Do the Police and the Prosecutor in Sue Neill-Fraser case stand by the forensic scientist’s evidence?

We respectfully request Police Commissioner Darren Hine, Police Association’s Colin Riley, Sue Neill-Fraser prosecutor Tim Ellis SC and the Director of Forensic Science Service Tasmania to confirm their trust in the validity of the evidence given by the forensic scientist at trial: the conviction hangs on it. 

The evidence by the forensic scientist was crucial in the trial, given it was a major part of the circumstantial evidence used to convict Sue Neill-Fraser. But it was totally wrong, as any other forensic scientist will (and would have) told the court, explains Dr Bob Moles in a Letter to The Editor (below).

Will those defending the conviction still express their confidence in that testimony?

Dear Andrew,
While the debate about ‘blood in the dinghy’ continues, we must not forget the ‘blood in the boat’ contributions to the trial.

Extensive evidence was given by the forensic scientist that she found areas in the boat which tested positive to luminol.

She explained that she could have used a preliminary screening test (luminol) or she could have used a confirmatory test.

She chose to use the preliminary screening test which glowed in the dark when in contact with certain substances.

It is well recognised that there are over 100 substances to which luminol will give a positive response – including cleaning agents, paint, fish and vegetable products.

The witness was asked if she meant to indicate that a positive response was to blood. She said that she did. When asked to explain how she could distinguish whether the response was to blood or any of the other substances, she said that she could tell by the duration and quality of the sparkle response whether it was reacting to blood.

JUNK SCIENCE

That answer was what we call “junk science”. It was not properly explained what length of time or quality of sparkle was indicative of blood, or whether she had measured and noted those factors. It is important for any scientific result to be able to be checked by subsequent investigators. If what the witness said was true, then that would have altered the status of the ‘preliminary screening test’ to that of a ‘confirmatory test’. Clearly that has not been done or the manufacturers of luminol would have marketed it as such.

Using a preliminary screening test as a confirmatory test in a criminal trial was the problem which eventually led to the overturning of the convictions of those involved in the so-called IRA bombing cases in the UK. The scientist had said that the hands of the accused tested positive to nitro-glycerine. In fact the test used would have given a positive response to boot polish, the nitrates in common soaps and the plastic backing on playing cards. The scandal which arose from the overturning of those convictions eventually led to the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in the UK. That in turn has now led to the identification of over 460 cases which had otherwise exhausted all avenues of appeal as wrongful convictions.

The ‘blood in the boat’ evidence presumably provided the basis for the extensive speculation by the prosecutor that Mr Chappel had been beaten with a heavy metal wrench before his body was disposed of. It should be noted that a prosecutor is not allowed to engage in speculation. He is not allowed to make submissions to the jury for which there is no evidence. There was in fact no ‘evidence’ of injuries to Mr Chappel, and therefore no evidentiary foundation to the prosecutorial submissions.

The combination of the inadmissible evidence by the forensic scientist and the inappropriate submissions by the prosecutor would be quite sufficient to warrant the overturning of this conviction. 

The references to the trial transcript and the legal citations to support the above points are available from the research paper which we prepared on these issues: http://netk.net.au/Tasmania/Neill-Fraser95.pdf

Dr Robert N Moles
Networked Knowledge 
Adjunct Associate Professor
College of Business, Government and Law
Flinders University of South Australia

This entry was posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser, Forensic evidence. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Do the Police and the Prosecutor in Sue Neill-Fraser case stand by the forensic scientist’s evidence?

  1. Judy Benson says:

    I can read hundreds of pages, thousands of words of evidence or lack therof but it all comes back to TWO WORDS – REASONABLE DOUBT. Surely there is sufficient reasonable doubt, whether its dinghies, luminol, the not investigated background behind Claire Chappell’s friend’s late night phone call, Meaghan Vass’s DNA and her numerous statements over several years that Sue was not there – and even if you discount one or several of those under investigated areas (which I do not) then surely there is still REASONABLE DOUBT.

