this ambiguity about 12 and
20       13 as to whether it's smudged and, therefore, not
21       dependable or whether he has observed something that he
22       regards as being within tolerance.
23           Do you see that?
24   A.  Yes.
25   Q.  So we then see, in effect, Mr Wertheim's interpretation.
page  32
 1       If I can take you to what he himself then was looking
 2       at -- just allow me a second.  If you go to FI2309.08,
 3       you see I have brought up now FI2309.08, which would be
 4       Mr Wertheim's interpretation of the area that would
 5       coincide with the lake and the island, 12 and 13.  You
 6       will see that what he has drawn is a field of continuous
 7       ridges above number 9.
 8   A.  Yes.
 9   Q.  Do you have any comment on that?
10   A.  Well, again, if I could be allowed to show my
11       interpretation of it, I don't agree with it.
12   Q.  We will come to that just in a second and give you a
13       chance because what we will need is a clear image to
14       enable you to do that.
15           Again, in the formulation that I am running with, do
16       you yourself see that as even a possible interpretation
17       of Y7?
18   A.  He mentioned about the island.  Has he marked that in
19       any way on his drawing?  He's just got continuous ridges
20       but he's saying it's within tolerance, was it?
21   Q.  If I understand it correctly, within the yellow circle
22       he has drawn two short red lines?
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  What he is saying is, if I recollect it correctly, the
25       lower of those red lines, which would be in greater
page  33
 1       proximity to where the feature 12 and 13 would be if
 2       they were an identity, he is saying, first of all, he
 3       regards it as closer to the next ridge up rather than
 4       being in contact with the ridge that is the top part of
 5       the lake 10.  That's the first point.
 6           Secondly, he is saying if we are choosing to regard
 7       that red line as an incipient, it was called an
 8       incipient that time, then there are a number of other
 9       characteristics in the area that would describe a
10       similar or would attach a similar description and he
11       drew in the remaining red short lines and is saying, in
12       effect, if I understand it correctly, well, if the lower
13       one, 12/13, is an incipient, there's a pattern of others
14       spread across inconsistent with Ms McKie.
15   A.  Okay.
16   Q.  Do you see that?
17   A.  Yes.
18   Q.  So that is the combination of this, dealing with 10, 11,
19       12 and 13.  That is his view.
20   A.  Okay.
21   Q.  If I take you on, I will have a look at Mr Grigg very
22       briefly.  So far as Mr Grigg is concerned -- if you
23       allow me just a moment -- if I could bring up again,
24       please, so far as Mr Grigg is concerned on this occasion
25       if I bring up FI2909.14.  On the right-hand side, if I
page  34
 1       remember correctly, his initial view was and you may
 2       remember this was his initial analysis because it has
 3       the circles that we discussed yesterday --
 4   A.  Yes.
 5   Q.  -- and it has number 9 drawn as the recurving red
 6       ridges?
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   Q.  We have been through that.
 9   A.  Yes.
10   Q.  He had indicated that between the red arrow on the left
11       and the Rosetta, he had simply seen a field of unbroken
12       ridges and, indeed, so far as what he has then drawn in
13       yellow, is he found evidence of disturbance in this area
14       making him somewhat suspicious.  It was that left-most
15       yellow line that was making him think it was a possible
16       view as to how an appearance of a bifurcation could
17       appear at point number 9.  So he was uncomfortable, it
18       would appear, with this particular area.  So not
19       suggesting at that point anything quite clear but he did
20       himself later go on that he saw no lake because he saw
21       clear ridges in the area of 10 and 11, was his evidence.
22   A.  Yes.
23   Q.  Then if I take you to Mr Zeelenberg and if I bring it
24       up, maybe in just in PowerPoint just now, slide 59 -- so
25       it is AZ0061 of the PowerPoint, slide 59.  If I proceed
page  35
 1       through slide 59, first of all, he has started as you
 2       will see on the left-hand side by marking in yellow dots
 3       what he regards as the outer edge of the mark.
 4           He has inserted now as red dots as his point of
 5       reference the point of the bifurcation number 9, yes?
 6       Do you see that in the lower images I am looking at?
 7   A.  Yes, yes.
 8   Q.  So as his reference point, the lower dots, the red dots
 9       are point number 9?
10   A.  I would say that in the right-hand image the dots should
11       be further back, more to the right.
12   Q.  But it's only by a fraction --
13   A.  Yes, just a fraction, yes.
14   Q.  Since it is simply a point of reference that alteration
15       doesn't matter so much.
16   A.  Okay.
17   Q.  He has now drawn in a red dot above as the point of the
18       bifurcation 10 and 11.
19           Do you have any comment on where he's drawn the dot?
20   A.  No, that's -- yes, that's possibly where I would have
21       put it as well, yes.
22   Q.  That's on the right on the --
23   A.  Slightly to the left of where he's -- slightly to the
24       left of where he's marked it.
25   Q.  On the left-hand image?
page  36
 1   A.  On the left-hand image, yes.
 2   Q.  Slightly to the left may in fact not make any difference
 3       here but we will just exaggerate the problem he is about
 4       to describe because as we go further to the left the
 5       question of crossing his yellow lines as the outer limit
 6       of the mark becomes greater because what we will see is
 7       he draws a line on the right-hand image between the
 8       points 10 and 11.  He transposes that to the left-hand
 9       image and is seeing that the point would, in fact, be
10       beyond what he regards as the edge.
11           I think the small red dot, you may want to just
12       check the small red dot that he has added in now which
13       is above the red line is what he, I think, is suggesting
14       is where the SCRO charting puts point 10.
15           Do you want to check that?
16   A.  I don't think that's correct, no.  Just above that would
17       be point 17, I think, just above where he's indicated.
18   Q.  As you will see point number 17 is, indeed, just above.
19       What he is trying to do is to replicate the SCRO because
20       the upper image is the SCRO charting, upper left is the
21       SCRO charting.  He has replicated point 10 is what the
22       two lines joining the top and bottom parts of the screen
23       indicate; he has replicated point 10?
24   A.  No, it should be lower than that.
25   Q.  Lower?
page  37
 1   A.  Yes.
 2   Q.  Because we will then go on and see what he is indicating
 3       is he is indicating -- I should go back.
 4   A.  That definitely should be lower.  He's not replicated
 5       where our characteristic is.
 6   Q.  I think the point he was making is he regards point
 7       number 10 as outwith the contour of the mark.
 8           Do you see that?
 9   A.  Yes.
10   Q.  Plainly you would disagree with that?
11   A.  That's correct, yes.
12   Q.  Where do you draw the contour of the mark?  This is a
13       PowerPoint so we maybe just have to play with this and
14       come back and ask you that.
15           If I proceed through this, slide 60 is another
16       approach at the same thing.  He is now dealing with
17       points 11, 12 and 13.  You will see what he has now
18       drawn in over Y7 is something that replicates -- first
19       of all, he has a red dot, again for orientation, as the
20       bifurcation number 9.
21   A.  Yes.
22   Q.  And we needn't worry whether it's precisely located
23       correctly or not, it simply gives us a point of
24       reference.
25           He suggests as the interpretation of what is
page  38
 1       occurring above point 9 what Mr Wertheim and Mr Grigg
 2       say, perhaps if I use this term, is a field of unbroken
 3       ridges?
 4   A.  Yes.
 5   Q.  Ultimately ending up, as you will see, he says point 11,
 6       that's the right-hand side of the lake, is not
 7       present in the mark.  Point 12 and 13, he says, require
 8       high quality in the mark and are not seen.  The points
 9       are teased out.  Absence of point 11 in the mark is a
10       discrepancy and it's his discrepancy number 17.
11           By a discrepancy what he is saying is not only is
12       there an absence of any evidence of point 11, he is
13       suggesting that the correct interpretation is a field of
14       unbroken ridges and, therefore, the absence of the lake
15       is a point of difference as between Y7 and Ms McKie?
16   A.  Yes.
17   Q.  I think that gives you an overall feel for what he is
18       saying and, indeed, ties in with Mr Wertheim and
19       Mr Grigg.
20           What I want to do is, in the light of that, to give
21       you a chance to demonstrate your own interpretation and
22       it is then a question of which image we use for this
23       purpose.
24           First of all, we need to come out of PowerPoint and
25       I think what I would myself start with is if I take down
page  39
 1       on the right Mr Grigg's drawing and restore again a
 2       second version of FI0167A -- it's one image.  Sorry
 3       about that.  If we start again, then with two images of
 4       FI0167A.
 5           Mr MacPherson, as I explained to you yesterday
 6       afternoon I think as his Lordship explained also, why I
 7       start here is simply to get an impression, a feel, for
 8       how you would have seen it at the time and I am not so
 9       absurd as to ask you to remember 12 years ago.  It just
10       gives us an ability to look at the images you looked at
11       12 years ago so you can give us an interpretation by
12       reference to that.  As his Lordship says, if there are
13       judgment calls being made it can be cross-checked, if
14       you wish, against other material, then we can go to the
15       other material, if you wish.
16   A.  Okay.
17   Q.  Can you, on the images we have here -- are they
18       sufficient for your purpose to indicate how you
19       interpret 10, 11, 12 and 13?
20   A.  I would hope so.  (Pause)
21           Just basically start with the reference point of the
22       hump backed bridge.  We go one intervening ridge to the
23       island, which is -- that's maybe not quite exact but
24       that's the island.  Just below the island the ridge
25       comes along and bifurcates to the left.
page  40
 1           It should be slightly further to the right but what
 2       I'm trying to illustrate is this ridge comes along and
 3       bifurcates there and there (indicated) and just above it
 4       in the green is the small island.
 5   Q.  Even as it's drawn here just now, what I was
 6       considering, among other things we were looking at
 7       Mr Wertheim's charting, was that what he had been
 8       drawing was that on Ms McKie's print the incipient, as
 9       we called it with him, or island -- it matters not to
10       me -- had been in contact with the upper ridge that
11       forms the top of the lake 10 and 11, or certainly in
12       close proximity to it and some distance removed then
13       from the ridge immediately above; whereas as drawn by
14       you on the left and indeed as drawn by Mr Wertheim, the
15       appearance, to use that neutral term, was being
16       construed as that incipient or island is not in contact
17       with the bifurcation beneath point 11 and is in fact in
18       closer proximity to the ridge immediately above?
19   A.  Yes.
20   Q.  First of all, is that at least a view of how this
21       picture is presented that you would agree with?
22   A.  Yes.
23   Q.  Can you explain why it is then that the island is no
24       longer in contact with the lake and appears to be in
25       closer proximity to the ridge above?
page  41
 1   A.  I would say it's down to pressure, yes.
 2   Q.  Okay.  So that is a drawing then of 12 and 13 --
 3   A.  Yes.
 4   Q.  -- and point 11?
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  Could you then take us across, please, and show us the
 7       ridge path that forms the left side of the lake?
 8   A.  Is it possible to start again?
 9   Q.  By all means.  We will save this image and then you can
10       start again.
11   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.09.
12   MR MOYNIHAN:  If you could bring up on the left-hand side a
13       copy of FI0167A, please.  Again, I will leave to you,
14       Mr MacPherson, to highlight the section as you please
15       now.
16   A.  (Pause)  The bottom half of the ridge comes along like
17       so (indicated) and the top like so (indicated) and just
18       above it are points 12 and 13 we've referred.
19   Q.  Are you happy with that?
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  If we could save that and complete the final part of
22       this.  Just before we adjourn, what I will do is pick up
23       number 17 which is actually on the screen before us just
24       now and then after the break we will complete the circle
25       by looking at 14.
page  42
 1   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.10.
