page 1 1 Monday, 16th November 2009 2 (9.37 am) 3 SAMUEL JEFFREY LOGAN, sworn 4 Examined by MR MOYNIHAN 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Your full names are? 6 A. Samuel Jeffrey Logan. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Take a seat, please, Mr Logan. 8 MR MOYNIHAN: Good morning, Mr Logan. 9 A. Good morning. 10 Q. Thank you for coming exceptionally early. I don't know 11 what time you were up this morning but it must have been 12 very early. 13 A. It was early enough. 14 Q. We have a number of reports from you and you are the 15 Head of the Fingerprint Bureau in the Police Service of 16 Northern Ireland? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. You and your colleagues have actually been giving us 19 some assistance in relation to some particular projects. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. What I want to do is to begin by asking you about one of 22 those projects that you undertook for us which concerned 23 the analysis of certain Q marks? 24 A. That's right, yes. 25 Q. If I begin just to clear something out of the way, when page 2 1 initially contacted by us you were asked to assess three 2 marks as for their suitability for comparison? 3 A. That's right, yes. 4 Q. When we first gave you this task we, in fact, in 5 retrospect gave you an artificial exercise. We asked 6 you simply to look at the marks in isolation. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. But we did not give you any fingerprint forms? 9 A. No, we were simply given three copies -- one copy each 10 of three marks. 11 Q. I will show you, in fact, and I will bring up on screen 12 a letter CO0030 and it is page 3. I will go back to the 13 beginning. This was a letter that was written, in fact, 14 by two Danish Fingerprint Experts back in August 2000 15 and it was written to the Scottish prosecution 16 authorities. The individuals you will see under the 17 heading "Fingerprinting declaration" were a Mr Rokkjaer 18 and a Mr Rasmussen. They were asked to compare a number 19 of marks and they started with, as you will see on that 20 page, QI2, said to be of a whorl type on a 21 Marks & Spencers tin. 22 I need not ask you about that. That is a mark that 23 they were told had been attributed to the deceased, 24 Marion Ross, and we have otherwise heard other evidence 25 about it. page 3 1 If I take you, please, now to page 3 -- we will go 2 to page 2. In addition to QI2 Marion Ross the Danish 3 experts referred to a list of prints and among that list 4 was QE2, a second QI2 print said to be of pattern-type 5 loop and also QL2 immediately below that. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. QE2, the second QI2 and QL2 were the three marks that 8 you were asked by us to consider? 9 A. Yes, that's correct. 10 Q. If I now do move to the third page, we will see what the 11 Danish experts have said. First of all, in relation to 12 QE2 they had said that the photograph of the 13 fingerprints secured from the outside of the lid of the 14 Marks & Spencers tin is where QI2 was found. 15 "The quality of the photograph was too poor for 16 comparison with David Asbury's fingerprints. To examine 17 the impression on the tin special light was required 18 which was not available." 19 So they had two difficulties, one was the quality of 20 the light available to them and, secondly, the quality 21 of the original. Their conclusion in the light of that 22 was it can't be determined whether the impressions 23 originate from David Asbury. That was their original 24 view. 25 A. Okay. page 4 1 Q. I leave QI2 aside for the moment and we'll come back to 2 that. QL2 their conclusion was simply cannot be 3 determined whether the impression originates from David 4 Asbury, so it's not very illuminating. 5 For QI2 they said: 6 "The photograph of the impression taken from the 7 tin. The picture section corresponds to that in 8 production number 99 which in addition to the 9 aforementioned whorl contains a fingerprint with the 10 loop pattern. Because of the said lack of special 11 light, as well as the poor quality of the photograph, it 12 was not possible to make a comparison between the 13 impression and David Asbury's fingerprints." 14 The conclusion: 15 "It cannot be determined whether the impression 16 originates from David Asbury." 17 So what you and your colleagues were, in fact, asked 18 to do was, in effect, to give us a second opinion on not 19 the identity of these marks as having been made by David 20 Asbury but rather whether the images were of sufficient 21 quality to be used in a comparison exercise, those three 22 marks you were looking at. 23 I will, therefore, just proceed with QE2 and QL2 24 just simply to show, in fact, what you and your 25 colleagues ultimately did in relation to those and then page 5 1 we will concentrate on QI2. 2 First of all, if I bring up your first report 3 NI0001, this is your first report. It happens to be 4 dated -- the dates are at the end of the letter. It is 5 dated 17th September. 6 At that stage, so far as QI2 itself is concerned, 7 your conclusion was that it contained insufficient ridge 8 detail for comparison? 9 A. That's correct, yes. 10 Q. We will come back to that. So far as QE2, your 11 conclusion was it was borderline insufficient ridge 12 detail. However, the mark would be retained for 13 comparison against suspects and eliminations? 14 A. That's right. 15 Q. QL2 you deemed that to be a value mark, that there was 16 sufficient ridge detail for a comparison to be made? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. If I then go to the next letter which I assume probably 19 is not on the system. It is NI0002. If I go to the 20 fourth page, we will see that this is a letter dated 21 15th October 2009? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. If I understand correctly, in this letter what you do is 24 explain, in fact, the conclusions in that original 25 letter? page 6 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. If we first of all begin on page 3 of the letter, 3 underneath the conclusion or at the very last paragraph 4 what you say is: 5 "It should be remembered that the PSNI Fingerprint 6 Bureau has a policy for establishing whether or not a 7 mark has sufficient ridge characteristics for a 8 comparison to be made. A mark must be examined by two 9 experts and both must agree on an insufficient ridge 10 detail (IRD) status. Should either of them disagree 11 that the imprint has value, then the imprint will be 12 retained." 13 A. That's right. That's the policy within the Bureau. 14 Q. So if, when we look at the detail of this, we find that 15 you record among the examiners involved there were 16 differences of opinion as to the quality of the mark -- 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. -- then what we should find is if any one of the 19 examiners considered the mark to be of value, then it 20 would have been retained by you for examination 21 purposes? 22 A. That's correct, yes. 23 Q. Therefore, I am not going to take us through the full 24 detail in relation to QE2 and QL2, because you detailed 25 the individual officers and their views and there are page 7 1 differences of view in relation to them. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. After that, the next letter is NI0003 of 29th 4 October 2009, if we bring up the two pages side-by-side. 5 Again, you are given further images by the Inquiry 6 team and do I take it, in effect, your opinion in 7 relation to QE2 and QL2 is unchanged? 8 A. That's correct, yes. 9 Q. In fact, this is now where we really come back to 10 concentrate on QI2. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Your opinion on QI2 at this stage, as late as 29th 13 October, had remained unchanged? 14 A. That's right. 15 Q. You regarded it as having insufficient ridge detail for 16 comparison? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. It so happens that after this particular letter you were 19 given by the Inquiry yet further material, including the 20 original negative of QI2? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. You were asked to undertake by us a further exercise. 23 If we can just look at the last of your letters -- give 24 me just a second -- it is NI0005 and this is dated 25 13th November. It is Friday of last week. page 8 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. On this letter you set out a series of steps, 1 to 5. 3 What we should understand is preceding number 1 is the 4 work you had already done on QI2. 5 A. Mm-hm. 6 Q. We will look at the results of that. So what precedes 7 this is that you had been asked by us to look only at 8 the mark? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And, indeed, by reference to some original photographs, 11 you looked only at the mark? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. You arrived at a conclusion that it was of insufficient 14 ridge detail for comparison purposes? 15 A. That's correct, yes. 16 Q. Having had a discussion here, where it was observed 17 there might be differences in the quality of the various 18 images available, you were then asked to undertake 19 further exercises but in a staged manner? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And indeed you were yourself keen to approach it in a 22 staged manner. 23 A. Yes, very much so, yes. 24 Q. Can you explain why you were keen to approach it in a 25 staged manner? page 9 1 A. Well, we were fully aware that the end of the process 2 would be that the comparison would be made between the 3 findings of Mr MacPherson and the findings of the PSNI 4 and certainly what I didn't want to do was be presented 5 with -- what I didn't want to happen was to be presented 6 with Mr MacPherson's findings really before we had gone 7 through the process of doing that ourselves, simply for 8 fear that what Mr MacPherson had done would colour our 9 judgment in some ways as to what we would find. So 10 really what I wanted to do was approach it completely 11 blind, if you like, look at the marks as they were given 12 to us, do the comparisons ourselves really without 13 having any knowledge of what the outcome was of 14 Mr MacPherson's work and so really what we wanted to do 15 was to do it in no way that it would be, if you like, 16 prejudiced by any view that we had on what anyone else 17 had done. 18 Q. You may have to move the microphone a little bit closer. 19 As I was saying earlier, it is awkward to try and hear 20 people in the hall. 21 So though, as we will see later, you do as part of 22 the package that was delivered on 13th November have a 23 comment on Mr MacPherson's charting -- 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. -- should we understand that you considered page 10 1 Mr MacPherson's charting last of all? 2 A. That was right at the end of the process. That was the 3 last thing that was done. 4 Q. And that you had already reached your own conclusions on 5 the material we are going to look at before you ever 6 considered Mr MacPherson's chartings? 7 A. Yes, that's correct. 8 Q. In effect, what you were being asked on this staged 9 process was to look at a series of materials to see 10 whether or not your own opinion would be affected by the 11 source materials that you had available to you? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. The first one was to ask you to consider a fingerprint 14 form for David Asbury? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Then it says, part 2, to report on that to the Inquiry. 17 Then stage number 3, you were asked to look at materials 18 that had been made available to Mr MacPherson, so the 19 same source materials as Mr MacPherson, which was a 20 life-sized image of the photographic image, an 21 enlargement of QI2 (Asbury) and Mr Asbury's print form 22 and asked whether that altered your analysis? 23 A. That's right. 24 Q. Then, penultimately, stage 4 you were given the negative 25 of QI2 and given the opportunity to have that reproduced page 11 1 as you saw fit? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. To select what you would regard as the best image and 4 see whether that altered your conclusions? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Then, finally, and only after that, as we have covered, 7 you were then given Mr MacPherson's original chartings 8 and asked if that altered your opinion? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. We will come to this in due course but can you take it, 11 again just for the sake of brevity, that at stage 1 when 12 you looked at Mr Asbury's prints there were some 13 differences in detail as to what you were observing or 14 reporting as characteristics that you would use? 15 A. Yes, that did change, yes. 16 Q. But at that stage your own conclusion about this being 17 insufficient ridge detail for comparison was not 18 altered? 19 A. No, it wasn't. 20 Q. So that would in effect be the report at stage 2 of this 21 letter? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Then stage 3, looking at the original materials, this is 24 not the charting but looking at the same material that 25 Mr MacPherson used for his chartings, you studied that? page 12 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And that did not alter the conclusion? 3 A. No. 4 Q. However, at stage 4 when you had the image redeveloped, 5 were you presented then with a number of images by your 6 photographer? 7 A. Yes. We were given the photographic negative that was 8 produced at the time, whenever the mark was 9 photographed, and that was given to our photographer at 10 the PSNI Bureau and he produced a range of images from 11 that, done at different exposures, using different 12 comparison methods to do that and by doing so he 13 produced four different images for us to look at and it 14 was that then that changed our opinion of whether the 15 mark was of value or whether it wasn't. 16 Q. I take it of the four images, you used one? 17 A. Yes, we selected one of these images as the best, the 18 one we felt was the best to make a comparison with. 19 Q. By reference to that one, first of all, proceeding in 20 stages, by reference to that one your opinion changed 21 that there was now sufficient ridge detail for 22 comparison purposes? 23 A. That's correct, yes. 24 Q. Indeed, when you went further and you looked at the 25 print of David Asbury you were able to match the two? page 13 1 A. That's correct, yes. 2 Q. You did so on the basis of ten ridge characteristics? 3 A. Yes, that's correct. 4 Q. So at stage 4 and before ever you saw Mr MacPherson's 5 chartings, your own opinion had changed? 6 A. Yes, that's correct. 7 Q. Then at stage 5 you did complete the exercise and you 8 did look at Mr MacPherson's chartings? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. You now know that he had marked 17 characteristics in 11 sequence and agreement by reference to the same source 12 material that you had seen at point 3 in the letter? 13 A. Yes, I'm aware of that. 14 Q. As one of the power points that you have provided for 15 us, you do compare your opinion with that of 16 Mr MacPherson? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Indeed, of his 17 points, 9 of yours are common to 19 Mr MacPherson? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. There is one that is unique to the PSNI? 22 A. Mm-hm, but I think that's more down to the fact that 23 Mr MacPherson was using a plain impression to make his 24 comparison against whereas we used the rolled 25 impression. So the 9th point or the 10th, whatever it page 14 1 is number 9 whatever I numbered it up, is off to the 2 left of the mark at that's why it's unavailable, if you 3 like, on Mr MacPherson's. 4 Q. That's fine. It would therefore follow that there will 5 be eight of Mr MacPherson's points that, in fact, are 6 not agree by you and your colleagues? 7 A. That would be right, yes. 8 Q. What I am conscious of -- and I think I've made it clear 9 to you and I can now make it clear in the hall -- is 10 that one could in relation to this engage in a debate 11 about, for example, in relation to the material at stage 12 3, who is right, you or Mr MacPherson. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Then one could at stage 5 again engage in the same 15 debate, who is right, you or Mr MacPherson, as to 10 or 16 17 points. In fact, what I want to do is not to enter 17 into that at all but rather to engage in, in a sense for 18 me, a more fundamental question. Here we have you and 19 your colleagues, because it was a team effort, and by 20 reference to different source materials you have in fact 21 been able to reach a different conclusion? 22 A. Yes, that's right. 23 Q. In fact, so far as the status of the different materials 24 are concerned, you have, in fact, looked at materials 25 that are of equivalent status, in the previous exercise page 15 1 down to 29th October, you looked at photographic 2 originals that we provided to you? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And in fact what you have done in this exercise is you 5 have looked at alternative photographic originals 6 derived from the same negative? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. So, therefore, these are all images of the same status? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And you have arrived at a different conclusion? 11 A. That's correct, yes. 12 Q. So that gives me at any rate a unique opportunity to 13 speak to someone about one of the themes that has been 14 running through, namely the importance of image quality 15 in the expression of an opinion. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. It so happens when we have had this in the past we have 18 had different experts who have different conclusions, 19 each using different materials so that the fact that 20 different materials are used is a complicating factor. 21 Here, in fact, we have the one expert using different 22 materials of equal status and your conclusion would vary 23 depending on which image I place before you? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. That gives me a chance really to explore image quality page 16 1 and that is what I want to do. So I really just want to 2 look at the evolution of your own thinking rather than 3 worry about any point of contrast with Mr MacPherson. 4 A. Okay. 5 Q. If I start then and work back, before we look at QI2 and 6 its detail, can I start just by asking you how you 7 yourself would generally work. When a crime scene mark 8 is brought to your lab, are you normally presented with 9 a range of images? 10 A. Well, that depends if the mark comes in a either a black 11 powder or an aluminium lift. Certainly, if it's a black 12 powder lift then simply it simply is a black powder 13 lift. There is one mark which comes from the crime 14 scene. However, if it's a mark that needs to be 15 photographed that will be one that would be found in 16 generally you would call our crime lab, we would call it 17 our special examination unit or if it's an aluminium 18 lift then those two need to photographed. When they are 19 photographed, policy would generally be they are 20 photographed in a number of different ways, different 21 exposures, and that gives the Fingerprint Expert a range 22 of different images for him to look at. It's the same 23 mark, obviously, but the amount of exposure that there 24 is in the mark will determine how the mark looks and how 25 he can look at it whenever he examines the mark itself. page 17 1 Q. We have heard evidence about an acronym ACE-V, would you 2 practice in accordance with that or do you use another 3 method? 4 A. Yes, well that's pretty much, yes, what we use, yes. 5 Q. At the initial analysis stage, would you consider -- in 6 this instance your photographer gave you four images, 7 would that be the normal number if you are working on a 8 mark that has been either powdered at the scene and 9 photographed or, as in QI2, there is superglue with 10 Quaser light and it's photographed in those 11 circumstances, so we're using a photographed image, is 12 four the number of images that you routinely were given? 13 A. It would very much depend on the quality or the mark. 14 Our photographer -- we have a dedicated fingerprint 15 photographer. It's not just a police photographer we 16 use to do this. He's an integrated person within the 17 Bureau. He's a staff member. It's what he does day in 18 day out and so it's his full-time job to fingerprint or 19 do photograph fingerprints. So he's very good at what 20 he does and he's a dedicated member of staff to that. 21 So, therefore, he's in quite a unique position to 22 actually judge the quality of the mark and how many 23 photographs he thinks that it will actually require. So 24 if you have a very poor quality mark, generally you will 25 be given more sets of fingerprints there than you would page 18 1 for one which is a very, very good quality mark in which 2 it's fairly clear whenever you look at it what the ridge 3 characteristics are and the quality of it. So very much 4 it is down to the photographer at that stage to assess 5 how many photographs he thinks that the expert may need. 6 But of course it is a very, very close working 7 relationship between the photograph and the experts and 8 if the mark comes over to the experts, the experts 9 feel that another number of photographs would be 10 beneficial, if the mark was to be exposed in a different 11 way, well then they will go to the photographer and he 12 will produce them. 13 Q. Assume for sake of argument four images are produced, as 14 were produced for you in this instance, when you are 15 carrying out your initial analysis do you work with all 16 four or do you select one of the images that seems to be 17 the clearer or clearest for you and then do your 18 analysis on it? 19 A. Generally you will concentrate on the clearest image 20 that you have and you pick one of the -- say it's four 21 photographs, you will pick one of those, select the 22 clearest and that's the one that you'll make your 23 decision on. 24 Q. When you are carrying out your analysis, do you have an 25 initial phase of, in effect, quality assessment to page 19 1 decide if there is sufficient ridge detail? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Can you explain to us how you undertake that particular 4 stage of the exercise? 5 A. In some ways that's done in two stages. If you have a 6 mark which is developed in our special examination unit 7 or our laboratory, the technicians at that point they 8 obviously have to -- they come across a range of marks 9 on items which they find and they have to make a 10 decision at some point there which ones they believe are 11 of value and which ones aren't. Now generally the way 12 that they work is and, in fact, the way our Fingerprint 13 Experts work is that each mark is assessed individually. 14 So the mark is looked at and it's decided whether or not 15 to retain it. The basic criteria that is used to decide 16 whether a mark is maintained or not generally is around 17 six points, six ridge characteristics which are found. 18 Now, if you have a mark where you have a very strong 19 characteristic or a strong event as you would say here 20 in the Inquiry, such as maybe a very distinct whorl or 21 very distinct ridge characteristics in it then we would 22 tend to retain a mark with the possibly less than six on 23 the basis of that and so a decision is made at that 24 point whether to retain the mark, have it photographed 25 then sent across to the Fingerprint Experts. When it page 20 1 goes across to the Fingerprint Experts, because they are 2 the experts, then they will be the people that will 3 decide ultimately whether that mark is retained or 4 whether it's pronounced as insufficient ridge detail. 5 Q. So unless there is something particularly distinctive 6 you would not expect even to see, as an examiner, 7 something that is considered to have fewer than six 8 characteristics? 9 A. Generally not but, as I say, each mark has to be taken 10 on its own merits and each one will be assessed at that. 11 The way our technicians are trained is so that if they 12 are in any doubt whatsoever as to whether that mark is 13 of sufficient quality for comparison, then they get it 14 photographed, they keep it. If there's any -- they 15 always err on the side of caution so if there's any 16 doubt in their head all they retain the mark. 17 Q. What's the difference between a technician undertaking 18 this initial exercise and an examiner? 19 A. The technician is the person that works in, you would 20 say the crime lab, in our special examination unit. 21 They are the person that works in there. They are the 22 people who treat the items regardless of what they are. 23 They could be envelopes, paper, tins, whatever it is 24 that comes in from the crime scene. So they are the 25 people that actually carry out that examination. They page 21 1 go ahead, carry out the examination, they what we would 2 call mark up any marks that they find on those items and 3 they have them photographed by the photographer and then 4 they supply those marks across to the Fingerprint 5 Experts and it's the expert ultimately then that decides 6 whether those marks are of value or whether they're not. 7 Q. So if I am looking at a tin, such as the 8 Marks & Spencer's tin, it will require to be examined by 9 someone just as a physical object, a tin? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. He will decide whether there are any possible marks on 12 it? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. He will decide the best chemical process perhaps to 15 develop that mark? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. He will develop it, he will then, if appropriate, 18 photograph it? 19 A. Yes. Well, give it to the photographer. The technician 20 doesn't actually do the photographing. That's done by 21 the photographer. 22 Q. So the technician is, in effect, the person who develops 23 the mark? 24 A. Yes, that's correct. 25 Q. And he will exercise a value judgment himself as to what page 22 1 he develops and has processed through the photographer 2 to pass to the examiners? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. I have used a term in conversation with you about 5 "event". 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. In conversation with you I have come to understand that 8 an event that is simply a feature in, again let us talk 9 about photographic image of an impression, an event 10 could be something that is entirely neutral, in other 11 words could be something that is due to the underlying 12 structure that the mark is placed on, or it could be a 13 feature of the mark. Is that correct? 14 A. Well, event isn't a word that we use at all in Northern 15 Ireland. We would tend to talk about ridge 16 characteristics and that would be really the term that 17 we would use. I think what you mean by that 18 is -- actually, I'm not quite sure what you mean by 19 that. If you could maybe explain that one again. 20 Q. I will start again. When you as an examiner are looking 21 at a mark to begin with, first of all, entertain the 22 possibility that there could be simply an appearance, 23 for example, a black area in the mark and the question 24 is whether that appearance is a ridge characteristic or 25 not. page 23 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Then if a ridge characteristic, the question would be is 3 it a ridge ending or a bifurcation. