Part 4 The Opinion Evidence - Chapter 26 The Mark QI2 Ross

Introduction

The mark and print
26.1. The mark identified as Miss Ross's right forefinger was part of a cluster of ridge detail named QI2 found on the side of a metal tin. The cluster also contained a mark identified as the right middle finger of Mr Asbury.

26.2. The side of the tin on which QI2 was found has a picture of a horse drawn tram. QI2 is located on the left side of the picture at the railed stairs to the open top deck and some of the underlying detail from the picture comes through in the image of the mark. The image of QI2 Ross has been rotated 90° clockwise to give the mark an upright appearance. The front facia of the tram (between the top of the stairs and the upper deck) shows through in the mark as the light coloured shard in the middle of the lower section of the image with the light lines of the handrail above and to the right of it. This was information available to the Inquiry. However, it is not evident that either the tin, or a picture of the tin, was available to those who examined the mark previously.

26.3. The mark is shown in figure 14 and the print in figure 15, the marked up enlargements by SCRO for Phase 1 of the comparative exercise, reproduced here at 50% of their original size.¹

Source materials
26.4. The mark QI2 Ross was developed with the application of superglue. Miss Ross's print was obtained using powder, after her death. The impact that the process of development can have on the appearance of ridges is discussed in chapter 19² and has some relevance to the discussion of the features SCRO 2, 11 and 12.

26.5. With QI2 Ross there is not the complication that there was with Y7 of multiple images of the mark and multiple fingerprints taken by different individuals at different times. The comparative exercise image of the mark, chosen by Mr MacPherson and Ms McBride, was an enlargement of a Metropolitan Police scanned copy of the original image used by SCRO when the mark was first identified.³ In addition, the Inquiry had available to it images that Dr Bleay provided with the assistance of Westminster University reproduced from the original negative.⁴ Some passing reference was made to one of the reproductions obtained by Dr Bleay⁵ but, with the exception of Mr Mackenzie and Mr Swann, the discussion mostly concentrated on the comparative exercise image.

Figure 14

Figure 15

26.6. Mr Mackenzie gave his evidence relative to a charting that he had prepared for Mr Gilchrist in July 2001.⁶ That originally contained a total of 29 points which were reproduced in a series of chartings using the same image of QI2.⁷ In the reproduction Mr Mackenzie added two additional, unnumbered points: what came to be called his thirtieth point, coinciding with SCRO 7,⁸ shown with a green arrow in TC_0211.05 (the mark) and TC_0211.09 (the print); and effectively a thirty-first, a pore shown circled in TC_0211.07 (the print) and TC_0211.03 (the mark).⁹

26.7. Mr Swann prepared two chartings at different times: charts H and P.¹⁰ The image that he used was a photograph from the negative prepared for him by the Yorkshire Police Imaging Unit.¹¹

26.8. The witnesses were addressing images of equivalent status, albeit with some variations in detail or contrast. I have given consideration to them all in arriving at my conclusion.

26.9. With the exception of a contribution from Mr Mackenzie on third level detail that he prepared for Mr Gilchrist in February 2002, the source materials were essentially the same as those available to SCRO when QI2 Ross was first identified.

The opinions
26.10. QI2 Ross was the second mark whose identification by SCRO was disputed. As with Y7 my task was to seek to understand the basis on which those for and against the identification reached their conclusions about this mark.

26.11. Comparison of the Phase 1 chartings from the comparative exercise showed that, as with Y7, there was a significant degree of overlap among the witnesses as to the critical features in mark and print which required to be discussed.

26.12. Table 5 lists the features relied upon by SCRO and the corresponding numbers used for the same or approximately the same features by Mr Mackenzie in his chartings,¹² Mr Swann in his chart P, and in the Phase 1 chartings by other witnesses.

26.13. For SCRO, Mr Mackenzie and Mr Swann these are points of identity and for Mr Wertheim, Mr Zeelenberg and Mr Grigg they are points of difference. The extent of the deep-seated differences of opinion in relation to the identification of QI2 can be seen from the fact that Mr Zeelenberg accepted only three or possibly four of the SCRO points (points 1, 2, 12 and, possibly, 14) as being similar even by type and location.¹³

Table 5: QI2 Ross - approximately corresponding features in the chartings¹⁴

SCRO number	SCRO description	Mackenzie number & description¹⁴	Swann number & description	Zeelenberg (FI_0103)	Wertheim (FI_0124)	Grigg (FI_0100)
1	bifurcation	12 - bifurcation		1	1
2	bifurcation		6 - ridge ending	2	2	6
3	bifurcation	18 - bifurcation*	8 - bifurcation		3	7
4	ridge ending	19 - ridge ending
5	bifurcation	20 - bifurcation			4
6	ridge ending	21 - ridge ending			4	8
7	ridge ending	30 - ridge ending
8	ridge ending	22 - ridge ending
9	ridge ending	23 - ridge ending	9 - probably bifurcation
10	ridge ending	16 - ridge ending	7 - (not discussed)
11	ridge ending	27 - bifurcation*
12	bifurcation	29 - bifurcation		4		1
13	ridge ending			6		3
14	ridge ending	3 - ridge ending	15 - ridge ending	9	5
15	bifurcation	4 - bifurcation*	16 - bifurcation
16	ridge ending			1	1

26.14. More generally the scene can be set by considering the reply by Mr Grigg to the question whether the detail in QI2 was of sufficient quality for identification purposes:

"In order to answer that question, I think I would have to see the fingerprint of the individual who actually left the mark. As it stands, it is a very fragmented mark. It is very difficult to align the different areas where characteristics can be discerned to build up a picture of the whole mark and how the different areas fit together. There are characteristics visible in different places but whether they could be accurately linked to each other by following the ridges through, counting through in order to get sufficient in total over the whole area to make a decision, I am not sure."¹⁵

26.15. Both the mark and the print presented challenges.

The ridge detail visible in the mark was affected by distortion, by swipes or smears, the superimposition of ridge detail from other marks and the 'background noise' of the picture on the tin.
As for the post-mortem print of Miss Ross's right forefinger, the ridge detail appeared broken.

26.16. There was little, if any, common ground among the witnesses, with divergences in opinion not simply as between the two rival conclusions for or against identification but also on matters of detail as between witnesses who had arrived at the same conclusion.

26.17. Mr Mackenzie and Mr Swann supported the identification of QI2 Ross as the right forefinger of Miss Ross but their reasoning did not entirely coincide with that of SCRO. Mr Mackenzie testified to a total of 31 points in sequence and agreement. Only 13 of his points were common to his charting and that of SCRO and there were differences of view in relation to aspects of three of those 13 points (i.e. points 3, 11 and 15) and also in relation to the remaining three SCRO points: numbers 2, 13, and 16. As for Mr Swann, his Phase 2 response¹⁶ records his agreement with the 16 SCRO points but that was subject to a difference of view as to the proper characterisation of two of the points (SCRO 2 and 9) and a reservation about points 11-13.