 2   MR MOYNIHAN:  Thank you.  Just as we have it on the screen
 3       on the left-hand side, if we can go to whatever scale
 4       you, please, just while we are in this same area plainly
 5       number 17 is a feature that is in the same locality.
 6   A.  Yes.
 7   Q.  On Ms McKie, would the correct description be a
 8       bifurcation?
 9   A.  Yes, a bifurcation, yes.
10   Q.  If I understand correctly it's the left-most red dot --
11   A.  Yes.
12   Q.  -- coming from the left-hand top edge in.
13   A.  That's correct.
14   Q.  Can you just while we are there draw us that particular
15       feature, please.
16   A.  The bottom left of the bifurcation comes along like so
17       (indicated) and the top edge of the bifurcation comes
18       from the other direction.  It basically comes down like
19       so (indicated) and joins there (indicated) and you would
20       have a further ridge above it just coming down like so.
21   Q.  Are you reasonably comfortable with that?
22   A.  Yes.
23   Q.  We will save that.
24   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.11.
25   MR MOYNIHAN:  If I tell you the one witness I have here at
page  43
 1       least in my notes dealing with point number 17 is
 2       Mr Wertheim.  There is evidence that the McKie trial --
 3       look back at his notes if you wish -- was that he simply
 4       saw no reliable evidence of the presence of a
 5       characteristic in Y7 in that position.
 6   A.  Okay.
 7   Q.  In other words he is simply saying, in fact, what he
 8       said to the Inquiry "if you can't see it, you can't make
 9       use of it".  So he was suggesting that point number
10       7(sic) just couldn't be seen and, in fact, he went on to
11       describe it as an exercise of, in effect, reverse
12       reasoning; in other words, it can be seen on Ms McKie,
13       her print, and therefore if you have memorised
14       Ms McKie's print, as we would by this stage, and we look
15       over, you might see some dot or some suggestion that you
16       would then interpret consistently with what's seen in
17       Ms McKie but there is in fact no reliable evidence to
18       begin with on Y7 for this.
19           What is your comment on that --
20   A.  Well, I would disagree with that.  I think I've just
21       demonstrated that there is there.
22   MR MOYNIHAN:  This might be an appropriate point to adjourn.
23       There is only one more point on Y7 to be covered.
24   THE CHAIRMAN:  We will sit again at 11.55.
25   (11.35 am)
page  44
 1                         (A short break)
 2   (11.55 am)
 3   MR MOYNIHAN:  Mr MacPherson, point number 14 in Y7, again,
 4       if I bring up two images, please, of FI0167A and, again,
 5       if I just highlight it so that we know what we are
 6       looking at, point number 14 is highlighted and is, in
 7       effect, intermediate between points 13 -- to the right
 8       of point 13 before one arrives at 15 and 16 we have
 9       already discussed.
10           Now your own interpretation of point number 14 is
11       that it is what sort of feature?
12   A.  A ridge ending.
13   Q.  A ridge ending?
14   A.  Yes.
15   Q.  If I can highlight part of it ... I may not have taken
16       it into sufficient detail.  Now I can see it clearly,
17       maybe I can to it better.
18           I have in the bottom centre now, do I, point number
19       9 just as a point so we can orientate ourselves as
20       normal?
21   A.  Yes.
22   Q.  You see point number 14 as a ridge ending?
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  The position of the three witnesses I have been
25       referring to and asking you to comment on is
page  45
 1       Mr Wertheim, Mr Grigg and Mr Zeelenberg.  All three say
 2       that their interpretation of the feature in Y7 is that
 3       they say it is part of a continuous ridge.
 4           So far as drawings of that are concerned, if I bring
 5       up perhaps on the right-hand side bring up Mr Wertheim
 6       to begin with, FI2309.09.
 7           What he has drawn, as you will see on the left-hand
 8       side of his image, is his tracing of continuous ridges
 9       running through or a continuous ridge running through
10       point 14 with continuous ridges either side.  If I would
11       understand it correctly, what he's also indicating by
12       the blue lines is that the spacing between the ridges
13       either side of point 14 remains relatively constant in
14       Y7, but in Ms McKie there is a difference in spacing
15       left to right, that difference in spacing being to
16       accommodate the additional ridge that is point 14.  He
17       is suggesting a field of continuous ridges confirmed by
18       the same order of magnitude of difference between the
19       ridges.
20           If I bring up then Mr Zeelenberg and we will try it
21       on Trial Director first -- AZ0061, slide 45.  Again,
22       what he has done is that he has drawn, as you will
23       see -- and we can enlarge it if you wish -- he has also
24       drawn a field of continuous ridges and confirmed that by
25       reference to the number of ridges and indeed the
page  46
 1       magnitude of the ridges.  In relation to Ms McKie he
 2       sees four ridges on the left, five on the right.
 3       However, in the corresponding area in Y7 he sees five
 4       ridges left and right and the fact the number of ridges
 5       is the same is consistent with no ridge coming in and
 6       ending at the point 14.
 7           So those are the two drawings I have.  Mr Grigg I
 8       don't have a drawing for of ridges but his opinion was
 9       the same, a field of continuous ridges.
10           Bearing that in mind, would you like to that
11       demonstrate your own preferred interpretation and it may
12       be you want just to simply take down -- maybe it is
13       simply better to take down Mr Zeelenberg and give you
14       the benefit of the SCRO chart alone so it gives you it
15       in better detail.  (Pause)
16   A.  If I draw in, first of all, the ridge ending itself ...
17       (Pause)
18           From point 13 up to 14 are one, two, three
19       intervening ridges.  The ridge above comes along and
20       down and the ridge below comes along and down like so
21       (indicated).  You would have between point 14, which is
22       the ridge ending, you would then have one, two
23       intervening ridges to point 15, the ridge ending up on
24       the ascending ridge and point 16 the descending ridge.
25   Q.  So drawn do we also see the difference in the gap and
page  47
 1       the divergence in the light blue ridges either side of
 2       the red ridge that we understand to be necessary to
 3       accommodate the additional ridge in the flow?
 4   A.  Yes.
 5   Q.  So far as point number 14 is concerned, are you content
 6       with that as a representation of your --
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   MR MOYNIHAN:  If we could save that image, thank you.
 9   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.12.
10   MR MOYNIHAN:  That is me, in fact, having gone round the
11       clock so to speak in relation to Y7.
12   A.  Yes.
13   Q.  I am conscious what I have done is concentrate on the
14       specific charted points, albeit I did look to some
15       extent at your charting of Tuesday.
16   A.  Yes.
17   Q.  Before I leave Y7, are there any points that I have not
18       asked you about that you would wish to actually comment
19       on?  Please, if that is an awful question you would like
20       to park until lunchtime and think about it then please
21       feel free to do so.
22   A.  Possibly, yes.
23   Q.  Park it and --
24   A.  I don't believe so.  I'm quite happy for my chartings to
25       speak for themselves.
page  48
 1   Q.  Fair enough.  In that case what I will do -- please, if
 2       anything occurs to you over lunch then just feel free to
 3       indicate.
 4           With that in mind then what I was going to do was to
 5       turn to QI2.
 6   THE CHAIRMAN:  Do you want to save this?
 7   MR MOYNIHAN:  Sorry, save this one.
 8   THE CHAIRMAN:  Just before we leave it I wonder if I could
 9       ask you on Ms McKie's print 14 -- that is on the plain
10       print.
11   A.  Yes.
12   THE CHAIRMAN:  -- I am having some difficulty in finding any
13       gap between what you say is point 14 and the ridge
14       immediately below it.  That is on the plain print.
15           Do you see an actual gap where the ridge ending is
16       between that ridge which ends and the ridge below it on
17       the plain print?
18   A.  I see what you mean.  The tail of the ridge looks as if
19       it's bending in towards the lower half but I would say
20       that the actual ridge comes up and stops where I've
21       marked it.
22   THE CHAIRMAN:  You think it stops before it reaches the
23       ridge below it, if that's right.
24   A.  Yes.
25   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, just on maybe on the copy I have you do
page  49
 1       see a white dot which could be a pore or --
 2   A.  The ridges do descend in that.
 3   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  I see it curving round but I just don't
 4       see at the moment the gap between the two but I take
 5       your eye would be better than mine at judging that.  But
 6       you do see an actual space?
 7   A.  Yes.
 8   THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
 9   MR MOYNIHAN:  So if we turn then to QI2, in relation to QI2
10       the SCRO chartings are FI0166A.  Just bring it up twice.
11           As far as I know, there's only one feature on this
12       that I might be tempted to actually apply a name to but
13       handshake, bananas or whatever else are left behind, let
14       alone snails and caterpillars.  The one and only one yet
15       that has yet been given a descriptive title is the
16       chilli pepper which is right in the core but we will
17       start with the numbers.
18           Before I start, can we just begin with the very
19       simple approach, again, of what it was about QI2 that
20       caught your eye.
21           Before I even start that question, can you give me
22       what your initial impression was or reaction to the
23       quality of QI2?
24   A.  It was a whorl, a whorl pattern but I think, as I said
25       in the exercise, on the periphery of this pattern there
page  50
 1       are quite a number of other impressions or marks.  On
 2       the right-hand side is Mr David Asbury's left thumb,
 3       albeit, as I said earlier this morning, it didn't reach
 4       the required standard for court.
 5           Where I'm indicating is (indicated) as far as I can
 6       remember -- I don't want to be held to this but as far
 7       as I remember, that's the left thumb but it should
 8       be ... you would have to rotate it.
 9   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  So the red arrow is roughly the area?
10   A.  Roughly, but you would have to rotate the impression QI2
11       for it to be in alignment with the left thumbprint.
12   MR MOYNIHAN:  What I had in mind, Mr MacPherson, is I
13       suppose a more elementary question ... oh sorry, you are
14       drawing.  I interrupted you.
15   A.  The impression indicated there (indicated) is the right
16       middle of Mr David Asbury and obviously at the top
17       left -- on the periphery of the mark, if that's what
18       you're asking, on the periphery of the mark there are
19       other marks superimposing themselves on the actual
20       central mark, the whorl pattern I was talking about.
21           If you're asking me specifically what caught my
22       eye --
23   Q.  Just before I do, I will actually come to ask you what
24       caught your eye, what I was wondering perhaps was a more
25       general initial question: what view you formed about the
page  51
 1       quality of the mark QI2.  As you have said, you have
 2       just explained why it would be regarded in some of the
 3       paperwork as a cluster of marks?
 4   A.  Yes.
 5   Q.  You have just explained why with the red and the mustard
 6       arrows.  But your overall view about the quality of QI2
 7       as a mark with which to work?
 8   A.  It wasn't a great quality mark but it was certainly
 9       comparable.
10   Q.  I've come to appreciate that what we distributed as the
11       comparative exercise material gives a narrow view of
12       this.  In addition, what we can see coming through the
13       mark QI2, the central portion, some others have
14       suggested is a swipe or smear coming through the
15       left-hand side of the core.
16           Do you accept that?
17   A.  Yes, it looks like slippage of the mark itself.  That
18       would be my interpretation of it.
19   Q.  Slippage of the mark itself?
20   A.  Of the mark itself on placement, yes.
21   Q.  What about out to the left, again roughly between the
22       areas of 14 and 16, the lines of 14 and 16?  Do you see
23       any other indication of movement or smudging or
24       something of that sort?
25   A.  There may be smudging, something along -- I have put in
page  52
 1       an arrow, if I can just take that as a sort of line
 2       rather than the tip of the arrow ...