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. So what I am using the term "event" to cover is that 6 there is an appearance in the mark, but the first 7 question is whether it is a ridge characteristic or not? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. The "or not", it could be a variety of things. It could 10 be dirt. It could be something in the underlying 11 substrate -- 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. -- for example, a mark in wood, something of that sort. 14 A. Mm-hm. 15 Q. So you have to form a judgment when you are looking to 16 see whether the appearance, what I call the event, is 17 truly a ridge characteristic or not? 18 A. Yes. In some ways there is almost a sliding scale, if 19 you like, whenever you look at a mark. There are ridge 20 characteristics generally that are very clear and when 21 you look at them those are the ones you look at and you 22 are 100 per cent as sure as you can be that what you are 23 looking at is either a ridge ending or a bifurcation. 24 There are other points which you look at and they 25 are less clear. They may be a ridge ending; they may be page 24 1 a bifurcation or they may not be and that simply comes 2 down to the quality of the mark. As you say it comes 3 down to the fact that it an accidental mark left at a 4 crime scene. It's not a perfect rolled impression and, 5 therefore, by its very nature it is unclear very often 6 whether there are ridge characteristics or not. Really 7 those are, if you like, the ambiguous ones, the ones 8 that you are not sure at that stage whether those are 9 firm ridge characteristics or whether they are not. 10 Q. Might it be that at the stage of the initial examination 11 of the mark if its quality is sufficiently poor that you 12 would discard it, at least put it to the side without 13 any comparison against a fingerprint form and simply do 14 it on its initial quality? 15 A. If we were given a firm suspect in a case, particularly 16 if it was a serious or a terrorist case, if we were 17 given a firm suspect and we had marks, we would compare 18 those marks against the suspect's prints unless they 19 were of absolutely dire quality, is the only way really 20 we wouldn't do it. If you were looking say to take, for 21 instance, a mark with what we would say six firm ridge 22 characteristics in it we would compare that against the 23 fingerprints. 24 Q. We have understood from some experts and I will just put 25 this to you to see if you work in this way, we are going page 25 1 to ultimately come to the stage of deciding whether or 2 not a mark can be identified as the fingerprint of a 3 known individual. So that is identification. 4 We have, however, had a number of experts who point 5 us to the fact that you might on very few 6 characteristics indeed be able to exclude someone? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. So that there is a difference between exclusion because 9 of, for example, one point of difference and ultimate 10 identification. Is that the type of process that is 11 underpinning what you say in a serious case like a 12 murder? 13 A. Absolutely, yes. You mentioned ridge characteristics 14 there but if the mark left behind at a crime scene is 15 obviously a whorl and yet there are maybe two ridge 16 characteristics or maybe even one within that but your 17 suspect has got all loops well it's perfectly obvious 18 then that that individual didn't make that mark so 19 therefore, yes, you can exclude them. So it's useful 20 from that point of view and that's where, if you like, 21 you need to be very careful whenever you pronounce the 22 mark of insufficient ridge detail. It doesn't mean that 23 you take it, if you like, you set it to the side and you 24 never use it again. It still is of use and it may even 25 be of use if there are very, very few points in it at page 26 1 all. 2 Q. So this is where we have to be very careful that even 3 though something may have insufficient ridge detail for 4 ultimate identification with an individual you could 5 still work with it, in particular you might work with it 6 to exclude an individual? 7 A. That's correct, yes. 8 Q. Is six ridge characteristics, barring some unusually 9 sort of definitive feature, is six your working rule for 10 whether or not there is sufficient ridge detail? 11 A. As I said before, you have to take every mark as an 12 individual mark and you have to treat each one 13 differently. I suppose in many ways we have our 14 technicians trained to really look in general for about 15 six marks. In truth, if you were to mark up absolutely 16 every mark that came through your crime lab, through 17 your special examination unit, you would shut the place 18 down. If you were to photograph absolutely every piece 19 of ridge detail that come through that you would 20 literally would shut the place down and you would shut 21 your bureau down in a very, very short space of time. 22 So there has to be a cut-off point made somewhere where 23 you decide really what marks you are going to retain and 24 which ones you are going to discard. 25 Our fingerprint technicians are trained to do that. page 27 1 They are trained by our Bureau and they are trained at 2 the National Training Centre in Durham as well. So we 3 have to trust them to do that but they are also not tied 4 simply to six points. Six, in many ways is, if you 5 like, the rule of thumb but they have to assess each 6 mark on the basis of that mark and of its own 7 peculiarities. As I said, you could have a mark which 8 might have less than six points but may have some very 9 distinguishing feature about it and if that was the case 10 then they are trained to mark that up, to have it 11 photographed and then to give it to the Fingerprint 12 Expert for them really to ultimately decide whether that 13 mark should be retained or whether it should be 14 discarded. 15 Q. Assuming that a mark has gone through your technicians, 16 come in to you, at the stage when you are, first of all, 17 carrying out your initial assessment for quality, do you 18 yourself note the characteristics that you observe? 19 A. No, we don't. We don't note them individually, no. 20 Q. When you then proceed on, having concluded something has 21 sufficient ridge detail for comparison, do you still not 22 effect any notes? 23 A. No. 24 Q. In some senses that takes me from the point that we were 25 before the letter that is on screen of the 13th comes page 28 1 in. You had been asked by us to undertake an exercise 2 which was simply to look at the mark. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. You had for other purposes but did not use for this 5 purpose David Asbury's fingerprint? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Was the exercise that we asked you to do, which was to 8 look at the quality of the mark independently of David 9 Asbury's fingerprint form -- 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. -- an unorthodox exercise to actually ask you to 12 undertake? 13 A. It wasn't unorthodox in the sense we were asked to 14 quality control a mark that we didn't have a set of 15 fingerprints to compare it against. That's quite 16 normal. In fact, that would be the vast majority of 17 fingerprints that would come into the Bureau. 18 What probably was more unorthodox was the fact that you 19 had one image to look at rather than a range of, which 20 is certainly what we would have been used to. If we had 21 had a mark from a tin with a very patterned background 22 and one that was from a murder we would have had a range 23 of photographs to have looked at rather than one. So it 24 was unusual from that point of view that there simply 25 was one mark and you had to make your mind up on that page 29 1 mark and that was it. Sorry, not that mark, on that 2 image. 3 Q. Can I then take you on to point 1 of the letter. What 4 is the purpose for you in actually having a look at 5 Mr Asbury's prints in connection with the question 6 whether there is sufficient ridge detail for comparison 7 purposes? Can you explain that? 8 A. Well, as I explained beforehand, whenever you're given a 9 mark to assess for quality or not there are ridge 10 characteristics on that which you look at and, as I said 11 to you before, you would be as sure as you can be that 12 what you're looking at is a firm ridge ending or a firm 13 bifurcation, a feature of some description. 14 There are other characteristics within it which you 15 are less sure about. You could be reasonably sure that 16 what you are looking at is a bifurcation or a ridge 17 ending but you are also mindful of the fact what you are 18 looking at is a mark which is contaminated, which is 19 dirty, which has also possibly been twisted, which has 20 been left down possibly twice, you are not really quite 21 sure what the thing has been left down and really by 22 comparing that mark then against the fingerprints what 23 it does is it clarifies those points. It clarifies 24 whether what you are looking at there in the crime scene 25 mark are ridge detail or whether they aren't. page 30 1 Now, you need to be very, very careful whenever you 2 do that because at that point you do run the risk of 3 seeing what you want to see and that is that you look at 4 the crime scene mark, rather than looking at the crime 5 scene mark what you actually do is you look more at the 6 individual's rolled impression and therefore your 7 judgment is skewed, if you like, by the good, which is 8 the rolled impression, the print from the fingerprint 9 form, as opposed to the bad which is the mark which is 10 left at the crime scene and, therefore, it's very, very 11 important that what you do is you always work, as we 12 say, from bad to good. You work from the mark to the 13 rolled impression, not the other way round because if 14 you work the other way round, working from the rolled 15 impression to the mark, you do run the risk of really 16 prejudicing yourself as in what you see. You could 17 potentially end up seeing characteristics because you 18 want them to be there rather than them actually being 19 there in the mark. 20 Q. In this particular instance, in a sense where we need to 21 come down to look at the actual, in this particular 22 instance we will observe in the chartings that you have 23 done that there are certain ridge characteristics that 24 you recognise at this stage in the exercise, that is in 25 other words having looked at Mr Asbury's prints, there page 31 1 are certain characteristics that you pick up that you 2 had not previously picked up? 3 A. That correct. 4 Q. That's even looking at the same image? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Can you explain how that actually occurs and why that is 7 not an example of using the good, that is Mr Asbury's 8 prints, to interpret the bad? 9 A. Well, whenever the original assessment was done of the 10 mark and the points were put on it, it's there in the 11 first one, as I say, there were some points in that 12 which I would be fairly sure absolutely, in fact I 13 wouldn't say 100 per cent certain but as near as 100 as 14 would make very little odds, that those were good strong 15 characteristics, so there were ridge endings, there were 16 bifurcations there, and those were exactly the marks, if 17 I was to search that mark, those would have been the 18 points that I would have used to have done that. 19 There are other characteristics in it which are 20 weaker and which I, again, would have said I was less 21 sure that they were there but I would still have been 22 fairly sure that they were there and, therefore, they 23 are also marked up. 24 There are other points within it where I would have 25 said it could be a ridge characteristic but I wouldn't page 32 1 want to search on the basis of it. If I was to use that 2 to search that mark I could be wrong, I could be right 3 but I could be wrong and, therefore, what we did 4 whenever we marked that up and whenever we looked at it 5 was actually mark up the ridge characteristics that we 6 were pretty sure were ridge characteristics, not other 7 ones that may have been or may not have been. So really 8 what we did on the basis of that was we marked up really 9 what we were sure about rather than what we thought 10 might be there. 11 Actually on the mark, I mean, there are a number of 12 places where there may have been ridge characteristics 13 or not. A good place to take is certainly down to the 14 right-hand side of the loop where it starts to run out, 15 there are some points there which may have been ridge 16 characteristics and they may not have been but we didn't 17 mark them up either. 18 Q. But then when you looked at the Asbury prints that, in a 19 sense, was able to clarify the ambiguity for you? 20 A. Yes, that's right. 21 Q. And then certain characteristics became recognised by 22 you? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. What we will do is then just carry this on, just to the 25 abstract and then we will come back to the QI2 itself, page 33 1 you practise in Northern Ireland by the non-numeric 2 system? 3 A. That's correct, yes. 4 Q. So, therefore, when you are effecting a comparison and 5 ultimately evaluating you have no minimum number of 6 points in mind? 7 A. That's right. 8 Q. Do you, however, at least as some form of check in your 9 own mind, count points? 10 A. As I said to you before, each mark has to be taken 11 individually. The whole thing about the non-numeric is 12 that it is what it says. It's non-numeric. You're not 13 supposed to have a number in your head and I think for 14 some experts sometimes that is difficult to get away 15 from and yet, as I said to you before, there are marks 16 which are left at crime scenes where there may be a 17 relatively small number of actual ridge characteristics 18 that are there but such are the other characteristics 19 within that mark that the mark is very unique because of 20 that and that may be something like a very distinctive 21 core, it might be scarring, it might be any number of 22 things. It might simply be those ridge characteristics 23 on their own and the way they sit. So therefore numbers 24 don't really play a part -- certainly you just simply 25 have to assess each mark on the basis of what it is and page 34 1 the characteristics that are there and the quality of 2 it. 3 Q. Do you, when you come ultimately to reach your own 4 personal conclusion, do you think in terms of you being 5 100 per cent satisfied that there's a unique match 6 between the mark and the print or do you have some other 7 standard in your mind? 8 A. If I wasn't 100 per cent certain that a mark was made by 9 an individual I wouldn't sign what we call an ident card 10 at the bottom of it. If I'm not 100 per cent I don't 11 sign it. It's as simple as that. 12 Q. If you are not 100 per cent certain, does that mean 13 that -- is there any use made of that mark thereafter? 14 A. Certainly we will inform an investigator that we have 15 found ridge characteristics in agreement with Jeff 16 Logan, therefore, you couldn't rule him out but we also 17 would be unhappy to say 100 per cent that it definitely 18 was them. 19 I think that, in some ways, is being very, very 20 clear about the way marks are. There are marks that you 21 can turn round and you can say, Jeff Logan, absolutely 22 did not make this mark. I can be sure of that and 23 that's simply because it's not him and it's clearly not 24 him. There are other ones which you can say Jeff Logan 25 did make that mark because you have clearly identified page 35 1 him and you're 100 per cent sure of your identification 2 but there are those that sit in the middle where the 3 quality of the mark is such that it is actually 4 difficult, it's impossible possibly, to say whether or 5 not this individual made this mark. There are a number 6 of points in agreement and that means if you only have 7 say, to pick a number, five points in agreement but the 8 quality of the mark is such that there are no other 9 ridge detail, there is no other ridge detail in that 10 mark and there are no distinguishing features of any 11 description you would probably be unhappy at that point 12 to say that Jeff Logan made that. You certainly 13 couldn't rule out he didn't but you would not be happy 14 to sign an ident card and say that he did and write a 15 statement on the basis of it. 16 Q. I will explore that particular point but go perhaps to 17 the end of this and work back to it. First of all, you 18 will give evidence in court on a regular basis? 19 A. I haven't given evidence in court for some time but I'll 20 be in court before too much longer again, yes. 21 Q. Have you ever given evidence in a case where the 22 identification of the mark was in dispute? 23 A. No, never. 24 Q. Has your Department had experience of contesting a 25 disputed mark? page 36 1 A. Well, we are visited on a regular basis, on a very, very 2 regular basis, by independent experts and they are 3 brought in by defence teams, quite regularly and the 4 Bureau is very, very open about that. If anybody wants 5 to come to get an independent expert to come in and 6 check a mark they are more than welcome to do that and 7 it has been done hundreds of times if not more and never 8 on the basis of that has there ever been an issue with 9 the wrong identification been made in the Bureau. 10 Q. To ask you to come to an Inquiry which has as its 11 background a dispute in relation to fingerprints is a 12 new experience, even for you? 13 A. It's a first, yes. 14 Q. If I work back then to the way in which you would report 15 to the prosecution authorities, I can understand, as you 16 say, that you would sign an ident card. You would sign 17 up that a fingerprint has been identified as belonging 18 to a certain individual? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Do you have a practice in Northern Ireland of reporting 21 to, first of all, to the police that you have been 22 unable to exclude an individual, let us say it is the 23 suspect and you have, as you say, for purely 24 hypothetical purposes to use your example of five, you 25 have found five characteristics consistent with him but page 37 1 you are unable to say that those are a unique match? 2 A. We would be happy enough to tell an investigating 3 officer that we have found ridge characteristics that is 4 in agreement with a particular individual but there's 5 not enough to positively identify this person. So, 6 therefore, we would say we couldn't rule him out but we 7 can't really rule him in either. 8 Q. In particular, looking to these shores, we have had 9 Fingerprint Officers tell us that if they have observed 10 a number of characteristics lower than sufficient for a 11 unique identity, they might report that to police as a 12 matter of intelligence? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Intelligence-gathering. Have you ever had to give 15 evidence in court in relation to that situation where 16 you have been unable to exclude someone? 17 A. No, I've never had to do that, no. 18 Q. So it's simply left as a matter of intelligence? 19 A. That's correct, yes. 20 Q. Again, so far as -- and forgive me for my ignorance -- 21 when it comes then to preparing your report for court, 22 do you prepare that exclusively for the prosecution 23 authorities or do you prepare that really for submission 24 to the police? 25 A. It would be -- everything is open in disclosure. It's page 38 1 open for both the prosecution, for the PPS and for the 2 police. It's there for everyone to see so there's no 3 secrets. There's no ambiguity in this. Everyone has 4 access to our reports whenever they are written so there 5 are no issues with that, no. It's prepared for all to 6 see if they wish. 7 Q. When you write your report how much detail do you 8 actually include about the characteristics that have 9 been observed in arriving at a conclusion let us say of 10 unique identity? Do you detail that or do you simply 11 give the conclusion that there is a match? 12 A. Generally, we give the conclusion. We give the 13 conclusion on what marks we have identified and what our 14 conclusions are from that. So we don't go into a huge 15 amount of detail, if you like, on each individual ridge 16 characteristic which we have identified, bearing in mind 17 there are cases where you actually have 18 identified dozens and possibly over 100 marks in one 19 case so if you were to do that for every mark your 20 statement would run to pages and pages and pages. So if 21 it is left, generally, that if there is any, what would 22 you say, dispute about anything in the statement or any 23 of the marks, well, that's really where an independent 24 expert will pick up then whenever they come into the 25 Bureau to make their assessment at that stage. page 39 1 Q. Even at this stage, I've asked you at intermediate 2 stages about note-taking, do I take it you don't take 3 notes of your reasoning process at any stage? 4 A. No, we don't. 5 Q. So, therefore, if an independent expert is coming in to 6 your Bureau, what you would expect him to do would be to 7 work on the fingerprint form and the photograph or the 8 lift and reach his own conclusion? 9 A. They have access to exactly the same material we have 10 made our identification on. So, yes, they will work on 11 the basis of that. 12 Q. We have obviously asked you for the purposes of this 13 Inquiry to produce enlargements and marked enlargements? 14 A. Mm-hm. 15 Q. It's not the practice in Northern Ireland to prepare 16 such things? 17 A. It's not the practice to do it. We will do it if we're 18 asked to do it, either by the PPS or by the defence. We 19 do it if it's required or if the judge requires it but 20 by and large, no, it's not done. Generally if we're 21 asked to explain the identification that we have made, 22 we have a pro forma which we take with us and we go to 23 court and we actually explain how we have made our 24 identification, rather than actually with a mark-up, if 25 you like, of the mark itself. We don't tend to do that page 40 1 any more. We'll do it if we're asked to do it but we 2 don't do it as a matter of course. 3 Q. Can you think of particular circumstances which may lead 4 to either the prosecution, the defence or the judge 5 asking you specifically to do a mark-up? What 6 circumstances does that arise? 7 A. I don't really know. Sometimes you're not given -- to 8 be honest, it's so rare we're asked to do it now. It's 9 been quite some time. I think sometimes there's a 10 feeling that it helps a jury, if the jury can actually 11 see the mark, if they can see your marking-up, that that 12 may help them. Personally, I don't agree with that. I 13 think in some ways it actually makes things more 14 difficult because when you blow the mark up you lose the 15 clarity with it and sometimes you can have a jury 16 scratching their head looking at it and wondering how on 17 earth -- they don't see that point 16 on one side 18 matches point 16 on the other. You do as a Fingerprint 19 Expert and it does when you look at it under the glass 20 and when you are working with the original sized image 21 but when you blow it up times 20 and you put it on to a 22 comparison chart sometimes that clarity is lost. So I 23 think in some ways it can be a hindrance rather than a 24 help to do that but if the defence or, as I say, the PPS 25 or the judge asked for it, then we do it. page 41 1 Q. So far as what you report to the prosecution 2 authorities, I've taken it that the report will tend to 3 be a short report? 4 A. Again, it depends on the case. If you have a case which 5 is one black powder lift lifted from a burglary, that's 6 it, it's a fairly short statement that's to be done. If 7 it's a cannabis factory which is found and there are 8 hundreds of marks which are on it, then you've 9 identified four or five people on it, then it's going to 10 be a much longer statement. 11 Q. I have covered in relation to ACE, there's the A, the C 12 and the E at an individual level. There then is the 13 verification process? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Do you have a set number of individuals who are involved 16 in the verification process for marks? 17 A. We have three people who verify every identification in 18 the bureau. 19 Q. So does that mean that there's a total of three or does 20 that make the initial examiner plus three, a total of 21 four? 22 A. It will depend who the initial examiner is. If the 23 initial examiner is a trainee then, no, he will be 24 number 4. There will be three experts who will check 25 the mark before it's signed off and the last person to page 42 1 sign it off, the final check, will be at least the rank 2 of Senior Fingerprint Officer. 3 Q. So there will be a total of three qualified examiners? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And did you say the last one is...? 6 A. At least the rank of a Senior Fingerprint Officer. 7 Q. When the checkers are checking, what information are 8 they given by the first examiner? First of all, do they 9 know who the first examiner is? 10 A. Yes, they will. 11 Q. Are they told that the first examiner has examined the 12 mark and has identified it as, for example, the right 13 middle finger? 14 A. They probably will, yes. They will be aware of that as 15 well, yes. 16 Q. Are they given any other information? 17 A. No, that's pretty much it. I mean, as regards starting 18 them off, if you want to put it like that, showing them 19 if you have a piece of palm or something like that there 20 or you have a fingerprint, as regards giving them a 21 start on the mark, that generally isn't done. Really, 22 it is left with each individual to come to their own 23 conclusions on that mark. 24 So I mean, as regards -- we use comparators quite a 25 lot in the PSNI and there's absolutely no way that a page 43 1 third check would be done on the basis of 2 someone sitting at a -- say the second person that 3 verifies the identification will mark it up, will have 4 their points on the mark, will walk away and then ask 5 the third person to come along and say "check that". 6 That just would be completely wrong, for want of a 7 better word. In fact, it would probably end up in 8 discipline procedures being taken against the person for 9 doing that. 10 The check has to be blind. The mark needs wiped, 11 both of them need wiped, they start from scratch, they 12 come to their own conclusions, so. 13 Q. Do you have any protocols to ensure the seniority of the 14 individuals involved in the process? I appreciate you 15 say that the final one has to be at least at the rank of 16 a Senior Examiner. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Can you have a situation in which a Senior Examiner is 19 the first to examine a mark? 20 A. Yes, that would be possible they would be the first 21 person to do it, yes. 22 Q. How do you guard against the possibility that the first 23 person who examines might be the most experienced in the 24 team and that that might subtly influence the more 25 junior ones who follow on? page 44 1 A. Well, I suppose in some ways there's a whole lot of 2 reasons for that and how you stop that happening. I 3 mean, one is to ensure that the only people that can 4 report out on a mark, physically that can do it, are the 5 Senior Fingerprint Officers. So a junior member of 6 staff, if you want to put it like that, can't do that. 7 They can't physically put the report out. That can only 8 be done by a Senior Fingerprint Expert. 