  2. Tom Cairns says:

    The flood of words has become a tsunami which was inevitable, no doubt. This is unfortunately and unavoidably of benefit to the guilty authorities, the ones without a conscience. Many of these issues are helpful for those who need to temporize and gain a stay of their own execution.
    So where does that leave us? The vast majority of Australians live on the mainland and if you ask them what they think about Tasmania now they will mostly say: “It’s bloody cold down there.” So where is the outrage over Sue’s situation? It is buried in apathy. Are we without instinctive understanding and intelligence when confronted with such a dilemma? Anyone who was aware at the time of Azaria Chamberlain’s disappearance might remember the proportion of our society that denounced her mother as the little girl’s murderer. “I knew all along.”
    It surprises me that there is not a greater furore over the deliberate and very illegal actions by the police (with court warrants) in robbing a solicitor and two investigators of their property, actions that speak evil for the judiciary who no doubt also had very good reasons for avoiding trouble. These were actions that parallel the Nazi and the Stalinist regimes among others. I think I said that before.
    As to Susan’s flawed account of her shopping at Bunnings, in getting her days mixed, I frequently switch on my computer to see the date and then go the calendar to see which day it is. Forgetfulness is a part of ageing, but the young officers who saw a lie will find out for themselves what it is like.
    Wrongful incarceration is the taking of someone’s life and is a form of murder. Societies that have abandoned capital punishment have been influenced by the very real risk of executing an innocent person to have someone else confess when it is too late or to establish in a cold case review proof of innocence. By the same token it will not be possible to give Susan Neill-Fraser back her lost years, so many of them.
    I said much earlier that the doubts now so well established justify releasing Sue pending a better investigation and that they could always put her back in prison.
    But what can you do with a system that responds to information about the identity of the real criminal by saying that the witness is “unreliable”?
    Royal Commission where are you?

  3. Craig says:

    Andrew, since you stopped uploading many of my submissions several months ago, I am using my friends email address. I think that the same goes for a few other people.
    (You all have a very kind and obliging friend…MODERATOR)

  4. Craig says:

    See my reply on my Twitter account

    (If you wish to reply to the question about your group please do so here in the comments thread. MODERATOR)

  5. Craig says:

    Andrew,

    Bob wrote:

    “The witness was asked if she meant to indicate that a positive response was to blood. She said that she did. When asked to explain how she could distinguish whether the response was to blood or any of the other substances, she said that she could tell by the duration and quality of the sparkle response whether it was reacting to blood.”

    Where did Bob Moles get the understanding that “she could tell by the duration and quality of the sparkle response whether it was reacting to blood.”?

    Ms McHoul wasn’t talking about sparkle but the duration of glow. It is well known to experienced forensic scientists who use luminol that long lasting glow is indicative of blood. Even the defence forensic expert at Sue’s right-to-appeal (Mr Maxwell Jones) agreed that

    “Yes a long-lasting glow is indicative of blood”

    Susan Neill-Fraser had a very experienced barrister at her first appeal. That barrister did not see an issue with what Ms McHaul said.

    It is one thing for a person to provide an out of court opinion where he can’t be cross-examined. It is another thing to present that opinion in a court of law.

    You will note that Sue’s current legal team listed luminol as being one of five grounds of appeal but they chose not to follow up at the appeal. They probably obtained further expert opinion on this and were thus discouraged from following up with that ground of appeal or they, upon reviewing Maxwell Jones’ expert opinion (and Mark Reynold’s opinion) from 2017,chose not to use that ground in the appeal.

    • andrew says:

      You may have missed my question earlier:
      Craig – on another subject: are you living in a crowded house sharing an email address … with David C, Phil Lewis, Grant Stevens, C Walsh, anonymous, Beverly, TE, DB, Peter … and maybe more. Is it some sort of group? What’s the group interest? Just curious. The Sue Neill-Fraser Support Group is open about its objectives, obviously, and they don’t share a single email … What can you tell us about your group?

      • Garry Stannus says:

        Andrew, I don’t know why you were mucking around with this ‘Craig’ fellow. In my view he was just trolling. What he has posted is inaccurate and also – which is worse – has been selectively ‘cropped’ to side-step and also, to misrepresent the evidence of Maxwell Jones.