 3   Q.  No, it's okay just leave it as it is.  It is fine.  We
 4       can understand it.  So roughly in the position where the
 5       mustard arrow is is an area of smudging?
 6   A.  Possibly smudging, yes.
 7   Q.  So these are all, in effect, the presence of other
 8       marks, movement in the vicinity of QI2, Marion Ross,
 9       itself, and smudging in other parts create some areas of
10       challenge, perhaps, is the phrase?
11   A.  Yes.
12   Q.  But you are satisfied that it was a mark that was of
13       comparable quality?
14   A.  Yes.
15   Q.  That assists me then to -- I will be moving on to what
16       caught your eye but before I do, just for the record, as
17       far as what we are looking at on screen, like Y7 itself,
18       just for the record, you and certainly it was Ms
19       McBride, if I remember correctly, not your other two
20       colleagues, were asked to assist us in selecting images
21       that could be used for a comparative exercise in
22       relation to QI2?
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  The images which we have, actually more the photographic
25       images which were used, were images that you and
page  53
 1       Ms McBride, primarily, of the SCRO witnesses selected as
 2       images that were of sufficient quality that you would be
 3       happy to seek to reproduce your chartings?
 4   A.  Yes.
 5   Q.  Again, as before, you were not asked to undertake an
 6       entirely independent analysis of the mark QI2, you were
 7       asked to undertake this artificial exercise to recreate
 8       on images that were provided to you the chartings which
 9       had been the basis for the court productions in the
10       original Asbury trial?
11   A.  That's correct, yes.
12   Q.  You were accordingly satisfied that, first of all, the
13       images that you were given, because we had gone back to
14       the original material available to SCRO in February 1997
15       that provided a basis for this exercise.
16   A.  Yes.
17   Q.  And that, as best you can, you have reproduced in the
18       images that we have the 16 points that were in the
19       original court production in Asbury?
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  As with Y7, Mr MacPherson, my own questions will be
22       primarily by reference to the comparative exercise, for
23       reasons of continuity, as I said earlier, to see the
24       reasoning that there was underlying the initial opinion.
25       As his Lordship had said yesterday afternoon, if it
page  54
 1       would benefit you from looking at other images, either
 2       of QI2 or Marion Ross, please, indicate because if other
 3       images assist with greater clarity or whatever in
 4       resolving a particular point, then please feel free to
 5       say.
 6   A.  Okay.
 7   Q.  Before I proceed then through the particular points, if
 8       I then give you a chance to indicate to us what on QI2
 9       it was that attracted your attention or caught your eye.
10   A.  I can't really remember, I have to say.
11   Q.  Again, I appreciate, as I said to you on a number of
12       occasions, it's a particularly difficult question
13       12 years ago now.
14           Perhaps, with the benefit of what you have been
15       doing most recently, can you indicate to us if there are
16       features that, for example, today catch the eye or may
17       have been the features that caught the eye back then.
18   A.  Yes.  Okay.  (Pause)
19           I am going to mark as this ridge descends, a strong
20       bifurcation there (indicated).
21   Q.  Sorry, just before you -- sorry, if you allow me just a
22       second.  Before we lose the numbers, could you just
23       press return on the ... you will see in a second what I
24       am doing.
25           What you have done is drawn a ridge.  I have just
page  55
 1       brought the numbers back up.  The area you were
 2       referring to as having caught the eye is the bifurcation
 3       that is point number 12?
 4   A.  Point number 12, yes.
 5   Q.  I am sorry, I can then let you take control.
 6   A.  As it descends down it comes to a ridge ending at point
 7       number 11.  (Pause)
 8           Also just to the right-hand side of the bifurcation
 9       there's a split in the ridge.  So that's possibly what
10       caught my eye 12 years ago but I couldn't say for
11       definite.  But certainly, as you say, it was one of the
12       stronger characteristics.  Now, you may ask why didn't I
13       to the right of the bifurcation down use those
14       characteristics in my charting but, as you say, it was
15       just to replicate, basically, what we had used back in
16       1997.
17   Q.  The first point that I would like just to ask you about
18       insofar as what you have drawn just now is the features
19       12 and 11, I'll put them in ordinary numerical order, 11
20       and 12, number 12 you have drawn as a bifurcation?
21   A.  Yes.
22   Q.  Number 11 you have drawn as a ridge ending?
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  So far as QI2 itself is concerned, one can see the
25       absence of any connection, in effect, that would run as
page  56
 1       the anatomical equivalent of the red line to the right.
 2   A.  Yes.
 3   Q.  So nothing to close off that side?
 4   A.  Yes.
 5   Q.  Whereas in QI2 there is, indeed, a feature running that
 6       on one view runs between the two blue lines and on one
 7       view might be connected up to form the right-hand side
 8       of a lake.
 9           Do you see that?
10   A.  Yes.
11   Q.  What is your preferred interpretation there?
12   A.  It's still -- my preferred interpretation would be a
13       ridge ending.  It may be that that's just a slight
14       incipient ridge between the bottom ridge and the actual
15       ridge ending itself but I think it's quite strong, as
16       you can see.
17   Q.  So you would say on QI2, do you, there's an absence of
18       ridge characteristic to bridge the gap between the two
19       lower ridges?
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  If you allow me just a second, please.  (Pause)
22           Beyond these particular features -- and, again,
23       please, it may just assist if I not be so artificial as
24       to say what caught your eye 12 years ago, perhaps just
25       look at it today.
page  57
 1           Are there any other features that you would say, if
 2       you had been looking at this, starting an initial
 3       analysis of an ACE-V type, would be characteristics you
 4       would expect would catch the eye and form the basis of
 5       analysis?
 6   A.  I think what I've indicated, 11 and 12.  I don't know if
 7       it would be worth drawing your attention to it but as
 8       you see in the right hand leg, just above the ridge
 9       ending, if you follow it up there's a small break,
10       somewhere on the -- if you follow up on Miss Ross's
11       right forefinger, there's a small break.
12           There's then what could be termed a small sort of
13       island almost, which is there (indicated), and then
14       there's another small gap and the ridge follows up and
15       it comes into the bifurcation again, again a small gap,
16       you follow the ridge ending up and it comes to the
17       bifurcation.  So I admit, yes, it looks as if it's
18       joined there but for me the explanation for that is that
19       it's a tailing off of the ridge, it's a small possibly
20       incipient ridge which just hasn't shown.
21   MR MOYNIHAN:  If I then save that image, please.
22   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.13.
23   MR MOYNIHAN:  What I want to do is come back to looking at
24       the overview, FI0166A twice.  I am going to just pull it
25       up again twice over so that we can see.
page  58
 1           Mr Zeelenberg gave an overview of QI2.  He did so
 2       not only in his evidence but it's present in two slides
 3       but I won't bring the two slides.  The two slides in his
 4       presentation are 153 and 168, just for the record.
 5           What he said of his overall assessment of the mark
 6       QI2 was there was an absence of quality in the mark,
 7       absence of quality characteristics.  The detail around
 8       the core might permit an exclusion of particular
 9       individuals but, as I understood him, the quality was
10       not sufficiently clear to admit of an identification of
11       any individual.
12           Finally, he said this: the absence of quality and
13       the distortions that are present in the mark are such
14       that it opens avenues to what he called "guided
15       interpretation", by which I would understand him to mean
16       that the absence of clarity in the mark is such that one
17       could interpret appearances as one wishes, either to
18       confirm or refute an identification.
19           What is your comment on that as an overall
20       assessment of QI2?
21   A.  Well, all I can say is I found 16 ridge characteristics
22       in sequence and agreement and I'm happy with the
23       identification.
24           Is he basically saying that the mark is insufficient
25       for comparison?
page  59
 1   Q.  If I would understand it, he takes an intermediate
 2       position and I think there's something we have learned
 3       from a number of witnesses.  It would be insufficient
 4       for the purposes of confirming an identity of someone as
 5       the donor.  However, there would be enough detail to
 6       exclude someone so that, for example -- and he didn't
 7       give specific examples -- but let's take the feature 11
 8       and 12 that you have highlighted yourself in proximity
 9       to the core.
10   A.  Yes.
11   Q.  If a Fingerprint Examiner were to look, for example, at
12       my fingerprint, with any luck he wouldn't find that
13       feature on my fingerprint, he could exclude me as the
14       donor.  But if, for example, he did find that feature in
15       my fingerprint he would not be able to exclude me but he
16       would not be able to find enough detail here to
17       ultimately confirm that it is, indeed, my fingerprint?
18   A.  Okay.
19   Q.  That is if I understand it correctly what he was saying.
20           Do you have any overall -- I appreciate, in a sense,
21       it's an awkward question to ask you because you have
22       found 16 points?
23   A.  Exactly, yes.
24   Q.  But do you have any other sort of reasoning that you
25       would say that Mr Zeelenberg is just wrong in relation
page  60
 1       to that assessment of QI2?
 2   A.  There are occasions when you have what is called a
 3       fragmentary and insufficient mark but you can see from
 4       the pattern type that it is a whorl and you may be
 5       comparing it against someone who has arch patterns.  So
 6       you would be able to exclude and you wouldn't be able to
 7       identify because you wouldn't have enough
 8       characteristics in it.
 9           The problem when you don't have enough
10       characteristics is that, if you have seen an occasion,
11       where you may have what has started off as a loop
12       pattern and it's been twisted in such a way that it
13       gives the appearance of being a whorl but because you
14       don't have enough characteristics, you can't actually
15       exclude.  There's a great danger in not having enough
16       characteristics in a mark to either identify or exclude.
17   Q.  The reason why I began with Mr Zeelenberg's overview of
18       this is exactly -- I am now going to go through QI2
19       looking at the points in their order starting with a
20       slightly different -- I will start at number 1 but bring
21       in numbers 16 and 10 for the obvious reason that they
22       are all in very close proximity to each other.
23           In effect, again what the thesis will be of the
24       questioning is to enable you to demonstrate to the
25       Chairman what you observe in QI2, in particular what you
page  61
 1       observe in QI2.
 2   A.  Yes.
 3   Q.  I will bring in from time to time Mr Zeelenberg,
 4       Mr Wertheim and Mr Grigg but, again, it would be from
 5       the perspective of asking you to consider whether the
 6       ridge detail is either sufficiently clear to be certain
 7       of your interpretation or perhaps ambiguous and
 8       therefore to be, to some extent, uncertain and we will
 9       look at Mr Zeelenberg, Mr Grigg and Mr Wertheim as the
10       alternatives.  There will come points where what has
11       been put to you for comment is features they say are
12       unambiguous and adverse to an identification.  So we
13       will be looking at it from various different
14       perspectives but the common theme of this will be to
15       give you the opportunity to indicate the basis for,
16       first of all, your observation of a particular feature
17       and then, thereafter, the interpretation relative to
18       what they are saying.
19           Do you understand?
20   A.  Okay.
21   Q.  What I was going to do was to begin with the features
22       which are in the core and beginning at number 1 in your
23       charting but for obvious reasons, because they are
24       relatively closely together, I am going to begin by
25       talking about 1, 16 and 10, those three characteristics,
page  62
 1       to some extent all characteristics on one ridge, albeit
 2       one of them is shown as coming slightly off.
 3           What, so far as number 1 is concerned, what would
 4       your description of the number 1 as a characteristic be?
 5   A.  A bifurcation down.
 6   Q.  Number 16?
 7   A.  16 would be a ridge ending.
 8   Q.  We have heard in other contexts a description given that
 9       16 could be regarded as a spur.