9 Another reason I suppose you would say that that 10 shouldn't happen is because really it doesn't matter at 11 what stage you make that identification, it's not 12 just -- if a wrong identification goes out, it's not 13 just down to the person making the last check on it that 14 bears responsibility for that, it's everyone who signs 15 the card and everyone's well aware of that. It's not 16 simply that "it really doesn't matter if I check it that 17 carefully because I'm the first or the second person, 18 it's really the responsibility of the third person to 19 check this carefully", that's not the way it works. 20 Everyone has equal responsibility when they sign that 21 card so it doesn't matter. 22 The third thing is we have always been very, very -- 23 I've worked in the bureau for almost 20 years now and 24 from day 1, whenever I came in, you were encouraged to 25 question. There never, ever was an issue in the bureau page 45 1 with you being told what to do by a senior member of 2 staff as regards making an identification. If you 3 weren't happy with something you didn't sign it. It was 4 as simple as that and you were never, ever cajoled into 5 making a decision of any description that you weren't 6 happy with by a senor member of staff and I certainly 7 would like to think that that ethos still remains within 8 the Bureau. 9 Q. This is obviously not an Inquiry about the PSNI but I'm 10 just interested in a comparison in relation to 11 procedures? 12 A. Sure. 13 Q. Let's take a difficult number. Let's say five points 14 have been observed and the first examiner thinks there 15 is something distinctive about some of those points so 16 he would be willing to make a non-numeric 17 identification, in this instance, on as few as five. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. I'm just taking that as a challenging number. The 20 second officer who is verifying, let us say again for 21 the sake of argument sees only five, but is thinking 22 this is just an ordinary case of five points, wouldn't 23 be in a position to identify, he thinks, based on that. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. What would happen? Could there be a discussion between page 46 1 the two officers? 2 A. Yes. I mean, again that's something that has always 3 been actively encouraged, for the experts to talk, but 4 also what happens is if three people -- if there's any 5 individual in the process who is unhappy about the 6 identification, maybe not even so happy but I suppose 7 you could say unhappy about the identification in a case 8 like you're talking about here, then it's automatically 9 referred to an arbitration panel and that's part of our 10 quality procedures, that it goes to the Quality Manager 11 and from there an arbitration panel is put together and 12 it's that panel then decides whether that identification 13 goes out or whether it doesn't. 14 Q. Again, just proceeding through it in stages, the second 15 examiner observes five characteristics but doesn't see 16 anything particularly distinctive in them; therefore, 17 would be inclined to say this is not an identification. 18 He could have a discussion at the verification process 19 with the first examiner? 20 A. Yes, that's quite possible. 21 Q. Could the first examiner demonstrate to the second 22 verifier the particular features that he regarded as 23 sufficiently distinctive in this instance? 24 A. He may well do that, yes, as the two of them talk but, 25 again, you're relying there on Fingerprint Experts doing page 47 1 really what they are paid to do and that is make their 2 own decision and if the second examiner is unhappy, if 3 he is not convinced with what he is saying and he's not 4 happy with it he will not sign that card, certainly 5 shouldn't do it. 6 Q. We'll just work it through. It could be that the second 7 examiner, having had the discussion with the first, as 8 you say, the second one conscious that he bears full 9 responsibility, therefore, has to act with 10 professionalism and integrity, he could find himself 11 being persuaded that, yes, there is indeed something 12 distinctive about these five that are sufficient for an 13 identification? 14 A. It's possible. I mean, it's difficult to say. It's a 15 kind of abstract case here. It's one you don't actually 16 have an individual mark that you're looking at. I mean, 17 as I say, people are encouraged to talk. They are not 18 encouraged to persuade. They are encouraged to talk and 19 work together on that and come to an -- but ultimately 20 you make up your own decision on whether you are happy 21 with the identification or whether you're not and if 22 you're not then that mark automatically goes to an 23 arbitration panel and the decision is made there and 24 there's no stigma, no shame, no nothing, on doing that, 25 far from it. It's very open, it's very clear, that if page 48 1 you're not happy with anything that is done then it goes 2 to arbitration. 3 Q. So let us take it then, as you say, my example is 4 obviously abstract. It sounds as if the more likely 5 scenario is that if number 2 is doubtful in the manner I 6 have described, that that would come up before an 7 arbitration panel? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Is the arbitration panel comprised of individuals not 10 previously involved? 11 A. Yes, absolutely. No, they have no connection to the 12 case at all. So, again, everyone sees the mark on its 13 own without being aware of what the decision of the 14 other panel members had been. So at that stage it 15 becomes very clinical, if you like, in that each 16 individual looks at the mark. They look at it on their 17 own without any knowledge of what the case is, without 18 any knowledge of what the decisions have been of the 19 other panel members and it's the end then that the 20 decision is made. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Though they must know there has been a 22 disagreement because otherwise it wouldn't have come to 23 the panel. 24 A. Yes, they are aware that there is a disagreement but 25 they are not aware of what decisions each other has made page 49 1 whenever they come to make their own individual decision 2 on it. 3 MR MOYNIHAN: Assuming the panel is unanimous on an 4 identification, that could leave the Bureau as an 5 identification? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Again, as I said, this is not an inquiry in relation to 8 the PSNI but I am just interested in your processes. If 9 at some earlier stage one examiner has been unsatisfied 10 so, therefore, it's called the panel into existence but 11 the panel is itself unanimous and it's being reported 12 out, would you have a process by which the fact that 13 there had been an earlier difference of opinion would at 14 least be reported or do you regard your arbitration 15 panel as a means internally of settling such 16 discussions? 17 A. Do you mean would there be some kind of, what would you 18 say, procedure against the individual who was unwilling 19 to sign the card? 20 Q. No, if I take it in stages, what I meant was would you 21 disclose to the prosecution authority that this is a 22 mark that has had to go through the arbitration process 23 or do you regard the arbitration process as an internal 24 procedure -- 25 A. No, we regard that as an internal procedure. It will be page 50 1 there in the notes. It will be there in the file and if 2 an independent expert come in and opened up the file 3 they will see the notes, again there's no issue with 4 that. They will make their own decision whenever they 5 come to look at the mark to decide whether they agree 6 with the identification or whether they don't. But, 7 yes, we would be quite happy to let them see that. 8 There would be no problem. 9 Q. Other than being in the notes it's not something that 10 you would, as a matter of routine, refer to the report 11 so, for example, you wouldn't say this is a panel 12 decision? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Then coming back, because we have had some questions 15 about culture, in a situation where one examiner has 16 been cautious, has said he is not happy, it has gone to 17 the panel and the panel is unanimous, is there any form 18 of come back against the individual who has, on that 19 view, been out of step? 20 A. Not in a case like that, no. It's different -- you need 21 to be very, very careful in that, you know, if I was 22 going to reprimand somebody for anything I would rather 23 reprimand them for being reckless than cautious. It's 24 better to be cautious in a situation like that than it 25 is, as I say, just simply be reckless in what you do. page 51 1 Mistakes are made in bureaux and they are made very 2 often in the sense that marks are missed and we all know 3 that and anyone who says that they have never missed a 4 mark, in other words that they have searched a mark and 5 they have failed to identify it whenever it was there 6 they are probably not telling the truth because that 7 happens and everyone knows that it happens. Where it 8 becomes a hang-able offence is whenever you misidentify 9 somebody, that is where things go very, very wrong, as 10 we all know. 11 Certainly we would have -- if we find that someone 12 fails to identify someone, so say I have a mark, there 13 is a suspect named as Jeff Logan and that fingerprint 14 comes in and the fact that the person, Jeff Logan, is 15 named by the investigating officer as a likely suspect 16 and I compare his fingerprints against that crime scene 17 mark and I don't identify it, now that will then go out 18 to the investigating officer as saying Jeff Logan is not 19 involved in that. If at a later date you actually do 20 identify Jeff Logan against those prints then we will 21 investigate as to why that happened. It might come down 22 to the fact that a better set of fingerprints have come 23 in at a later date and that's why it was identified. 24 The first set of fingerprints that we received were very 25 poor and therefore the crime scene mark wasn't going to page 52 1 hit against it. But it may well be that the person 2 simply missed it, that they didn't pick it up whenever 3 they should have. If that's the case, then we have a 4 procedure in place where another 20 of that person's 5 cases are pulled on a random basis and they are checked 6 for mistakes as well. If we find more at that stage, 7 then things escalate after that. So there is a policy 8 in place within the Bureau if mis-identifications are 9 made then action is taken against someone. 10 It's the same if a wrong identification was made 11 there is a policy in place to deal with that. 12 Thankfully, so far, we've never had to do that. 13 Q. If I then turn from these more general matters to look 14 at QI2 itself, you have brought with you, I think you 15 have with you in an envelope the original photographs 16 that you were working with. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. First of all, if I bring up the first image, if I 19 understand it, what you were looking at originally, I 20 will bring it up on screen is DB0001H. It is pages 5 21 and 6. 22 Is that the photograph you were originally working 23 from? 24 A. That looks like it, yes. 25 Q. You actually have it -- page 53 1 A. Yes, I have it in the envelope, yes. 2 Q. That was the one that at least down until 29th October 3 you and your colleagues had been primarily using to 4 express your opinion? 5 A. Yes, that's correct. 6 Q. You had considered that that had insufficient ridge 7 detail? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. You were asked by the Inquiry team to illustrate your 10 findings, so on this to occasion produce an enlargement? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did you produce an enlargement? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Just so that we understand the enlargement, if we take 15 down the six on the right-hand side and we will bring up 16 NI0004 -- it is a PowerPoint so we will need to proceed 17 through it -- just stop there. 18 Here we have an enlargement produced by you. Can 19 you explain the process that resulted in this 20 enlargement? Was it done by scanning? 21 A. The enlargement, no. The enlargement was done simply by 22 working with the mark itself and putting it under a 23 glass, working with it as it is in its original size and 24 working with it with a magnifying glass and that's 25 pretty much how the assessment was done. page 54 1 Q. Sorry, I will come back to that. What I meant was the 2 image that we see now on the right-hand side of the 3 screen is an enlargement that was prepared in Northern 4 Ireland? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. You did not at this stage have negatives? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Was what we have on screen a scanned version -- 9 A. Yes, it's an enlargement of the original mark which we 10 were given. 11 Q. Do you know the resolution? 12 A. I don't and this was part of the problem because the 13 mark which we were given wasn't scaled so actually to 14 enlarge it properly and to get it up to the size we 15 really weren't even sure whether the mark which we were 16 given was at its proper size at all. So our 17 photographer did his best with it to blow it up but 18 really he struggled quite a bit to know exactly whether 19 he was bringing it up to the right size or whether it 20 was wrong. So in many ways he guessed, so I'm honestly 21 not sure what resolution it's at; I don't know. 22 Q. I suppose what I also meant was the resolution of the 23 scanner. Is this done to a -- 24 A. Ah, sorry, yes, I'm with you now. I think that's at 500 25 DPI. page 55 1 Q. This one's 500? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. In arriving at your conclusion in the earlier reports 4 what you have said is that you all along worked to the 5 photographic original. 6 A. Say that again? 7 Q. In arriving at your conclusion in the earlier reports 8 you and your colleagues worked to the photographic 9 original, the one that's on the left-hand side of the 10 screen? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. You did not use the enlargement as part of your opinion 13 process? 14 A. No, because by enlarging it we felt it actually reduced 15 the quality of it. Enlarging, it's like a lot of 16 things, if you take a photograph of your children and 17 you blow it up to A3 size, if it's not taken at a 18 high enough DPI then it's going to be grainy and lose 19 clarity and that's exactly what we found happened with 20 the fingerprint. We blew it up a number of times but 21 the quality of it actually diminished. It didn't help 22 the comparison. It had the opposite effect. 23 Q. So that what we then see on the right-hand side is 24 simply something that you did because you were required 25 by us to actually illustrate your opinion? page 56 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Therefore, if I seek to discuss with you whether or not 3 particular features can be seen at any particular point 4 on the image on the right there will be a difficulty 5 that your opinion is that the clarity is simply missing 6 in the image on the right as a result of the blow-up 7 process? 8 A. There are a number of ridge characteristics there. I 9 mean, I would have been fairly sure are what they look 10 like. I mean, you take number 2, you take number 3, you 11 take 4, certainly would have been 3 and probably number 12 1 as well would have been ridge characteristics I would 13 have been happy enough to have said, yes, I'm pretty 14 sure that it's a bifurcation, that it's a ridge ending, 15 whatever. Those I'd have been happy enough. Number 5 I 16 wasn't particularly happy with. I felt it could be a 17 ridge characteristic. Number 6 was probably the same, 7 18 and 8 certainly would have been, they would have been 19 ones we would have looked at, they possibly could be 20 ridge characteristics but I really wouldn't have said I 21 was 100 per cent sure they were. 22 Q. Just for my purposes, 1, 2 and 3 you were reasonably 23 satisfied from the original photograph were clear? 24 A. Yes, and 4 -- and 4 as well. 25 Q. 1, 2, 3 and 4? page 57 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Number 5 you are doubtful? 3 A. Possibly. 4 Q. What about 6, 7 and 8? 5 A. Again, possible. 6 Q. So 1 to 4 you were satisfied, 5, 6, 7 and 8 doubtful? 7 A. I don't know that doubtful's the right word. I would 8 say it's possible that they were there. I wouldn't say 9 I was 100 per cent certain they were there. There 10 appeared to be a ridge characteristics there but I 11 wouldn't have said I was 100 per cent certain that it 12 was. 13 Q. Just looking at the image on the right-hand side just 14 now, if we were to engage in a discussion about whether 15 points 1 to 4 are clearly to be demonstrable as what you 16 had seen them as, would you be satisfied with the 17 clarity of the image on the right-hand side to debate 18 those particular points? 19 A. Again, that's hard to say. I mean, it's a mark which 20 you're given to -- you really have no idea how it's been 21 photographed. You don't know if there's a better way 22 that it could be photographed, if another way of looking 23 at this mark would actually bring those points up and 24 make them clearer than they are in that image. But if 25 you were asking me if I was given that mark and asked to page 58 1 compare it against an individual's fingerprints, those 2 would have been the ridge characteristics that I would 3 have picked out and they were the ones that I'd have 4 been looking for. 5 Q. You your overall conclusion illustrated by what we have 6 in NI0004, if I proceed through the images on the 7 right-hand side, we've got -- if we stop at number 4, 8 you have brought up some other markings, now 1 to 5. If 9 I take down the image on the left-hand side and I will 10 bring up page 5 also of NI0004, this now is the legend 11 that goes with the numbers? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Can you just talk us through particular points and 14 perhaps the general significance of these five points. 15 Are these the five difficulties or challenges that you 16 faced with the image that resulted in you overall 17 concluding that there was insufficient ridge detail? 18 A. Yes, I mean, if you go back to the other point you will 19 see there were I think is it eight points marked up 20 there and generally if you had eight points we would 21 retain that mark and we would say that that mark was 22 sufficient for comparison. 23 The problem with this mark was that there were a lot 24 of things going on with it, certainly looking at it 25 initially. The first thing was is you see at number 1 page 59 1 there appears to be a loop there and yet at number 2 2 there appears to be another head of a loop coming in. 3 Certainly looking at that image, that is how all of us 4 in the PSNI read that and it looked what we would call a 5 double tap. It looked like the fingerprint being put 6 down twice and, therefore, there's a distortion between 7 the right and the left-hand sides of it. 8 If you look at number 5 as well, you can see there's 9 almost like a valley running through there and, again, 10 there's some kind of distortion/movement, going on along 11 the ridges. It's not a free-flow of ridges. That 12 actually, again, gives the appearance that the mark's 13 been put down twice. 14 If you look at point 3, 3 again is a very, very 15 distorted area. It would be, certainly looking at that, 16 impossible to count between the two sides of that mark. 17 Then number 5, again -- sorry, I said about number 18 5. Number 4 an area of possible superimposition. It 19 looks like there's other ridge detail running in other 20 direction along there. 21 So for all those things put together, we felt it was 22 really impossible to count between the two sides of that 23 mark and, therefore, really what you were looking at 24 were two separate marks, one with five points on it and 25 the other with three and, therefore, we would have page 60 1 pronounced the mark of insufficient ridge detail because 2 of that. 3 Q. That plainly involves the interpretation of the overall 4 pattern that you have just described? 5 A. Yes, that's right. It's not just a matter, as I said 6 before, you know, of counting points, if you want to put 7 it like that, at looking at the ridge detail in 8 isolation. It's also looking at the entire mark and in 9 this case, given what appeared to be areas of movement, 10 what appeared to be the inability to actually count 11 between the two parts of the mark, we decided that the 12 mark was of insufficient ridge detail for comparison. 13 Q. Again, forgive me just for repeating this almost ad 14 nauseam what you have up on screen is what you 15 subsequently produced to illustrate your difficulties 16 but you had, in fact, been working from the photographic 17 original -- 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. -- and not this enlargement? 20 A. That's right. 21 Q. So that the features that you observed of a part of 22 indications of double loops, the distortion, 23 superimposition and movement were all features present 24 in the original image seen under glass? 25 A. That's certainly how we read the image as it was page 61 1 presented to us, yes. 2 MR MOYNIHAN: Sir, that might be as good a point as any to 3 stop. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: We usually rise and have a short break in the 5 course of the morning because we begin so early. So we 6 will stop now until 11.20 and then we will resume. 7 (11.00 am) 8 (A short break) 9 (11.24 am) 10 MR MOYNIHAN: Mr Logan, what I actually want to do is to 11 move on in the discussion to see what the impact was of 12 the next stage in the letter, stage 1 in the letter but 13 is in fact stage 2 of the process. What I want now to 14 do is look at the impact that there was of studying 15 David Asbury's prints. 16 If I bring up, please, NI0008 and we proceed through 17 that, is this a charting that you did to illustrate the 18 impact of observing David Asbury's prints. 19 A. Yes, that's correct. 20 Q. This is based on the same image that you used in the 21 previous PowerPoint? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. So, again, it's based on the original photograph with 24 the markings on it? 25 A. Yes. page 62 1 Q. What we need to do, in fact, is to put side-by-side the 2 image that we have just now with one of the images from 3 NI0004, if we just proceed through and just stop there. 4 We happen to have on screen two chartings with eight 5 points. Each has eight points. 6 A. Yes. Sorry, that's correct. 7 Q. In fact, if one looks at it in detail, some of the 8 points are different? 9 A. That's right, yes. 10 Q. So the one that is on the right, NI0004.002, is one that 11 you did without reference to Mr Asbury's prints? 12 A. That's right, yes. 13 Q. The one on the left, NI0008.002, is one that you did 14 after you studied Mr Asbury's prints? 15 A. That's correct, yes. 16 Q. If I have this correctly, there are two points on the 17 left -- that is two points on the second image -- that 18 were not picked up by you originally? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. On the left are they points 5 and 7? 21 A. That's correct, yes. 22 Q. So on this second enlargement there are points 5 and 7 23 which are unique to the second examination? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. So, therefore, do I take it that having had the page 63 1 opportunity to study Mr Asbury's prints that you then, 2 in reconsidering the mark, were able to identify two 3 ridge characteristics, numbers 5 and 7, that you had not 4 previously picked up in the image on the right-hand 5 side? 6 A. Yes, that would be correct. 7 Q. Can you explain the process that resulted in the 8 identification of those two other characteristics, 5 and 9 7? 10 A. As I said to you before, the comparison exercise in many 11 ways is comparing -- it starts, if you like, by 12 comparing your most obvious ridge characteristics and, 13 as I was saying earlier on there, those would have been 14 1, 2, 3 and 4 would have been the most clear of all 15 ridge characteristics in that mark. So when it came to 16 actually looking to see whether this mark was made by 17 Mr Asbury or not those were the characteristics that I 18 used to actually make the comparison. 19 Now having found those four points, characteristics, 20 in sequence with what was found in the rolled impression 21 of Mr Asbury's prints, then we set about establishing 22 whether any of the other features which we looked at in 23 this mark, whether they actually tallied with ridge 24 characteristics which were then in the rolled 25 impression. So there were some, as I said before, there page 64 1 were those, the 1, 2, 3 and 4, that were very, very 2 strong ones, the ones that you would have been very sure 3 of finding and the ones that you actually used to do the 4 search on in the first place. After that then you have 5 other ridge characteristics which you had thought may 6 well be there, such as 7 and 8, and for those then you 7 looked for them -- sorry, not 7 and 8 it would have 8 been ... 9 Q. 6 and 8? 10 A. Yes, 6 and 8, looking at those and seeing if they were 11 there and it turns out, yes, that they are. After that 12 then it's a matter of looking at the ridge 13 characteristics which again are further down the list, 14 if you like, the ones that you would have believed are 15 weaker on this mark to see whether they are there on the 16 rolled impression of Mr Asbury or not and in this case 17 these two were the ones that are there. 18 Q. If I take it then just in stages, the original marking, 19 the first one, is on the right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. So if I use its numbering for consistency, 1 to 4 remain 22 and are common to the two images? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. 6 and 8 on the right, equally are 6 and 8 on the left? 25 A. Yes. page 65 1 Q. So they are common also? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Points 5 and 7 which have changed? 4 A. Yes, and also 5 on the right-hand side as well whenever 5 we looked at it we believed that that was a ridge 6 characteristic. On comparison with Mr Asbury's prints, 7 I don't believe it is at all. It's not a ridge 8 characteristic. 9 Q. So, again, that would be, to use my generic term, an 10 event which, by looking at the prints of Mr Asbury, you 11 don't even regard it now as a ridge characteristic at 12 all? 13 A. It's a non-event if you want to call it that, yes. 14 Q. So 5 and 7 on the right dropped out? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And were replaced by entirely new points 5 and 7? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Again, to illustrate the process that I discussed with 19 you earlier, if I look at the image on the left-hand 20 side and look at the point number 7, I might challenge 21 you and say to my eye I don't see very much at point 22 number 7. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Looking at it as this version on screen as an 25 enlargement, would you be comfortable debating that page 66 1 particular point with me on this image or do you have to 2 go back to look at the photographic original under 3 glass? 