        Let me begin with Craig’s statement (above in the comment to which you responded):
        Ms McHoul wasn’t talking about sparkle but the duration of glow. It is well known to experienced forensic scientists who use luminol that long lasting glow is indicative of blood. Even the defence forensic expert at Sue’s right-to-appeal (Mr Maxwell Jones) agreed that
        “Yes a long-lasting glow is indicative of blood”

        Andrew, Maxwell Jones did not say this, when he gave evidence in court on 30&31Oct2017. I was there in the courtroom, listening to him, over two days. I took notes of what was given in evidence … and my notes are consistent with the published records of the court.

        This ‘Craig’ fellah … is not ‘the full pound’. And he has spread falsities. Yes, when Jones gave his evidence, the questions of glow, intensity, duration and sparkle were discussed. But Jones was consistent in telling the court that while such observations, in certain circumstances could be indicative of the presence of blood, still, confirmatory testing was required before any conclusion as to the presence of blood could be made.

        We – in our ignorance – always thought (as the trial transcript indicated) that confirmatory tests weren’t actually carried out … and so for those of us trying to still allow for ‘possibilities’, that the dinghy still could have contained blood, even thought Police Forensics personnel hadn’t applied any relevant confirmatory tests … but nah, mate … we learnt during those ‘leave-to-second-appeal’ hearings that sixteen confirmatory tests had actually been conducted … and that all had come up negative!

        So you get these jerks, who have a first name, but no second, who have multiple email origins, whose I-thingo addresses often link up … they come on and spread what I can only view as deliberate misinformation.

        Indicative? It’s a word similar to ‘suggestive’. It is certainly not a synonym for ‘confirmatory’.

        • andrew says:

          Yes, thanks Garry. My new mantra is “No more Mr Nice Guy’ trying to accomodate all views. The ‘Craigs’ of this world will have to peddle their junky misinformation elsewhere. We’re publishing a post tomorrow to mark the 11th anniversary of the first day of the Sue Neill-Fraser trial; it’s a new angle.

  6. Robert Greenshields says:

    The recognised injustice in SNFs case is morphing into the proportions of previously recorded judicial debacles, driven by sense of predominance and entitlement cultures, maintained during earlier recorded colonial Australian legal history.
    It’s not hard to not separate the criminality of cultures that probably still obviously, but poorly disguised covertly, seemingly exist still today, with the collusion and incredibility of historically renowned cases of the ilk of an Edward Kelly, or those who preceded him in Victoria at the Eureka Stockade, let alone thinking of a baby and a native dog more recently in the distant spaces of the Northern Territory. The common denominators, for all intents and purposes, yet again are apparently the gross failures in procedural practices by the institutionalised public service sectors, from policing, to the inadequate standards and practices of judicial services, and onwards to the executive of the Tasmanian Administration jurisdictions and commands, with, all as likely as not, supported somewhat by sections of a media circus disinterested in relaying the truth, but instead initiating a tsunami of sensational, irrational, deceitful disinformation and misinformation for fundamental sales and profit.
    Time and obfuscation do not seem to be enacting and enhancing anything but the practice of further tightening the noose around the disgraced necks of the cohort of public servants, who have been connected to the Tasmanian Government and involved in Sue Neill Frasers legal proceedings. Maintain the faith Sue, the bell tolls not for thee.

    • Pauline Chalmers says:

      Well spoken Robert – the word (male) dominance rings a very loud bell of truth. Tim Ellis wills we believe his car accident was unintentional and he wouldn’t like us to believe otherwise, and yet he simply refuses to believe Sue, when she unintentionally misremembered she went to Bunnings on the afternoon of Bob’s disappearance, or that her truth-telling hesitancy during her interrogation was not intentional lying. She was convicted during that process and framed during the trial proceedings and I don’t think Ellis would like it to happen to him over his road traffic accident.

      • Craig says:

        Pauline, if you believe that Sue “unintentionally misremembered she went to Bunnings” then what do you think she intentionally remembered about where she was before she got home shortly before it started to get dark? If you have the answer can you please point out to us the relevant pages(s) in the Trial Transcript.

        • andrew says:

          Craig – on another subject: are you living in a crowded house sharing an email address … with David C, Phil Lewis, Grant Stevens, C Walsh, anonymous, Beverly, TE, DB, Peter … and maybe more. Is it some sort of group? What’s the group interest? Just curious. The Sue Neill-Fraser Support Group is open about its objectives, obviously, and they don’t share a single email … What can you tell us about your group?