10           Is that possible?
11   A.  Yes, aye, yes.
12   Q.  So 1 would, therefore, be the bifurcation, 16 would be a
13       very short ridge forming that bifurcation off to the
14       right coming to a very abrupt ridge ending and the
15       combination would describe it as a spur?
16   A.  Yes.
17   Q.  Number 10: do I take it you are construing number 10 as
18       the ridge ending?
19   A.  A ridge ending, yes.
20   Q.  So, in effect, the bifurcation number 1 splits into two
21       ridges?
22   A.  Yes.
23   Q.  The right-hand ridge ends abruptly at point 16?
24   A.  Yes.
25   Q.  The left ridge runs a little bit further down and ends
page  63
 1       at number 10?
 2   A.  Correct.
 3   Q.  So far as the corresponding feature on QI2, can you talk
 4       me through, please, how it is that you construe 1, 16
 5       and 10?
 6   A.  Okay, you would have the descending ridge like so and a
 7       small, as you indicated, a spur, like so (indicated).
 8   Q.  So what you have drawn is a green shape on QI2.
 9   A.  Yes.
10   Q.  As the ridge structure of 1, 10 and 16?
11   A.  Yes.
12   MR MOYNIHAN:  Can we save that, please?
13   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.14.
14   MR MOYNIHAN:  There are two points I would like to ask you
15       about in this particular area.
16           What you have drawn is a green upside down Y with
17       the right leg shorter than the left.
18   A.  Yes.
19   Q.  What I am going to ask you about is an area that I will
20       fill in in red, an area where, to my eye, there is a
21       black line coming down in the underlying QI2.
22           Do you see what I've just drawn in in red?
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  What is your comment on that?  Is there a ridge
25       structure underlying that red line?
page  64
 1   A.  There is a gap.  Can I indicate it on the --
 2   MR MOYNIHAN:  If you would allow me just a second.
 3           First of all, if I could safe that image.
 4   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's save as FI2910.15.
 5   MR MOYNIHAN:  Just before you do, Mr MacPherson, what I will
 6       do is take us back to the pair of images before I
 7       inserted the red line.  So I will take us back to
 8       FI2910.14.
 9           What we have now done is return to your own marking.
10       What I have done is simply followed what I, myself, had
11       seen as an underlying black mark.  What I have done is
12       followed that underlying black mark from the red spot of
13       point number 16, which is the line coming in from the
14       left down to the point number 10 which is at the bottom
15       of the longer of your two green lines.
16           First of all, are you understanding that there is a
17       gap between the dot at 16 and the dot at 10, the gap in
18       the right-hand side?
19   A.  Yes.  Just there (indicated).
20   Q.  What about beneath that red arrow?  How far does the gap
21       extend?
22   A.  It's just slightly above that.  It's like a small tail,
23       if you like.  If I could illustrate it on the right-hand
24       image ... (indicated)
25           There's a small tail on the way up.  You follow that
page  65
 1       up and on the way down there's what has been indicated
 2       as a spur.
 3   Q.  Perhaps, I suppose, this is simply where, as the lay
 4       person, one passes over to the question to what extent
 5       this is something that the lay person just would not see
 6       because I was suggesting by my red line that what my eye
 7       saw was that to the right-hand side no gap between the
 8       bottom of the green line at point 16, no gap between
 9       that and point 10 but rather a continuous black line.
10           In other words, how is it that you can construe what
11       appears to be a black line on QI2 as having a gap?
12   A.  Well, that's how it appears to myself, it's a gap.
13   Q.  Because if I show you the alternative interpretations,
14       the alternative interpretations by Mr Zeelenberg and
15       Mr Wertheim, I think -- we will bring them up in a
16       second -- would have that area, in fact, as a continuous
17       joined-up section.
18           Before I do, the other point I want to ask you about
19       is what Mr Wertheim colourfully described as the chilli
20       pepper.  By that is meant the feature which is right in
21       the centre of the core, perhaps most readily seen on
22       Marion Ross as perhaps a feature in the nature of the
23       shape of a chilli pepper and what as I understand
24       Mr Wertheim and indeed Mr Zeelenberg were saying was in
25       Marion Ross that central feature, to be called the
page  66
 1       chilli pepper, extends to a point or finishes at a point
 2       above point number 10.  Whereas in QI2 the feature
 3       extends as a black patch beneath point 10 so it runs a
 4       length that is far greater in QI2 than it is in Marion
 5       Ross.
 6           Do you have any comment on that?
 7   A.  Yes.  Was it Mr Wertheim referred to it as the chilli
 8       pepper?
 9   Q.  Mr Wertheim did, yes.
10   A.  Well, for me that would be (indicated) what is
11       determined as the chilli pepper, basically a ridge
12       ending down.
13           I think we did in the comparative exercise, if you
14       can just follow that --
15   Q.  Sorry, just before we move it, anywhere -- sorry, I
16       thought you were going to move from the image because we
17       would require to save it.
18   A.  No, no.
19           There is an area for me which causes disturbance
20       above the core and possibly at the core itself and this
21       is one of the reasons I steered clear of this area when
22       we did our chartings originally and even in the
23       comparative exercise, obviously, we were just
24       duplicating what we did for the court productions.  But
25       for me the chilli pepper that Mr Wertheim is referring
page  67
 1       to is not this (indicated), it is in fact what I've
 2       indicated there (indicated).
 3   Q.  So what you have drawn is a red V-shape at the top of
 4       QI2 which we understand is what you would represent as
 5       an area of disturbance --
 6   A.  Yes.
 7   Q.  -- in QI2 coming into the core?
 8   A.  Yes.
 9   Q.  The black mark which is to the left of the yellow arrow,
10       which you have put in with yellow or mustard, is what
11       you would describe as the bottom end of the recurving
12       ridge that, in fact, defines the core of QI2?
13   A.  Yes.
14   Q.  And is not, therefore, the representation of the chilli
15       pepper?
16   A.  No, that's right.
17   Q.  Does that, therefore, mean that because of that area of
18       disturbance, the red V entering, that we have lost the
19       detail in QI2 of what Mr Wertheim described as the
20       chilli pepper, that's the appendage right in the heart
21       of the core?
22   A.  Yes.
23   Q.  Yet despite that loss of detail you are still content
24       that in relation to the critical point at 1, 10 and 16
25       that you can observe a gap that's, in fact, in this
page  68
 1       particular instance, definitive because it's what helps
 2       to define that characteristic in Marion Ross, 1, 10 and
 3       16?
 4   A.  Yes.
 5   MR MOYNIHAN:  If we save that image just now, please.
 6   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.16.
 7   MR MOYNIHAN:  Perhaps if I start with Mr Wertheim -- this is
 8       the order in which the witnesses came -- and I will
 9       bring up image FI2309.15.
10           We will see that what Mr Wertheim has drawn.  First
11       of all, in relation to Marion Ross, he has drawn
12       something in green.  I appreciate the ridge structure
13       he's not taken down to the point beneath the chilli
14       pepper but one can perhaps see that that would in fact
15       continue on down.
16           He has otherwise so far as points 1, 10, and 16 are
17       concerned, has drawn 1, 10 and 16 on Marion Ross as you
18       would see it, a bifurcation at 1, a spur at 16 and a
19       ridge ending at 10.
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  You will see in red he has also drawn in what now very
22       definitely looks like a red chilli pepper?
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  You will see on the left-hand side his drawing, again
25       with the same recurving ridge, on this occasion he has
page  69
 1       it ending in QI2 at the point where it ends on Marion
 2       Ross so it doesn't extend down to the bottom.
 3           You will see that his drawing of the chilli pepper
 4       is elongated?
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  He has within the yellow circle drawn in a green line
 7       suggesting that it would be possible to, in fact, fill
 8       that gap and see something of the nature of a lake or I
 9       think the term came to be used an island in that area.
10           That is the alternative interpretation or one
11       alternative interpretation of QI2/Marion Ross.
12           Now, obviously, you take a different view?
13   A.  That's correct, yes.
14   Q.  On the proposition that I mentioned earlier on that
15       Mr Zeelenberg had advanced that such are the challenges
16       with QI2 due to lack of quality and distortion, that
17       what is to be observed is open to a variety of
18       interpretations, first of all, just a variety of
19       interpretations.
20           Do you see it is possible that another expert of
21       competence would suggest an alternative interpretation
22       such as Mr Wertheim has suggested here?
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  So far as your own personal opinion, can you indicate to
25       the Chairman what reasons you have for preferring your
page  70
 1       interpretation which envisages a gap when Mr Wertheim
 2       has inserted the light green line and also your reasons
 3       for the chilli pepper being, in effect, absent from the
 4       QI2 image.  What reasons would you have?
 5   A.  Certainly, I don't think his interpretation of the
 6       chilli pepper is accurate.
 7           Where I've drawn the chilli pepper can I ...?
 8   Q.  Yes, please.
 9   A.  (Indicated)  That for me is what Mr Wertheim has
10       indicated as the chilli pepper to the left of point 10,
11       to the left of point 10.
12   Q.  What, though, I would ask you to comment on is in Marion
13       Ross, between the bottom point of the chilli pepper and
14       the adjacent ridge that you have just coloured in or
15       outlined for us, there is a gap in Marion Ross, yes?
16   A.  Yes.
17   Q.  Is there such a gap to be observed in QI2?
18   A.  Well, that's what I've tried to say.  There's an area of
19       damage.  You're going to get this with any crime scene
20       mark.  It's not going to be copy book standard and you
21       can only go by what you can see and for me I couldn't
22       interpret where Mr Wertheim has marked as his small
23       chilli pepper here but I was able to interpret the spur,
24       the ridge ending down and the ridge ending next to it.
25   Q.  I have asked you about the gap between the base of the
page  71
 1       chilli pepper and the ridge structure to its left.  The
 2       other feature where Mr Wertheim's lines are just now,
 3       his arching or recurving green line on the left-hand
 4       side, there is, at least to my eye, in Marion Ross no
 5       gap between where his green line ends and where your
 6       outline tracing begins.  So there is a continuous ridge
 7       structure in that location.  Whereas on QI2 there is a
 8       gap, at least to my eye, the black, heavier black, comes
 9       to an end right at the point where the red line
10       intersects, there is then an area of lighter grey or
11       white before the black resumes that's suggesting -- so,
12       in other words, there is the suggestion of a gap in QI2
13       where there is none in Marion Ross.
14           Can you comment on that?
15   A.  Again, it's only down to the fact that it's a chance
16       impression.  It's not an area that I would have, as I've
17       already said, would've gone into.
18   Q.  What perhaps it comes to is this: looking at consistency
19       on the left on QI2 -- and, forgive me, I will just use
20       it as the red shape so that we don't confuse it with
21       Mr Wertheim's chilli pepper -- to the left of the red
22       shape there is a difference in colouring, perhaps
23       suggestive of a gap, and if your interpretation of QI2
24       and Marion Ross is correct, then in that location there
25       is no gap so that we have to, in effect, draw through
page  72
 1       that gap and envisage a ridge feature; whereas on the
 2       right-hand side of the red shape where Mr Wertheim has
 3       drawn his light green line there is, underlying it, a
 4       line of black coming down suggestive of a continuous
 5       ridge and you in fact construe that continuous black
 6       line coming down as, in fact, having a gap.
 7           Do you see the point I am trying to get inelegantly,
 8       that you are envisaging a gap where there is a
 9       continuous line and you are construing on the other side
10       a continuous line where there is, in fact, the
11       appearance of a gap?
12   A.  Again, I can only come back to the point that I wouldn't
13       go into that area to discern ... I don't know what else
14       I can say regarding that.
15   Q.  So the inconsistency then may simply be this: you are
16       deriving points from one position but not from the
17       other?