4 A. No -- well, I suppose it's different for me because I've 5 studied the mark now for over a week and I having looked 6 at it I can argue my point with that, whether you can 7 see it, would be another matter, on screen. I think if 8 you looked at it under glass or if you had it on a 9 comparator it would be different. It's much easier to 10 see there probably than it is on this enlargement. That 11 in some ways is the problem. 12 But I think you also need to understand that it's 13 the whole nature of looking at a mark against a set of 14 fingerprints actually comparing the mark with the 15 fingerprints of an individual and that clarifies what 16 you see. 17 The fact that I didn't mark absolutely everything up 18 that I thought could possibly be a ridge characteristic 19 on that mark does not mean to say that it couldn't be 20 there. It simply means that what I did initially 21 whenever we did, if you like, the quality control of the 22 mark its looking at it and seeing what are the strongest 23 characteristics, the ones you assess whether to retain 24 this mark for evidence, for use, or whether to discard 25 it or pronounce it of insufficient ridge detail. page 67 1 Really what you are doing whenever you compare it is 2 clarifying what those points are, bearing in mind of 3 course and being very, very mindful of the fact that 4 what you mustn't do is be influenced unduly by the 5 rolled impression that you always work from the bad mark 6 to the good rather than the other way around. 7 Q. This is why I'm alighting, just by coincidence, on 8 number 7, I could have asked about 5 and 7 but number 7 9 is the one I am looking at just now. I have enlarged it 10 yet further to look at number 7 and this is why I'd 11 asked you if you would be comfortable debating point 12 number 7 on this enlargement conscious, as you say, you 13 worked from the photograph. 14 What I suppose I am asking is what do we observe on 15 screen as opposed to what we might see in the rolled 16 impression that would carry back to enable us to 17 interpret it? What do we see on screen that -- first of 18 all, what is point 7? 19 A. Point 7 is a ridge ending. It's a ridge ending coming 20 down the way and where the point, where the red line 21 stops that's the tip, the bottom end of the ridge 22 ending. 23 Q. As I look at this particular section, to my eye if I 24 take in, first of all, the areas and then I'll come 25 back, I going anticlockwise, at the very top there does page 68 1 seem to be a smear of some description? 2 A. Mm-hm. 3 Q. Coming round to a point that's about ten to on a clock 4 another smear? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Coming beneath that smear now coming to the position 7 about 9 o'clock, really roughly where the line is coming 8 in from number 8, there seems to be grey lines running, 9 almost with a slight curve but more or less left to 10 right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And even the black underneath seems to have a straighter 13 appearance running right to left? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Indicative perhaps of some form of smear in that area? 16 A. Yes, quite possible, yes. 17 Q. Therefore, when I come down to number 7 -- 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. -- at least to my eye the predominant sort of pattern of 20 the black is, in fact, straight lines left to right as 21 opposed to ridge structure which it does seem, seems to 22 be curving up? 23 A. Well, no, I wouldn't agree with you there. 24 Q. That's what I would like you just to explain. First of 25 all, because there's an ability to mark these images, page 69 1 between 7 and 8 what I am looking at in particular is 2 just where my arrow is just now, one line that seems to 3 be straight left to right, above it another and indeed 4 between, as I go to the right, black markings that are, 5 again predominantly horizontal and going left to right? 6 A. Yes, I think there's no doubt that part of that comes 7 down to the quality of what's been reproduced rather 8 than the mark itself. When the mark is looked at under 9 the glass it's clearer than what comes up on the screen 10 here. Part of that is down to the fact that this, 11 again, is an enlargement. It's a photograph of a 12 photograph, if you want to put it like that. It's not 13 as clear as it is in the actual mark itself. 14 Q. Equally, because if I adjust my eyes and start to look 15 to the right of the red line that points to number 7, I 16 can indeed see black markings that predominantly go 17 bottom to top or top to bottom? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. So there would be ridge characteristics? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. So what I can see if I come down nearer to the line for 22 number 6, I can see a black line proceeding up? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. That would be a ridge? 25 A. Yes, that's correct. page 70 1 Q. I then come in one and there is what seems to be ridge 2 structure going to either side of point number 7? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. But on this occasion, again I just put to you one might 5 be tempted to simply join the dots and say that what is 6 apparent at point number 7 is in fact one continuous 7 ridge arching round rather than a ridge ending? 8 A. Well, again I mean, there's two issues here. One is the 9 quality of the mark that you are looking at, both in 10 terms of, you know, what's blown-up here and also how 11 it's been reproduced but, secondly, when it comes to 12 making the comparison, again, that is where your 13 20 years, your 10 years, your 30-years' of experience in 14 looking at fingerprints comes, that is really where you 15 make your decision as to whether that is, as you say, a 16 ridge ending or whether it is, in fact, it's not a ridge 17 ending. It's as simple as that. It's really there for 18 the Fingerprint Expert to ascertain exactly what has 19 happened it there with that point. Is it a viable 20 point? Is it there or is it not? 21 Q. One of the reasons that I asked you earlier on about the 22 lack of experience that there is generally, it would 23 seem, with disputed identifications, have you had an 24 opportunity to think about the extent to which, when it 25 comes to your opinion in court, you would require to page 71 1 demonstrate to a judge or to a juror that a particular 2 point is to be observed to begin with and then to be 3 interpreted as you see it? Is that something that you 4 have had the opportunity to consider? 5 A. There have been times in the past when you have prepared 6 an enlargement and where you've actually talked a judge 7 or a jury or both actually through and explained how 8 you've come to the process of making your 9 identification. 10 Again, I think there's value in that in one way and 11 in another way there are difficulties with it in that it 12 can actually create uncertainty, I think, particularly 13 in a jury's mind, which really it shouldn't be simply 14 because of how marks are distorted or how the quality 15 degrades as they are blown-up. I have absolutely no 16 problem doing it but I think at the same time there 17 needs to be an understanding that when a Fingerprint 18 Expert does give their evidence it is expert evidence 19 and it's difficult evidence and, therefore, that's why 20 sometimes the Fingerprint Expert will see something 21 clearly that possibly someone else doesn't and I'm not 22 saying it needs to be taken on trust -- obviously it 23 doesn't -- but it's for the judge at that point to 24 decide whether they accept that evidence or whether they 25 don't. page 72 1 Q. So I think if we stop there in relation to this 2 particular stage, my reason I suppose for concentrating 3 on this was twofold: firstly, we can actually see in 4 points 5 and 7 on the left, which are now highlighted on 5 the screen, two ridge characteristics that in a sense 6 are disclosed to you by working with Mr Asbury's prints? 7 A. I think working with Mr Asbury's prints clarified those 8 points, yes. 9 Q. If I then move on to the next stage and I will just take 10 it that I will skip over one point because, looking at 11 some of the other material that the Inquiry team 12 provided to you at stage 3 of the exercise, it didn't 13 alter your conclusion? 14 A. No. 15 Q. However, what you then did was you gave our negative, 16 the Inquiry's negative, to your dedicated photographer? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. He provided to you four images? 19 A. That's correct, yes. 20 Q. Which you, in fact, have with you in an envelope. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Can you just take them out so that people can see the 23 size. You are working on life-sized images; is that 24 correct? 25 A. Yes, that's the size they are there (indicated). page 73 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Which is roughly, what measurement would 2 you ... your guess will be better than mine. 3 A. Again, they are not scaled so our photographer had to 4 make the best of it that he could and get them to around 5 the size of a fingerprint as to what he believed was the 6 size the fingerprint should be but because there is no 7 scaling on it he couldn't be 100 per cent sure of that. 8 MR MOYNIHAN: So what you are, in fact, trying to do, if I 9 understand correctly, is you are trying to have a 10 photographic image to the same scale as the inked 11 prints. 12 A. That's correct, yes. 13 Q. So you are comparing like with like? 14 A. Absolutely, yes. 15 Q. So at the next stage then of this process, you and your 16 colleagues worked with those four images? 17 A. We selected one image which we believed was the clearest 18 of the four. Unfortunately, as you will see whenever it 19 comes up on the screen, it didn't come up the clearest 20 on the screen out of them and you may well look at it 21 and think it's not but in actual fact it's a very even 22 approach to the image in that it takes away all the 23 contrast out of it. So whereas in this there's a big, 24 big contrast between the black and the white in the one 25 that we worked with it was more a middle grey, if you page 74 1 want to put it like that. So there's much less 2 contrast. 3 The problem in many ways with this mark which we 4 found with it, if you look where point 8 is, point 8 is 5 a white dot on the box itself and because it's white the 6 ridge detail is actually burned out almost whenever it's 7 been photographed or whenever it's been exposed. It has 8 burned those marks away. There are other areas in the 9 box which were very, very dark so whenever you look at 10 those then, the box, the way it's been exposed, those 11 areas are very, very dark. So because of that high 12 contrast between the black and the white it means there 13 are some ridge detail which you can see quite clearly 14 and other ones you can't. 15 So what our photographer did, if you like, was bring 16 it down to a more level playing field, much less 17 exposure done on it, much less contrast between the 18 black and the white and in that way it made the mark 19 simply much easier to look at. 20 Q. So what we will do before we look at the further marks 21 or further enlargements you did for us, we will follow 22 up this point you say about the white area which is 23 where point 8 is so that we can follow it on the tin. 24 It's immediately opposite the letter U in the serial 25 code UCO? page 75 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. I think we're sufficiently familiar that the point that 3 is beneath the line number 5 and, in effect, that 4 horizontal stripe, white area, is also a feature of the 5 underlying picture? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. If I can show you a picture of the tin I will bring it 8 up in a form of a presentation by Dr Bleay, EA0171.40. 9 Sorry, do you have Dr Bleay's PowerPoint? (Pause) 10 This happens to be a picture of the tin and, 11 obviously, it's not orientated quite as we would wish. 12 The QI2 (Marion Ross) is at the top and then the stripe 13 that I was saying runs to the bottom of your image, we 14 can actually see above the 010 and the area that we are 15 interested in is opposite the U and the C. 16 Are there areas there that may appear to be the sort 17 of area that you are regarding as the white area that 18 causes the obstruction in the detail of the mark? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Which of them is it? Is it the one that is beside the 21 gentleman in the dark suit, between him and the man in 22 the brown suit? 23 A. It's not to be honest with you, this isn't -- I'm not 24 100 per cent familiar with the tin but I think it's 25 either the dot you see under his arm there, where he's page 76 1 got his hand out and there's a white dot under that or 2 it may be you can also see the part where his collar is 3 visible as well. Even if you look at that, you will see 4 yourself what he is wearing is very dark but if you go 5 round the outside of that you get into the part where 6 the carriage is, it's very light. It's a goldy colour, 7 so the contrast between different parts of that 8 photograph, the background of it, they are very great. 9 Q. So these contrasts in the background, in fact, I think 10 we can look to the right-hand side, the other image, we 11 will see to some extent something is coming up, even on 12 this image? 13 A. The white, if you go up above the U, there's like a 14 white square or white rectangle there. That rectangle 15 is actually, is that policeman, at the front of his face 16 there's a white area you can see that if you move up to 17 the carriage man, that white dot there is under his hand 18 is then here, yes, just there (indicated) and you can 19 actually make out where his collar is, that V shape. 20 Q. So we can see -- is the white circle, the area that you 21 say is what appears to be a badge on the man's jacket? 22 A. That's actually further over. Sorry, the part where 23 point 8 there that we were talking about is further 24 down. It's that rectangle area above the U. That's the 25 part we were talking there, the part that's been burned page 77 1 out. 2 Q. It doesn't, as a rectangle, it doesn't seem to 3 correspond to anything in particular on the tin? 4 A. No. 5 Q. But it's quite plainly something in the underlying 6 image? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. With that in mind, if we can go then to your third 9 comparison that's NI0007 and if we just proceed through 10 that and just stop there -- 11 A. Now, you're probably going to look at this and think 12 it's actually worse quality than the last one that we 13 looked at but in actual fact when it's under the glass 14 it's much better quality than the last one. So I'm 15 sorry about that. That's the way it has scanned 16 through. Its actually scanned through at 1,000 DPI but 17 unfortunately that is the way it turned out but 18 certainly for comparison purposes it was far superior to 19 what we had before. 20 Q. First of all, this is a higher resolution scan than the 21 ones we have been looking at previously. The previous 22 ones are about 500 DPI. 23 A. That's right. 24 Q. This is 1,000. 25 A. Yes. page 78 1 Q. Yet you are in effect anticipating the point, if I were 2 to debate with you some of the points on this image you 3 would find that it is the image that is defeating the 4 discussion? 5 A. At this level here? Yes, I mean, that's the difficulty 6 of working with enlargements. I mean, I've been given, 7 on a number of occasions here, enlargements by the 8 Inquiry to work on. I haven't looked at them and I 9 won't look at them simply because you never, ever make a 10 comparison on the basis of an enlargement, never, simply 11 because the quality generally degrades quite a bit as 12 you blow the image up. What you want to work with every 13 time are the original images at the right scale. 14 Again, this illustrates just the point of the 15 dangers that there are sometimes in dealing with 16 enlargements. Certainly whenever it comes to doing what 17 we're doing here and trying to talk our way round an 18 enlargement, yes, there's value in it up to a point and 19 yet on the other hand you need to be careful in that 20 sometimes the image that you look at there is not of the 21 same clarity as what you've actually made your 22 identification on. 23 Q. On this occasion do the points 1 to 4 that you have on 24 this enlargement are those the same points 1 to 4 as you 25 have had on the previous exercise? page 79 1 A. Yes, they are. 2 Q. So they have remained constant? 3 A. They have remained constant, yes. 4 Q. Point number 5? 5 A. Number 5 is a new point and that new point really came 6 in simply because that's in that white circle that you 7 can see, I think as you said the badge on the coachman's 8 lapel and that mark, that ridge detail, as I see much 9 clearer there on that photograph than it was in the 10 other. If you go back to the other photograph you will 11 see that that white area is completely burned out in the 12 last photograph and this here, the ridge detail is 13 there. It's much clearer. 14 Q. Number 6 also is that new? 15 A. It's constant, yes. 16 Q. Sorry, 6 is constant? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What about number 7? 19 A. Number 7 is as well, yes. 20 Q. And then the next point, number 8? 21 A. 8 is, yes. 22 Q. 8 is constant? 23 A. That's the one that you were talking about before. 24 Q. That was number 7 in the previous -- 25 A. Yes, the ridge ending that comes down. page 80 1 Q. Number 9, obviously, goes further out. 2 A. Number 9 goes further out and, again, it goes out and 3 that's why whenever we come to the next and we look at 4 Mr MacPherson's findings you'll find that he doesn't use 5 that point but that's because he's used a plain 6 impression, we used a rolled impression, so that that 7 ridge, that ridge detail is not present on the plain. 8 Q. What I said earlier on and I just want to make myself 9 clear I am not actually ultimately going to come to a 10 comparison between you and Mr MacPherson. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. What I am actually more interested in is the evolution 13 of your own thinking in relation to this because by the 14 stage we reach this image of the mark, on this image of 15 the mark you will see you will -- you have seen ten 16 points? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. You would now regard this as sufficient ridge detail for 19 comparison? 20 A. The reason -- the difference in many ways between this 21 and the last one is the clarity and it's the clarity as 22 you move between point 5, say, and point 7 or point -- 23 yes, point 7 in that you can actually count the ridges 24 at this stage between the two. Beforehand I was really 25 unhappy about being able to do that, counting across page 81 1 that area, but with the clarity that you can see in that 2 image we had no problem doing that. We were happy 3 enough to count between the two and, therefore, rather 4 than seeing this, if you like, as two separate marks 5 it's now one mark because you can count between those 6 two areas. 7 Q. This is the point, I think, of detail, when we looked 8 earlier at one of the images you had not only said it 9 was of insufficient ridge detail, you had actually drawn 10 up five points for us that were indications of double 11 touch, movement and distortion? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Now by reference to -- and I'm not so much worried about 14 what is on screen for the reasons you have indicated, on 15 the photographic original that you have now of this QI2 16 print you no longer believe it to be -- or what is your 17 view about it as a double touch or a single touch? 18 A. I don't believe it's a double touch but I do believe 19 what has happen is the mark has been pulled. It's been 20 pulled at the top so if you look at the top there above 21 point 10, if you move directly up from point 10, you'll 22 see there that there is movement on the ridges. There's 23 distortion between the right and the left-hand side of 24 the mark and that's pretty clear to see that. I would 25 say it would be impossible to count round that. page 82 1 The other, of course, thing is to move through the 2 core was also -- the point of there being a double tap, 3 I think it's a lot less, I think I would actually say 4 it's a lot clearer in this that there is a single core 5 and that's moving round, well, again, from point 10, if 6 you go up, straight up and then round that you can see 7 the ridges recurving round that and I would be fairly 8 content again there that that's sound enough. There's 9 no difficulty with movement there. 10 The only area of movement I would say that there 11 probably is is up at the top where there's been pulling, 12 where probably the finger's pulled away after it's been 13 left and that's why you have those smears and the 14 distortion of the ridges up at the top. 15 Q. So this image with the adjusted contrast enables you in 16 particular now to count ridges between 5 and 7? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And that enables you to be satisfied that this is not, 19 as you thought, two separate halves but in fact one 20 print? 21 A. It's one print, yes. 22 Q. The other point that I think we should bring in quite 23 separate from the question of image quality is that you, 24 in fact, having been given a fingerprint form for David 25 Asbury that had a plain and a rolled you, in fact, used page 83 1 the rolled impression? 2 A. Yes, we did. 3 Q. And it was access to the rolled impression that enabled 4 you to identify point number 9? 5 A. That's correct, yes. 6 Q. That, as you say, hadn't featured in any charting by 7 Mr MacPherson? 8 A. That's right. 9 Q. Because he was using a plain? 10 A. He used a plain, yes. 11 Q. This is something that I have not asked you about 12 before: we have talked about selecting from a number of 13 different photographic images to work. When it comes to 14 a fingerprint form that has both a plain and a rolled, 15 do you have any order of preference as to which one you 16 use? 17 A. Really whatever one's the best. The plain -- in theory 18 your rolled impression should be better, simply because 19 it gives you a bigger surface area so, therefore, it 20 should be better. The problem with the rolled 21 impression is just that, that it's been rolled and 22 because it's been rolled you have more chance of 23 distortion coming into it. So if fingerprints aren't 24 taken particularly well there can be smeared areas there 25 can be rubbed areas, there can be ridges -- if they are page 84 1 taken in ink on paper in particular you can have too 2 much ink put on them and if there's too much pressure 3 applied you basically can end up, in the worst case 4 scenario, with ten black blobs rather than fingerprints. 5 Where the plains are concerned, yes, you get a 6 smaller surface area but the advantage with that is 7 generally they tend to be clearer simply because it's a 8 single touch down and a quick lift off again. So really 9 it depends very much on the image that you get. 10 Probably in the best case scenario, if you had a good 11 set of LiveScan prints and they were well taken you 12 would be better with the rolled -- generally you would 13 take the rolled impression rather than the plain but it 14 simply comes down to what image gives you the best 15 quality to make your identification or to show your 16 comparison on. 17 Q. In other words, you can work on either depending on 18 which one gives you the clearer ridge detail? 19 A. It's the same fingerprint. It doesn't really make any 20 odds what one you use. 21 Q. What I am trying to work out is, because we now have a 22 total of ten, previously the maximum you had was eight? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Which are the two new ones, number 9 is obviously new? 25 A. Yes. page 85 1 Q. I thought it was number 6 was the other -- 2 A. Number 5. 3 Q. It's number 5? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Sorry, as you said it's the one in the badge area? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. So 5 and 9 are the two that you know able to bring in? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Number 5, as you say, is now really the product of 10 different image quality, you can see ridge 11 characteristics in that white area of the badge? 12 A. That's right. 13 Q. And number 9 is it in part because you previously used a 14 rolled impression, is it again image quality for number 15 9? 16 A. Yes, really it does. You mentioned beforehand there 17 about seeing these smeared areas coming into the 18 left-hand side where number 8 and 9 are on that. 19 Whereas I think even by looking at what's on the screen 20 there you can see the ridges are much clearer. The 21 vertical ridges running up and down are much clearer 22 there than they were in the last and that's really what 23 allowed us to go out and use point 9 which really wasn't 24 clear in the last one at all. 25 Q. I think again in fairness to the way i have questioned page 86 1 others, again, if I'm looking at this with my eye, I 2 would see the predominant line that is at point number 9 3 being a horizontal black line going from 9 towards the 4 end of the line at point 8? 5 A. Uh-huh. 6 Q. That's what my eye sees and it's only when I go to the 7 right of point number 8 that the predominant or 8 the black become vertical in the predominance of 9 disposition, but that is not as you see it? 10 A. That's not as I see it, no. 11 Q. Following this through then, based on the particular 12 image that you have seen, you have now got a total of 13 ten, as I say, with the inclusion of points 5 and 9. If 14 we move through this image and bring up the next, this 15 is the rolled impression for Mr Asbury. If I could 16 bring up NI000 7.0 02 as a second image ... 17 I've now brought up the two pages side-by-side, 18 that's the QI2 and Mr Asbury's right middle finger. In 19 fact, you find not only ten points now in QI2 but you in 20 fact are satisfied that those ten points correspond to 21 ten points in Mr Asbury's rolled impression? 22 A. Yes, that's correct. 23 Q. Your overall conclusion now would that be sufficient for 24 identification or is it simply an intelligence report? 25 A. No, that would be sufficient for identification. page 87 1 Q. In fact, what we have seen there is the progression of 2 your own thinking in relation to this primarily based on 3 the quality of the image? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. That you progress from a stage where there was 6 insufficient ridge detail for comparison to a stage now 7 where, by reference to a different image, you are in 8 fact not only saying capable of identification but in 9 fact you would agree with the identification as the 10 right middle finger of Mr Asbury? 11 A. That's correct, yes. 12 Q. Just to be clear, and for the avoidance of any doubt, a 13 number of your colleagues were involved in this 14 particular exercise with you? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. What you have just said as your ultimate position, is 17 that the unanimous position of you and your colleagues 18 or is there a difference of opinion? 