          • Pauline Chalmers says:

            Thanks Andrew for revealing that truth about Craig. My family live in Australia and I purpose that a CCRC is established in your country, as it has been in New Zealand, and Sue’s case is such an obvious miscarriage of justice case to drive this forward. I might say at some point in their lives Craig, David C, Phil Lewis, Grant Stevens, C Walsh, anonymous, Beverley, TE, DB, Peter and the rest might all gain from the extra layer of protection should anyone of them fall foul with the law as Sue has done.

            The presumption of innocence doesn’t always prevail unfortunately because human beings have failings as Tim Ellis’s road traffic accident reveals.

            Understanding this truth forms the basis of Andrew Urban’s work, and I for one am extremely grateful for his efforts to achieve a good end for people who have been falsely accused and wrongly convicted of a crime they didn’t commit.

            Please get over yourselves and start supporting innocent people in this “Innocent Project” like the rest of us do.

      • Helen Adkins-Sherston says:

        Thank you Pauline for your intelligent reply.
        My late uncle Brian Miller was Attorney-General and Minister for Police over 45 years ago and sought a Commissioner of Police from the ACT You don’t have to ask why – back then …..My uncle was immensely disliked by the Taspol but he stuck to his “guns” and today he would be rolling in his grave at the injustice to SNF.

        Also interestingly enough an Interstate judge dismissed Ellis’ appeal that he had sleep apnoea and said there was no evidence of this condition and he was fully awake when he slewed to the other side of the Midlands Highway killing Natalia Pearn in March 2013. (edited for legal reasons)

    • Pauline Chalmers says:

      And Robert – I don’t think Tim Ellis would like to be living in Risdon prison isolation unit either, for UNINTENTIONALLY breaching prison security for publishing her thoughts about prison life. She is in this state because she was not believed by you, and unlike you, she has shown her good character by admitting to her failings, which you have been unable to bring yourself to do to your victim’s family or to Sue’s loved one’s. On both counts you have displayed to her 25000 plus supporters your faulty character, which is showcased in your article in the Mercury newspaper. The Golden Rule always applies in every state in life.
      Do the decent thing Tim and bravely admit fault, and work with Sue”s supporters to turn back the key and release Sue back into the community where she belongs to live her life as a free woman as you do. She is not responsible for Bob’s disappearance, her case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and plenty of HARD evidence exists, of multiple FATAL flaws in the evidence you presented which simply can not sustain her conviction.

  7. Robin Bowles says:

    Is that nice and clear now, Craig?

    • Craig says:

      Robin, what’s clear to me is that Bob Moles misinterpreted Ms McHoul’s expert opinion about the nature of luminol glow. Bob is welcome to go through the entire Trial Transcript and point out to us any instances where the forensic scientist said that the luminol sparkle implied that it was reacting to blood.

      I would also encourage you to read what was published in your book ‘Death on the Derwent. You may not recall that you were in the courtroom in 2017 when the Victorian forensic scientist (Maxwell Jones) appeared as a defence expert witness. Mr Jones’ expert opinion that I included in my earlier post is actually from page 219 of your book. I was searching through various news articles about Mr Jones’ opinion but couldn’t find anything. Then I searched through your book.

      In summary:

      1. Bob has an incorrect interpretation of the application of forensic science in this case.

      2. The two defence expert witnesses during Sue’s right-to-appeal hearing (Mr Jones and Dr Reynolds) didn’t disagree with what Ms McHoul said about luminol.

  8. Pauline Chalmers says:

    25000 plus people believe rationale minds will expose the TRUTH Sue Neill-Fraser’s conviction is unsafe and Tim Ellis, Colin Riley, Darren Hine and other doubters should not feel ashamed the prosecution case was unable to withstand the HARD evidence, Sue Neill-Fraser’s trial was deeply flawed and it’s INEVITABLE it will collapse.

    Their next step is the acceptance process, which has the same characteristics as unintentionally killing a woman in the prime of her life as Tim Ellis did.

    It is the human condition to fail on occasion, and in Ellis’s case, nobody is accusing his action of killing someone was characterised by deliberate intent, or while he was conducting a trial with fatal flaws in it’s content, but in both instances with these two personal failings in his CONDUCT, that is the REALITY human reason has CONCLUDED.

