Forensic science questioned

RETIRED physics professor Rod Cross had been seen as the man whose "physics convicted a killer". He even wrote a book about his role in the Gordon Wood case.

But Mr Wood's successful appeal and acquittal over the 1995 death of his girlfriend Caroline Byrne last week has left Professor Cross's legacy in tatters.

The associate professor was heavily criticised by the Court of Criminal Appeal for a lack of impartiality, questionable expertise and the nature of his experiments designed to calculate how far a woman could be thrown or jump head first.

Yesterday, he contacted the Herald to defend his work and his reputation. In a strongly-worded 19 page document, he accuses three of the state's most senior and experienced judges of "misrepresentation", "many factual errors" and "deep ignorance" about science.

He says the judges misunderstood the science and suggests that because of their lack of scientific knowledge they should not be judging his evidence. "[There is] a fundamental flaw in the legal system as I see it. The flaw involves the double standard whereby judges can pass judgment on matters outside their area of expertise, whereas experts are not permitted to comment on matters outside their area of expertise."

Professor Cross says he is insulted that the judges said he "took upon himself the role of investigator and became an active participant". He insists he had no vested interest and his results were supported by scientific evidence.

"To suggest otherwise is to ignore and denigrate the work of scientists in general and me in particular. It effectively casts doubt on the work of all physicists of all universities. That is a preposterous suggestion."

He also rejects criticism of his experiments as "unsophisticated", arguing the calculations were simple and did not require sophistication.

He addresses in detail such points as the importance of whether the women being thrown in his experiment were conscious, the so-called launch and landing points, and the length of the available run-up.

Professor Cross has given copies of his document, addressing about 50 criticisms of him or his work, to police and the DPP. "All they can do is read it and despair," he says.

The criticism of his evidence in the Wood trial has been the latest of court decisions critical of so-called "expert evidence".

A UNSW law professor Gary Edmond, who has researched the use of expert evidence in courts, has warned in a recent paper that "Australian courts have allowed unreliable expert opinions and incriminating expert opinions of unknown reliability to contaminate criminal prosecution".

Judges might be aided by advisory panels which help with the assessment of scientific evidence, he said.

Gordon Wood's solicitor Michael Bowe said yesterday he believed the defence biomechanics expert had been "an exceptional witness". "I can't say the same about Professor Cross," Mr Bowe said.

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here