19 A. No, there were five of us who undertook on the panel to 20 look at this and to study it and we did it in isolation 21 and we did it one at a time. 22 One of the individuals was unhappy to count between 23 5 and 7. He wasn't happy to say that he was able to do 24 that and, therefore, he was unwilling really to count 25 this as an identification on the back of that. Now, page 88 1 certainly he said, as regards the points that are there, 2 he was happy enough that the points were there. The one 3 problem he had was getting between the two sides of the 4 mark and therefore making it the one, but the other four 5 members of the panel were all unanimous that there was 6 no difficulty, we're happy to count between points 5 and 7 7 -- sorry, yes, between 5 and 7 and make this an 8 identification. There was no difficulty doing that at 9 all. 10 Q. So even what you are speaking about today is not a 11 unanimous view for the reasons you explained? 12 A. No, as I said there was one individual who was unhappy 13 about doing that. 14 Q. Following through the proposition which I am looking at, 15 which is in other words how susceptible opinions and 16 conclusions are to image quality, is what we've just 17 seen as the evolution of your thinking, is that unusual 18 for you to experience that your opinion will vary 19 depending on the image that you study or is that 20 something that you are accustomed to seeing? 21 A. There's no doubt about it, the quality of the image is 22 massively important. If you have a poor quality image 23 your judgment is going to be affected by that. A better 24 quality image will produce or should produce more ridge 25 detail for you to look at, more potential ridge detail page 89 1 for the expert to look at and, therefore, in many ways 2 quality is everything, whether that's a matter of crime 3 scene marks or whether it's a matter of ten prints that 4 are taken in a custody suite because if they are of poor 5 quality you are going to struggle to compare crime scene 6 marks against them. So quality really of both your ten 7 prints and your crime scene marks is absolutely 8 paramount. 9 There's nothing you can do about the quality of a 10 mark that is left at a scene. That's left accidentally 11 and there's absolutely nothing you can do. What you can 12 do is do something about how you retrieve it, how you 13 make a latent mark into a visible mark so the chemical 14 treatments that you use on it and ultimately what you 15 can do is you capture that mark so how you photograph it 16 and what you do with it at that stage, those are the 17 things that are very, very important and the things that 18 are within your control. 19 Q. I did give you a chance, having spoken to you on Friday 20 and realised that your own conclusion, your personal 21 conclusion and that of the majority of your colleagues 22 had changed as a result of the exposure to a different 23 image, if that's an unfortunate word, just to ask if you 24 could reflect on what lessons you would derive from 25 this. Can you give us the lessons that you would derive page 90 1 from this? 2 A. I think the first one is probably the importance of 3 always working from original copies. The difference of 4 the image quality when you are dealing from a 5 photograph -- of a photograph from a photograph was 6 huge. The image quality just deteriorated with each 7 step and certainly then as you began to take those 8 images and enlarge them, they very often just -- it was 9 very, very difficult to tell, to use them at all for any 10 kind of comparison purpose. So I think it's very 11 important, when you make a comparison, that you are sure 12 what you are dealing with is an original image or as 13 close to that original image as you can possibly get. 14 Also that the thing is sized properly so that you 15 can scale it. The difficulty with the mark here has 16 been that it's been impossible to actually scale it and 17 that does have an influence then, whenever it comes to 18 searching. It certainly has an influence when you 19 search it on an AFIS, when you are automatically search 20 it, but even certainly you are making a 21 manual comparison yourself having it scaled properly is 22 very, very important. 23 I suppose the second thing that I would think of is 24 the importance of having a dedicated 25 fingerprint photographer. I'm not sure what way other page 91 1 bureaux work, I have no idea what way things happen 2 here, but I know in Belfast we have a dedicated 3 fingerprint photographer. He was recruited as such and 4 he works within the Bureau. He has responsibility for 5 photographing all the fingerprint marks which are raised 6 in the Bureau. So very one that is created or is found 7 within our Special Examination Unit, it's him who does 8 the photography of them. So he has lots of experience 9 in doing it. He's trained by our fingerprint trainer. 10 She has made sure that he is fully aware of what to look 11 at when he looks at a fingerprint. So he's not just 12 looking at something that is an image to him, he's 13 actually looking at a fingerprint. That's very, very 14 important because by that he actually is more aware of 15 what the Fingerprint Expert needs and the level of 16 detail that they need with it. 17 I think the other thing too is the range of 18 photographs that you do need. Having a single 19 photograph of a mark, particularly one here that is so 20 patterned, has made the identification, I think, very 21 difficult. It would have been much easier if a number 22 of different photographs had been given at the time, 23 ones that had been exposed at different areas, different 24 techniques used on them. I'm not a photographer so I 25 don't know all the techniques that can be used but I page 92 1 certainly do know that with digital photography now 2 that's a lot easier now than it would have been probably 3 whenever these were taken, you know, with wet 4 photography. 5 But I think that's really important that you do get 6 that clarity and you do get that range of options or 7 images to look at. It's the same image, there's no 8 difference in that; it's just it's exposed to different 9 levels and it's different lighting used on it and 10 different techniques. I think that's really important. 11 Another thing is probably the importance of a very 12 close relationship between the experts and the 13 photographers and certainly we were concerned our 14 photographer works within our Bureau. He doesn't work 15 in another building, he doesn't work on another site; he 16 actually works within the Bureau. There's a very close 17 relationship between him and the experts, not just 18 physically but also professionally, in that if there's a 19 mark which they are not happy with, if they believe 20 there's a bit more work needs done on it or if they 21 prefer it photographed in a different way under 22 different lighting, they can walk across to him and get 23 him to do that. So it's been very, very useful having 24 someone in the Bureau who is amenable and also someone 25 who's as accessible as the photographer is and so it page 93 1 makes that relationship a lot easier. It's not like you 2 have to ring somebody up, ask them to do something and 3 they post them out to you. You can actually physically 4 walk across and stand with the photographer while he 5 works and you get hopefully pretty much what you want. 6 I think the other thing, the last thing, would be 7 you have to always review your insufficient ridge detail 8 marks. You never take the view that because you have 9 pronounced it of being IRD at the start of the process 10 that you put them in an envelope and you drop them 11 somewhere and you forget about them. You can't do that. 12 You have got to pull them back and check them against 13 suspects and work off them whenever the opportunity 14 arises. But the idea that you have an IRD mark and you 15 pronounce it as such and you leave it is wrong because 16 you do have -- and I think what we have done here today 17 has certainly shown the value of doing that. 18 MR MOYNIHAN: I have no further questions, Mr Logan. Thank 19 you very much. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Holmes, do you want to ask any questions 21 of this witness. 22 MR HOLMES: Yes, sir, I would like to ask a couple of 23 questions on similarities between the procedures that 24 the witness has just described and the procedures that 25 are in place in Scotland. page 94 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. That would be helpful, thank you. 2 Cross-examined by MR HOLMES 3 Q. Mr Logan, if I can ask you, first of all, just for the 4 sake of clarity, your conclusion on the identity of the 5 donor of the mark that you have been looking at now is 6 that it was made by David Asbury; is that correct? 7 A. That's correct, yes. 8 Q. That's the same conclusion, as you understand it, that 9 the six officers that originally looked at the mark came 10 to; is that correct? 11 A. Well, to be honest, I have kept myself pretty much at 12 arm's length as to what has been going on over here. 13 I'll do lots of reading when I go back to Belfast 14 tonight but I've deliberately not done that up until 15 this point. So all I know is that Mr MacPherson made 16 the comparison. Who else was involved in that I have no 17 idea. 18 Q. I see. One of the reasons that you have given that you 19 were able to make the comparison and that you were able 20 to reach a conclusion as to identity is that you have 21 said you were able to select, from a range of images 22 that were provided to you, the one that was most 23 suitable to you? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Would you be surprised to learn that that was something page 95 1 that was available to examiners in Scotland? 2 A. I have no idea. I honestly don't know. 3 Q. You have described the position where you have a 4 specialist photographer and there's a good relationship 5 between the Fingerprint Officers and the photographer 6 and the photographer will produce different contrasts, 7 for example, of photographs if you request them. 8 Are you aware of whether that's the position in 9 Scotland? 10 A. I've no idea. I don't know. 11 Q. If we have heard evidence that the Identification 12 Bureau, who are the officers in Scotland who go out and 13 produce the images on which the Fingerprint Officers 14 work, have a close working relationship with the Bureau 15 and are able to produce different contrasts of 16 photographs on request, again is that something that you 17 have any knowledge of or -- 18 A. No. 19 Q. You said something earlier on about the taking of notes 20 and about the detailing of individual characteristics 21 within the report. I want to check that I picked you up 22 correctly. Are you saying that that's not something 23 that's done because the volume of work is far too great? 24 A. I think it's not something we do as a matter of course. 25 I mean, if you're asking when I make an identification page 96 1 on a mark or somebody makes an identification on the 2 mark if they sit and they write out their findings on 3 each particular ridge characteristic which they have 4 made the identification on the answer is no, they don't. 5 They don't do that. 6 Q. As far as you are concerned, is the reason for that that 7 it would just create simply too much work with the 8 volume of marks that you have to look at? 9 A. It's probably one of the reasons, yes. 10 Q. You mentioned earlier on scale in relation to 11 photographs and, in particular, the photographs that you 12 were looking at did not have any means, so far as you 13 could see, of seeing the scale in them. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. If we have heard evidence to the effect that 16 Identification Bureau Officers here, whilst they don't 17 photograph marks with a ruler in them, do so with an 18 apparatus on the camera that is designed to produce a 19 picture that is on a scale of 1 to 1, would you accept 20 that that is the case? 21 A. Certainly, yes. I mean, just for us, given the raw 22 image of the photograph, you know, and told then to blow 23 it up, it was very difficult to do that whenever it 24 didn't actually have a scale on it. But, yes, I 25 understand what you're saying. If the apparatus was page 97 1 there to do that, that's fair enough, but I wasn't aware 2 of that. 3 Q. Finally, one thing: were the marks QI2, QE2 and QL2 the 4 only marks that the Inquiry asked you to look at? 5 MR MOYNIHAN: Sir, I think there is another exercise that I 6 have not asked -- 7 THE CHAIRMAN: I think it is fair to say he has not looked 8 at Y7, if that is what you are asking. 9 MR HOLMES: Yes. Thank you, sir. 10 MR MOYNIHAN: Y7 and QI2 (Ross) have not been looked at. 11 MR HOLMES: Thank you, sir. I have no further questions. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Miss Galbraith? 13 MISS GALBRAITH: Thank you, sir. I am conscious that no 14 lines have been submitted for this witness. However, 15 there was one particular issue that I would seek to ask 16 questions about that has arisen due to his evidence this 17 morning and that relates to the use of independent 18 experts by the defence. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 20 Cross-examined by MISS GALBRAITH 21 Q. Mr Logan, you said earlier today in your evidence -- for 22 those of us with LiveNote, it's at page 35, line 11 -- 23 that in your Bureau you're visited on a very, very 24 regular basis by independent experts instructed by the 25 defence. page 98 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. I think you said that defence experts were brought in 3 regularly in cases that are going to court? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Are you able to tell us what proportion of cases that 6 defence experts will be instructed in? 7 A. I would have no -- do you mean in which they would ask 8 for an independent expert to be brought in? 9 Q. Yes. 10 A. I really couldn't tell you off the top of my head. I 11 wouldn't know. 12 Q. Would you know in how many cases or in proportionately 13 how many cases there was to be fingerprint evidence led 14 in court where there is not an independent expert for 15 the defence? 16 A. Again, I wouldn't have that information in my head, no. 17 Q. Do you have any perception of -- just the impression I 18 got from your evidence earlier was that this was 19 something that happened regularly and defence experts 20 come in frequently to look at the evidence that you 21 have. I just wanted to get an understanding of whether 22 this happened in the majority of cases that went to 23 court or whether it was unusual? 24 A. Honestly, I don't know whether it's the majority of 25 cases. It's very difficult for us to know because in page 99 1 many ways having an independent expert coming in is a 2 good thing. (1) it validates what we do, so I have 3 absolutely no problem with independent experts coming 4 in. The second thing is if they agree with you, it 5 means you don't get called to court. So, from a 6 management point of view, I'm more than happy for my 7 experts to be sitting in the Bureau rather than hanging 8 around courts to give evidence there and really that 9 generally means that the evidence is agreed. 10 So it can at times -- and of course we're not always 11 aware actually. If the case goes to court and the 12 evidence is agreed, we're not even aware sometimes if 13 the case has taken place. So, to be honest, it would be 14 very difficult for me to even estimate how many times 15 that has an influence upon, you know, the outcome or 16 not. But, as I say, I really don't have a problem at 17 all. I'm quite happy for people to come in and check 18 what we've done in the Bureau. 19 Q. I appreciate that this is a difficult question but just 20 in order to give a comparison with our own jurisdiction, 21 are you able to offer any guidance as to roughly how 22 many independent experts there are in Northern Ireland 23 that the defence could call upon -- 24 A. Generally, the independent experts we get come over from 25 England. page 100 1 Q. Sorry? 2 A. They come from England. They are brought in from 3 England. There's a number of different companies in 4 England and they supply the fingerprint experts and they 5 come over and do the work. So it's not people from 6 Northern Ireland that do it. They tend to come from 7 England. 8 Q. You said that on the occasions where such a defence 9 expert came into your office that they were allowed 10 access to all of the information available in the case. 11 Is that right? 12 A. Yes. They are allowed to -- well, obviously it depends 13 on the case and it depends whether there's some 14 information obviously that has to be redacted out of the 15 file and that's simply a matter of policy in the way 16 that things will be done. We also have to make sure, of 17 course, that the investigating officer and the PPS are 18 happy for that to take place and if there's any kind of 19 an issue, then the officer in charge will be there while 20 the comparison takes place. 21 But in 99 cases out of 100, bar the ordinary 22 redaction which takes place out of a file and has to be 23 done for obvious reason, then there's no problem with 24 them coming, no. They have access to all the 25 fingerprints that they want to look at, they have access page 101 1 to all the marks they want to look at, worksheets, 2 whatever it is and we give them copies of them too if 3 they want them so they can make their own comparisons. 4 Q. You mentioned worksheets. Can you explain, please, what 5 those are? 6 A. Worksheets simply if I examine an envelope and I find 7 four prints on it or four marks, then it's simply an 8 internal worksheet that we use where those prints or 9 those marks are actually listed on it. We mark things 10 up very differently from you do here in Scotland and the 11 way it's done in England, which has actually led for me 12 a wee bit of confusion because in this mark here that 13 we've been looking at here there are four or 14 five different marks actually on this one lift. 15 Now, we would mark those individually. We would 16 have it marked 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D; whereas here you have, 17 you know, QI1 or QI2. It's the lift rather than the 18 actual marks. So if these were the only marks which 19 there were in the case, then we would have a worksheet 20 and we would have 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D listed on the 21 worksheet. But it's simply just and internal piece of 22 paper that lets us know how many marks were found and 23 what they were found on. 24 Q. I think you said it wasn't your practise to take notes 25 of every characteristic that you found in a mark. page 102 1 A. No. 2 Q. Do you take any notes at all, no matter how rough or 3 sketchy min relation to your analysis or comparison? 4 A. Well, there would be notes taken obviously on the 5 progress on the case, particularly if it's a large case. 6 You know, there will be a policy document opened on that 7 and that will obviously detail when you're contacted by 8 the officer in charge, when you were informed that 9 various suspects were to be checked against it, when 10 you informed the IO what the result was of that 11 comparison you did, all those kinds of things. 12 But if you're asking do we sit and note down the 13 minute detail of each comparison, the answer is no, we 14 don't. 15 Q. And even not in minute detail, even just rough notes 16 about a comparison, that's not something that you would 17 routinely write down? 18 A. Well, it depends what you mean by rough notes. I mean, 19 what we would certainly put in the policy document was 20 that on such and a date and such and a time marks 1A, 21 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E were compared against the fingerprints 22 of Jeff Logan. That kind of thing is what's in it but 23 if you are asking do we go down into the detail of what 24 minutiae, what ridge characteristics were -- unless 25 there's an identification well then the answer is, no, page 103 1 we don't. 2 Q. I think you also said that where there's the arbitration 3 process that you described where there may be a 4 disagreement, that is something that would be noted 5 within the case documentation? 6 A. Oh, yes, yes. That would be noted within it and it's 7 also kept within the quality documents within the bureau 8 as well. There's a record kept there of all arbitration 9 panels. 10 MISS GALBRAITH: Thank you very much. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Miss Grahame? 12 MISS GRAHAME: Yes, if I may I would wish to clarify a 13 number of points in relation to the documents that are 14 actually produced by the Fingerprint Experts in Northern 15 Ireland and what information is contained within those. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 17 Cross-examined by MISS GRAHAME 18 Q. There's been mention made in your evidence of an ident 19 card, a statement and it's also been mentioned that 20 there's a report. I wonder if you could clarify for me, 21 please, what documents are actually prepared by the 22 expert which are then sent to the PPS? 23 A. Sent to the PPS. Well, I'll just run through basically 24 what the procedure is. The first thing that is done is 25 that an ident card is produced. So that's simply a card page 104 1 which has the details of the case, the details of the 2 person that's been identified and, obviously, the marks 3 that were identified as well and then the three 4 signatures are on it of the three people who have 5 identified the marks as identified to that person. 6 An electronic report is then sent out to the 7 intelligence manager within whatever district it is the 8 offence has taken place and that, if you like, is the 9 formal notification to him that someone has been 10 identified. It goes to him. It is then for that 11 individual to circulate that down to the investigating 12 officer, whoever that might be. 13 At a later date then the officer will request a 14 statement from us and he'd request that we send him a 15 statement relating to that case, which we then do, we 16 send back to the officer and it's up to that officer 17 then to put the file together and then submit it to the 18 PCS. 19 You will understand of course that our legal 20 procedures are different from they are here in Scotland 21 and they are also different from what they are in the 22 England where they have the CPS. We have the PPS. It 23 is obviously different. 24 Q. The intelligence manager, is that someone within your 25 organisation or someone within the police organisation? page 105 1 A. Well, it's within the PSNI, yes. 2 Q. So no documents are actually sent direct from you to the 3 PPS. It goes through the investigating officer or the 4 intelligence manager? 5 A. Yes, it would go direct to them. 6 Q. You may or may not understand this aspect of my question 7 but I'll explain it. I want to ask you if Fingerprint 8 Officers or experts in Northern Ireland are precognosced 9 by the prosecutor. You may not understand what a 10 precognition is? 11 A. No. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: I think a precognition is a foreign beast as 13 far as we are concerned. I think it would be fair to 14 say that the way you produce evidence for a criminal 15 case is by way of deposition, which is a sworn 16 statement -- 17 A. Yes. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: -- which can be put to you in the witness box 19 and you can be cross-examined on any deviation from what 20 is in your statement. I presume, at least my 21 recollection is you would very often exhibit to your 22 deposition or as a production really your report? 23 A. Yes. When you say exhibit, sorry, I'm not sure what ... 24 THE CHAIRMAN: You would have it attached to your 25 deposition. You would refer in your deposition to your page 106 1 report. 2 A. Generally, we produce a statement of evidence and that's 3 what's submitted to the investigating officer and at 4 that stage that is then submitted on to the PPS within 5 the file. So I'm not sure if that answers your question 6 or not. 7 MISS GRAHAME: Is that signed by you? 8 A. Oh, yes, it is. 9 Q. And prepared by you? 10 A. Yes, it's your sworn statement. 11 Q. It is not something that someone else prepares on your 12 behalf? 13 A. No, you sign it, you prepare it and you're accountable 14 for it. 15 MISS GRAHAME: I think that does answer my question. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: I just wondered on that point, while you were 17 on it, would you normally then state your opinion in the 18 way you have in your statement here at examination 4 19 saying that the Police Service are conclusive that the 20 mark was made by the same person or how would you state 21 it, just while I remember to ask it? 22 A. That was actually a wee bit of debate for myself 23 whenever I was writing the statement or the statement or 24 report because it's not the wording that we would use. 25 Generally we would say, "As a result of my comparison I page 107 1 am convinced that the fingerprint marked QL2 was made by 2 the same person whose right middle finger appears on the 3 form", it would be an FP2 for us, "in the name of David 4 Asbury". That's how we would put it. So it's not 5 saying that David Asbury made the mark. What we're 6 saying is that's it's the person who's fingerprints 7 appear on this form because obviously there are times 8 people are arrested, they give false details and the 9 name on the fingerprint form is not actually the name of 10 the person that actually made the fingerprints. So 11 that's the reason why it's put that way. I wasn't quite 12 sure what way to write the report for here, whether I 13 should have written it in he form of a statement that we 14 would do or whether that would actually seem a bit odd 15 if I was doing it. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, I interrupted you. 17 MISS GRAHAME: Thank you. 18 That you told us about the statement which is signed 19 and prepared and then sent to the investigating officer. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. He will pass that on to the PPS? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. So does that form part of the documentation the PPS 24 consider when they are considering the case? 25 A. That's the file. The file is then submitted to the PPS. page 108 1 It's sent up for the PPS it's them up to the PPS to 2 decide whether or not a prosecution takes place or 3 whether it doesn't. 4 Q. Does that statement contain any reference to an 5 arbitration procedure if that's been undergone? 6 A. No, it wouldn't. 7 Q. In that situation, is the PPS advised in some other way 8 about the fact that there was a disagreement about a 9 print and it went to arbitration? 10 A. They would obviously be aware of it if an independent 11 expert was called in to look at the file then, yes, they 12 would understand. But I think what -- we have tried to 13 be very, very open in the way we report things and also 14 in the way that we work. Now, if we felt that there was 15 any reason for that to be reported to the PPS we would 16 have absolutely no problem doing it but the fact of the 17 matter is whenever that identification leaves the bureau 18 I'm as sure as I can be sure that the identification 19 that's on that is right. It won't change any. It 20 doesn't make any difference whether I tell the PPS there 21 was some disagreement because one person found, I don't 22 know, wasn't happy, as in this case here, where we had 23 one individual who was unhappy to count, you know, 24 basically between points 7 and 8 or 5 or 6 or whatever 25 it was, you count between those. It doesn't make that page 109 1 identification less sound because once -- and one thing 2 that I wouldn't want anyone to do is to feel pressurised 3 into having to do that, to make an ident. Everyone is 4 free to make their own judgment upon it but there's a 5 corporate view, if you like, and the corporate view here 6 has been that this is a signed identification and I 7 certainly wouldn't be here today giving this evidence if 8 I wasn't 100 per cent sure that that fingerprint wasn't 9 made by the person whose name appears on the form, David 10 Asbury. 