26.18. There was also a lack of consistency among Mr Wertheim, Mr Zeelenberg and Mr Grigg in relation to the points of difference between mark and print that they argued justified the exclusion of Miss Ross as the maker of the mark. For example, Mr Wertheim was of the view that only the part of the mark within the oval in FI_2309.21 (immediately around and above the core) was of suitable quality for comparison.¹⁷ Consequently he avoided the area at the bottom (corresponding to SCRO points 7 to 9 and 11 to 13) when charting his own points of difference.¹⁸ By contrast, Mr Zeelenberg and Mr Grigg relied on points of difference in the lower left quadrant in the vicinity of SCRO 13.

Structure of the discussion
26.19. Given the lack of common ground it is necessary to discuss each of the SCRO points. There will also be discussion, on an illustrative basis, of some of the points of difference relied upon by Mr Wertheim, Mr Zeelenberg and Mr Grigg and some additional matching points that Mr Swann relied upon in the part of the mark above the core.

26.20. Mr Mackenzie's third level detail tracings will be discussed separately.

The SCRO points

SCRO points 11 and 12
26.21. The evidence about these two points, to the bottom left below the core, was particularly striking because they represent the start of the analyses of Mr MacPherson¹⁹ and Mr Mackenzie.²⁰ Both described these points as strong features and yet their analyses conflicted.

26.22. SCRO marked the upper feature, SCRO point 12, as a bifurcation and the lower feature, SCRO point 11, as a ridge ending. That was confirmed by Mr MacPherson in evidence. His interpretation was that the ridges descending from the bifurcation SCRO 12 were open at the lower end and, on that interpretation, the combined feature SCRO 11 and 12 resembled what Counsel to the Inquiry referred to as an open-ended bell shape.²¹

26.23. Mr Mackenzie agreed that the upper feature (his point 29) was a bifurcation but he presented the lower feature (his point 27) also as a bifurcation. This means that Mr Mackenzie's interpretation was that there was a lake in print and mark.²² The presence of a lake was central to Mr Mackenzie's analysis because it was the core feature in the third level detail tracings in CO_2004h.²³ However, Mr MacPherson disputed the presence of a lake. The appearance of closure at SCRO 11 in the print was attributed by him to the presence of an incipient that was absent in the mark, and he explained that incipients are not always reproduced.²⁴

26.24. Both Mr MacPherson and Mr Mackenzie sought to explain their conflicting analyses by saying that it was only a difference of interpretation.²⁵ Examiners describing the same 'event' can differ in their interpretation of it.²⁶

26.25. The dispute concerning Mr MacPherson's analysis may be a matter of interpretation: is the ridge detail in the print that appears to form the point of contact at SCRO 11 no more than an incipient that may not have been reproduced in the mark?

26.26. By contrast, the issue concerning Mr Mackenzie's evidence is more fundamental because it invites the conclusion that a point of contact can be observed in the mark when the weight of evidence from other witnesses on both sides of the argument is that it is not observable because of disturbance in this area.

26.27. Mr MacPherson's drawing²⁷ was similar to Mr Zeelenberg's slide 162,²⁸ which had the ridges diverging as they descended from the bifurcation SCRO 12 and then being intersected by an area of disturbance represented by a vertical swipe. Mr Zeelenberg's evidence was that the bifurcation at SCRO 12 was similar by location and direction²⁹ but he contested SCRO 11, arguing that this point was at the intersection with the area of disturbance and the ridge flow ceased to be visible and hence was unreliable.³⁰ Mr MacPherson accepted that this disturbance did occur but it was his evidence that it was to the right of SCRO 11,³¹ hence SCRO 11 could be interpreted as a genuine ridge ending.

26.28. As already noted, Mr Wertheim's evidence was that there was only a limited part of the mark that was reliable, that part being within the oval in FI_2309.21. SCRO 11 was outside that area and Mr Wertheim agreed with Mr MacPherson and Mr Zeelenberg that there were vertical lines of disturbance in the vicinity of SCRO 11. Mr Wertheim's evidence was that the shape in the mark was out of proportion relative to the shape in the print and he was unable to see evidence of the joining of ridges at SCRO 11 in the mark to correspond to the print. With the disturbed deposition he could not be sure whether it did or did not join. Overall his conclusion was that there were too many different lines flowing in different ways for him to be comfortable with any interpretation in that area.³²

26.29. Mr Swann did not positively dispute SCRO points 11-13 and in evidence³³ he said that he could see the characteristics relied on by SCRO. However, both in his Phase 2 response³⁴ and in his oral evidence³⁵ he said that the area of SCRO 11-13 was one that he considered to be affected by "movement, distortion and background noise".³⁶ This area, he said, did not look exactly smooth and clear and therefore in preparing his own charting he preferred to steer clear of it.³⁷

SCRO points 1, 10 and 16 and the 'chilli pepper'
26.30. SCRO points 1, 10 and 16 and the shape that came to be called the 'chilli pepper' are at the core. Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg both considered this to be an area of difference between mark and print.

26.31. Subject to the evidence of Mr Mackenzie, the ridge pattern in the print (figure 15) appears relatively clear. It is defined by a single, arching, curved ridge which, from the top of the arch, has a short ridge downwards centrally, shaped like a chilli pepper. The bottom of the 'chilli pepper' comes approximately half way down the curved outer ridge. As the outer ridge curves to the right it appears to bifurcate half way down its length, SCRO point 1. The right leg of the bifurcation ends abruptly and forms a short spur, SCRO point 16, while the left leg descends to a ridge ending at SCRO point 10. For brevity this can be called the 'spur' shape.

26.32. The question was whether that pattern was reproduced in the mark (figure 14).Mr MacPherson said that it was.³⁸

26.33. Mr Wertheim preferred the view that in the mark SCRO points 16 and 10 were simply points on a single continuous ridge to the right of the core. His reasons for disputing SCRO's position were: the clarity of QI2 did not justify the interpretation of a spur at SCRO 16; SCRO's interpretation of the mark involved arguing that the length of ridge circled in yellow in FI_2309.15 - see figure 16 - did not exist; and the 'chilli pepper' was larger in the mark than in the print, with the bottom of this feature in the mark going as far as the end of the curving ridge.³⁹

Figure 16

26.34. Mr Wertheim's presentation of the core corresponded with that of Mr Zeelenberg as can be seen from Mr Wertheim's drawing FI_2309.15 and Mr Zeelenberg's slide 167.⁴⁰

In the centre of the core of the mark the 'chilli pepper' was elongated whereas in the print there was a small comma or triangle.
Mr Zeelenberg agreed that SCRO points 1, 10 and 16 formed a spur shape in the print, with a gap between SCRO points 10 and 16.⁴¹ By contrast, the feature in the mark was described as an 'eyelet': a shape corresponding to the green oval that Mr Wertheim drew. The ridges to right and left were continuous with no gap between SCRO points 16 and 10, and a single ridge ending (SCRO 10) emerged from the base of the eyelet.

