Court dispute over identity of mouse

The tiny gold mouse, encrusted with pearls, was on sale in London for £90,000 last year, when staff from the Bowes Museum learned of its whereabouts .

They believed it was the one stolen six years before.

Fifty-year-old Kenneth Markworth, a trained diamond mounter and jewellery dealer, is accused of handling stolen goods.

Mr Markworth, from Chailey, Sussex, pleads not guilty. He claims he bought a similar mouse in the 1980s, before the theft from the museum.

A procession of experts, who have studied the recovered mouse and photographs of the mouse that was a popular exhibit at the museum, have been called by the prosecution to give their opinion on whether they are the same.

Gerald Marsh who restored the inner workings of the Bowes mouse in 1969, said he was convinced it was the same one.

"A certain criss-cross pattern on it is like a fingerprint and indisputable. Also, where the wheels come out of the slots is the same. That is why I have sworn it is the same mouse."

Jonathan Goldberg QC, defending, suggested the photographs were not of a good enough quality to make a conclusive comparison.

Mr Marsh replied: "They are good enough for me to feel confident and convince me they are identical."

Earlier, forensic scientist, Jeffrey Gray said: "I am satisfied from everything I have seen that this mouse is the mouse in the photographs"

He said he was basing his opinion largely on tooling marks created during the hand-crafting, but agreed with defence counsel that there were a number of distinct differences. The tail is now shorter, about a dozen pearls are missing, one paw is different to the others and the whiskers have changed.

Mr. Goldberg asked if his conclusion would be different if he learned that the mouse had been made using a mould rather than hand-crafting.

Mr Gray replied that, in that event, his evidence "would have to be modified".

The case continues.