Ref: A00-300995 Case No. 871626 Macpherson II
Volume III, Pages 24-36, Monday 12th June, 1989
(In the presence of the jury)
JOHN GILBERT IRVINE: Sworn
Examined by Mr. Temple
THE WITNESS: John Gilbert Irvine, senior identification officer,
New Scotland Yard, my Lord.
MR. TEMPLE: What is your speciality, please? A. I am a
fingerprint expert.
Q. For how long have you made a study of such matters?
A. In excess of 25 years.
Q. During the course of investigations in this case, did you
receive first of all a number of documents? A. Yes.
Q. Do you also have in front of you the fingerprints of this
particular defendant? A. Yes.
Q. You will appreciate the continuity is agreed, the general
results are agreed. Before I come to ask you for a short
analysis of your findings, will you just explain to the jury
very shortly the treatment or treatments which you accorded
the documents in question and secondly, would you explain the
sufficiency which you require before you can say that a
fingerprint or a mark belongs to a particular person?
A. A number of chemical treatments we use when trying to
recover marks from paper items as you have in this particular
case. When a person touches a piece of paper it will leave a
proportion of sweat on the paper surface. This is made
visible by the use of chemicals and the two chemicals you
will find in question in this particular case one is called
inhydrant [sic] which is a chemical which reacts with the amino
acids in the sweat, and the other is called physical
developer, which reacts with the fats in the sweat. The
sweat that comes from the hand is not purely water but will
contain a variety of substances from the body and amino acids
and fats are two of the constituents of the sweat.
When it comes to identification, if you look at your
hands - and in fact your feet but we will deal with hands
only for the moment - from the (inaudible) of the wrist to
the top of your fingers, you will find it is different from
the rest of the body in respect of smooth scaley-like skin as
you have on the wrist. These are hornier and harder and in
creased skin it is like a ploughed field, a series of rills.
These rills run roughly parallel to each other but they may
change direction in their overlapping points, such as the top
of the fingers, base of the fingers, on the palm and below
the palm. In these areas, the fleshy areas, you will find
that the directions change and will create what are known as
"patterns" and it is the patterns which we use to create a
fingerprint collection (inaudible). Therefore, we can
accumulate a particular set of prints.
These rills, they are not continuous. They will stop,
they will break, fork into two; they may run for a short
distance and start to run again, and they may fork into two
and join again after a short space of time, but these areas
where you get a break in the continuity of the ridge are
defined as characteristics and these chracteristics [sic], research
and my own experience has shown, are there from birth (or
before birth even) until after death, unless they are damaged
by permanent injury for instance. These things will always
remain there through your life and it is the relative
position of these characteristics one to another that we
use to confirm identity. The Home Office ruling from 1953
was we must have 16 of these characteristics in coincident
agreement. That is one item, one mark, has to show these
characteristics in positions relative to each other and they
must be matched by the second print, and when we have that
situation then identity is established.
Q. One final matter by way of introduction: normally if a
document has been treated by the inhydrant [sic] process, will
there be signs on the document itself? A. Indeed, my Lord.
The treatment results usually in a sort of purpley colour
result.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: What colour? A. A purplish colour,
my Lord.
MR. TEMPLE: The only reason I have asked Mr. Irvine to deal with
it ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I appreciate that.
MR. TEMPLE: The jury will see the originals and the originals
have been treated? A. They have been treated.
Q. Against that very general background, can I indicate to you
that I first of all want you to deal with the findings and
analysis you made of various documents which are first of all
labelled as coming from Cyprus, secondly various documents
labelled as coming from Strickland Court, and then I want you
to deal with a third set of documents which can loosely be
described as forming the demand document sent to Cyprus and
London respectively. Members of the jury, can I ask you to
confirm that you have in front of you your schedule page 489,
and you can see it is headed "Property recovered from
Cyprus". Just by way of example, if you would like to turn
to page 303, there, by way of example, is one of the
documents looked at by this witness. (To the witness):
Mr. Irvine, have you a copy of the schedule in front of you?