26.35. Mr MacPherson's evidence has to be approached in two parts.

Asked about the 'chilli pepper', he explained that at the time of preparing the initial charting he had not gone into the area to the left of SCRO points 1, 10 and 16, including the 'chilli pepper', because he considered that there was a v-shaped area of disturbance entering the core of the mark as shown (in red) in FI_2910.16. This had caused the 'chilli pepper' (said to be a ridge ending down) to be lost in the mark.⁴² He argued that what Mr Wertheim saw as the bottom of the 'chilli pepper' was in fact the bottom of the left side of the curving ridge in Miss Ross's print; and that was so despite the appearance of a gap in the ridge structure in the image of the mark to the left of the core.⁴³
Mr MacPherson did not support the 'eyelet'. His interpretation was that there were matching spur shapes in mark and print. He accepted that there was a bifurcation at SCRO point 1 with the left leg running down to the ridge ending at SCRO 10 but, as Mr Wertheim had anticipated, his interpretation of the mark involved arguing that the section of the right leg between SCRO points 16 and 10 circled in yellow in FI_2309.15 did not exist. Mr MacPherson argued that there was a gap on the right side between SCRO points 16 and 10, as shown in his drawing FI_2910.16, and that the apparent length of ridge circled in yellow by Mr Wertheim could be ignored as not being truly a ridge characteristic.⁴⁴

26.36. There was, accordingly, an inconsistency in Mr MacPherson's evidence.

On the right side of the core of the mark (points 1/10/16) his interpretation depended on assuming a gap where the image appeared to show a continuous ridge.
On the left side of the core of the mark his interpretation assumed continuous ridge detail where there appeared to be a gap in the image (i.e. immediately beneath the end of Mr Wertheim's green line on the left in FI_2309.15).

Mr MacPherson justified that inconsistency as a product of the lack of clarity of the image.⁴⁵

26.37. Mr Mackenzie's evidence regarding the 'chilli pepper' was not consistent with that of Mr MacPherson. The point that Mr Mackenzie numbered 11 in his own charting corresponded to the top of the 'chilli pepper' but his observation and interpretation of that feature was quite different. He described it as a ridge ending upwards (not down). His evidence was that it had not been lost in the mark: he said that a short section of it (that he drew in TC_0211.05) was visible in the mark, the shortness of this section being due to slight crushing to the left of the core.⁴⁶

26.38. As for SCRO 1, 10 and 16, Mr Mackenzie said in his Phase 2 response to SCRO 16: "Eyelet feature on mark incomplete on control print."⁴⁷ This was reflected in his chartings and in his oral evidence.

26.39. His chartings of the mark included the bifurcation SCRO 1 (his point 12) but he did not have anything corresponding to the spur SCRO 16 because he agreed with Mr Zeelenberg's description of an eyelet or small lake with a continuous ridge detail to right and left descending uninterrupted to SCRO 10 (his point 16).⁴⁸

26.40. He did not draw the ridge structure in his charting of the print⁴⁹ and therefore a direct comparison cannot be made between his chartings of mark and print but his comment that the eyelet feature was "incomplete" in the print is consistent with the conclusion that a section of ridge detail is absent from the print.

26.41. Mr Mackenzie's evidence is consistent with there being a difference between mark and print in relation to the detail at the core. The explanation that he gave for that difference is to be seen in his Phase 2 response to Mr Zeelenberg's point 1 (the same bifurcation as SCRO 1). Mr Mackenzie wrote: "On print 'eyelet' formation incomplete due to break in powder on digit."⁵⁰

26.42. In summary, Mr MacPherson and Mr Mackenzie gave conflicting interpretations of SCRO points 1/10/16.

Mr MacPherson's interpretation was a matching 'spur' shape in mark and print, an interpretation that required a length of apparent ridge detail in the mark (the section within Mr Wertheim's yellow circle) to be ignored.
Mr Mackenzie's interpretation was a matching 'eyelet' in both, an interpretation that required a gap in the print (i.e. between SCRO points 10 and 16) to be explained.

26.43. In the context of SCRO points 11 and 12 Mr MacPherson cited the development of the mark with superglue as a factor which may have affected the appearance of the mark.⁵¹ For SCRO points 1, 10 and 16 Mr Mackenzie assumed that some deficiency in the powdering of the finger could have affected the print.⁵² Development techniques can affect mark and print but that would not provide a means of reconciling their conflicting views on SCRO 1,10 and 16 because Mr MacPherson sought to reinterpret the natural appearance of the mark, while Mr Mackenzie sought to reinterpret the print, the former to support the finding of matching spurs, the latter to support matching eyelets. The significance of that conflict can best be seen in the fact that Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg agreed Mr Mackenzie's interpretation of the mark (an eyelet) and Mr MacPherson's interpretation of the print (a spur) and hence declared a difference between mark and print.

SCRO points 2, 3 and 15
26.44. The fact that there was a spread of opinion among the witnesses, even those arriving at the same conclusion, can also be illustrated by reference to SCRO points 2, 3 and 15.

26.45. The debate concerning SCRO point 2 also had elements of both observation and interpretation. Superficially the difference was whether the feature immediately to the right of the core, observable in both mark and print, was properly to be characterised as a bifurcation or a ridge ending but on closer examination Mr Mackenzie's conclusion that the feature was a ridge ending in fact turned on a difference in observation as to the precise location of the relevant characteristic:

There was a measure of agreement between SCRO and the contradictors (Mr Grigg, Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg) that there was an observable feature properly characterised as a bifurcation in both mark and print. The contradictors nonetheless disputed that the bifurcations matched, by drawing attention to a difference in appearance. In the mark the two ridges that are said to connect to form the bifurcation appear symmetrical and of equal thickness, whereas in the print the left leg is thinner than the right leg.⁵³ Mr Mackenzie, Mr MacPherson and Mr Swann offered possible explanations for this observable difference,⁵⁴ leading to a debate among the witnesses as to whether the variation in appearance between mark and print could have been attributable to either (a) the manner in which the post-mortem prints were taken from Miss Ross or (b) the possibility that the use of superglue to develop the mark could have led to thickening of the ridges in some places. The evidence is summarised in chapter 19.⁵⁵
Mr Swann's analysis, by contrast, was that the feature was a ridge ending and not a bifurcation, though he considered that the judgment was borderline.⁵⁶
Mr Mackenzie agreed with Mr Swann that the ridges did not connect and hence there was no bifurcation at the position claimed by SCRO (or, for that matter, the contradictors). However, where Mr Swann saw the left ridge as ending at that point, Mr Mackenzie saw it carrying on in a parallel line inside the right ridge and ending higher up at the point which he had numbered 13.⁵⁷ Mr Swann's evidence was that he could see something there but he was not sure what it was; it could have been an incipient ridge or dirt on the tin.⁵⁸ Mr MacPherson saw an incipient in the print above the bifurcation which did not show in the mark.⁵⁹