    And it was time now for CORRECTIVE action to apologise to the two woman he has harmed, one is dead and another, an innocent suspect in Bob Chappell’s disappearance, is living under lock and key in Risdon Prison in a scandalous miscarriage of justice case.

    It is well overdue time to turn the key and release Sue and compensate her for the 13 years she has been wrongfully imprisoned and get on with the logic of investigating who was ACTUALLY responsible for Bob’s disappearance beginning from scratch. With a fresh start I would bring into the police station for questioning, Meaghan Vass and her two companions who were on board the Four Winds on the day in question.

    • Peter Martin says:

      I’m sure that once Sue is exonerated, the prosecution have the skills to convict one or more of Meghan and her companions on circumstantial evidence alone. The prosecutors have demonstrated that they had that ability in the past.

  9. Pauline Chalmers says:

    Junk Science:

    The expression junk science is used to describe scientific data, research, or analysis considered by the person using the phrase to be spurious or fraudulent.
    The concept is often invoked in political and legal contexts, where facts and scientific results have a great amount of weight, in making a determination.

    25,000 people have recently signed a petition to have Sue Neill-Fraser’s conviction overturned, due to the junk science delivered during her trial. Tim Ellis is alone protesting the content of her trial was based in sound forensic science, and to maintain his position, Sue’s case must be independently peer reviewed. Darren Hine would demonstrate he truly is a Police Commissioner with integrity, if he were to agree.

  10. Craig says:

    The Victorian forensic expert (Maxwell Jones) who was called by Sue’s defence team in 2017 stated, under cross-examination, as follows:

    “Yes a long-lasting glow is indicative of blood”

    “You’d take notice of the strength of the glow, how long-lasting it is, whether it showed a constant colour.

    “It it sparkles it’s more likely to be something other than blood”

    The WA forensic expert (Dr Mark Reynolds) who was also called by Sue’s defence team in 2017 stated, under cross-examination, that he wouldn’t disagree with anything that the forensic scientist said at the trial.

    Neither forensic expert for the defence during the right-to-appeal hearing disagreed with the Tasmanian forensic scientist who testified at the trial.

    If Dr Moles has a problem with what was said by the Tasmanian forensic scientist then he needs to revise how the Susan Neill-Fraser case differs in the way the forensic evidence was used compared to the UK case he cited.

    • andrew says:

      I have sought a response to your comment from Dr Moles, and publish it here:

      Hello Andrew, I notice that your contributor stated that an expert had stated: “[If] it sparkles its more likely to be something other than blood” (emphasis added). I understood the evidence to be that the “quality” of the sparkle was indicative of blood. Presumably it has to sparkle for it to have a quality of sparkling. However, apart from this apparent inconsistency, there are basic legal principles which have to be addressed.

      In our book Miscarriages of Justice: Criminal Appeals and the Rule of Law, LexisNexis 2015, I set out the rules for the admissibility of forensic expert opinion evidence – see chapter 9: as I noted they are set out in Makita v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 (pp294ff of the above book)
      and also in the Ikarian Reefer [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 68 (pp 297ff of the above book)

      The duty of the expert is to furnish the judge and jury with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusions so as to enable the judge or jury to form their own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proven in evidence. .. The bare ipse dixit of a scientist, however eminent, upon the issue in controversy, will normally carry very little weight, for it cannot be tested by cross examination nor independently appraised, and the parties have invoked the decision of a judicial tribunal and not an oracular pronouncement by an expert.

      The facts upon which the expert opinion is based have to be clearly stated (in this case the duration and quality of sparkle in relation to each observation said to be evidence of ‘blood’);
      those facts have to be identified and proved by admissible evidence – presumably the contemporaneous note of the timing of the relevant durations and video recordings or other evidence of quality of sparkle
      – the expert has to prove by properly admissible scientific principles how the expert opinion was reached – presumably by reference to the scientific reports derived from the test results which proved these principles.

      The evidentiary basis is lacking:
      In the case of SNF the expert said that the “duration” of the glow and sparkle was essential to her conclusion – nowhere in the trial transcript is the duration of either stated in general terms or in reference to specific observations
      – the “quality” of the glow and sparkle was also essential to the conclusion – where is the sparkle chart which shows what degree of sparkle constitutes blood and which refers to other materials?