11 Q. So is it fair to say that it would be for the defence 12 expert to raise this with the PPS if there was an issue 13 arose out of the fact that there had been an 14 arbitration? 15 A. Yes, I suppose it would be, yes. 16 Q. You mentioned in one of the answers you gave earlier you 17 said: 18 "We inform an investigator that we have found ridge 19 detail in agreement with Jeff Logan", you used your 20 name, "that we can't rule him out but we're unhappy to 21 say we're 100 per cent certain it was definitely them"? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Can I ask you, when you say, "We inform an 24 investigator", who do you mean by that? 25 A. Well, again it would go out in the way all our page 110 1 identifications, not only our identifications but any 2 communication that we have goes through the crime 3 manager so he will filter it down to the actual 4 investigator himself and, again, that becomes, really, 5 intelligence for him at that stage. It's not something, 6 obviously, we would be prepared to go to court on but we 7 can tell him, you know, we have so many points in 8 agreement, therefore we can say, yes, they are in 9 agreement. We can't rule this individual out but we're 10 not prepared to say it was absolutely made by this 11 individual. 12 Q. So you wouldn't go to court on that? 13 A. No. 14 Q. So can I just clarify also is that or is it not 15 information that would go into the statement that's 16 prepared by the Fingerprint Expert? 17 A. If we were asked for a statement on it, yes, then we 18 would give a statement to that effect, yes. 19 Q. But if you're not asked for a statement on it and the 20 fingerprint expert was simply just preparing the first 21 statement in the case, is that something that would 22 automatically go in or not? 23 A. Again, I think it probably comes down to a difference 24 maybe in the way the procedure works in Scotland and the 25 way it works in Northern Ireland. We would only be page 111 1 asked for the statement if a file was being prepared for 2 the PPS with a view to prosecution so, at that stage, it 3 would need to be seen as valuable for the investigator 4 to ask to have a statement to put in the file, which we 5 will do then if needs be, if that's asked for. But it's 6 not something, again, that we would give -- it's a 7 statement of what were our findings but it's not a 8 statement of identification. Do you understand the 9 difference? It's saying what our findings are but it's 10 not saying we have identified an individual because we 11 haven't. 12 Q. So it would go into a statement, even if there wasn't a 13 request but it would simply say that there had been a 14 print found? 15 A. No, there would need to be request. The request would 16 need to come from the investigating officer that he 17 required a statement saying what our findings were so 18 that, again, would not be a problem producing that but 19 it wouldn't be telling him there was an identification 20 because there hasn't been. What you're saying at that 21 point is you can't rule an individual out but you're not 22 saying you've identified him. 23 Q. So how would that information be made available to the 24 defence? Is that again something that a defence expert 25 would have access to? page 112 1 A. Yes, it would be in the file so, therefore, whenever 2 they would ask for access to the file they would have 3 that and, obviously, whenever a solicitor or whoever has 4 access to the PPS file or the papers that are viewed 5 under that that will all be there. That will be there 6 for them to see. 7 Q. Is there a difference between what a defence solicitor 8 and a defence expert would have, in terms of access to 9 your documentation? 10 A. No, no, absolutely none. Very often you'll have a 11 defence solicitor will actually come, sometimes they 12 will come along with the independent expert to the 13 Bureau, the two of them will come together. 14 Q. But in order to have access to that documentation they 15 would need to come to your Bureau? 16 A. If they want to see the file, the actual fingerprint 17 file, which is the marks, the worksheet and everything 18 else that comes along to it, yes, they will need to come 19 to the Bureau to see that simply because, you know, we 20 don't give that out to anybody. That doesn't go 21 anywhere. It stays in the Bureau. 22 MISS GRAHAME: Thank you very much. I have no further 23 questions. 24 MR MOYNIHAN: I have no further questions, sir, thank you. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: There are just a few things that I wanted to page 113 1 ask you. On the initial examination is it up to 2 the expert in your Bureau whether they use a comparator 3 or whether they use glass, magnifying glass, to conduct 4 their examination? 5 A. Generally, when it comes to an initial comparison, 6 certainly when it comes to quality control of marks or 7 when it actually comes to the comparison of, if I was 8 given, say in this case I was given that one mark and I 9 was asked to compare that against the fingerprints of 10 David Asbury or anybody else, I would do that under 11 glass. I wouldn't do it on a comparator. I would go to 12 a comparator when I believed I had made an 13 identification. At that stage then I would go and study 14 the mark on a comparator but it wouldn't be the first 15 thing I would do. The first thing I would do is look at 16 it under the glass. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Would that be the same with most of your 18 colleagues? 19 A. It would be the same with all of them. That's how 20 they're trained to operate. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: I may have got it wrong but when the 22 technician looks at it and is, satisfied there's enough 23 for the mark to be used, then when it comes to the 24 expert, the expert could still say, "Well, I'm not 25 satisfied with using this mark". page 114 1 A. Oh absolutely, yes, and that would happen quite 2 regularly because really what we want the trainees or 3 the technicians to do is err on the side of caution. If 4 there's anything they think they may be useful we tell 5 them to mark it up. They are not fingerprint experts. 6 They are well trained people. They are very good people 7 and they do their job very well but they are not 8 Fingerprint Experts. 9 On top of that they are left -- they make that 10 decision themselves as to whether to mark that up. If 11 they have an issue, if there's anything they are 12 concerned about they will pull in an expert who is 13 working in the special examination unit at the time and 14 get them to look at the mark for them but, by and large, 15 they make that decision on their own so what we tell 16 them is if there's any doubt in your mind you go ahead 17 and you mark it up and then at a later date the expert 18 can come along and they can decide it's IRD but let them 19 make that decision. It's better that you mark stuff up 20 that's going to be pronounced IRD than you make the 21 decision yourself, you'd be wrong and useful marks be 22 lost as a result. So that tends to be what they do. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: The number of experts, how many would you 24 have in your Bureau? 25 A. At the moment? I'm trying to think how many we should page 115 1 have at the moment because we're badly down actually on 2 the number of experts that we should have. There are 3 roughly -- there should be around 32 experts in the 4 Bureau. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: 32? 6 A. Yes. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: When a defence expert comes, do they begin, 8 as it were, clean, from the start, making their own 9 comparison? 10 A. Yes. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any discussion with them about 12 what marks, what characteristics you found or anything 13 like that? 14 A. No, generally it's left for the independent expert to 15 make their own mind up on it. You don't want to be seen 16 to be influencing them in any way. It's an independent 17 examination so that's what it has to be. Or people sit 18 with them, obviously, while they are doing it because 19 it's our material, we're responsible for it so we have 20 an expert stays with them the whole time when they make 21 it. If they request copies of originals we're happy 22 enough to produce them for them but generally our people 23 will stay with them but, no, it's entirely independent 24 examination by them. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: I appreciate you say it does not often happen page 116 1 but if a defence expert is going to give an opposing 2 opinion, if that is the way to put it, do you get or 3 would you expect to get an opportunity to see what that 4 opinion is before you give your own. 5 A. I certainly would. If an independent expert disagreed 6 with something we had done I would like to think I was 7 given the opportunity to respond to it, I certainly 8 would, yes. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: In your own bureau, in other words, not just 10 confronted with it in the witness box but given advance 11 information as to what points were being challenged or 12 what characteristics? 13 A. Yes, I think so. I think in many ways, I suppose, by 14 the time it's got to court it's almost too late at that 15 stage. You know, if there's an issue that needs sorted 16 before it gets to court I would have thought was really 17 when it should be done. 18 Certainly what appears to be the policy now within 19 the UK is if there is a disputed identification within a 20 bureau certainly I think what has happened in the last 21 number of cases is copies are made and they are sent to 22 a number of the Bureaux within the UK for people there 23 to arbitrate on which I think is probably the best way 24 of dealing with it, take it straight out from the 25 bureau, send it out to a number of other bureaux and ask page 117 1 them to make a decision and on the basis of that then 2 you move forward. 3 I think that's right because when you're giving it 4 to bureaux within the UK you're giving it to experts who 5 are all trained up to the same standard rather than 6 having people coming in really who -- I'm not taking -- 7 I don't want this to come across here that I'm taking 8 sides or that I'm making a swipe at anybody here because 9 I'm not, the only point I'm making here is that if 10 there's an internal arbitration, what would you say, 11 procedure within the United Kingdom you are dealing 12 there with people who are all trained up to an NPIA 13 standard and that way they have all gone through the 14 same training process and they should all be trained in 15 the same way and I think that way of doing it is 16 much safer, possibly, than going further afield with it. 17 That's my own personal opinion on it and I hope and pray 18 the day never does come that it happens in Northern 19 Ireland but if it did the first thing I would want to do 20 is take those marks that are disputed, take the 21 fingerprint form along with it and sent it out to a 22 number of different bureaux across the United Kingdom 23 and ask experts whether it be -- ask them to arbitrate 24 on it and come back with a result. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: When you do go to court what you said you page 118 1 would explain to the jury how you came to your opinion. 2 A. Yes. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: How do you do that if you don't have, for 4 example, an enlargement to show the points? I am just 5 interested how you would go about it. 6 A. We have a pro forma which we take with us and really 7 it's a mock-up is probably the best way of describing 8 it, it's a mock crime scene mark and a mock rolled 9 impression. They are big and they are clear and really 10 it would be very, very difficult not to see it whenever 11 it's there. It simply makes it very, very clear -- we 12 have -- you explain to the jury and to the court really 13 how it is that you come about to make your 14 identification and you explain what ridge detail is. 15 You explain how fingerprints are taken. You explain 16 really how they are formed and all these kind of things. 17 You give them a wee bit of background on fingerprints in 18 general and then from that you use your enlargement or 19 pro forma and from that you show them, "This is an 20 example here of a rolled impression. This is an example 21 of a crime scene mark", and they can very clearly see 22 the ridge endings and they can very clearly see the 23 bifurcations and all the detail that's on that and in 24 that way it is much easier to explain to the jury how 25 you came about to make your identification. page 119 1 If you have an enlargement, a crime scene 2 enlargement like we've been looking at here today, the 3 jury can look at that and you can you can talk about 4 ridge endings and bifurcations really until your blue in 5 the face but with them looking at it but they are really 6 not going to see it and that's why we felt it's best to 7 move towards where you are actually explaining the 8 system rather than explaining the mark. 9 I have illustrated it here today I think with some 10 of the questions that have been asked. You have people 11 looking at points which I have marked up on an 12 enlargement and people are scratching their head and 13 looking at it but I don't see vertical lines, I see 14 horizontal lines. I'm looking at it and I see them as 15 horizontal whereas other people are looking at them and 16 they see them as vertical and that is obviously the 17 problem then with the jury. So that's really why we 18 moved towards the pro forma as such and explain our 19 findings that way. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: On a slightly different topic, obviously in 21 an Inquiry such as this it is very different to a 22 criminal trial but if you have a number of images of the 23 same mark -- 24 A. Yes. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: -- would you ever use some images to get some page 120 1 of the points and another one to get other points or do 2 you expect to find all the points or characteristics on 3 which you are going to rely on the one print? 4 A. I was -- 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Or one image, I should say. 6 A. Yes. I was thinking of that this morning. It is not 7 something we have ever had to do, to be honest. We have 8 tended to find a mark or an image that we are satisfied 9 with and that we work with. It's something that 10 possibly in the future, yes ... I'm not sure how you 11 would present that actually. It could be an interesting 12 one to have to do, if you did find it in a case where 13 there was really strong contrast, if you were exposing 14 it one way you burn out some marks and the other ones 15 are dark and it you reverse it, it actually works the 16 other way, I'm not sure. 17 Personally, I would much rather find a really good 18 photographer that could take a photograph of it and 19 manage to capture as many points as possible in the one 20 photograph. I think I would rather deal with that than 21 trying and flip between two images like that -- well, 22 you're actually working with three images at that point, 23 two crime scenes marks, possibly, and rolled impression. 24 It is possible, probably you could do it, yes, but I 25 would much rather get them on one image, if possible. page 121 1 THE CHAIRMAN: I think you have covered everything except 2 just one last point which you made. I think I know the 3 answer from what you have said already but just to get 4 it clear: we have had examples or there has been 5 discussion of situations in which, for example, 6 drugs are found in a bag or what we would be more 7 familiar with, some explosives or something in a bag. 8 A. Yes. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Then because it is said this is not the 10 fingerprint, we cannot identify this as the fingerprint 11 of the accused, then counsel for the defence would be 12 able to say, "Therefore, my client cannot have touched 13 this bag", or, "didn't touch this bag", but then there 14 is, as you have explained, a different situation, which 15 is saying, "We cannot say but we cannot equally say that 16 it is not the fingerprint of that person". 17 A. There's two things there. The first thing is just 18 because your fingerprints don't appear on something 19 doesn't mean you didn't actually touch it. We all have 20 different skin and we all sweat at different rates at 21 different times of the day or the year or whatever, so I 22 personally have very, very dry skin so whenever I touch 23 things I don't leave good fingerprints behind. There's 24 other people who do and so I could touch things, I don't 25 leave good prints behind, somebody else here could touch page 122 1 exactly the same item and they do, but what you're 2 saying, sorry, the other point ...? 3 THE CHAIRMAN: I think I asked the question loosely. I 4 meant that there is no fingerprint of my client -- 5 A. There's no proof, yes. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: -- on this but there is a stage, as you have 7 said, below that which is where we can't make an 8 identification but we can't, as it were, rule out. 9 A. We can't rule them out and, yes, I think that's a really 10 valid position to take. There are times when you can 11 say absolutely this individual did not make this print 12 and you can tell that sometimes because you've got a 13 really good mark and you are sure it's not Jeff Logan's 14 fingerprint. There are other times it might be the 15 simply down to the fat that the crime scene mark's a 16 whorl and Jeff Logan has got nothing but loops so, 17 therefore, he couldn't have been made it, but there's 18 also that in-between stage where you look at it and 19 you're going, yes, there's three, four points here which 20 I can get which agree with the ridge characteristics in 21 Jeff Logan's fingerprints but that's as far as I can go 22 with it. So I can't rule them out but I can't say for 23 definite he absolutely made that mark. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: But that is information that you would 25 provided as intelligence -- page 123 1 A. Yes, we'd pass that on. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: -- and then it would be up to the prosecution 3 whether they wanted to use it or not. 4 A. Yes, that's correct. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Unless there is anything else that has arisen 6 out of what I have asked that will complete your 7 evidence and thank you very much. I gather you had a 8 very early start and I am glad we have released you by 9 lunchtime. Thank you for your assistance. 10 A. Thank you very much. 11 MR MOYNIHAN: If you could wait behind we will sort out the 12 images you have brought with you today so we know what 13 to retain and what you can take back. 14 (The witness withdrew) 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you rather we stop now and begin 16 earlier after lunch? 17 MR MOYNIHAN: I think that might be better, sir. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we will give you a short respite and 19 so we have to start 15 minutes earlier than we would 20 otherwise, so we will start at 1.40. 21 (12.47 pm) 22 (Luncheon Adjournment) 23 (1.42 pm) 24 DR STEPHEN MARK BLEAY, sworn 25 Examined by MR MOYNIHAN page 124 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Your full names? 2 A. Stephen Mark Bleay. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Take a seat, please. 4 MR MOYNIHAN: You have been assisting us very patiently for 5 a number of months on this Inquiry. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. This is an opportunity, in fact, just to bring out at 8 the public hearing the assistance you have given and the 9 advice that you have tendered to us in relation to a 10 number of matters. 11 As I mentioned to you just before lunch, the most 12 obvious omission is that we haven't recovered from you a 13 copy of your CV so if you could indicate, please, what 14 your qualifications and background are. 15 A. Certainly. I'm 43 years old. I was born in London. I 16 went to the University of Bath and studied material 17 science. I got a BSC in 1988. I stayed on at the 18 University of Bath to do some postgraduate research. I 19 obtained a PhD in 1981 which was on the 20 electron-microscopy of materials for gas turbine 21 engines. I did a further two years post doctoral 22 research at the University of Bath and left there in 23 1993 to join the Defence Research Agency at Farnborough. 24 I was there for about ten years studying stealth 25 materials for aircraft, also spinning of hollow carbon page 125 1 fibres. 2 In May 2003 I joined what was then the Police 3 Scientific Development Branch and since then I've 4 carried out a number of studies relating to fingerprint 5 development imaging, including recovery of fingerprints 6 from arson scenes, vacuum metal deposition, imaging of 7 fingerprints outside the visible spectrum and digital 8 imaging. 9 Q. The Home Office department for which you now work, 10 generally, what is its function? 11 A. Its function is primarily to support the Home Office 12 with scientific research that supports the decisions the 13 Home Office make. In particular the group I work in is 14 trying to provide best practice for fingerprint recovery 15 from scenes, maximising the evidence, primarily 16 fingerprints but increasingly footwear and other types 17 of forensic evidence. 18 Q. So do you give scientific input into the development and 19 analysis of techniques for the recovery of fingerprints? 20 A. Yes, the research we do feeds into the manual of 21 fingerprint development techniques, which is the manual 22 used throughout the UK and then a few other countries 23 worldwide as the best practice guide for use in the 24 laboratory and at crime scenes. 25 Q. One other feature that this may add to your CV, have you page 126 1 ever given evidence before? 2 A. No. 3 Q. You don't yourself profess to be a Fingerprint Examiner? 4 A. No, no. I've done a one-week basic introduction to 5 fingerprint identification but I couldn't profess to any 6 expertise in fingerprint identification. 7 Q. The work that you now do is geared to, in effect, 8 supporting the fingerprint work? 9 A. Yes, yes. 10 Q. I think the best way to enable you to let the public 11 know of the assistance that you have given to the 12 Inquiry is to let you work through the presentation that 13 you have actually provided for us, which for us is 14 EA0171 but we do not need to bring it up other than that 15 will be its code the due course. If I allow you to 16 proceed through your own presentation and then I will 17 ask questions later. 18 A. Thank you. 19 So, as I say, I prepared a presentation on several 20 aspects of what I have done for the Inquiry. What I 21 wanted to touch on before moving on was the HOSDB manual 22 itself. I've touched on that but I want to give a bit 23 of background as to the research we do and how it feeds 24 into the recommendations given in that manual. Then I 25 want to talk about the analysis that I've carried out on page 127 1 the marks Y7, QI2 and XF and we will leave the final 2 section, the further testing of exhibits, which details 3 some other tests I have done. 4 So if we start with manual itself, what it is is a 5 best practice guide for fingerprint development. It's 6 endorsed by the Association of Chief Police Officers and 7 what it contains is a range of processes and processing 8 sequences that are designed to maximise the number of 9 fingerprints you will recover from any particular 10 surface. 11 So the front of the manual you will find advice 12 about lab design and background to fingerprints. The 13 second part will contain a number of sequential 14 processing charts. The one here you see for paper and 15 the cardboard, you will see there's a thick black line 16 going down to a single development process. That is if 17 you had a volume crime and you wanted to use the single 18 most effective process that's the one you would use. If 19 you had a serious crime and you wanted to explore every 20 eventuality, you would take into account the processes 21 in the side arms. 22 The final part of the manual deals with processing 23 techniques themselves. It talks about the way to apply 24 it safely in a laboratory and also if it's a technique 25 suitable for a crime scene it will talk how to apply it page 128 1 at a crime scene as well. 2 As I said earlier, it's used in certainly all the 3 fingerprint laboratories in the UK and that's both 4 Scotland and Northern Ireland, many others worldwide, I 5 think Canada adopt it wholesale as does, I believe, 6 South Africa and certainly there's approaching 100 7 countries actually have a copy of the manual. 8 The processes we select, we select them in accord 9 with their effectiveness in developing fingerprints (in 10 other words, the processes that are likely to recover 11 the most fingerprints from a particular type of surface) 12 but we also take into account the health and safety of 13 the process. We don't recommend processes which we 14 think are fundamentally unsafe in terms of having toxic 15 elements or flammability. 16 Our recommendation of any process will follow quite 17 an extensive trial both in the laboratory followed by 18 operational environments and that's pseudo operational 19 and fully operational trials. The point I would like to 20 make, because I know some reference has been made to the 21 guidelines, it's not mandatory to follow this guidance. 22 It's endorsed by ACPO but it is not mandated that it is 23 compulsory to follow the guidance given in the 24 fingerprint development manual. 25 There's always going to be situations that don't page 129 1 fall within the clear-cut surfaces we recommend. 2 There's all those operational constraints, for example, 3 if it is a valuable antique you have to use non-contact 4 techniques and you can't necessarily use some of the 5 more effective processes to recover fingerprints. So 6 some of these may dictate the use of alternative 7 sequences or processes that are outside the manual. So 8 that is the point I am trying to make there. It's not 9 mandatory and we must take into account that people may 10 need to step outside that manual on occasions. 11 What we do when we're trying to look at the 12 effectiveness of a technique is to use depletion series. 