26.46. SCRO 3 and 15, although in different locations, raised similar issues, more directly related to observability.

26.47. The witnesses who supported identification were agreed that SCRO 3 was a bifurcation to the right of the core and all three (Mr Mackenzie, Mr MacPherson and Mr Swann) indicated the same ridge feature on the print but located the corresponding feature in the mark in three different places. These three witnesses were primarily addressing different images of QI2. Though probably all derived from the same negative, there were differences in contrast among the three images. That said, the variations in image quality do not explain the differences among these witnesses because the differing locations can be plotted by reference to a common feature, a small oval shaped blank or white area in the mark:

Image FI_0210.12 shows the contrast between Mr Mackenzie's charting (the left image) and the SCRO charting (the right image). SCRO 3 should correspond to the characteristic that Mr Mackenzie numbered 18 in his charting CO_2005h. In image FI_0210.12 the white oval area is circled in red in both Mr Mackenzie's charting and the SCRO charting. Mr Mackenzie's point 18 is indicated by the line in the left image that ends in the red circle, and is located below the white oval. In the right-hand image SCRO 3 is marked half way up and to the right of the red circle and is towards the top of the white oval.
The difference can also be seen by comparing Mr MacPherson's drawing of ridges in FI_2910.19 (the point of bifurcation is above the white oval) with Mr Mackenzie's drawing of ridges FI_0210.13 (where it is below the oval). The difference would remain even if an adjustment were to be made to Mr Mackenzie's drawing to show the bifurcation at the position of his dot for his point 18. Mr Mackenzie considered that SCRO had marked the point in the wrong place.⁶⁰
Mr Swann positioned his point 8, in FI_2110.13, at a level towards the top of the oval but further to the right than either Mr Mackenzie or Mr MacPherson.
Both Mr Swann and Mr MacPherson were confident of the point and considered that it was just below an area of a swipe or smear.⁶¹ By contrast, Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg challenged SCRO point 3 on the basis that this area of the mark was of such poor quality due to disturbance by a swipe or smear that no ridge characteristic was reliably observable.⁶² The variations in the positioning of SCRO 3 by Mr MacPherson, Mr Mackenzie and Mr Swann could be consistent with that proposition.

26.48. The same applies to SCRO 15, a bifurcation in the print some distance from, and to the upper left of, the core. Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg said that this point was questionable or unreliable because it was in an area distorted by a swipe.⁶³ Mr MacPherson accepted that there was "background interference" but he considered that it did not come as low as the bifurcation⁶⁴ whereas Mr Mackenzie's evidence was that SCRO's positioning of the characteristic in the mark was wrong: it should have been marked a little higher up.⁶⁵ The contrast between Mr Mackenzie and Mr MacPherson as to the precise location of the point puts the reliability of the observation in doubt.

SCRO points 4 - 9
26.49. With SCRO 4 the question was whether a ridge ending is observable. Mr MacPherson and Mr Mackenzie concurred, the latter saying that the point was very clear to him.⁶⁶ Mr Zeelenberg could not find the point, saying that the area was distorted.⁶⁷ Of the contradictors, Mr Wertheim came closest to the SCRO position by accepting that there might be something within the red circle shown in the mark in FI_2309.18, though he considered it to be unreliable due to evidence of a smear.⁶⁸

26.50. SCRO 5, 6 and 9 are in close proximity. Looking to the print, SCRO points 5 and 6 could be taken as a bifurcation (SCRO 5), the right leg of which ends as a spur (SCRO 6). SCRO 9 is a ridge ending on the opposite side of the bifurcation. The question is whether such fine detail can be observed in the mark, particularly given that the bifurcation as marked by SCRO is immediately adjacent to a large black spot which makes it difficult to see the ridge detail rising from the point assumed to be the bifurcation. Mr Mackenzie and Mr MacPherson said that these details could be observed.⁶⁹ Mr Wertheim was strongest in his disagreement.⁷⁰ Mr Grigg labelled SCRO 6 as his point 8 in the print⁷¹ the same feature (which he described as a cross-over) as SCRO referred to as the spur. On the mark he placed the corresponding feature substantially to the left and below the position indicated by SCRO.

26.51. Mr Mackenzie⁷² and Mr MacPherson said SCRO points 7 and 8 are two ridge endings that could be picked out in the mark in an area otherwise dominated by the hatched appearance of crossing vertical and horizontal lines. Mr MacPherson explained that care was required as these points were close to, but outside, an area of superimposition, highlighted in FI_2910.25.⁷³ Mr Wertheim described the section of the mark from points 7 to 13 as a "hodgepodge", lacking clarity due to the presence of "double taps, smears, other fingerprints".⁷⁴ Mr Zeelenberg agreed that the points highlighted in the print were upcoming ridge endings but said that in the corresponding area of the mark the dominant flow was horizontal and the vertical ridges for points 7 and 8 could not be detected;⁷⁵ and he added a more general comment:

"Do not believe a fingerprint expert that he can see what you cannot see. If he cannot demonstrate it, it is not there. You may struggle to interpret the things, to validate things and to compare them but if you cannot see them, they are not there. A general requirement is demonstrability. You should be able to demonstrate what you say you see. If you cannot see it, it is not there."⁷⁶

SCRO points 13 and 14, Grigg points 2 and 3 and Zeelenberg points 5 and 6
26.52. Both Mr Mackenzie and Mr Swann marked the same ridge ending as SCRO 14.⁷⁷ Mr Wertheim was doubtful about the point because of smearing and superimposition⁷⁸ but accepted that it might match if considered in isolation, his doubt being whether it was in sequence with SCRO 15.⁷⁹ Mr Zeelenberg also accepted SCRO 14 (his point 9), if taken on its own. Mr Zeelenberg's difficulty related to the surrounding detail and, to some extent, a perceived difference in ridge count from SCRO 13.⁸⁰ This assumes that it is possible to accept ridge continuity in this section of the mark, which can be discussed in the context of SCRO 13.

26.53. SCRO 13 is at the bottom left of the mark (shown as point A in figure 17) and some of the points of difference relied upon by Mr Grigg and Mr Zeelenberg are in that area also. Some witnesses said that part of the mark was affected by disturbance and, if that is so, it raises the question whether a reliable comparison can be made between that portion of the mark and print to establish either (a) a point of similarity (such as SCRO 13) or (b) an unexplained difference (such as Mr Grigg's points 2 and 3 and Mr Zeelenberg's points 5 and 6).

26.54. The bottom left of the mark is part of the area that Mr Wertheim described as a "hodgepodge", lacking clarity due to a combination of sources of distortion. Mr Swann, while not disputing the SCRO evidence, said that he found this area difficult to work with due to movement, distortion and background noise;⁸¹ and in preparing his own charting he steered clear of it.⁸²

26.55. SCRO 13 (A in figure 17) is immediately to the right of a strong black feature that Counsel to the Inquiry called a "hook", (shown in the 'box' in figure 17), which none of the witnesses considered to be a genuine ridge characteristic. There was unanimity that the "hook" was an artefact of some distortion.⁸³

Figure 17

26.56. The difficulties associated with working with this part of the mark can be seen from a consideration of the evidence of Mr Grigg and Mr Zeelenberg.

