UNDER cross-examination by Mr Patrick MacEntee SC, a handwriting expert admitted he was wrong in his earlier evidence about an aspect relating to the questioned signature of Proinsias De Rossa.
Mr Michael Ansell said that he had received a poor photocopy of the original document in the Moscow archives. He had asked for a better one, but the official there told him it was a state document and another could not be provided.
Mr MacEntee asked him if he had said there were significant differences between the questioned signature in the photocopy and in the original in Moscow.
Mr Ansell said the gaps in the tops of the letters "S" were smaller in the original form than in the photocopy.
Mr MacEntee said he was handing him a photocopy which the defence's expert, Mr Nash, had obtained in Moscow, "where he was luckier than you in getting co-operation in getting a better quality photocopy".
Mr Ansell agreed that, while he observed discontinuities in the "Ss" of "Rossa" in the original letter, these did not appear in the enlarged photocopy produced by Mr Nash.
Mr MacEntee asked if he had checked the paper on which the letter in Moscow had been typed. The witness said he had not. Counsel asked if he had sought to establish where it had come from Mr Ansell: "No." He had made no effort to obtain WP notepaper
Mr MacEntee put it to him that surely any document expert of his experience would do that as a matter of routine. Mr Ansell said they would not if they were asked to compare signatures, which was his remit.
Mr MacEntee said that his remit was surely to check on the authenticity of the document. Mr Ansell: "No, it wasn't, it was to check if it was signed by Mr De Rossa."
Mr MacEntee asked if he had examined the document in Moscow to see if there was any indication of a date of receipt into the archive, or an official stamp. Mr Ansell replied that he had not. He had simply examined the signature area.
Mr MacEntee: "I'm flabbergasted." He said Mr Ansell had been assistant head of the documents department of the Metropolitan Police but did not ever look to see if it bore any official stamp or record, or if there was anything to be gleaned from it. Mr Ansell: "That's right. But it would tell me nothing about the signatures."
He did not look for any indication of when the document came to be in the archive.
Counsel asked how he set about getting documents to compare with the questioned signature. Mr Ansell said he asked for business documents bearing Mr De Rossa's signature. He carried out his first examination in 1993 before going to Moscow.
Mr MacEntee put it to him that, if the Nash photocopy and enlargement of it had not been available, the witness would have gone to the jury with a "seriously misleading questioned signature".
Mr Ansell said he did not agree that that was the case. Counsel put it to him that he should have taken steps to get a better photocopy. Mr Ansell agreed that would have been better.
In the range of signatures he had seen, the "P" and the "R" in "Proinsias" ranged from just touching to being quite separate.
Mr MacEntee said that in three examples there was the clearest possible intersection between "P" and "R". Mr Ansell: "Yes."
Mr MacEntee said he had asked Mr Ansell about the range and he had said they sometimes touched. Now he had changed the evidence and said that, in at least three examples, they intersected. He had come all the way from the Metropolitan Police. Why did he tell them that? Mr Ansell had peruse the documents, and suppress and deliberately put it out of his mind.
Mr Ansell said that he had no suppressed any document. "I beg your pardon, I admit I was wrong they do intercept", he said.
Mr MacEntee said that an expert was supposed to tell the truth whether it suited his case or n Why did he say they had not intercepted. Mr Ansell said he did not know.