A. Afraid not. (Handed to the witness)
Q. I am anxious, as I do not think there is any dispute about
any of this evidence, to keep it as neat and tidy as I can in
presentation. Can you first of all tell us, did you find
any fingerprints which you could identify on this document,
and if so, whose? A. I think I have got the wrong document
at the moment; I have my schedule but no document.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: He only needs the schedule, does he?
THE WITNESS: Oh, I beg your pardon.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: First of all the ones recovered from
Cyprus. A. I am sorry, my Lord. The exhibit known to me
as AH/1, which was a number of documents if I remember
rightly, which was eleven sheets of squared paper each
containing notes, on a number of these sheets I found various
finger and thumb marks.
MR. TEMPLE: Dealing then with your first finding, our page 303 I
can tell you is a document headed, "The dynamics of abstract
targeting". Any identifiable marks? A. Yes, two sets of
marks were found from this particular sheet.
Q. Belonging to? A. Panos Koupparis.
Q. I need not ask you about the exact area on which fingerprints
were found; we are interested in the fact that fingerprints
were there. Page 304. It is headed, "Back to the drawing
board": findings? A. There were two marks found on this
particular sheet and both were identified being Panos
Koupparis.
Q. Page 307. It is headed, "Sequencing". A. Again two sets
of marks were found, both identified being Panos Koupparis.
Q. Page 308, entitled, "Little logic". A. One finger mark was
found on the back of the sheet, again identified being Panos
Koupparis.
Q. Page 310, headed "I keep in touch". A. Two sets of marks
were found on this and again identified as being Panos
Koupparis.
Q. Page 312, heading, "This idea however crazy it sounds".
A. Two sets of marks, both identified being Panos Koupparis.
Q. Back one page to 311, entitled "Requirements". A. One palm
mark identified being Panos Koupparis.
Q. Page 314, entitled, "How to keep track". A. One set of
marks identified being Panos Koupparis.
Q. Page 315, entitled "Muddying the trail". A. Two sets of
marks, again identified being Panos Koupparis.
Q. That was the first limb as it were, the first stage I want
to ask you about. The second stage is to be found in the
schedule at page 490 and on this occasion, Mr. Irvine, were
you dealing with property which had been recovered from
12 Strickland Court? A. Yes.
Q. In fact, there are only two documents we need to look at.
The first reference is page 170. This is an application for
Brown's Club in the name of Commander Nemo: findings please?
A. I found a thumb mark on this item and this was identified
being Panos Koupparis.
Q. Page 199. This is a memo sheet from the Inter Continental
Hotel again. What did you discover there? A. A total of
five sets of marks on this item and each of these identified
being Panos Koupparis.
Q. The third stage is now on page 491 of the schedule. Did you
receive a second set; in other words a further document
recovered from Strickland Court? A. Yes. my Lord.
Q. We will go through exactly the same sequence in order to
introduce evidence. Page 23. I am not going to ask you
about the findings on this but did you have occasion to look
at that particular document? A. I did.
Q. Within that document I want you to go to page 53. The jury
will see that is another sheet from the Hotel Inter
Continental. Members of the jury, do you see there is a
telephone number, or what would appear to be a telephone
number: "Eleni 693 3857"? (To the witness): What did you
find there? A. Two sets of marks on this and both were
identified being Panos Koupparis.
Q. Page 56. If you look at the top left hand corner of this
document it starts off, "Maria 10 mins". Findings?
A. One set of marks identified being Panos Koupparis.
Q. On to page 149, a document which is a purported telex which
starts off with the date 06.04.87. A. Two sets of marks.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Is this from the "Skull and
crossbone" file?
MR. TEMPLE: Yes, my Lord - no, it is not, it is separate.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: That was separate, was it?
MR. TEMPLE: Yes, all recovered from Strickland Court. (To the
witness): What did you find there? A. Two sets of marks
on this item, both identified being Panos Koupparis.
Q. Page 151, a letter from the DTI. A. One area where marks
were found and some of these were identified being Panos
Koupparis.
Q. Back to 148, a sheet headed "Epilogue". Finding? A. Two
marks, both identified being Panos Koupparis.