26.57. The working assumption was that Mr Grigg's point 3 was the same as SCRO 13 but on close comparison of the two chartings (SCRO FI_0166A; and Mr Grigg FI_0169A) there are differences:

In the print SCRO are referring to point C in figure 18, a ridge ending immediately beneath a feature that looks like an exclamation mark. Mr Grigg, by contrast, is referring to a bifurcation at the top of the exclamation mark.
In the mark Mr Grigg's point 3 is located on a ridge to the right of SCRO 13 (A in figure 17).

Figure 18

These differences in relative position are bound to affect a comparison between the points.

26.58. The significance of Mr Grigg's point 3 is brought out in his drawing FI_2909.24, in which he contrasted the position of that point relative to a line between his points 1 and 2.⁸⁴ In the print Mr Grigg's point 3 is beneath the line but in the mark it is above the line. Mr Grigg's conclusion that his point 3 was an unexplained difference assumes ridge continuity between points 1 and 2; but point 1 is to the right of the hook and point 2 is to the left of it.

26.59. Similar issues arise in the evidence of Mr Zeelenberg:

Again there was a working assumption that one of his points (number 6 in FI_0171A) coincided with SCRO 13 and, at least in the print, that is superficially so. On close examination the two points can be observed to be different, the difference being greater in the mark than in the print.
In the print Mr Zeelenberg's point 6 (D in figure 18) is on the ridge to the left of the dot in the exclamation mark, whereas SCRO 13 (C in figure 18) appears to be on the ridge to the right of his point 6, immediately beneath the dot.
In the mark, Mr Zeelenberg showed his point 6 (B in figure 17) to the left of where SCRO had marked their point 13 (A in figure 17).
Mr Zeelenberg's interpretation of the mark in his slide 149 in AZ_0061 was that there were two ridges running through the hook and his point 6 (B in figure 17) was located on one of those ridges, above the top of the hook. SCRO 13 in the mark (A in figure 17) is on neither of these ridges but rather midway down and to the right of the hook.⁸⁵
Mr Zeelenberg advanced his point 6 as an unexplained difference. In his slide 149 in AZ_0061, he pointed to a difference in ridge count relative to his point 4 (the same bifurcation as SCRO 12). In the print he pointed to three intervening ridges between his points 4 and 6, compared with four intervening ridges in the mark. The points are not in sequence.
That proposition is dependent upon the location of Mr Zeelenberg's point 6 in the mark on a ridge forming part of the hook. As noted, SCRO point 13 is located on a different ridge, to the right of Mr Zeelenberg's point 6. If the comparable characteristic in the mark were to be SCRO point 13 (and not Mr Zeelenberg's point 6 (i.e. A in figure 17 and not B)), the ridge counts would be reconciled.
The close proximity to an area of distortion evidenced by the 'hook' has the result that one cannot be confident whether the comparable feature in the mark is SCRO point 13 (A) or Mr Zeelenberg's point 6 (B).

26.60. Mr Mackenzie's evidence most clearly focusses the question whether the comparison between this portion of mark and print can establish reliable points of either (a) similarity or (b) unexplained difference. In responding to Mr Zeelenberg's associated evidence of a difference in ridge count between SCRO points 13 and 14, Mr Mackenzie said that below SCRO 14 there was the superimposition of the Asbury print (QI2 Asbury), rendering a ridge count from SCRO 13 to 14 unreliable.⁸⁶ In his Phase 2 response⁸⁷ he commented that Mr Grigg's point 2 and Mr Zeelenberg's point 5 (to the left of the hook) were marked in an area of superimposition and he was consistent in describing SCRO 13 (A in figure 17) as being on the edge of that area.⁸⁸ Though he agreed with SCRO 13 in the comparative exercise, it was not one of the points identified in his own chartings for that reason. As noted, the same applied to Mr Swann and Mr Wertheim.

Top of mark

Mr MacPherson's evidence
26.61. SCRO did not rely on any detail above the core, though Mr MacPherson was to advance additional points in sequence and agreement during the hearing: two bifurcations in the upper left shown in FI_0311.02.⁸⁹ Mr MacPherson's evidence-in-chief inferred that there was ridge continuity in the area in which these features sat. In cross-examination by Mr Smith Q.C. Mr MacPherson had to accept that these ridge details were not, in fact, in the same alignment in mark and print and this he variously attributed to movement, damage or superimposition.⁹⁰ The area affected by disturbance is shown outlined in red in the image FI_0311.05⁹¹ and lies between the two bifurcations. Mr MacPherson's evidence invites the conclusion that two characteristics that are not in fact in the same alignment in mark and print can, nonetheless, be held to be in sequence and agreement if allowance is made for disturbance due to some cause the precise nature of which is unknown.

Mr Swann's points 1, 4 and 10
26.62. More generally, the area above the core was a matter of debate between (a) Mr Swann and Mr Mackenzie, on the one hand, who reported points in sequence and agreement in this area and (b) Mr Wertheim, Mr Grigg and Mr Zeelenberg, on the other, who saw points of difference.

26.63. Mr Swann's chart P in his presentation TS_0004 indicates 16 points in sequence and agreement of which ten are in addition to the points relied upon by SCRO. Mr Swann's evidence was that the points that he numbered 1 - 4 and 10 in chart P, located above the core, formed "a very unique cluster of characteristics".⁹² The debate among the experts came to focus separately on (a) point 1 and (b) points 4 and 10, and was highly informative because the same features were being relied upon by the opposing witnesses as being equally proof of a match and proof of an exclusion. In the case of Y7 the debate centred on the mark but in the case of QI2 Ross there was as much debate about the print as there was about the mark.

26.64. The debate concerning Mr Swann's point 1 is simpler than that concerning 4 and 10.

Mr Swann's evidence was that his point 1 is a matching ridge ending.
Mr Zeelenberg picked out the same point (he numbered it 10). He started from the premise that the points were similar by type and location in both mark and print, but his opinion was that the other adjacent ridge detail was at variance and therefore there was a "distinct discrepancy".⁹³ The adjacent ridge detail to which he referred is that associated with Mr Swann's points 4 and 10.
This is within the V-shaped area of disturbance that Mr MacPherson indicated in his drawing FI_2910.16 and consequently his evidence was that the ridge structure was not reliable.⁹⁴

26.65. The debate concerning Mr Swann's points 4 and 10 requires close attention to very fine detail particularly in the print. The issues include the question whether gaps in the detail in mark and print are to be interpreted as (a) genuine breaks in the ridge detail in the fingerprint or (b) incomplete reproductions in the impressions. There is also a more subtle question about which ridge feature in the print most closely approximates to the corresponding feature in the mark.