18   A.  Yes.
19   Q.  Because of --
20   A.  Because of clarity, basically, yes.
21   MR MOYNIHAN:  Sir, that would perhaps be a suitable point to
22       stop.
23   THE CHAIRMAN:  We will resume again at 1.50 .
24   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.17.
25   (1.00 pm)
page  73
 1                      (Luncheon Adjournment)
 2   (1.52 pm)
 3   MR MOYNIHAN:  If we can bring up again, please, two images
 4       of QI2, that's FI0166A twice.
 5           Mr MacPherson, I think we looked at Mr Wertheim so
 6       far as point numbers 1, 10 and 16 are concerned.  I
 7       haven't noticed anything significantly different in
 8       Mr Zeelenberg so I will, therefore, pass on and not
 9       bring up his particular slide in relation to that.  I
10       will pass on now to point number 2.
11   A.  Yes.
12   Q.  Point number 2, I would understand that you are
13       indicating a bifurcation?
14   A.  Yes.
15   Q.  There are two interesting questions to ask in relation
16       to point number 2 because there are differences of view
17       of each side.
18           First of all, to begin with, the people who
19       challenged the identification, some of them rely on the
20       fact that, as you may be aware, the ridges as they
21       descend from the bifurcation point number 2 in Marion
22       Ross, they are of different thickness; whereas it's
23       suggested in QI2 that the ridges are of equivalent
24       thickness.  That difference in thickness of ridges, one,
25       QI2 compared with Marion Ross is relied on as a point of
page  74
 1       difference, incompatible with a match.
 2   A.  Yes.
 3   Q.  Do you wish to comment just on that?
 4   A.  Again, as I say, QI2 being a chance impression, if we go
 5       back to points 11 and 12 you can see on the left-hand
 6       side the ridges are very thick but when you go to 11 and
 7       12 on Marion Ross's right forefinger they are thinner.
 8       So, again, to me it's just an indication of the
 9       development technique that's been used.  I wouldn't see
10       that as a difference.
11   Q.  The subtlety to what has been advanced by Mr Zeelenberg
12       and Mr Wertheim, for example, in relation to this was
13       the suggestion that if it were due to, for example,
14       pressure or development technique then where features
15       are in close proximity, such as the two descending legs
16       from the bifurcation number 2, then there might be an
17       expectation that the development technique or the
18       pressure would react equally on the two and not
19       differentially.
20           Is that something that you would see any force in?
21   A.  Well, on the right-hand impression I hesitate to use the
22       word it was taken in ideal situations but, obviously, as
23       I described yesterday, the right forefinger was recorded
24       by placing black powder and then being lifted by means
25       of white adhesive tape and I noticed that everyone -- I
page  75
 1       could be wrong about this -- but most of the
 2       contradicters have mentioned it's an inked impression
 3       and know they wouldn't say it would change their view
 4       but all I can say is there may have been a lack of
 5       powder at that particular point where it's been lifted
 6       from the deceased's forefinger.
 7   Q.  The other point that I wish to put to you just for
 8       comment on the same theme of the clarity being such as
 9       to be open to argument, you may be aware that some of
10       those, including Mr Mackenzie, some of those who
11       identified do not see the ridge structure at point 2 as
12       a bifurcation.
13   A.  Okay.
14   Q.  But rather what they see is the thinner of the two
15       ridges as it ascends in fact passes by the point where
16       the bifurcation might otherwise be formed and continues
17       on up on the inside, so runs between the ridges just to
18       the side of point number 16 and up beyond point number 1
19       and ends at a ridge ending and, to my eye, the ridge
20       ending is just above the red line that comes down to
21       identify point number 1, so that in fact if I can
22       describe it in lay terms, the feature is one of a
23       curling ridge that, in fact, continues on up inside to a
24       point further towards the top where it ends in a ridge
25       ending.
page  76
 1           First of all, just looking at Marion Ross, can you
 2       see features that would be consistent with that
 3       interpretation of Marion Ross?
 4   A.  Can I highlight the ...?
 5   Q.  Yes.
 6   A.  If I could draw in, what I see --
 7   Q.  It's not so much --
 8   A.  Well, I'd like to --
 9   Q.  Okay.
10   A.  If you follow the ridge down the right-hand leg like so
11       (indicated) and for me the bifurcation is there
12       (indicated).
13   THE CHAIRMAN:  Slightly higher up, would it be?
14   A.  Sorry, that's not very good.  That's the bifurcation
15       that I would be referring to (indicated).
16   MR MOYNIHAN:  Yes.
17   A.  What I believe you have is an incipient ridge like so
18       (indicated) to the left-hand side of the bifurcation.
19       Unfortunately, as we've previously discussed on many
20       days sometimes one feature like an incipient ridge will
21       show in one print but not show in the mark and I believe
22       the incipient would be in that region (indicated) but it
23       just doesn't show.
24   Q.  I am grateful to you.  So you do not see whether it is
25       an incipient or a continuation of the left ridge as
page  77
 1       joining the bifurcation, you simply do not see the ridge
 2       structure in that location?
 3   A.  No.
 4   MR MOYNIHAN:  I am grateful to you.
 5           If we could save that image, please.
 6   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.18.
 7   MR MOYNIHAN:  What I would like to do is move on to point
 8       number 3 and if I bring up FI0166A twice over again,
 9       please.
10           Your description of the characteristic that is
11       feature number 3?
12   A.  A bifurcation.
13   Q.  There are a number of points that arise in relation to
14       point number 3 that are raised for your comment.  In
15       responding to that comment I will give you the
16       opportunity to paint the feature as you see it.
17           The first comment is the area that I suggested to
18       you by overview which feature number 3 is on QI2, I
19       suggested to you was an area of smear or swipe?
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  The reason for that is that there is a series of
22       parallel lines, not quite directly straight up and down,
23       there's an element of curve to the end, the series of
24       parallel lines that plainly have the appearance of not
25       forming part of another fingerprint --
page  78
 1   A.  Yes.
 2   Q.  -- coming down and there is indeed a lighter area and
 3       point number 3 appears in that area.
 4           First of all, do you agree with the proposition that
 5       there is an area of smearing or swipe that would seem to
 6       have superimposed itself upon part of QI2?
 7   A.  Yes, I would.
 8   Q.  And that point number 3 occurs in that area?
 9   A.  I would say it's just below that area, yes.
10   Q.  One of the points again would be, given the clarity of
11       that area, are you confident there is indeed a feature
12       to be seen in QI2?
13   A.  Yes.
14   Q.  And it is a bifurcation?
15   A.  Yes.
16   Q.  Insofar as its appearance is concerned, please just
17       enlarge QI2 as you see fit to mark in the characteristic
18       as you see it.  (Pause)
19   A.  See the ridge coming down on the left-hand ridge like so
20       (indicated) and the right-hand ridge like so
21       (indicated), and obviously the equivalent on the other,
22       Marion Ross's print, there's a bifurcation down.
23   MR MOYNIHAN:  If we could save that particular image,
24       please.
25   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.19.
page  79
 1   MR MOYNIHAN:  What I want to do on this occasion is to look
 2       at both Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg.  I will begin
 3       with Mr Wertheim and bring up FI2309.17.
 4           If I can just enlarge Mr Wertheim's drawing so we
 5       have the two interpretations side-by-side.  The blue and
 6       the red may in fact have been a combination of
 7       Mr Wertheim and me in relation to the smear.  In fact, I
 8       have taken down ... if we could put what is on the ...
 9       (Pause)
10           Can I bring up on the right-hand side FI2910.19.
11       What I have actually now brought up on screen are the
12       two alternative interpretations.  On the right is your
13       interpretation with the bifurcation.
14   A.  Yes.
15   Q.  On the left Mr Wertheim, the red and blue stripes are to
16       indicate the smear coming through.  The yellow is to
17       indicate the approximate location of the point number 3.
18       I understand Mr Wertheim to say that insofar as he can
19       see ridge structure, the ridge structure would be as
20       marked in green and, therefore, he would say no evidence
21       of a bifurcation in that location.
22   A.  Okay.
23   Q.  Do you see that?
24   A.  Yes.
25   Q.  Again, just looking at the matter as he has drawn it,
page  80
 1       are you indicating that there is evidence there of ridge
 2       structure which has been omitted by Mr Wertheim?
 3   A.  Yes, I think you can see that the ridge comes up and
 4       bends in just there.  Admittedly, above that area there
 5       is the slippage or smearing or whatever that you were
 6       referring to.
 7   MR MOYNIHAN:  I might as well save those as a pair,
 8       actually.
 9   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.20.
10   MR MOYNIHAN:  Can we go then to Mr Zeelenberg's presentation
11       and bring it up to begin with in PowerPoint, AZ0061, and
12       begin at slide 146.
13           Mr Zeelenberg is going to begin with a point number
14       3.  I think we will just have to be attuned to the fact
15       that though he believes his point 3 to be the same as
16       your point 3, to my eye they are not the same.?
17   A.  No.
18   Q.  In fact, is your point 3, if I can just locate on the
19       PowerPoint just now where the arrow is
20       (indicated) ... sorry, the arrow doesn't stay for very
21       long.
22   A.  The point 3, if you go up to the bifurcation, just where
23       you were ...
24   Q.  Yes, yes.  Sorry, it is there (indicated).
25   A.  Yes, that is right.
page  81
 1   Q.  So the bifurcation that you in fact call number 3 is one
 2       intermediate ridge to the right but at the same level as
 3       what Mr Zeelenberg has marked as number 3?
 4   A.  Yes.
 5   Q.  We will be conscious of that, I think he has a later
 6       slide where he has the SCRO point number 3 correctly
 7       positioned but, nonetheless, what I want to ask you
 8       about is Mr Zeelenberg's point of difference number 3.
 9       He is going to demonstrate an interpretation of Marion
10       Ross and QI2 which would suggest that the point he has
11       marked as number 3 is a point of difference.
12   A.  Okay.
13   Q.  So let us look at that now just conscious that it is
14       Mr Zeelenberg's point number 3 and it is not common to
15       SCRO.
16           What he has drawn is the -- he begins with the right
17       leg of the bifurcation, number 2.  Do you see that?
18   A.  Yes.
19   Q.  As a yellow line of dots, coming down to a point about
20       6 o'clock on the clock he has an intervening ridge
21       coming in on which he has inserted a red spot, and the
22       red spot is his point number 3, with adjacent to it, to
23       its right, again a continuous ridge running up.
24           If I understand correctly what he has indicated on
25       QI2 is that he can see the two continuous ridges but
page  82
 1       there is an absence of the ridge ending which he has
 2       indicated as his point of difference, number 3.
 3   A.  Number 3, yes.
 4   Q.  Do you understand?
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  Do you have any comment on what he is suggesting here,
 7       that there is a ridge ending in Marion Ross which is
 8       absent in QI2 and, therefore, an incompatibility
 9       inconsistent with a match?
10   A.  Yes.  I would have to -- can I ask for a clean version
11       of QI2?
12   Q.  Yes, you can.  A clean version that there is, if I can
13       bring up on Trial Director AZ0061, slide 144.  I see
14       what has happened.  When you say, sorry, a clean
15       version, do you mean a completely unmarked version or
16       are you happy ... what I will do is if I can bring up
17       then again, please, FI0166A twice.
18           First of all, so that we can locate this, your
19       point 3, as you have said, is to the right?
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  Therefore, on Marion Ross I am understanding
22       Mr Zeelenberg to be pointing to the ridge that enters
23       and stops at roughly where my cursor is just now
24       (indicated)?