MR. TEMPLE: The final reference ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: These are all marked as part of Exhibit
11?
MR. TEMPLE: That is right, my Lord.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Each of them was the file. Anyway, they
are found at Strickland Court.
MR. TEMPLE: Your Lordship is right. What is different is the
buff folder is a separate exhibit.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I see, I understand.
MR. TEMPLE: All the TK/23 reference which become our Exhibit 11,
all form part and parcel of one exhibit. (To the witness):
What did you find with regard to page 152? A. Two thumb
marks appear on this item, both were identified being Panos
Koupparis.
Q. Can we just pause there. At this stage what we know is you
treated these items which you have looked at so far with both
inhydrant [sic] and physical developer. A. Yes.
Q. And the marks referrable [sic] to this defendant have been found?
A. Yes.
Q. What does that tell you? A. It would intimate to me that
Mr. Koupparis is what we would term a donor. That means that
under normal circumstances at least, the constituents of his
sweat are such that he has chemicals in there that will react
with these chemicals. It doesn't necessarily happen with
everybody. Inhydrant [sic] reacts with some but not all of the
amino acids, and they may or may not be present in individual
sweat. In this instance the chemical has reacted so the
intimation is that these sweat constituents are present in
this case.
Q. The final stage I want you to look at and tell us the results
of your examination of some final exhibits which again in
shorthand are the demand documentation. First of all, just
to set the scene in the sense of the document you had before
you, did you have Exhibit RH/1B? A. Yes.
MR. TEMPLE: Members of the jury, this is Exhbit [sic] 3 and it is
pages 3 and 4 of your document bundle.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: The London document.
MR. TEMPLE: The London document sent to the High Commission. (To
the witness): Did you also have the London document, what
was originally designated to you as RH/1C? Members of the
jury, pages 5 to 8. A. Yes, my Lord.
Q. Did you also have, in addition what we know to be the London
documentation, the white envelope which was endorsed or had
written on it, "Mr. Nemo"? Members of the jury, page 286.
I would like to refresh your memories, the Nemo envelope.
(To the witness): Did you have further documentation, IK/2,
our Exhibit 35? Members of the jury, you will find it at
page 270, in shorthand the Cyprus demand document. First of
all, Mr. Irvine, you had the outside envelope page 270. Did
you also have IK/2A, our Exhibit 36, for the members of the
jury 271 to 285? A. Yes, my Lord, I received all these
items.
Q. I want you to deal with two further items. Did you receive a
brown envelope marked "Mr. Panayides", RH/1 and a brown
envelope endorsed, "Spiros Kyprianou", RH/1A? Members of
the jury, 1 and 2, which were the outer envelopes of the
London demand documentation. A. Yes, my Lord.
Q. Did you go through the same exercise? Let us pause there.
What you now have in front of you, you are telling us about,
is the same exercise. You had on the one hand the known
fingerprints of this defendant and you were looking at what
we know in shorthand as the Cypriot and London demand
documentation, and what I want to ask you is this: what were
your findings, please? A. Firstly, I don't think I did
have the fingerprints available to me at the time. Secondly,
if I can go through these items one by one and in the order
that they have been presented to me now, RH/1B, which was a
two page communication, and RH/1C, which was the letter,
neither of these items had any marks on them, certainly no
finger marks on them that were referrable [sic]. If you would
move on to the next three items, that is IK/1, IK/2 and
IK/2A, I ---
MR. TEMPLE: The Mr. Nemo envelope, the envelope to Mr. Kyprianou
sent up to the Presidential Palace in Nicosia, followed by
the report demand document accompanying the Kyprianou
envelope. Findings?
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: All the sheets? A. All the sheets.
The 15 page report found - in the case of the Mr. Nemo
envelope, I had photographed 3 sets of marks. One of these
was deemed to be of insufficient detail and that means that
when we looked at the photographic result, there were not
sufficient of the characteristics that I explained to you
earlier for us to form any opinion whatsoever, so that was
disregarded. The other two sets of marks were eliminated.
They were found to be identical with somebody who would be
(inaudible).