26.66. Mr Swann characterised point 4 as a ridge ending and point 10 as an island and his evidence was that there was clearly a break in the ridge structure between these two points.⁹⁵ Responding to the counter-argument that there was a continuous ridge, he argued that a fingerprint examiner has to accept what can be seen and if there is a gap observable then there is a gap.⁹⁶

26.67. In summarising the evidence of Mr Grigg, Mr Zeelenberg and Mr Wertheim, it is necessary to maintain a distinction between mark and print because their evidence sought to establish a difference between the two.

26.68. To start with the mark:

Mr Grigg, Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg agreed that there was a ridge ending at the point that Mr Swann numbered 10. There was a debate concerning Mr Swann's point 4.
The relevant point in Mr Grigg's charting⁹⁷ is his point 5. By location it coincides with Mr Swann's point 10 and Mr Grigg had no direct equivalent to Mr Swann's point 4. Mr Grigg characterised his point 5 as a ridge ending or, more fully, as a slightly broken ridge with the appearance of maybe a little independent hanging off the end.⁹⁸ The description of his point 5 in the mark as a "little independent hanging off the end" might coincide with Mr Swann's analysis of the same point (i.e. Swann 10) as an island separated from Mr Swann's point 4.
Mr Wertheim, like Mr Grigg, gave a description of a ridge ending in the mark that could be consistent with Mr Swann's observation, Mr Wertheim describing the ridge as tapering to a hair line with a little bulb on the end.⁹⁹ Having studied a variety of images, including Mr Swann's chart, he conceded that the structure of the ridge in the mark was ambiguous.¹⁰⁰
Mr Zeelenberg's point 11 coincides with Mr Swann's point 10 and Mr Zeelenberg agreed that this point was a ridge ending. Mr Zeelenberg's charting¹⁰¹ has no gap corresponding to Mr Swann's point 4 and instead shows a ridge running through Mr Swann's point 4 and ending at Mr Swann's point 10.

26.69. To follow the competing interpretations of the print it is necessary to use figure 19 to give a consistent basis for comparison. The figure shows two lines of ridge features, points A, B and C on the upper line and D on the lower line.

Figure 19

26.70. Mr Swann, Mr Wertheim and Mr Zeelenberg were agreed that the features in the print corresponding to Mr Swann's points 4 and 10 were the line A-C but they differed as to the interpretation of those features: Mr Swann seeing them as separate ridge details and the other two seeing them as parts of a continuous ridge. Mr Grigg, on the other hand, inferred from a ridge count that the corresponding feature in the print was point D. Mr Mackenzie adopted an intermediate position.

26.71. Looking firstly at Mr Swann, Mr Zeelenberg and Mr Wertheim:

Mr Swann compared his points 10 and 4 (in the mark) with points B and C, respectively, in the print. He interpreted the gaps between points A-C as genuine ridge breaks. So interpreted, mark and print match.
Mr Zeelenberg agreed that the part of the print that corresponded to Mr Swann's points 4 and 10 was the line of features A-C. His charting of the print highlights point C¹⁰² and his interpretation was that there was a continuous ridge running through A-C, therefore, there was a difference between mark and print.
Mr Wertheim's analysis was close to that of Mr Zeelenberg. His drawing of mark and print is FI_2409.07 and shows A-C as a continuous ridge.¹⁰³ He described ridge D as an incipient and showed it as one of three incipients (highlighted in yellow) two intervening ridges above the core.

26.72. For Mr Grigg the relevant drawing is FI_2909.22 and the comparable feature is shown by the yellow line in the print. It is described as "a little independent-type ridge" ending at point D.¹⁰⁴ If the corresponding ridge ending in the print is at point D, the mark and print do not match because for a match the ridge ending (Mr Grigg's point 5 in the mark) should be at B, not D.

26.73. Mr Mackenzie adopted an intermediate position in relation to both the mark and the print.

Starting with the mark, his interpretation was an incipient and he drew it as the continuous blue line ending at the point indicated by the yellow arrow in FI_1111.03. He accepted that this was the same feature as Mr Wertheim's ridge ending and Mr Swann's points 4 and 10 and he took no issue with either of those witnesses as to the presence or absence of a gap: his position was that the structure may or may not have a break in it but, nonetheless, was an incipient.¹⁰⁵
As to the match with the print, reference has to be made to the line of three incipients (including point D) that Mr Wertheim marked in yellow, shown in the image FI_1111.04. It was Mr Mackenzie's evidence that this chain of incipients continued to a point in the circle marked in FI_1111.04, which is as far left as point A but one 'ridge' lower.¹⁰⁶

26.74. Mr MacPherson's evidence was that he considered Mr Swann's points 4 and 10 to be a continuous ridge but he volunteered that he could be wrong;¹⁰⁷ and it may be fairer to understand him as accepting that either interpretation was possible because, such was the lack of clarity, that the same appearances are capable of a variety of interpretations, which was why SCRO did not go to the upper part.¹⁰⁸

26.75. It is well recognised that lack of clarity in a mark can present challenges to fingerprint examiners with different interpretations being possible. In this instance, the broken condition of the ridge structure in the print itself affords opportunities for interpretation. The lack of clarity in mark and print in combination result in four competing interpretations here: two supportive of identification (by Mr Swann and Mr Mackenzie); and two inconsistent with that finding ((1) by Mr Zeelenberg and Mr Wertheim and (2) by Mr Grigg).

Mr Mackenzie and third level detail

26.76. In February 2002 Mr Mackenzie prepared tracings of third level detail in the images of mark and print in his charting CO_2004h. The tracings are intended to be laid over images in the charting in CO_2005h. Mr Mackenzie's evidence was that it was appropriate to use third level detail to complement second level detail. His tracings span from SCRO points 4-9 (Mr Mackenzie's numbers 19-23 and '30') in the bottom right to SCRO points 11 and 12 (his points 27 and 29) in the bottom left.¹⁰⁹

26.77. Third level detail has to be approached with caution in marks of poor quality.¹¹⁰ The immediate concern with Mr Mackenzie's third level detail presentation is that it is anchored to SCRO points 11 and 12. As already discussed in paragraph 27 above, there is evidence of distortion in the mark to the right of SCRO 11 and Mr MacPherson and Mr Mackenzie differed as to whether that point was a ridge ending or a bifurcation. The reliability of SCRO points 4-9 is also questionable. When it is doubtful whether the level two detail can be seen with clarity, weight cannot be applied to suggested level three detail in the same area.

26.78. I cannot accept the level three evidence as a relevant factor in the decision regarding QI2 Ross.

Conclusion

26.79. There was little, if any, common ground among the witnesses.

26.80. QI2 is a difficult mark with distortion and superimposition. The background of the picture on the surface of the tin adds to this. The ridge structure in the post-mortem print of Miss Ross's right forefinger compounds the difficulties of comparison.