13 A depletion series is you are making multiple contacts 14 of a single finger on a surface, almost in a row, and 15 each time you are making contact with the surface we are 16 leaving less and less fingerprint residue. So what we 17 try to see is how far down that depletion series we're 18 still developing fingerprints. It's giving us an idea 19 how sensitive the technique is. 20 When we're comparing processes, for example, trying 21 to compare a process with an existing one we will try to 22 use a split depletion series, so we'll cut the row of 23 fingerprints down the middle, process one half with one 24 process, one half with another and then recombine them. 25 It enables us to make a direct comparison of the page 130 1 effectiveness on the same fingerprint side-by-side. 2 We can't always do that so another process we use 3 quite commonly is panels where we are using lots of 4 donors, all placing depletion series next to each other, 5 and we prepare an identical panel except you are having 6 to use a different finger from the same donor. So they 7 are as similar as you can make it. We process one whole 8 panel with one process, one whole panel with another 9 process, and then we'll do an assessment of the quality 10 and number of fingerprints developed. 11 We're not just looking at single situation. When 12 we're developing a process, we're trying to make sure 13 that the work we're doing is on a range of surfaces 14 which are as representative as possible of the surfaces 15 that it's likely to be used in an operational 16 environment. For example, if we want to look at a 17 fingerprint powder, we look at it on something such 18 as -- well, in this case we have looked at gloss-painted 19 wood; we would look at things like kitchen unit 20 material; we would look at things like glass; we would 21 look at things like metals; with a car, a car with paint 22 scheme applied to it. So we are trying to make sure the 23 surfaces we are evaluating are as representative of what 24 the process is going to be used on. 25 We don't just look at fresh fingerprints. page 131 1 Fingerprint composition will change significantly with 2 time. So we're trying to look at fingerprints over a 3 range of ages. Typically, we do experiments where we 4 look at fingerprints one day, one week, one month old 5 and we look at the effectiveness over all of those ages. 6 We're also trying to take into account a fairly 7 representative cross-section of the population. 8 On-site, we don't have the full range but we do try and 9 make sure that the donors we're using -- and we try and 10 use at least six in a single experiment -- they are 11 representative of the population. So we try to get male 12 donors, female donors, older, younger, workshop staff, 13 office staff. So we're trying to get as good a range as 14 possible when we're doing these comparisons. 15 A typical experiment will involve us depositing 16 fingerprints, putting them into a room to age them for a 17 while, then applying the development process, developing 18 the marks and then examining them in whichever way 19 necessary. That may involve fluorescence examination. 20 Some of the marks that have been involved in this 21 Inquiry would be assessed under fluorescence. 22 Then we apply a very basic grading scheme to them. 23 I'm certainly not a Fingerprint Expert and none of my 24 colleagues are. What we're trying to do is to try and 25 find a way of looking at the fingerprints that are page 132 1 developed and applying a basic quality score to them to 2 enable us to do a very rudimentary assessment of the 3 comparative effectiveness. What we tend to do is give 4 it a grade 0 to 4: grade zero is absolutely nothing 5 visible on the surface; grade 1, you can see it has been 6 touched but there's no ridge detail present; grade 2, 7 typically you are seeing up to about one-third of the 8 available area being developed as ridge detail; grade 3, 9 you're getting towards something which a Fingerprint 10 Expert would probably say is identifiable, you're above 11 one-third of the area of ridge detail but it's not quite 12 a perfect mark; and, grade 4, you're seeing fingerprint 13 development across the entire surface of the finger. 14 It is subjective. We know that. It relies on all 15 fingerprints in a particular experiment being scored by 16 the same person, which can be quite time-consuming for 17 that person, but it does enable us to do comparisons. 18 We can look at the results in several ways. We can look 19 at average scores, we can look at all of the number of 20 marks that are actually passing what we think is a vague 21 identification criteria, the 3 and 4 grade marks, or we 22 can use more complex programmes such as Mini Tab to do 23 statistical analyses of these. 24 If it's not just the development we're looking at, 25 if it's other more subtle parts of the development page 133 1 process we want to evaluate, we will look at things, a 2 secondary score for things like contrast, damage, does 3 the background develop as well as the fingerprint, how 4 easy is it to see the fingerprint against the 5 background? 6 To give you an idea of the scale of some of these 7 experiments, so we're not just basing this on tens of 8 marks, this is an example of an experiment that was done 9 in about 2003/2004 to produce guidance on the best brush 10 to use for application of aluminium powder. In this 11 case we were looking at 10 donors, 15 donors, 28 donors 12 on different materials, putting down different numbers 13 of prints in a series, using eight different bushes and 14 two different ages of mark and that experiment actually 15 involved assessing about 12,500 marks. So that's a 16 typical number of marks. Before we'll make guidance we 17 do like to make sure the experiments are thorough. 18 There is a stage beyond that. What we try to do 19 with some of the other processes, not necessarily 20 powdering, is we will try and run them in a pseudo 21 operational situation, for example, we do have still 22 some bundles of fraudulently passed cheques from about 23 1990. We occasionally take bundles of those and run 24 those through the new process, comparing it to existing 25 processes and score the number of marks we are actually page 134 1 developing. We do similar things, we go and raid bins, 2 we pick up plastic bags, for example, we will try and 3 get a range of as representative operational style 4 material as possible and do that type of assessment. 5 Before that will go to a police force to be trialled in 6 their fingerprint laboratory we like to make sure the 7 new process we are recommending outperforms in the 8 laboratory or gives at least equivalent performance in a 9 pseudo operational trial. 10 So finishing off on the manual it's believed to be 11 the most comprehensively researched manual of its type 12 used worldwide. We do know the publishers of other 13 manuals. We don't think anybody tries to apply the 14 degree of rigour that we make efforts to go to. 15 There are new techniques and new equipment 16 constantly being developed and requiring evaluation so 17 this is an ongoing process for us. We're constantly 18 looking at new research, that's developing new 19 techniques or legislation may change and you may have to 20 reformulate a technique and also there are changes in 21 surfaces with time. The fact that we now have a lot 22 more recycled content in things like plastic bags has 23 meant that what was previously the most effective 24 process back in the mid-1980s when we last did a big 25 trial is no longer. We've just completed a trial and page 135 1 we've had to redraw the processing chart which will be 2 issued in a couple of months' time. 3 So I've said health and safety and environmental 4 concerns may require changes in formulations. A lot of 5 work was done in the late 1990s when it was clear that 6 CFCs were going to be banned and we had to reformulate a 7 couple of the fingerprint development techniques. 8 So we're constantly doing work to ensure the advice 9 in the manual is current and that's the advice that 10 police forces will be working to in laboratories. 11 So if I move on to the analysis of the marks. I 12 will start with Y7. I've been in the immensely 13 fortunate position of being able to examine all of the 14 original exhibits here so when I received the doorframe 15 Y7 is still visible on the surface. This is a picture 16 taken a couple of days after I received it. It's 17 apparently developed using a black powder. I think 18 that's been discussed in previous evidence and as, 19 again, has been discussed during previous evidence there 20 is a brush mark clearly visible through mark Y7. 21 Q. Dr Bleay, I said to you I wouldn't interrupt you but 22 perhaps if I just go back to that preceding slide, when 23 you say there is a brush mark visible through the mark, 24 on the slide we have here "brush mark" is in inverted 25 commas. page 136 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. At one stage you actually did consider this. In your 3 first report you had considered there might be an 4 alternative explanation for that striation? 5 A. Absolutely. Sorry, I haven't included that picture in 6 the presentation, but when we unpacked it at the end of 7 February in the presence of my police adviser, when we 8 drew the doorframe out of the container, there was a 9 string tied around it which had a fragment of what was 10 obviously had been -- well not, obviously, but may have 11 been an exhibit label attached to it and that was 12 directly over mark Y7 at the time. 13 Q. Why, in this particular slide, then do you put "brush 14 mark" in inverted commas? 15 A. Because there's obviously several possible explanations. 16 It may have been the string. It may been the brush. It 17 may have been a coincidence the string was above the 18 mark when I withdrew it. 19 Q. So that there's obviously some form of damage to the 20 mark? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. That could have a variety of causes? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. One of might be a brush mark, another could be simply 25 the string across the mark? page 137 1 A. Yes, it may have caught or moved around it. I can't 2 really ... 3 Q. I am sorry to have interrupted you. 4 A. When I first received the doorframe exhibit, looking at 5 the entirety of it -- and the image on my screen is a 6 bit washed out compared to what I was hoping to 7 achieve -- it was obvious that certainly the top area of 8 the doorframe had been powdered with aluminium. There 9 were clearly traces of the powder that was consistent 10 with aluminium at the top, although there was only a 11 small portion that still hadn't been overpowdered. The 12 majority of the frame had been overpowdered with the 13 black granular powder and the bottom of the frame was 14 this pale blue colour, which is characteristic of being 15 treated with an acid black one, which is a dye used for 16 developing marks in blood. 17 The deposition of the aluminium at the top of the 18 doorframe is certainly more difficult to see than the 19 black granular powder and possibly less uniform. It's 20 very difficult to see the very pale silvery-grey of the 21 aluminium against the white of the doorframe. It's not 22 so easy to see where the powder actually is adhering to 23 the surface. 24 One thing that I thought I would look at or think 25 about was: was powdering actually an appropriate process page 138 1 to use for this type of exhibit? Certainly looking at 2 the charts available at the time -- and this would have 3 been the booklet that was used at the time, this is the 4 Scene of Crime Handbook from 1993 -- these are the two 5 charts contained in it, one for the treatment of smooth 6 non-porous surfaces and one for treatment of rough 7 non-porous surfaces. It is a bit debatable, actually, 8 which the doorframe would fall into. But in both cases 9 powders are regarded as an appropriate development 10 process for these types of surface and certainly with a 11 fixed surface that you can't take back to the laboratory 12 is probably be the only option available. 13 So "powders" is the pale green box on the chart. 14 It's definitely the primary process recommended for a 15 smooth non-porous surface. It's one of several similar 16 performing options at the bottom of the rough non-porous 17 chart. 18 If you look inside the manual, it talks about the 19 options for powders and, having read the transcripts at 20 the early part of this Inquiry, some debate was made 21 about what was the appropriate powder to use. If I read 22 verbatim what is inside the handbook, it says that: 23 "Many types of powder and several methods of 24 application are available for the development of latent 25 fingerprints. With fresh fingerprints the aqueous page 139 1 component of the fingerprint contributes significantly 2 to the adhesion of powders where as with older 3 fingerprints, powders adhere principally to the fatty 4 deposits of sebaceous sweat. The effectiveness of 5 powdering is variable depending on the chemical and 6 physical nature of the powder, the type of applicator, 7 and the care and expertise of the operator. Most 8 available data indicate that under many circumstances 9 the flake powders such as aluminium are more sensitive 10 than other types of powder." 11 So that's the state of advice at the time from our 12 knowledge as what was then the Police Scientific 13 Development Branch. There are some additional comments 14 within that section. One of them is: 15 "The sensitivity necessary in a powder to carry out 16 an effective fingerprint examination depends to some 17 extent on the nature and condition of the surface being 18 examined." 19 It says: 20 "Use the powder most sensitive to the latent 21 fingerprint deposit. Aluminium milled flake 22 powder ... is more sensitive when applied in the manner 23 described below, than other black or white powders." 24 Finally: 25 "With deposits such as furniture polish or general page 140 1 grime, a less sensitive powder may sometimes be more 2 effective. This will reduce the chances of clogging or 3 filling in ridge detail." 4 So if we now look at what was done with Y7 -- oh 5 yes, another point is that's our guidance. That was our 6 guidance from the scientific research laboratories. 7 What also needs to be taken into account is the 8 operational experience of the SOCO. The fact that they 9 are doing this job day in, day out they may have 10 additional evidence that makes them believe that a 11 certain type of powder is going to be more effective on 12 a certain type of surface. So using the guidance in 13 their handbook in conjunction with SOCO's expertise is a 14 way to approach this. 15 If we move on to what was actually done with mark 16 Y7, our view is that the primary objective of when 17 treating a crime scene for fingerprint evidence it must 18 be to develop as many fingerprints as possible. So you 19 have got to try to use as best practice as possible. 20 Certainly the choice of aluminium flake as an 21 initial powder treatment is not inconsistent with the 22 advice available in 1997. Certainly a couple of the 23 phrases from the handbook would indicate that that's a 24 perfectly acceptable thing to do. 25 Again, the fact that the mark was subsequently page 141 1 re-powdered with black granular powder after 2 observations by SOCOs that it was giving better results 3 on a painted wood surface at the locus is also not 4 inconsistent with the advice that was available in 1997. 5 It comes down to: is sequential powdering bad 6 practice? It's not bad practice. It's not something 7 that we really know a lot about and that's still the 8 case now. It may develop more marks overall. I think 9 there's the opportunity to do more research in this 10 area. We don't know all the answers. The issue seems 11 to be here that the uncertainty is arising because the 12 sequential powdering wasn't carried out on the same day 13 at the same time. We've developed a mark, we've got a 14 couple of days' ambiguity between the aluminium powder 15 being applied and the black powder being applied, but 16 the fact that the two powders were applied is not 17 inconsistent with the advice available and it's not 18 necessarily bad practice. 19 That leads us on to the question of why wasn't Y7 20 detected when powdering the doorframe with the aluminium 21 flake powder? There's several possible explanations. 22 I'm obviously not able to say conclusively which one it 23 is, but I will try and run through the possibilities 24 available. One is simply that the area containing Y7 25 was missed during the initial powdering; the brush page 142 1 didn't pass over the area so no powder deposited. Along 2 similar to that it may be that the aluminium powder just 3 didn't adhere well to the surface of the doorframe at 4 that position, either because there was something like 5 furniture polish present or grime that inhibited the 6 aluminium actually sticking to the surface. 7 Another possibility is actually it was developed but 8 the subsequent examination of the doorframe didn't 9 actually -- well, the SOCO examining it may not have 10 actually seen it because, as I mentioned earlier, it's 11 very difficult to see a pale grey powder against a 12 white shiny doorframe material. 13 Another one which I will talk a bit about in the 14 next couple of sides is the that constituents, the 15 makeup, of the chemical composition of the mark may have 16 meant that it wasn't appropriate for development by 17 aluminium flake. It may not have been particularly 18 well-developed by aluminium flake but black granular may 19 have been a more appropriate powder to use for this 20 particular type of mark. 21 The final, final issue is, well, it's what has been 22 proposed and that's what Y7 was deposited between the 23 time that the doorframe was powdered with aluminium but 24 before the mark was actually re-powdered with black 25 granular. page 143 1 Certainly the fact that marks can be developed on a 2 surface after powdering with aluminium and then come up 3 with subsequent black granular powder is something that 4 I'd observed in a pseudo-operational situation and I 5 have been able to replicate it in the laboratory during 6 the course of this Inquiry. So it's certainly a 7 possibility. 8 I did a brief experiment walking round site getting 9 marks from 50 different donors and it's between an 10 initial 5 and 10 per cent of marks may come up in this 11 way. If you look at the two photographs at the bottom, 12 it's again a bit of white gloss painted plaster board 13 which I powdered with aluminium. You can't easily see 14 any marks in the first image, but you can certainly see 15 at least two clearly developed marks after I applied the 16 black granular powder as a second process. So it's a 17 possibility. It does happen and a rough statistical 18 experiment indicates it may be 5 to 10 per cent of marks 19 will be developed. 20 A possible explanation for that is that the powders 21 are quite different in the morphologies they have. They 22 are quite different in their appearance, they are 23 possibly quite different in the way they stick to 24 fingerprints. The top pair of images are aluminium 25 flake powder. You can see that we have quite thin page 144 1 platelets of material. You can see that when they stick 2 to a fingerprint they give quite a patchy set of 3 particles adhering to the fingerprint residue. 4 The bottom two images are from black granular 5 powder. It's a much finer powder, they are small sort 6 of spherical-type particles and they stick across the 7 entire surface of the fingerprint with some larger 8 clumps visible on the surface. 9 We don't know exactly the mechanisms by which these 10 powders stick to a surface. I was trying to think of an 11 analogy that might explain it, one of which is if you 12 have, for example, a table with some spilled liquid on 13 it (say it's beer) and I want to flick a beer mat across 14 that surface, it's a flat platelet-like material. If it 15 comes across the surface of the liquid, it wets it, it's 16 stuck down on to the liquid. Whereas if I pushed a 17 marble across that surface, it wouldn't. It would 18 travel through the water without stopping. 19 If I have something sticky and I try to roll a 20 marble through it, the marble would now stick to it and 21 if I flick the beer mat hard enough, it may skim across 22 the surface of the sticky material. So different 23 powders, different morphologies, different adhesion 24 mechanisms and that may explain why we're not developing 25 the mark with aluminium but we do with black granular page 145 1 powder as a second treatment. So that's one explanation 2 but, as I said, there are other scenarios. 3 One thing I wanted to explore was whether we could 4 see if there was aluminium powder present on the surface 5 and, if we could, whether we could determine whether 6 it's actually above or below the deposit of the 7 fingerprint and that might give us some time-line for 8 when the fingerprint was present. I think it's been 9 said by other people, looking at the mark itself, it's 10 not possible to see whether there's aluminium powder 11 present on the surface in the region where Y7 has been 12 placed. Although I could see that the top part of the 13 frame had been powdered with aluminium, I couldn't see 14 any obvious elements of reflective aluminium particles 15 when I closely examined Y7 itself. 16 So what I proposed to the Inquiry team, and I was 17 permitted to do, was a non-destructive form of 18 evaluation called optical coherence tomography 19 (sometimes described as optical ultrasound) and I wanted 20 to use this to see if I could actually see the layers of 21 powder and the fingerprint deposit. It's basically 22 using reflections of infrared radiation from different 23 materials and different layers in the surface to form an 24 image. The image you see on the screen is actually an 25 image through a fingertip; so you can see the spiral page 146 1 sweat glands leading up to the surface and you can see 2 the two layers of the skin. So I can produce a number 3 of depth images and also slices at levels through the 4 surface of the wood. 5 So I wanted to see whether we could, first of all, 6 determine between aluminium and black granular powder, 7 whether they had a different appearance, and they did. 8 The top sets of images is where I've taken a 9 fingerprint, half a fingerprint, blanked the other part 10 off, powdered one side with aluminium and left the other 11 one untreated. Now, if you can see on the left of the 12 dotted line, you will see some white specks on the 13 surface and that is where the aluminium powder is 14 adhering to the fingerprint ridge. 15 The black granular powder is more difficult to see. 16 The particles are a lot finer so you are not seeing 17 powders. What you are actually seeing is a very faint 18 shadowing effect. It's almost casting a shadow from 19 beneath the carbon, but I can distinguish between the 20 two types of powder. 21 You do see the large clumps. They are the black 22 specks on the right-hand side of the line in lower image 23 where there's large clumps of carbon. It's probably 24 better seen in this image. Again, this is 25 another planted mark. In this case I've powdered with page 147 1 aluminium, I've placed my fingerprint and then I've 2 overpowdered with black granular powder. On the 3 surface, I'm able to see little white flecks so I can 4 see that the aluminium does exist across the surface. 5 If I look slightly below the surface, I can see that 6 shadowing effect from the black granular powder. 7 Unfortunately, what I was unable to tell from this 8 is what order things had been applied in. We did tests 9 using exhibits that we prepared with aluminium, 10 fingerprint, black granular and we also prepared 11 exhibits where we had fingerprint, aluminium, black 12 granular powder and there was no obvious difference 13 between those, the traces we were getting from optical 14 coherence tomography. So we couldn't do what I 15 originally set out to do and that was to determine the 16 order in which things had been deposited. 17 The main reason for that is I was actually unable 18 to find any aluminium on the surface in the region of 19 Y7. The two images on the left-hand side are looking at 20 the mark Y7 itself. We can see black particulates. 21 These are the carbon clumps for the black granular 22 powder. They seem to be bigger than the black granular 23 powder than we currently use, but you're not seeing any 24 white specks that could be associated with the 25 aluminium. When I examine an area of background close page 148 1 to the mark Y7, I'm not seeing any white flecks 2 characteristic of aluminium there either. 3 What that sort of tends towards is that the region 4 containing Y7 was either missed during initial powdering 5 or that the aluminium flake powder did not actually 6 adhere particularly well to that region of the surface. 7 It's not possible obviously 12 years on 12/13 years on 8 to say which is the case. I will qualify that slightly 9 in saying that by the time I came to do this analysis, I 10 had applied another treatment to the part of the frame 11 which originally just contained aluminium; so I am not 12 able to take a control trace and say, no, there's 13 definitely no aluminium there. It may be that the 14 appearance of aluminium changed over that period of 15 time, but it is more indicative of the top two. It's 16 either missed during powdering or the powder didn't 17 adhere well to that particular part of the frame. 18 So we can't draw any conclusion about when Y7 was 19 deposited from this test. 20 The other bit of work I was asked to do was to do 21 with the step feature in the side of mark Y7. Reading 22 the transcripts, I was able to see that there were a 23 couple of possible explanations that were being 24 proposed: the first that it was to do with multiple 25 touches; the second that it was actually associated with page 149 1 a feature, a depression in the grain of the wood. 2 Originally I was expecting to have to send the 3 doorframe back but I was able to do some quick test to 4 try and give some supporting evidence to one of these 5 theories. What I did was to do an examination of the 6 doorframe under a couple of different lighting 7 conditions, oblique lighting and specular lighting and 8 I'll describe what each of those are as I move on. 9 I took a series of photographs to obtain information 10 about the wood texture and also trying to relate that 11 texture to the structure of mark Y7. With oblique 12 lighting, I'm using a very low level light, shining the 13 light across almost level to the surface of the piece of 14 wood and hoping that the texture of the wood is casting 15 shadows on the surface. My imaging system is directly 16 above the surface so I'm capturing an image of the 17 shadows being cast. 18 I took a series of images moving the light source up 19 from perfectly oblique where I'm shining it across the 20 surface, moving it up so I'm now looking with the light 21 source shining down on the surface so we can see exactly 22 where Y7 is in relation to this groove. So, moving from 23 the top left-hand side on my screen, this is totally 24 oblique lighting. We can see that there is possibly a 25 depression running along the side of the mark and as I page 150 1 raise the light source and we're now looking at the 2 light shining down, we can see that that does correspond 3 quite closely to the feature in the side of the mark 4 itself. 5 I also looked at it with specular lighting, which is 6 where we have the imaging system the opposite side of 7 the exhibit from the light source, and we are trying to 8 capture disturbances in the light being reflected off 9 the surface that are to do with, again, surface texture. 