25   A.  Yes.
page  83
 1   Q.  Let us just mark that with an arrow (indicated).  Is
 2       that correct?
 3   A.  That's correct, yes.
 4   Q.  So that arrow on the right-hand side is pointing to
 5       Mr Zeelenberg's point of difference number 3.
 6           Where is it that on this particular image of QI2 you
 7       see that ridge entering and ending?
 8   A.  It is very, very faint and that was one of the reasons
 9       that it wasn't chosen to illustrate the identification.
10       It's just in there (indicated), which would be
11       Mr Zeelenberg's point number 3.
12           You would then go one intervening ridge and you'd
13       come to what is SCRO's point 4.
14   Q.  There does seem on this view to be quite some distance
15       between the ridge ending you have indicated as
16       Mr Zeelenberg's point of difference number 3 and where
17       you have marked the SCRO point 3 because just as they
18       are marked now the SCRO point 3 is not, in fact, far
19       removed from the yellow arrow, that they are roughly the
20       same level; correct?
21           I will show you what I mean.  Mr Zeelenberg's point
22       number 3 is just opposite the point of the arrow, a
23       little below it and opposite.  Your point number 3 is
24       the red dot immediately above and to the right of the
25       yellow arrow.  So they are in close proximity --
page  84
 1   A.  Sorry, his point 3 is what you've indicated with the
 2       yellow arrow?
 3   Q.  His point 3 is where the cursor arrow is just now
 4       (indicated).
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  If you allow me just to control the mouse.  His point 3
 7       is where my arrow is just now.  So it's immediately
 8       above and to the left of the point of the yellow arrow.
 9       Your point 3 is, in fact, at a similar level, give or
10       take a millimetre or two, and above the point of the
11       arrow; whereas, as drawn, there seems to be a
12       considerable distance between the ridge ending that you
13       have drawn and point number 3?
14   A.  Yes, there is slight movement in the mark, yes.
15   Q.  So that you put down to slight movement in the mark?
16   A.  Yes.
17   THE CHAIRMAN:  Is the enlargement greater?  If the
18       enlargement is greater would that not make the space
19       look greater?
20   A.  That's a possibility, sir, yes.
21   MR MOYNIHAN:  If I can save those images, please.
22   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.21.
23   MR MOYNIHAN:  If I could also go back to the PowerPoint,
24       please, AZ0061 and on this occasion slide 157.
25           On this occasion, Mr MacPherson, just satisfy
page  85
 1       yourself, I think Mr Zeelenberg is indeed talking about
 2       the SCRO point number 3.  We will just bring it up to
 3       make sure that that is correct.
 4           Is that correct?  He is now talking about the SCRO
 5       point number 3?
 6   A.  Yes.
 7   Q.  The point that we were just talking about before, his
 8       point of difference number 3, is the red dot immediately
 9       below the point number 3 marked and to the left?
10   A.  Is it not the ridge above?
11   Q.  No, the point we were just talking about, about the
12       ridge ending that intervenes -- oh, sorry, it may be,
13       yes --
14   A.  No, that's our point 4.  What he's indicating there is
15       point 4.
16   Q.  I take your point.
17           Let us look at what he is telling us about the SCRO
18       point 3.  What he is simply saying is point 3 is
19       inserted in a mark in a distorted area of very poor
20       quality, distorted through a vertical swipe.  Just go
21       back.  So he is simply highlighting an area in the red
22       circle in the bottom left and saying that the detail is
23       absent.
24           You are satisfied, are you, the detail that you have
25       described is present?
page  86
 1   A.  Yes.  I can't mark this, can I not?
 2   Q.  No, you can't.  If you are happy with the drawing you
 3       did earlier, so be it.
 4   A.  Yes.
 5   Q.  If we can move on then to point number 4, SCRO point
 6       number 4.  Just for convenience, I will stay with
 7       Mr Zeelenberg's slide.  We will see in relation to SCRO
 8       point 4, first of all, has he correctly plotted point
 9       number 4?
10   A.  Yes.
11   Q.  So then we look to see what he is telling us is his view
12       of point number 4.  (Pause)
13           I have taken us through what he has indicated.
14       First of all, in charting point number 4, SCRO point
15       number 4, he has reinserted as mystery point X, his
16       point 3, his difference number 3 that we have discussed
17       before, and he is, if I understand it correctly,
18       suggesting that your point number 4 is not, in fact, to
19       be seen in the ridge structure in QI2.  So he says:
20           "Point number 4, like point number 3 in the
21       reference print, is inserted in the mark in a distorted
22       area of very poor quality.  An adjacent point that fails
23       in the mark in an area of better quality is ignored."
24           So he would seem to be making two points here:
25       firstly, he cannot see point 4 in the ridge structure;
page  87
 1       and, secondly, insofar as there is clarity in the image,
 2       he sees greater clarity in the area where he has
 3       inserted point X, that is his point of difference 3, and
 4       yet that has not been picked up.  So he is, I think,
 5       suggesting inconsistency in charting.
 6           That is the question.  Perhaps if we can go back
 7       then to the QI2 image with this in mind and enable you
 8       to explain your position.  Perhaps we could just use the
 9       same images that we have already on screen and just work
10       from there because plainly the point that is his point X
11       is helpfully illustrated by your mustard line just above
12       the red line.
13           Is that correct?
14   A.  That's correct.
15   Q.  Then you have marked already as the light blue line the
16       point number 4?
17   A.  Yes.
18   Q.  Now, on this occasion the interpretation of the point
19       number 4 is what?
20   A.  A ridge ending.
21   Q.  Are you content that that is simply the ridge ending
22       that you have drawn?
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  I am grateful.  Just again to be consistent, we are
25       obviously looking at the image FI2910.21, the last saved
page  88
 1       image for that particular passage, so by convenience it
 2       includes point 4.
 3           If I can then take you on to points 5 and 6 --
 4   A.  Yes.
 5   Q.  -- it is missing on the screen but it is helpful just in
 6       this detail: point 5 I would understand to be the red
 7       line I am pointing to just now (indicated), this is
 8       point number 5.  Is that correct?
 9   A.  I am sorry where are you, Mr Moynihan?
10   Q.  If you look at the pen on the screen, the red line
11       coming in is taking us to point number 5?
12   A.  Yes, that would be correct.
13   Q.  I will just write in 5 so that we have it.  And beneath
14       it point number 6?
15   A.  That's correct, yes.
16   Q.  In fact, if I understand it correctly -- and I will use
17       my lay terms and you will correct me if I'm wrong --
18       point number 5 is a bifurcation, point number 6, again,
19       is that a spur or not?
20   A.  Well, it's a ridge ending -- a bifurcation and a ridge
21       ending.  Yes, it could be termed as a spur, yes.
22   Q.  If I understand it correctly, what has been suggested in
23       relation to the points 5 and 6 is that the detail in QI2
24       is not sufficient to permit of the conclusion that 5 and
25       6 are present.  Apart from anything else, what would be
page  89
 1       suggested is that point 5 is where the pen tip is just
 2       now (indicated).  It's actually a part of the marking
 3       that's actually quite difficult to see because it's
 4       immediately adjacent to an area of black marking.
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  If I can just mark, again I will do it staying above it,
 7       point number 5, in fact, is the dot just below where I
 8       put in the number 5?
 9   A.  That's correct, yes.
10   Q.  Number 6 is immediately beneath it?
11   A.  That's correct.
12   Q.  What is there about QI2 that admits of sufficient
13       clarity to say emerging out of that black area -- and
14       the black area is roughly where I've drawn the number
15       5 -- that there is sufficient clarity to draw in the
16       bifurcation which is point number 5 leading to the ridge
17       ending or spur as I call it, number 6?
18           What we may do -- it is probably not helping you
19       that I've got the number 5 there.  If we could save this
20       image.
21   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.22.
22   MR MOYNIHAN:  If we could go back then to the preceding
23       saved one, FI2910.21, what I am doing, Mr MacPherson, is
24       building up a picture now as we go round.  So I think we
25       can follow, without me inserting misleading points, what
page  90
 1       5 and 6 are.  What I am asking you is if you can explain
 2       how it is that through the area of black you can discern
 3       with sufficient clarity features that are consistent
 4       with Marion Ross, points 5 and 6.
 5   A.  My belief is, yes, there certainly is a black area
 6       coming in but you can follow this ridge down
 7       (indicated).  That's the left-hand side of it and you
 8       follow the ridge down.  That's the right-hand side of
 9       it.  Yes, there is interference but I believe that the
10       interference is just to the right-hand side of that
11       bifurcation.
12           If I could illustrate, just beside point 6 again
13       another couple of characteristics that weren't used that
14       I could maybe illustrate by an arrow.  (Indicated)
15           Just to the right of point 6 there is a ridge ending
16       up and a ridge ending down.  It's like a broken ridge,
17       if you like, just there (indicated).  That
18       corresponds -- if I could highlight this ... just there
19       you have basically a split ridge, a ridge ending up and
20       a ridge ending down adjacent to point 6.
21   MR MOYNIHAN:  We will try and capture what is on screen just
22       now.
23   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.23.
24   MR MOYNIHAN:  What I don't know is whether we have lost the
25       detail you have drawn just before this.  If we can go
page  91
 1       back then, please, to what was on screen -- I don't
 2       think we have ... no, we haven't lost it just now.
 3           Again, just building up the picture, I will go
 4       slightly out of order.  I will skip 7 and 8 just now.
 5       What I want to look at is point number 9.
 6           Point number 9, if I understand it correctly, SCRO
 7       point number 9, is the point that my cursor is on just
 8       now (indicated).  In other words, it's the point where
 9       the red line runs from the bottom of the picture
10       straight up through the tip of the red arrow and ends
11       just above the blue marking for points 5 and 6.  Is that
12       correct?
13   A.  Point 9 is just to the left of 5 and 6, yes.
14   Q.  So it is where the cursor is just now?
15   A.  Yes.
16   Q.  What I want to do is to take down what we have on screen
17       just now and come back.  I am thinking that I am taking
18       down FI2910.22 and I am going to bring up
19       Mr Zeelenberg's presentation again, AZ0061, slide 160,
20       in PowerPoint.
21           What he begins with on slide 160 are the points 5
22       and 6 we've just discussed; correct?
23   A.  Yes, yes.
24   Q.  Then as we proceed through he is going to discuss now
25       point 9.  Has he correctly positioned point 9?
page  92
 1   A.  Yes.
 2   Q.  What he is doing is drawing in ridge structure insofar
 3       as he can see it.  If I understand it correctly, his
 4       problem is that he cannot see 5 and 6 falling where SCRO
 5       see it and also number 9 in that area.  In effect, he
 6       seems to be saying you can have two of those but not the
 7       three.  That was a very detailed point.
 8           Do you observe what he is doing?
 9   A.  I observe what he's doing but I can see point 9 is a
10       ridge ending up.
11   Q.  So what he is interpreting you tell us is ...?
12   A.  He seems to have interpreted it as a continuous ridge
13       straight up to my point number 5 but I think even
14       looking at it you can see there's a kink in the ridge.
15       The ridge comes up and kinks to the left.
16           Similarly, the ridge comes up on Marion Ross's print
17       and kinks to the left.  So if anything that's a
18       supporting feature rather than a negative feature.
19   Q.  I think also though what the point is -- and this is
20       where the question would be you can have two but not
21       three -- the lower of these dots, the red dots, on the
22       right-hand side is your point 6, which you construe as a
23       ridge ending, a spur?