26.81. It is of concern that, though Mr Mackenzie and Mr MacPherson agree in the finding of identification, they are inconsistent in relation to the interpretation of significant 'events' in the mark including the 'chilli pepper', SCRO points 1, 16 and 10 (the eyelet or the spur) and SCRO points 11 and 12 (the lake or the bell). It is not sufficient to say that there is a consensus between them at the generic level of seeing matching 'events' in corresponding locations because one of the defining issues between them, on the one hand, and the contradictors on the other, relates to the interpretation of each 'event'. The inconsistencies in the interpretation of these 'events', and others, are a consequence of the lack of clarity in the mark and, to some extent, in the print also. Given the imperfections integral to fingerprint impressions (both mark and print) it is inevitable that there will be scope for differences of opinion in relation to the observation and interpretation of ridge detail. A reliable conclusion does not necessarily require a consensus on each and every detail. However, this is a question of degree and there comes a time when the lack of consensus on matters of detail ought to give rise to careful consideration whether there is sufficient clarity in the source materials for a reliable conclusion of identification. That is the case in relation to QI2 Ross.

26.82. I find that there is a marked difference in the appearance of what has been described as the 'chilli pepper' in the mark and the print. Mr MacPherson and Mr Mackenzie gave inconsistent evidence regarding this detail with the consequence that I am unable to find a satisfactory explanation for the fact that it is significantly larger in the mark than in the print.

26.83. SCRO points 1, 16 and 10 appear in the mark to be on a continuous ridge but not in the print. The 'eyelet' was point 1 in Mr Zeelenberg's Phase 1 and, therefore, a feature that he was presenting as a point of difference between mark and print. In answer to that Mr Mackenzie said that the 'eyelet' was incomplete in the print due to a break in the powder on the digit of the deceased. This can only be surmise and it is open to question because Mr MacPherson (taking the opposing view that there was a 'spur') suggested that the deficiency lay in the reproduction of the impression in the mark (and not in the print). On one view this could be a defining point of difference but even if it is not the lack of any concurrence in interpretation of it adds to the uncertainty.

26.84. SCRO point 2 is open to two possible interpretations. The evidence of those who identified the mark as having been made by Miss Ross was conflicting on the question whether there was a bifurcation here. I recognise that that may be a narrow point open to legitimate difference of opinion because under different deposition conditions what is truly a bifurcation can appear as a ridge ending and vice versa. But Mr Mackenzie and Mr Swann, who both considered there to be a ridge ending, also differed as to where the ridge ending lay. Mr Mackenzie suggested that it was in fact a ridge continuing in an upwards direction, rather than a ridge ending at the point where others saw a bifurcation. The interpretations disregard a difference in thickness in the print and mark between the left leg of what is said to be a bifurcation or a ridge, and there were conflicting views whether there was significance in the different thickness of the ridges. I prefer on balance the interpretation of a ridge ending, as suggested by Mr Mackenzie, because of the unusual angle of the upper part of what is on the interpretation of a bifurcation said to be its left leg.

26.85. SCRO point 3 on the mark looks like a bifurcation with a dot at the apex. It differs in shape from the bifurcation in the print. Mr Mackenzie and Mr Swann see it in different places that are also different to where SCRO see it. This would confirm the opinion of Mr Zeelenberg and Mr Wertheim that the area is of too poor quality, due to smearing, to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

26.86. The lack of clarity in the mark undermines SCRO points 4-9. SCRO point 4 is said by SCRO and Mr Mackenzie to be a ridge ending. Mr Zeelenberg was unable to see it and Mr Wertheim said that there might be something there. I am unable to see a ridge ending possibly due to the white area in the picture of the tram underneath the place on the tin where a ridge is said to be. SCRO points 5 and 6 are of too poor quality to say if they are bifurcations or ridge endings. SCRO point 9 is said to be a ridge ending. Again this is in the white area just mentioned and is of too poor quality to reach a conclusion. SCRO points 7 and 8 are said to be ridge endings but they are in an area that is of too poor quality and close to, if not in, an area of superimposition. As a result it is not possible to confirm if they are ridge endings. In summary I consider that this portion of the mark is too poor to conclude that these points are observable and, even if observable, are truly in agreement. The similarity of these points has not been demonstrated.

26.87. Looked at in isolation I would accept SCRO point 12. I am not persuaded as to the existence of SCRO point 11 which is in an area of considerable disturbance. Mr Mackenzie and Mr MacPherson took these two points 11 and 12 in conjunction as their starting point in their examination of QI2. As I do not accept that SCRO point 11 exists it follows that I reject the two interpretations they have offered of a lake in the case of Mr Mackenzie and what became described as an open bell as suggested by Mr MacPherson.

26.88. SCRO point 13 appears to be a match and it is to be noted that Mr Zeelenberg accepted that SCRO point 14, taken in isolation, was similar by type and location. The difficulty is that, as Mr Wertheim, Mr Mackenzie and Mr Swann all found, the area to the left below SCRO point 14 is affected by superimposition and the artefact which has been described as a 'hook' is a red flag. This part of the mark is affected by distortion of some kind with the result that ridge counts cannot be relied upon. That undermines SCRO points 13 and 14 and, for that matter, the points of difference spoken to by Mr Zeelenberg (5 and 6) and Mr Grigg (2 and 3).

26.89. SCRO point 15 is described by SCRO as a bifurcation and is in an area with background interference and subject to distortion due to a swipe. Mr MacPherson and Mr Mackenzie placed the point in different positions. As the area is so faint a ridge count is not reliable. I am not satisfied that this is a point that can be relied upon.

26.90. SCRO were correct to ignore the area above the core in their original assessment. It is difficult to make anything positive out of the section at the top above the core corresponding to Mr Swann's points 1-4 and 10. That area was not central to the SCRO identification because no one of the 16 points initially relied upon by SCRO was in that area. The ridge detail in each of mark and print is not clear, and the conflicts among the witnesses are such that a confident conclusion is not possible.

26.91. Although Mr Mackenzie advanced a total of thirty one points, he did not seek to support the identification primarily by reference to the points unique to his charting. On the contrary, SCRO points 11 and 12 (his 27 and 29) were critical to his analysis and his evidence that those points defined a matching lake is not accepted. I did not find his additional points persuasive.

Determination
26.92. On my findings only three points (SCRO points 2, 10 and 12) appear to match. The number of points that has been established falls far short of the 16-point standard required in 1997. It follows that SCRO were wrong to identify QI2 Ross as having been made by Miss Ross judged by the standard in 1997 and the source material then available.

26.93. Such is the lack of clarity in the mark that I could not accept an identification on a non-numeric approach.

26.94. The other source materials, including the chartings by Mr Mackenzie and Mr Swann, that I have studied and the evidence relating to third level detail do not affect my conclusion.

26.95. My conclusion is that SCRO were in error in identifying QI2 as having been made by Miss Ross. There was a misidentification of QI2 Ross.