10 Again, we can see, not as well on this particular image, 11 but we can see that there is a groove in the wood 12 running down alongside the mark. If you see the -- I 13 don't know if I can indicate it particularly well on 14 here. There's a spot in about the middle of the red 15 circle in the right-hand image and that corresponds to a 16 white-ish bit of raised feature in the wood in the 17 left-hand image. But, again, it's strongly indicating 18 that there is a groove in the wood and it is running 19 alongside the mark Y7. That really confirms what I was 20 saying. The groove is present. It does correspond 21 closely with the edge of the mark and it does narrow and 22 could account for the step feature we see in Y7. 23 That really concludes the examinations I have done 24 of Y7. I would like to move on to mark QI2. 25 I think you saw this slide earlier. It's not a mark page 151 1 that's visible under normal lighting conditions. It's a 2 mark which has been produced by superglue and then dying 3 with basic yellow 40 which, when we illuminate it with a 4 blue-violet light, it give us a green fluorescence when 5 we look at it through a yellow filter. I have produced 6 a colour image of what you actually see when you do that 7 analysis. Most of what I will be showing you are colour 8 images. Obviously, Ident1 (the National Fingerprint 9 Database) doesn't deal with colour images so these are 10 all converted to grey scale images before they are given 11 to a bureau or actually transmitted on to Ident1. 12 So, again, thinking through the same thought 13 process, was superglue the appropriate process to use? 14 Looking at the tin itself, it does have a very slight 15 texture associated with the screen printing so I'd 16 probably marginally go towards the fact that it's not a 17 perfectly smooth non-porous surface. We're moving 18 through the chart for rough non-porous materials. 19 Superglue is the sort of pale mauve box at the bottom. 20 It's one of a series of options. It's as good as any 21 other. It's certainly a recommended option for this 22 type of surface so I don't see a problem with going for 23 superglue as a development process. 24 As we know, from looking through the previous 25 discussions around QI2, when we carry out the page 152 1 fluorescence examination of the mark, the background 2 fluoresces quite strongly itself and the pattern of the 3 background, the colours of the background and the fact 4 it's fluorescing actually make QI2 very difficult to 5 visualise. So what I hoped to do was to use ultraviolet 6 imaging to look at QI2 which would totally remove the 7 background. If we image outside the visible spectrum, 8 we don't get the interference of the colours, we just 9 get what parts of the mark are reflecting ultraviolet. 10 Unfortunately, I was made aware when I received the 11 exhibit that QI2 had previously been swabbed for DNA and 12 in this case what that's done is flatten the ridges in 13 that area. What I'm relying on is the superglue 14 development to raise the ridges of the mark above the 15 surface and scatter more ultraviolet than the smoother 16 background. Unfortunately, because the mark has been 17 swabbed, it's flattened all of the superglue deposits. 18 I can still see it by fluorescence, but I can't see it 19 through ultraviolet imaging. So I now have a big blank 20 ridge where QI2 can be seen visually but was for 21 ultraviolet imaging. 22 Another thing that I did want to comment on was the 23 comments made about QI2 being printed as a blurred image 24 when the negative is in focus. Certainly I realised 25 that one explanation or one proposition has been that it page 153 1 was done to mislead a jury. I have looked at some of 2 the images. They are not particularly good quality. I 3 don't really want to comment on that. 4 What I want to talk about is the fact that there may 5 be an alternative explanation for that. I am not saying 6 it's the right explanation, but I just want to make 7 people aware that there is another possible explanation 8 for it and that is to increase the interpretation of 9 ridge flow by an expert. 10 The reason for raising that is that when I was 11 printing these images in conjunction with somebody who 12 was a forensic imaging specialist back in April, his 13 comment to me was, "Well, we should print this out as a 14 sharp image and we should also print it as a blurred 15 image because I think that an expert would prefer 16 looking at that type of image" and he said to me that 17 that's something he had done in the past in his 18 background at the request of an expert. 19 Now, I'm trying to use these two images here, these 20 are the ones we actually sent to the Inquiry, these are 21 rescanned by myself. Now, I realise identification is a 22 very subjective -- interpretation of image quality is a 23 very subjective thing but, to my eye, within the red 24 circle I think I can see the ridge flow in the 25 fingerprint more clearly than I can in the sharp image page 154 1 on the left. What I think happens is that the regular 2 printed background pattern actually distracts the eye 3 and by blurring it you are doing something, which I 4 think I say on the next slide, it's analogous to when 5 you see a pixillated image on the screen and you 6 instinctively sort of squint to try and see that image a 7 bit better. You're breaking up the strong straight 8 lines of the pixillation, you are removing those and you 9 actually think, "Well, maybe I see that a bit more 10 clearly". So that's one possible explanation for why 11 the blurring was done. It does actually possibly 12 provide an aid to interpretation of the mark. 13 It wasn't unusual, talking to people that did do 14 photographic processing in the days of when wet 15 photography was the major source of images going to 16 bureaux, lots of things were done. Colour reversal, 17 contrasting colours, dodging and burning to reduce areas 18 that had been overexposed. These things did go on. 19 Ideally notes should have made at the time of printing 20 to describe if and why this was done. Certainly it is 21 something which is encapsulated in the digital imaging 22 procedure. There is a conscious decision in the fact 23 that there is more potential to adjust a digital image. 24 There are guidelines in place to make sure that this is 25 done in a controlled way. page 155 1 As I say here, it is more easy to perform on digital 2 images. Loading a digital image up and using a program 3 such as PhotoShop gives you much more potential for 4 modifying or enhancing the mark in a lot of different 5 ways. 6 As early ago as 2001, the Home Office produced the 7 digital imaging procedure which outlines the way in 8 which images should be dealt with. For additional image 9 a master copy is taken and that's the original image as 10 taken. That's sealed and that's put to one side. A 11 copy is taken of that. That becomes a working copy. 12 That can be modified but an audit trail needs to be 13 taken of what modifications are being made to that 14 image. So if the modified image is the one presented in 15 court needs to be presented with the audit trail that 16 enables the jury to see what has been done to the master 17 image to arrive at what has been presented. 18 I have give an example at the bottom. I should have 19 found a better image but you can see the image at the 20 top is of a mark developed using DFO, so we get 21 fluorescent ridges, light ridges against a dark 22 background. What we've done is a colour reversal. I've 23 also changed the contrast and brightness. I've also 24 sharpened the mark. If you look in the box to the right 25 of it under notes section it says: page 156 1 "Image processing sharpening field to one, contrast 2 increased 1.8, brightness reduced -98, inverted." 3 So it tells me all the steps that have been taken to 4 produce that image from the original master image at the 5 top. 6 Another thing to say is that enhancement tools, 7 including blurring and sharpening functions, are 8 available on all automated fingerprint identification 9 systems and these are as an aid to expert interpretation 10 of features. The expert has the image on screen. They 11 can apply a number of filters, switch them off and on, 12 have a look at a feature and see whether that feature is 13 made clearer or not by applying these adjustment 14 focuses. In this case they are not saved on the image. 15 They are just used in the bureau as an aid to whether 16 the expert thinks an feature is there or not. 17 The point I want to make is if the image of QI2 was 18 blurred to aid interpretation it wasn't unusual. It's 19 not unusual. It's something that is done but certainly 20 in the case of digital images nowadays audit trails 21 should be kept of any such adjustments. I don't know if 22 there are any notes in the Strathclyde Photographic 23 Department relating to it, but these days an audit trail 24 is kept. That is certainly a requirement in England and 25 Wales. I don't know about the adoption of a digital page 157 1 imaging procedure and there's a more recent document, 2 the National Policing Improvement Agency's police use of 3 digital evidence, which goes into a bit more detail. 4 But that is the current guidance that we work to on the 5 presentation of digital images. 6 Lastly, if I come to mark XF, mark XF was still 7 visible on the surface of the gift tag. It's there and 8 visible as a very faint white deposit as. To my eye, 9 when I first looked at it, it was indicative of being 10 developed using superglue but, again, it was something I 11 was asked. It wasn't clear what the development 12 technique actually was. So I had to consider what other 13 techniques would give me a mark with that white-ish 14 appearance and the one process that was available then 15 and still is available now is white granular powder. 16 So to try and satisfy myself that the mark was 17 developed using superglue I did a couple of comparative 18 trials on similar semiporous glossy-type magazine, 19 glossy paper surfaces, side-by-side trials using 20 superglue and white granular powder. 21 The thing to say is that the marks developed using 22 superglue were much are crisper. There's no significant 23 development of the background whereas the marks 24 developed using white granular powder gives you quite a 25 lot of powder deposition on the background and I was page 158 1 satisfied after doing this that mark XF most closely 2 related to marks developed using superglue. I was happy 3 it had been developed using superglue and also the fact 4 the gift tab was subsequently stained with this 5 yellow-ish material indicates that an attempt had been 6 made to dye it with basic yellow 40 and you wouldn't do 7 that if the mark had been developed using a white 8 granular powder. So everything satisfied me that the 9 mark was a superglue mark. 10 Again, what I have done from the other marks, 11 thinking about whether it's an appropriate process to 12 use, well we're most interested in the exterior surfaces 13 of the exhibit. They are the ones that are going to 14 have been handled. A decision needed to be taken about 15 whether you were going to split that exhibit into its 16 constituent parts or whether to treat them all at once. 17 We think about surfaces you have present, you have the 18 wrapping paper, which is a semiporous material; you have 19 the gift tag outer surface, the printed part of it with 20 the holly wreath design, that is also semiporous; you 21 have adhesive tape, which is a nonporous surface; and a 22 bit of the exposed soap bars, which is also a nonporous 23 surface. 24 So it's a case of do we treat the paper parts, the 25 card and the wrapping paper as a porous or a nonporous page 159 1 exhibit and do we split the thing up? Again, I think 2 the decision taken was probably perfectly valid. We 3 know that it's probably more likely to behave as a 4 nonporous surface so to use the nonporous chart is 5 probably most appropriate for this case. The fact 6 that powders haven't been used, again is acceptable. We 7 know powders are not performing particularly well on 8 this type of exhibit from the tests I have done. So I 9 think the decision to use superglue was valid. It means 10 you could treat all of the surfaces of that exhibit, 11 which are quite different in nature, all at once in a 12 single process. 13 I was also asked about whether the mark could have 14 been planted and, reading the literature on the subject, 15 there's certainly, there are a couple of papers in the 16 literature, one by Mr Wertheim and one by Boris Geller 17 from the Israeli National Police, that deal with a 18 review of the techniques that have been used for 19 planting of fingerprints. 20 The techniques that are most widely publicised are 21 depositing a mark using a stamp, a moulding, a fake 22 finger or a photo-etched plate, all taken from some form 23 of the original or of a fingerprint found on a surface. 24 There's also transfer, transfer of the mark from one 25 surface to another using a lifting medium. You can try page 160 1 and take something from the arrest form using a tape 2 lift or powdering then lifting the fingerprints on the 3 tape form or photomontage. People have reported taking 4 a picture by putting an image of a mark on to another 5 surface and then taking a composite image of the two. 6 So if we look at these in turn, it certainly can't 7 be a photomontage. What we are dealing with is the 8 original exhibit. That's available for inspection and 9 the mark can be seen in situ on the gift tag. So it's 10 not something where we're trying to put two images 11 together and take another picture to demonstrate the 12 mark in that way. 13 It does not appear to have been taken from the 14 arrest forms. Certainly, there are several differences 15 between what we see on the gift tag and what we see on 16 the arrest forms. XF on the gift tag is wider in the 17 extent, in terms of the ridges to either side of the 18 core of the mark, than the arrest form plain 19 impressions. The ridges of mark XF are thicker than 20 what we see on the arrest forms and also we see some 21 pores in some of the marks in mark XF. None are 22 apparent on the arrest forms, albeit we are dealing with 23 photocopies here. Certainly there's no evidence of any 24 paper fibres having been lifted from arrest forms or of 25 powder on the surface which may suggest that we are page 161 1 lifting a powdered mark and replacing it on a surface. 2 So it brings us down to a couple of the other 3 possibilities. Could the mark have been transferred? I 4 can practically demonstrate what we're talking about by 5 being transferred. I have brought some props. What 6 I'll do is if I get some get some fingerprint deposit, 7 some greasy deposit from the side of my nose and put it 8 down on to a nonporous surface, there are a number of 9 things I can do, a number of lifting media I can use to 10 actually re-lift that mark. So what I've taken here is 11 a gelatine lift which is used to lift footwear marks 12 normally. If I apply that, rub it down and lift it up 13 you will see -- I don't know if anyone wants to actually 14 look at it -- you will see that I have actually lifted 15 my fingerprint on to that gelatine lift. So it can be 16 done. Certainly, I can lift a mark from a surface but 17 bear in mind what I have just done is placed a very, 18 very greasy, very fresh mark and lifted it. 19 The other thing you need to take into account is 20 what I have done is left half of that mark on the 21 surface. I may have lifted the top part of the deposit 22 but I've left one half of the deposit on the surface. 23 For me to put that mark down on something else I've now 24 got to put that tape on another surface and smooth it 25 down in place and each time I do that transfer operation page 162 1 there's less and less material from the original mark 2 being placed. So what we start with may be a very thick 3 fingerprint with a lot of deposit present. What we're 4 actually left with is a very, very minimal amount of 5 deposit which is finally deposited. 6 Again, there's something if you want to ... but -- 7 Q. Just take your time. You have obviously brought 8 something with you that you show the -- 9 A. Yes, I have. I have put the picture of it but I think 10 this is probably a better thing to show. 11 Q. I think it would be better to hand that round rather 12 than the hand you have got there. 13 A. What I've got here is I've actually tried to show 14 whether you can transfer sufficient amount of 15 fingerprint deposit to develop a strong mark and XF is a 16 very strongly developed mark, there's a lot of deposit 17 there. The mark itself is very strongly developed. So 18 I have a series of where I have labelled "control", I've 19 put down a fingerprint and not carried out any lifting. 20 The column entitled "lift" is where I've put a 21 fingerprint down, taken the lift. The column labelled 22 "transfer" is where I've put the mark back down, 23 smoothed it place and peeled it off. I've then 24 developed the entire plate using superglue. What I hope 25 it shows is that in very few of those marks, in the page 163 1 transfer column there's hardly any of those that you can 2 actually see by eye. So it's very, very difficult and 3 I've used different lifting media. I've used 4 fingerprint lifting tape. I've used the gel. I've used 5 a standard roll of sellotape but it's very, very 6 difficult to transfer sufficient material, even from 7 somebody who is quite greasy and sweaty like myself for 8 you to develop a good mark. So hopefully that will show 9 you the transfer process. (Handed) 10 So based on what you are seeing on that tile there, 11 I concluded that XF was a primary natural deposit rather 12 than a transferred mark and that was not an option. 13 The final option is it is possible to produce 14 realistic looking fingerprints from fake hands or 15 mouldings by, again, I have what is here is a very good 16 quality fake hand which has been developed for trials on 17 spoofing biometric readers. I can rub that with my own 18 sweat or rub it on the bridge of my nose, pick up a lot 19 of deposit and I can lay fingerprints using this which 20 will look pretty realistic. The mark develops in a 21 normal way. If I am rubbing natural sweat deposits on 22 that hand or picking up sebaceous deposits from the side 23 of my nose the marks that I put down and develop will 24 look very much like they come from a natural 25 fingerprint. So that's a possibility. page 164 1 What tends to happen is that it's quite difficult to 2 actually get these to deform in the same way as a normal 3 hand would and there is the small chance that you will 4 get consistent moulding defects like little pin prick 5 bubbles or it doesn't quite capture the pore structure 6 you may find in a real hand. 7 So, yes, it's a possibility. It could have come 8 from a fake hand but XF does contain other features that 9 are more representative of it coming from a natural 10 contact from a real finger. 11 We've got at the top, within the yellow oval, there 12 is some smearing of ridges due to movement of the finger 13 across the surface. There's also some reproduction of 14 ridges at the tip of the finger which may be indicative 15 of it rocking a bit forward. If we look within the 16 green circle we are seeing some quite well-defined pores 17 within the ridges there. It's not impossible to 18 reproduce this in a fake hand but it is very, very 19 difficult to get something with that crisp, round pore 20 feature from something which is just a moulding. 21 Also within the red circle we almost see little 22 rings around the fingerprint, around the pores 23 themselves. This is something which can be quite 24 characteristic of a natural finger and the way that 25 fingers sweat naturally. With eccrine sweat it's coming page 165 1 from the pores and you tend to get small rings with 2 quite high salt content around the pores in the 3 fingerprint. So the fact that we're seeing those there, 4 again, is suggestive that it's a natural finger rather 5 than a moulding. 6 I don't say it's impossible. We can reproduce 7 features within mark XF -- we can produce features 8 within a mark made by a moulding which are similar to 9 some of the things seen in XF but you really need the 10 person's finger to be able to make a moulding like this. 11 It's not something you can do from a placed fingerprint 12 very easily. 13 For that to have come from a moulded hand would have 14 meant that the subject was compliant and the moulding 15 was taken from the compliant subject and it was done 16 before the mark was first developed and that mark was 17 first developed, in my understanding, from the image I 18 was looking at on 13th January 1997. 19 My conclusion looking at all those analyses was that 20 XF was a naturally deposited mark from a real finger so 21 that's what my report at the time said. 22 That's where I said I'd leave it. 23 MR MOYNIHAN: Sir, that might be a convenient point for us 24 to stop for a break. No doubt people can use the fake 25 hand if they wish to test it or leave it where it is if page 166 1 they wish but it might be an appropriate point. I don't 2 have too many questions myself. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, would you like to stop now? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: We will take ten minutes now and sit again at 6 2.55. 7 (2.45 pm) 8 (A short break) 9 (2.56 pm) 10 MR MOYNIHAN: There are only two topics that I want to ask 11 you about. 12 First of all, the question you talked about, about 13 image quality and the blurring and the normal, that 14 happened to be mentioned in the context of QI2 but it is 15 a more general thing. 16 First of all, just for the avoidance of any doubt, 17 when you were sent the negatives of the various images 18 to be developed you took them to Westminster University 19 Photographic Department? 20 A. Yes, the University of Westminster, yes. 21 Q. The individual there who you were working with, he has a 22 forensic background? 23 A. Yes, he's worked for both the Forensic Science Service 24 and LGC Forensics and he's currently an imaging science 25 lecturer at the university. page 167 1 Q. He is ...? 2 A. A lecturer in imaging science. 3 Q. So he has himself a forensic background? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Both as research and in practice? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Was it that individual, the lecturer, who suggested to 8 you that there might, in fact, be positive benefits in 9 blurring of images? 10 A. Yes, he did. 11 Q. Again, the positive benefit is that by blurring that in 12 fact diminishes the background and, therefore, brings to 13 greater prominence the ridge detail? 14 A. Yes. It's really what I was trying to do with 15 ultraviolet imaging, which would have removed the 16 background totally but it's doing it in a slightly 17 different way. But, yes, but it removes the distraction 18 of the background and enables you to see the way the 19 ridges are flowing. 20 Q. The second point I wanted to ask you about was in 21 relation to Y7 and at our request, an issue having been 22 raised in the Inquiry about the groove, you carried out 23 the experiments you did with the light to find that the 24 groove ran along the line of Y7. 25 In addition to that, I did raise with you the page 168 1 possibility of experimentation in relation to movement 2 and multiple touches? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. But do I understand that that is outwith your area of 5 expertise? 6 A. Yes, I'm certainly not qualified to talk about that. 7 Q. So all that you can say in relation to the contention 8 about Y7 is that an issue having been raised about 9 whether a groove may align with the edge of one edge of 10 Y7 and explain the pattern at the bottom where the 11 ridges come out beyond the right edge you have carried 12 out the light studies that you have indicated to show 13 the presence of a groove? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. But beyond that you cannot comment? 16 A. That's right, yes. That's correct. 17 MR MOYNIHAN: I have no further questions. Thank you very 18 much. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Shall I ask Mr Holmes first then if you have 20 any questions for this witness. 21 MR HOLMES: No thank you, sir. 22 MISS GALBRAITH: No, thank you, sir. 23 MISS GRAHAME: No, thank you, sir. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: I have only one question to ask you and 25 assuming you haven't thought of anything in the interim page 169 1 that you want to ask, the one question I have is when 2 you mentioned the surface of QI2 had been affected 3 because of DNA. Is that something that had happened in 4 the past? 5 A. I was led to believe so. I'm not sure exactly what date 6 it was. I believe there had been a previous analysis 7 where some swabbing had been performed. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Swabbing at some earlier stage? 9 A. Yes. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: I take it you don't have any expertise in 11 DNA? 12 A. I don't. I think when that has come up in the Inquiry I 13 have tried to find the Inquiry Team an expert who was 14 capable of talking through those issues with them. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Should it be possible after such a long 16 period of time. 17 A. That's right, yes. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I have nothing else. 19 Thank you very much for the work you have done for 20 the Inquiry and the experiments you have conducted for 21 us. It has been very helpful. Thank you. 22 MR MOYNIHAN: Sir, two things: first of all, there are no 23 further witnesses for today. I do apologise. I didn't 24 anticipate going through matters quite as quickly. 25 The next witness is Mr Pattison and, in fact, it was page 170 1 convenient for him, though he could have rearranged his 2 diary, he comes tomorrow morning. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 4 MR MOYNIHAN: So the arrangement is Mr Pattison tomorrow. 5 After that the next witness is Mr Chamberlain but he is 6 arranged for Wednesday and then we go to Mr Pugh and 7 then, finally, Professor Champod next week. 8 I am not questioning Mr Pattison. I don't 9 understand that Miss Carmichael's questions are going to 10 be much longer. I don't know what the estimates are but 11 I was certainly suggesting to others in the break that 12 there's no need, tomorrow, for a 9.30 start. It could 13 be a more leisurely start. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: I am sure that will not disappoint anyone, so 15 we will sit at 10.00 then tomorrow. 16 MR MOYNIHAN: Yes. It may be an opportunity, sir, because 17 we are obviously towards the end of the hearing in 18 evidence that one of the points that we can discuss 19 tomorrow would be the concluding on loose ends in 20 relation to some witnesses. There's also the start of a 21 conversation about how long and in what circumstances 22 closing submissions may be made at the end of next week. 23 So we might use some of the time available tomorrow for 24 housekeeping discussions. Otherwise, I am afraid it's 25 going to be a relatively short day tomorrow and then page 171 1 Mr Chamberlain on Wednesday. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: As long as we are keeping up to schedule. 3 MR MOYNIHAN: We are now, sir, yes. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will sit tomorrow at 10.00. 5 (3.05 pm) 6 (Adjourned until 10.00 am the following morning) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25