24   A.  Yes.
25   Q.  His interpretation of the ridge structure evident in QI2
page  93
 1       going from left to right would be point number 6 would
 2       be part of a continuing ridge going from where it is
 3       left and, of course, we enter the black area that is
 4       difficult to see what happens beyond that.
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  Whereas you have point number 6 as simply a ridge
 7       ending.  So he would not see it as a ridge ending at
 8       all.
 9   A.  Yes.
10   Q.  It is one of these points where I think his overall
11       thesis is the clarity in QI2 is just not there to make a
12       definitive observation on this.
13           Do you see any force in that thesis?
14   A.  No.
15   Q.  That is point number 9.
16           If I then take you to points 7 and 8, in relation to
17       Mr Zeelenberg we will just continue with his slides and
18       we will go on now to slide 161.  So I think if I just
19       finish 160 you will see if point 6 was marked in the
20       proper direction point 9 would become non-existent.  So,
21       as I said to you, that's the proposition but we have
22       commented on that.
23           Slide 161 -- I'm going now to look at 7 and 8 -- has
24       Mr Zeelenberg correctly marked SCRO point 7 and 8 both
25       in QI2 and in Marion Ross?
page  94
 1   A.  Yes.
 2   Q.  As I proceed through the slides, he says:
 3           "The dominant direction of the grey scale
 4       information is horizontal!  To claim that a regular
 5       system of vertical lines is present AND that ridges can
 6       be seen as ending [he said] is beyond good practice."
 7           Perhaps, since he is talking about grey scale being
 8       horizontal, he is presumably assuming that what he can
 9       see is, as I am showing just now -- I cannot mark this
10       because it is PowerPoint -- he is saying grey going from
11       left to right in a horizontal position and, therefore,
12       reluctant to draw ridges vertically consistent with the
13       interpretation.
14           So if I take it back, because it otherwise obscures
15       the detail, he is questioning 7 and 8 in the positions
16       marked because he says the detail in the red circle on
17       the left is simply insufficient to reach any firm
18       conclusion.
19           You obviously take a different view?
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  Well then let us return to your slide and perhaps if we
22       go back again, building up a picture, to FI2910.22.  In
23       fact, we'll try 23.  Sorry, I have not been keeping
24       track.  (Pause)
25           I think what I feared has actually happened, and
page  95
 1       that we may have lost, in that point where you were off
 2       to show number 9, we may have lost the markings for
 3       points 5 and 6.
 4           Sir, I see the time.  We were going to have a break
 5       at some stage so what I suggest is that we will
 6       reinstate points 5 and 6 in this because I just wanted
 7       to build up one cumulative picture as we proceed.  So we
 8       will reinstate points 5 and 6 and then we will come and
 9       discuss 7 and 8 with apologies to Mr MacPherson?
10   THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  We will stop now for ten minutes and I
11       intend to rise shortly before 4.00.  So shall we say
12       2.55.
13   (2.46 pm)
14                         (A short break)
15   (3.00 pm)
16   MR MOYNIHAN:  I am grateful to you, Mr MacPherson.  In the
17       interval, while the rest of us have been having a bit of
18       peace, you have actually redrawn for me the detail of 5
19       and 6 that was otherwise lost.
20   A.  Yes.
21   MR MOYNIHAN:  So if we can save, please, what we have for 5
22       and 6.
23   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's save as FI2910.24.
24   MR MOYNIHAN:  We will just carry on from there.  5 and 6 are
25       on the screen.  7 and 8 is what I was asking you about
page  96
 1       and I put to you Mr Zeelenberg's view.
 2           If I could now ask you just to use what is available
 3       on the screen, unless you wish to use something else, to
 4       demonstrate for us how you see the ridges that are
 5       consistent with points 7 and 8.
 6   A.  If I could just use as a reference point, I think I
 7       marked it in earlier, just in this area here
 8       (indicated), there's a break in the ridge.
 9           To the right of that there's a ridge ending up which
10       is number 7 and again to the right of -- one intervening
11       ridge and to the right of that, it's not very well-drawn
12       but there's a ridge ending up.  Admittedly, there is an
13       area of superimposition in this area and you have to be
14       very careful when marking points in that area but I
15       believe you can see 7 and 8 and they correspond next to
16       the broken ridge of Marion Ross's 7 and 8.
17   Q.  Before we lose it you did draw your pen across to show
18       an area of superimposition.  If I can then ask you, if I
19       use yellow, can you mark for me, please, the area of
20       superimposition or maybe just highlight it instead of a
21       line.  If we use a tool -- sorry, if I just use the
22       mouse just now ... perhaps with Miss Allen's assistance
23       you may be able to highlight the area that is one of
24       superimposition.
25   A.  That's the area, yes.
page  97
 1   MR MOYNIHAN:  Can we save that image, please.
 2   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.25.
 3   MR MOYNIHAN:  We have already covered 9, 10 was part of what
 4       we began with as 1, 10 and 16 so that takes me back now
 5       to 11 and 12 where we began.
 6           If I could bring up again, please, the image
 7       FI2910.13.  This is what we started out, when asking you
 8       what area attracted your attention, at least today in
 9       relation to QI2, and you drew for me the bifurcation
10       which, if memory serves me correctly, coincides with
11       point 12 and a ridge ending is point 11, yes?
12   A.  Yes.
13   Q.  I had asked you about the ridge feature in Marion Ross
14       which occurs between the two open ended lines
15       immediately beneath point number 11?
16   A.  Yes.
17   Q.  That was absent in QI2 but your view was that that could
18       just be one of those things that occurs with a piece of
19       incipient ridge?
20   A.  Exactly like I think I mentioned to the left of point 2.
21   Q.  What I would like to show you is the work that's been
22       done by your colleague, Mr Mackenzie, in relation to
23       QI2.  I have two booklets that I can give you.  The one
24       that will be brought up on screen is CO2005H.  Keep what
25       is on screen just now for a reason and also bring up a
page  98
 1       copy of CO2005H.  (Pause)  If you just proceed through
 2       CO2005H just now.  If we just proceed through ... and
 3       again.  Stop there just now.
 4           If you look at page number 3 in Mr Mackenzie's
 5       booklet and if I can explain to you this is a charting
 6       that Mr Mackenzie did for Mr Gilchrist who was then the
 7       Procurator Fiscal, now Sheriff Gilchrist.  It is a
 8       charting of QI2 and the area that I am interested in, in
 9       Mr Mackenzie's charting, are his points 27 and 29.  I am
10       having difficulty doing this in sufficient detail so it
11       can be seen.
12           His 27, does that coincide with the bottom end of
13       this feature (indicated), in effect, opposite your
14       point 11?
15   A.  Yes.
16   Q.  His point 29 coincides with your point 12?
17   A.  Yes.
18   Q.  So your 11 and 12, in approximate location, coincide
19       with his 27 and 29?
20   A.  Yes.
21   Q.  If we can then proceed in the top to the digital page 7,
22       for you it is page 6, in the book form.  So digital
23       page 7 in the top.
24           We will see a legend --
25   A.  Sorry, page 7?
page  99
 1   Q.  Page 6.  It's okay the digital version is one page out
 2       always.
 3           You will see the description that Mr Mackenzie gives
 4       of the characteristics 27 and 29 are that they are each
 5       a bifurcation.
 6   A.  That's correct, yes.
 7   Q.  If we go back, please, to, for you page 5, for us
 8       page 6, do you see that what he has drawn is a red line
 9       on the inner part of the ridge detail between 27 and 29?
10   A.  Yes.
11   Q.  What he has drawn utilises the ridge feature that you
12       are calling an incipient to, in fact, in reality, close
13       off a lake?
14   A.  I think the way Mr Mackenzie has marked it, it looks
15       like a ridge ending.
16   Q.  What he tells us though is, by his legend, he tells us
17       it's a bifurcation?
18   A.  Okay.  Well, I see it as a ridge ending.
19   Q.  If he's construing 27 as being a bifurcation, then what
20       he is construing is that in the area of 27 and 29 we
21       have two bifurcations in association that would form a
22       lake?
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  That is not your interpretation?
25   A.  That's not my interpretation, no.  I have to say I've
page 100
 1       don't believe I've ever seen this.
 2   Q.  There may well be reasons that you would not have seen
 3       it.  That went into the Crown Office so you may not have
 4       seen it.
 5           Again, what we have now top and bottom are two
 6       alternative interpretations of this area.  Again, one of
 7       the themes I have running -- these are two alternative
 8       interpretations of this area that, in fact, happen to be
 9       by two individuals who are of the same conclusion, as
10       Mr Mackenzie agrees with the identification; is that
11       correct?
12   A.  That's correct, yes.
13   Q.  If I were to insist to you that what you see in QI2
14       ought properly be construed -- sorry, let us say what is
15       seen in Marion Ross with the incipient ridge, if I were
16       to insist to you that that is an essential part of the
17       ridge structure, an essential part of a bifurcation
18       forming a lake, we would perhaps encounter a fundamental
19       difference between what is present in Marion Ross and
20       what you understand to be present in QI2 because you see
21       two ridges descending from point 12 as divergent ridges,
22       not meeting and not forming a lake.
23   A.  I believe it's a ridge ending, yes.
24   Q.  But the difference would be, if I insisted, let us say
25       if I were insistent -- I am not, this is just an
page 101
 1       argument -- if I were insistent that the correct
 2       understanding of Marion Ross were that there's a lake in
 3       that position ...
 4   A.  Well, again I can only reiterate what I said before.
 5       Possibly due to the superglue or whatever that's been
 6       used, the incipient ridge hasn't been shown on the
 7       left-hand image, mark QI2, but on the right-hand side it
 8       has been shown because it's been taken under ideal
 9       conditions.
10           All I can say is point 27 on Mr Mackenzie's chart
11       would appear to be, at the bottom end of it where his
12       arrow is, it looks to me like a ridge ending.
13   Q.  Perhaps I will only try this one more time,
14       Mr MacPherson.  It just a proposition I am trying to
15       run.
16           There is in each of Marion Ross and QI2 an event.
17       As fingerprint examiners would say, there's an event in
18       this location.  If I construe that event differently in
19       each of the two, so I say in Marion Ross that event is a
20       lake and in QI2 it's an open-ended bifurcation where the
21       two ridges at point 11 do not meet and continue to
22       diverge, would I, by reason of that difference of
23       interpretation, in fact, have set up a mismatch between
24       Marion Ross and QI2?
25   A.  I don't believe so.  I think we've been talking for days
page 102
 1       about appearances and differences, explainable
 2       differences, and I think I've tried to explain it.  I
 3       don't see what else I can say.
 4   Q.  So, in other words, the difference you would say is that
 5       the piece in Marion Ross necessary to close off the lake
 6       is absent from QI2 because incipients are not always
 7       reproduced?
 8   A.  Absolutely, yes.
 9   Q.  Whereas your colleague, Mr Mackenzie, might argue that
10       the piece is, in fact, present and to be discerned in
11       QI2?
12   A.  He may well do, yes -- or he does do, sorry.
13   Q.  Sorry?
14   A.  He does do, yes.
15   Q.  He obviously does?
16   A.  He does, yes.
17   Q.  You see that then enables us to look at perhaps some of
18       the others.  Let us take if we return to Mr Zeelenberg,
19       AZ0061, and on this occasion go to slide 162.  Perhaps I
20       will just click through to slide 162.
21           Mr Zeelenberg is looking at point 12 as you have
22       drawn, point 11 in fact he has taken on the lower rather
23       than the upper leg, yes?