Footnotes

1. FI_0166A SCRO Phase 1 Comparative Exercise Enlargement of QI2

2. See Chapter 19 para 10

3. DB_0001h

4. See Chapter 19 para 35ff

5. EA_0029

6. Mr Mackenzie 10 November pages 113-114 and CO_2005h

7. Mr Mackenzie 10 November page 113ff and the series of images TC_0211.01-TC_0211.10

8. Mr Mackenzie 10 November pages 122-124, 130-131

9. Mr Mackenzie 10 November pages 116-117, 149-152

10. TS_0004

11. Mr Swann 21 October pages 114-119

12. Para 6 above

13. FI_0133 Mr Zeelenberg Phase 2 Comparative Exercise and AZ_0061 slide 168

14. The asterisk indicates a difference of opinion on some aspect of the feature.

15. Mr Grigg 29 September pages 100-101

16. FI_0144 page 8 Mr Swann Phase 2 Comparative Exercise

17. Mr Wertheim 23 September page 131

18. Mr Wertheim 23 September pages 124-132

19. Mr MacPherson 29 October pages 54-57

20. Mr Mackenzie 2 October pages 4, 7 and Mr Mackenzie 10 November pages 149-150

21. Mr Mackenzie 11 November page 24

22. Mr Mackenzie 2 October pages 8-9

23. Mr Mackenzie 2 October pages 8-19, FI_0210.01, FI_0210.02, FI_0210.03, FI_0210.04 and Mr Mackenzie 10 November pages 125-127, 129-130

24. Mr MacPherson 29 October pages 97-102

25. Mr MacPherson 29 October pages 97-102 and Mr Mackenzie 11 November pages 27, 121-123

26. Mr Mackenzie 29 October page 122

27. FI_2910.13

28. AZ_0061 slide 162

29. FI_0133 Mr Zeelenberg Phase 2 Comparative Exercise

30. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October pages 104-105 and AZ_0061 slide 162

31. Mr MacPherson 29 October pages 102-104

32. Mr Wertheim 23 September pages 129-131, Mr Wertheim 24 September pages 12-13 and FI_2409.03 (orange circle)

33. Mr Swann 22 October page 5

34. FI_0144 page 8 Mr Swann Phase 2 Comparative Exercise

35. Mr Swann 22 October pages 1-5

36. FI_0144 page 8 Mr Swann Phase 2 Comparative Exercise

37. Mr Swann 22 October page 5

38. Mr MacPherson 29 October page 61ff

39. Mr Wertheim 23 September page 102ff

40. AZ_0061 slide 167

41. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October pages 94, 107ff

42. Mr MacPherson 29 October pages 66-67

43. Mr MacPherson 29 October pages 66-72

44. Mr MacPherson 29 October pages 64-72

45. Mr MacPherson 29 October pages 64-72

46. Mr Mackenzie 11 November pages 51-54

47. FI_0139 pdf page 6 Mr Mackenzie Phase 2 Comparative Exercise

48. Mr Mackenzie 10 November page 154 and TC_0211.05

49. e.g. TC_0211.09

50. FI_0139 page 2 Mr Mackenzie Phase 2 Comparative Exercise

51. Mr MacPherson 29 October pages 100-101

52. FI_0139 page 2 Mr Mackenzie Phase 2 Comparative Exercise

53. Mr Grigg's point 6; Mr Grigg 29 September pages 104-107, Mr Wertheim 23 September pages 109-110, Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 94 and AZ_0061 slide 145

54. See Chapter 19 para 16ff; Mr Mackenzie 10 November pages 132-134, 156-162, Mr MacPherson 29 October pages 73-75, Mr MacPherson 3 November pages 122-127 and Mr Swann 21 October pages 124-127

55. See Chapter 19 para 16ff

56. Mr Swann 21 October pages 123-126

57. Mr Mackenzie 2 October pages 48-53 and FI_0210.11 on which the point is numbered 3 instead of 13 (see pages 52-53)

58. Mr Swann 21 October pages 126-128

59. Mr MacPherson 29 October pages 75-77 and FI_2910.18

60. Mr Mackenzie 11 November page 32

61. Mr Swann 21 October page 129 and Mr MacPherson 29 October page 78

62. Mr Wertheim 23 September pages 111-120, Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 100 and AZ_0061 slide 157

63. Mr Wertheim 23 September page 132 and Mr Zeelenberg 7 October pages 106-107

64. Mr MacPherson 3 November pages 15-20

65. Mr Mackenzie 10 November page 130 and Mr Mackenzie 11 November pages 23-24, 50

66. Mr Mackenzie 11 November page 37

67. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October pages 100-101

68. Mr Wertheim 23 September page 122

69. Mr Mackenzie 10 November pages 162-167 and Mr MacPherson 29 October pages 91-93

70. Mr Wertheim 23 September page 123

71. FI_0169A Mr Grigg Phase 1 Comparative Exercise QI2 Enlargement

72. Mr Mackenzie 11 November pages 39-40

73. Mr MacPherson 29 October page 96

74. Mr Wertheim 23 September pages 125-126

75. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 104 and AZ_0061 slide 161

76. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 104

77. Mr Mackenzie's point 3; Mr Mackenzie 2 October pages 42-48, FI_0210.07, Mr Mackenzie 10 November pages 115-117, TC_0211.03 and TC_0211.07, Mr Swann 21 October pages 131-132 and TS_0004 slide 15

78. Mr Wertheim 24 September page 1ff

79. Mr Wertheim 24 September page 24

80. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October pages 97, 106

81. FI_0144 page 8 Mr Swann Phase 2 Comparative Exercise

82. Mr Swann 22 October pages 1-5

83. e.g. Mr Wertheim 23 September page 128

84. In the mark Mr Grigg's point 2 is the same as Mr Zeelenberg's point 5 in FI_0171A.

85. See figure 14

86. Mr Mackenzie 11 November pages 46-47

87. FI_0139 pages 2-3 Mr Mackenzie Phase 2 Comparative Exercise

88. FI_0139 page 6 Mr Mackenzie Phase 2 Comparative Exercise

89. Mr MacPherson 3 November pages 20-21

90. Mr MacPherson 3 November pages 127-131

91. Mr MacPherson 3 November page 147

92. Mr Swann 22 October pages 5-6

93. Mr Zeelenberg 7 October page 98 and AZ_0061 slide 152

94. Mr MacPherson 3 November pages 25-27

95. Mr Swann 22 October pages 5-6

96. Mr Swann 22 October pages 21-22

97. FI_0169A Mr Grigg Phase 1 Comparative Exercise QI2 Enlargement and Mr Grigg 29 September pages 109-110

98. Mr Grigg 29 September pages 109-111

99. Mr Wertheim 24 September page 28

100. Mr Wertheim 24 September pages 28-53

101. AZ_0061 slide 152

102. AZ_0061 slide 152 (indicated by the yellow dot in the upper right image)

103. Mr Wertheim 24 September pages 28-53

104. Mr Grigg 29 September pages 109-111

105. Mr Mackenzie 11 November pages 54-59

106. Mr Mackenzie 11 November pages 64-67

107. Mr MacPherson 3 November page 26

108. Mr MacPherson 3 November pages 21-29 (particularly at 28-29)

109. Mr Mackenzie 2 October page 13ff at pages 21-22

110. See Chapter 35 para 101ff