Q. In other words, not this defendant? A. Not the defendant.
The brown envelope addressed to Mr. Kyprianou had a total of
seven marks. One again was deemed to reveal insufficent [sic]
information; the remaining six have not been identified to
this date.
Q. When you say "not identified", can you exclude them as being
from the defendant? A. They are not Mr. Koupparis, and the
15 page report, a total of twelve marks were recovered.
Three of these were found to have insufficient detail on them
and nine, the remaining nine, have not at this point been
identified. Again, they are not Mr. Koupparis.
Q. Let us see if we can pull the strings together. You have
told us that Mr. Koupparis is what you term "a donor"?
A. Would appear to be so.
Q. If he had touched the London and Cyprus demand document in
the normal course of day to day business, would you expect,
other things being equal, to find his fingerprints on some or
all of the documents? A. Within reason yes, my Lord. This
would be a not unreasonable assumption.
Q. I think everybody in this court will perhaps know, but I want
to put it to you. If someone is wearing, as an example, a
pair of household gloves, would that prevent fingerprints
being passed on? A. Indeed, my Lord.
Q. I want you to look at one exhibit we have in this case,
Exhibit 7. (Handed to the witness) Members of the jury, the
evidence will be that these were found in the defendant's
briefcase upon his arrest on 14th May. A. This is one of
the exhibits I received for treatment and it is a brown
envelope or folder with a number of documents and a pair of
rubber gloves.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Would you hold them so that the jury
can see? They are ordinary household or surgical gloves,
are they? A. They are thinnish rubber gloves; whether they
would be deemed surgical, I don't know.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: These are finer than household ones.
MR. TEMPLE: Is that the type of glove which would prevent the
formation or passing on of fingerprints? A. Indeed. We
use a similar type when we are treating.
MR. BECKMAN: I have no questions, my Lord.
(The witness withdrew)
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, I indicated to the Court at an earlier
stage the difficulties of liaising with the administration
with regard to the calling of witnesses from Cyprus this
afternoon. I cannot call the High Commissioner before two
o'clock. I anticipate that I will be in a position to call
the Cyprus High Commissioner this afternoon.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: How long will it take? Do you think
there is anything else we can usefully do? Is there any
argument we can embark on?
MR. TEMPLE: No, my Lord. I can only assure the Court that in
fact an enormous amount of evidence has already been reduced
to a few statements which Mrs. Jessell can read at an
appropriate moment.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Members of the jury, I am sure you will
appreciate something which will apply to either prosecution
or defence; if there is difficulty with a witness, we have to
fit in with their programmes. Is there anything we can
usefully do, Mr. Beckman?
(The jury left the court)
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, I for my part have nothing with which to
trouble your Lordship at this stage.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: I have been told by someone that there
are likely to be medical issues at some stage in the case.
If there is anything I am allowed to read in advance I should
be grateful to see it, for obvious reasons. If that is
impossible then I understand it.
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, what I have done in anticipation of various
matters to be raised by Mr. Beckman, I have compiled various
authorities on Section 78. It also includes ---
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Is this to do with the recordings?
MR. TEMPLE: No, my Lord. The Crown simply anticipate that
Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1986 is
likely to rear its head. All I have done is try to compile
a number of relevant authorities, really giving guidance as
to how Section 78 should be approached, and I have also
included in the bundle a number of authorities which really
deal with this question of the acceptability of what can be
termed (inaudible) by deposition.
MR. JUSTICE MACPHERSON: Anything you have which you can let
me see in advance I shall be grateful for from either side.
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, that bundle is almost completed, as much as
I can give to your Lordship and of course Mr. Beckman a copy,
and I am sure your Lordship will be aware of the decision of
(inaudible), which again I have no doubt is going to be cited
to the Court.
(The trial was adjourned for a short time)
(In the presence of the jury)
MR. TEMPLE: My Lord, Mrs. Jessell will now read a number of
statements.
(The statements of the following witnesses were read to the
Court:
COSTAS FARMAKAS
ANDREAS CHRYSOSTOMOU
MARIA GIANNAKI
SONIA COSTELLO
CHRISTOPHUS GIANNACOS )
Index | Previous | Next