24   A.  Sorry, can you just repeat that, sorry?
25   Q.  I apologise.  Point 12 he is taking correctly
page 103
 1       positioned?
 2   A.  Maybe slightly lower but, yes, that would be about
 3       right, yes.
 4   Q.  Point 11 he has put on the lower leg?
 5   A.  Yes.
 6   Q.  Is that where you would position it?
 7   A.  No.
 8   Q.  You are on the upper leg?
 9   A.  No, I think you can -- I'm in the upper leg.  You can
10       actually see the bottom leg that you're referring to
11       where he has placed the dot actually starts to kink up
12       slightly and my point, my ridge ending, would be just
13       above where the dot is.
14   Q.  That's fine.  So we've got to understand Mr Zeelenberg
15       is slightly out with the lower of the two dots.
16           In fact, for some reason in the upper picture he has
17       in fact put the dot in the correct position, that is in
18       the upper ridge?
19   A.  Yes, that's correct, in the upper picture, yes.
20   Q.  We will see what he has drawn.  In fact, if I just work
21       back a few slides, we will see what he has drawn.  First
22       of all, if I understand him correctly the area of,
23       perhaps, purple dots coming top to bottom, demarks an
24       area of disturbance?
25   A.  Yes.
page 104
 1   Q.  You are reasonably happy, an area of disturbance
 2       somewhere in this vicinity?
 3   A.  Maybe not stretching up as far but, yes, I believe there
 4       is, yes.
 5   Q.  Then he has drawn, you will see, what he discerns as the
 6       ridge structure in this vicinity and it would seem that,
 7       in fact, he has drawn the ridge structure of point 11
 8       closer to your interpretation of an open ridge
 9       structure?
10   A.  Yes.
11   Q.  Rather than a lake?
12   A.  Yes.
13   Q.  So what he is, in fact, saying is that he does not see
14       point 11 and perhaps that may simply be that he was
15       inferring that point number 11 was a bifurcation and he
16       hasn't seen it and he would be correct, if that is the
17       interpretation?
18   A.  Yes.  He's quite right.  To the right of point 11 there
19       is disturbance, yes; I would agree with that.
20   Q.  If we look at point number 12 for Mr Zeelenberg, what I
21       have to do is to jump back to slide 148.  This is
22       looking at his areas of difference.  His point number 4
23       is what you have drawn as SCRO point 12, yes?
24   A.  Yes, it would be slightly higher than where he has
25       indicated.
page 105
 1   Q.  Slightly higher but nonetheless in the --
 2   A.  Yes, the correct area, yes.
 3   Q.  -- correct location.
 4           What we will in fact see as we click through is that
 5       what he is indicating is his interpretation of QI2 is
 6       that where on Marion Ross there is the bifurcation
 7       number 12 --
 8   A.  Yes.
 9   Q.  -- leading simply to a ridge that carries on up to, one
10       assumes, an ending at a point just beyond the green
11       dots, on QI2 he is in fact seeing a ridge enter from
12       above point 11, run up and in fact form a second
13       bifurcation above point 12 that's absent from Marion
14       Ross?
15   A.  Well, I think I marked earlier on, when I marked 11 and
16       12, I marked to the right of 11 and 12 what I perceived
17       was a split ridge and possibly I think that's what he's
18       indicating there as he runs up for a second bifurcation
19       above characteristic 12.
20   Q.  If we look then back at your FI2910.13, and I will just
21       highlight -- perhaps if we just have the -- sorry, is
22       that sufficient just for your purposes?
23   A.  Yes.
24   Q.  Your interpretation of that would be that there is an
25       incoming ridge which ends and above it a descending
page 106
 1       ridge which overlaps but the two do not coincide?
 2   A.  It's maybe -- I've maybe not marked that as well as I
 3       could have but, yes, in general, yes, that's what I
 4       mean.
 5   Q.  In that case if I finish with 11 and 12 at that, I am
 6       now going to move to point number 13.  So if I go back
 7       to FI0166A twice over, please, point number 13 is to the
 8       left and below point number 12?
 9   A.  Yes.
10   Q.  In relation to point number 13, what I have asked some
11       other witnesses about in relation to point number 13 is
12       the feature that is immediately to the left of point
13       number 13, which I have been describing as the hook,
14       which has no counterpart in Marion Ross?
15   A.  Yes.
16   Q.  Do you see where I am terming the hook with no
17       counterpart in the print of Marion Ross?
18   A.  Yes.
19   Q.  No expert on either side of the argument has made
20       anything of what I've called the hook?
21   A.  Yes.
22   Q.  Can you tell me why the hook has got no significance at
23       all?
24   A.  For me I think we discussed earlier about the
25       superimposition of possibly Mr Asbury right middle and
page 107
 1       for me that's an area, a no-a area, a red flag area or
 2       whatever you want to call it but I wouldn't place any
 3       reliance on it.
 4   Q.  Because it answers the particular point about the hook,
 5       I will put it in a more general way.  Could you assist
 6       me, please, by marking for me the area that is the no-go
 7       area, the area of superimposition in this locality.
 8   A.  On the outside of characteristic 13 there's a genuine
 9       ridge going down that way (indicated).
10   Q.  Sorry, I didn't understand, when you said --
11   A.  Yes, there's a ridge on the outside of characteristic
12       13.
13   Q.  So what you have drawn in in yellow is a genuine ridge?
14   A.  Is a genuine ridge on the outside of characteristic 13
15       but the area ...  (Pause)
16           It's roughly like so (indicated).  I believe there's
17       interference in this area here that I've indicated, so
18       Basically I wouldn't go into that area.
19           I think you can see a line just above there and then
20       you've got it looks like possibly a whorl again but I
21       wouldn't like to say for definite.  It could be a loop
22       but it gives the appearance of being a whorl.  In that
23       general direction, to the left of point 13, I would say
24       there's too much interference.
25   Q.  Just so we can capture that, if I can perhaps make some
page 108
 1       marks, the line that you are referring to have I just
 2       inserted it in the yellow across?  Was that the line you
 3       were referring to?
 4   A.  Well, I wouldn't go as far as across as you have done.
 5   Q.  In that case what I will do is take it away and let you
 6       draw in the lines.
 7           If you then just mark in the line that ...
 8   A.  Something like so (indicated).
 9   Q.  Then you were indicating that there's, I think you said
10       a loop pattern.  Can you just mark for me, not the whole
11       pattern, just the outer boundaries of the loop pattern?
12       What I am trying to see is where, as we approach QI2,
13       that interference ends.
14   A.  There quite possibly could be a whorl pattern in there
15       but I wouldn't like to say for definite.  It could be a
16       loop to the right or ...
17   MR MOYNIHAN:  I think we had better save that.
18   THE CHAIRMAN:  That means really that 13 is on the margin.
19   A.  It's on the margin, sir, yes.  Would I be able to
20       draw --
21   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.26.
22   MR MOYNIHAN:  Mr MacPherson --
23   A.  Is it possible to get a clean image of QI2?
24   Q.  Yes.  In fact, just before we leave this -- and I will
25       let you draw just in a second -- the one point that I
page 109
 1       was going ask you about, and it helps with the areas of
 2       disturbance mentioned in answer to his Lordship's
 3       question about this being right on the margin, would
 4       there be some suspicion of ambiguity in this area since
 5       it is simply so close to that area of disturbance?
 6   A.  I feel you can see there's broken ridges in that area,
 7       the area that you're talking about, the hook and
 8       possibly lower than that.  It's just too broken up to,
 9       basically, try and decipher.
10   Q.  But if I can mark something to show you where I am
11       thinking about, for example, even if it is an area of
12       clear detail, you have marked as, is it a ridge ending,
13       point number 13?
14   A.  Yes.
15   Q.  You have marked on what is in the middle of an area of
16       black line, obviously with a grey gap -- so if I put it
17       as one piece -- why is it wrong to regard that as one
18       piece and not see the tip of the green as a ridge
19       ending, in other words, where the black ends and we're
20       going to grey?
21   A.  If I could illustrate, but before I move away from this,
22       can I --
23   MR MOYNIHAN:  It is okay.  What we will do is save that
24       image and then we will get back to what you want, which
25       is a clear image.  We will save this one and go back to
page 110
 1       a clear image.
 2   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.27.
 3   MR MOYNIHAN:  What I will do is on the left-hand side of the
 4       screen I will bring up again, please, FI0166A and I will
 5       enlarge it and that will give you, Mr MacPherson, the
 6       benefit of a clean image with point number 13.  Sorry, I
 7       have been interrupting you for a while.  There is a
 8       point you wish to make.
 9   A.  Simply the fact that above point 13 there is a small
10       island which corresponds to the small island like so.
11   Q.  I suppose what I am asking is that is choosing, in
12       relation to QI2 on the left, it's choosing to attach
13       weight to the fact that there is a space evident between
14       the black almost circle that's point 13 and the black
15       shape above?
16   A.  Yes.
17   Q.  While not attaching weight to the fact that there is
18       similarly a space between the bottom end of the black
19       shape that's point number 13 and any other corresponding
20       piece of black marking.
21           Do you follow me?
22   A.  You mean below point 13?
23   Q.  What I am suggesting to you is immediately above -- if I
24       take the mouse -- immediately above point number 13,
25       there is a change in colour from black, to grey, to
page 111
 1       black and you attach significance to that as a ridge
 2       ending, a defining characteristic?
 3   A.  Yes.
 4   Q.  Whereas beneath the shape, because point number 13 is
 5       really against a black, almost a circle, beneath the
 6       black circle there is similarly a gap between it and the
 7       next black shape which I am roughly pointing to just
 8       now --
 9   A.  Yes.
10   Q.  -- and I can mark with an arrow.
11           What I am asking you to explain, in effect, is why
12       recognise and, indeed, attach matching significance to
13       one gap, a small gap, in ridge detail while in fact
14       being prepared to literally overwrite and see a
15       continuing ridge in another gap?
16   A.  If I could -- I mean, what you could argue is that where
17       I'm indicating at the moment ... (indicated) there's, if
18       you like, a small dot and it could be argued that just
19       below point 13 there's a small dot and you could argue
20       that there's a gap between the small dot and the ridge
21       coming up.  You can argue that the ridge coming up stops
22       there (indicated) and there's a small dot.
23           Also to the right of point 13, if you come down that
24       ridge, now back in '97 we wouldn't be able to use,
25       basically, this but what there appears to be is a pore
page 112
 1       shape like so (indicated) and, similarly, that appears
 2       on QI2 and below that there is a ridge like so
 3       (indicated) and again below that there is a ridge like
 4       so (indicated).
 5           So, yes, I've given weight to what I see as a small
 6       island above point 13 but I've also have these
 7       supportive features to the right of 13 and below 13.
 8   MR MOYNIHAN:  If we save those ...
 9   MISS BAHRAMI:  That's saved as FI2910.28.
10   MR MOYNIHAN:  Sir, the next points are points 14 and 15 and
11       I know those those involve ridge counts and likes.  I am
12       not going to finish Mr MacPherson today because I also
13       have the point towards the top of QI2 to deal with and
14       it may, in fact, be kinder to all concerned if we leave
15       14 and 15 to Tuesday morning.  It is not going to make a
16       difference to the overall timing.
17   THE CHAIRMAN:  No, I think among other things, Mr MacPherson
18       has had a very long spell so I think that is the fairer
19       thing to do.
20           We will resume then on Tuesday at 10.00.
21   MR MOYNIHAN:  I am obliged, sir.  Thank you.
22   (3.40 pm)
23       (Adjourned until 10.00 am on Tuesday, 3rd November)
24
25