      The scientific principles are also lacking:
      where is / are the scientific report(s) which identify by virtue of ‘blind’ tests which demonstrate that duration of sparkle and quality of sparkle can be exclusively determinative of blood and not other materials? Reference to those would be necessary to the admissibility of such opinion evidence.

      The agreement of other experts:
      If the evidentiary basis for the admissibility of expert evidence has not been established, then the evidence is not admissible.
      The mere agreement of another person(s) is not a satisfactory substitute for the failure to comply with the rules of evidence and procedure.

      In relation to many areas of evidence such as bite-marks there are people claiming to be experts who will agree upon certain conclusions, but as demonstrated in the reports of the National Academy of Sciences in the US, the scientific validity in those areas has not been established. Links to those reports are available at the Networked Knowledge Forensic Science Issues Homepage: http://netk.net.au/ForensicHome.asp

      The terminology used by the expert in this case
      The expert stated that the test being used in this case was a “preliminary screening test”.
      The expert in introducing the evidence clearly stated that the test being used was not “confirmatory” but “preliminary”.
      If in fact, the duration and quality of glow and sparkle could determine that the material being tested was in fact blood and not one of the other 100 substances (or thereabouts) then it would not of course be a preliminary test but a confirmatory test and no doubt the expert would have referred to it as such.

      The force of precedent
      In my report I referred to the Victorian case of R v Smart where Lasry J stated that where a preliminary screening test (Luminol) had been used in conjunction with a further confirmatory test, the evidence would be admissible.
      However, he ruled that Luminol test results without a confirmatory test would not be admissible. I respectfully agree with His Honour in this matter.

      It is to be noted that there is at present much concern being expressed (in the US as referred to above) and in Victoria in particular with regard to the reliability and admissibility of so-called expert evidence in many other areas such as injuries to babies. There have been calls for inquiries into the admissibility of expert opinion evidence and no doubt this case will add force to the call for such inquiries.
      The Legislative Review Committee in SA in its inquiry into the establishment of a Criminal Cases Review Commission also called for the establishment of such an inquiry. Their report is available at Networked Knowledge Appeals Issues Homepage – http://netk.net.au/AppealsHome.asp

      Further inquiries
      I suppose it would be an easy matter to take the matter up with the manufacturers of Luminol to ascertain if they are aware of the scientific studies as to the utility of their test results, and of course if they could provide determinative criteria with regard to which durations are blood specific and which glow qualities are blood specific. If those results were to be published and verified by scientific studies, then they may well be accepted as admissible in the future.
      No doubt if such results had been established Luminol would be marketed as a confirmatory test and in so doing add considerably to the market value of its manufacturers.
      However as a matter of record, those results and data were not provided to the court in this case and therefore in my respectful opinion do not satisfy the criteria for admissibility.

      If the evidence has been incorrectly admitted then it would clearly establish the basis for the setting aside of the conviction in this case.
      I would be most happy to provide the legal principles which support that conclusion if anyone thinks they may be in doubt.

    • andrew says:

      My attention has been drawn to the following from the trial transcript:
      STATE v. NEILL-FRASER P-639 D. McHOUL HOBART 29.9.10 EXD MR ELLIS SC
      Yes. And when you look at those do you – are there particular strengths of the reaction that you can take note of?……Yes, what we – well we take note of several things when we spray luminol. We take note of the strength of the reaction and how long lived it is, the
      10 actual colour of the glow that you see and just the manner of the reaction itself, so whether it’s a constant glow, whether it might be sparkling or you get a bright flash which then dies down, because with experience you can distinguish sometimes between false positive reactions with luminol and true positive reactions with luminol and how it reacts, the colour, the longevity is all an indication of that.

      AND
      McHoul at T651:
       
      Right, thank you. Now as to the luminol positive areas what can you say about those, the strength of the reaction or whatever?……Okay. The strength of the reaction in the front on the inside was very long lived and strong as was the area of staining towards the back on the port side. Unfortunately you can’t really see the staining on the trim– well you can a little I think on the trim at the front, that also was strong and long lived. The area in the middle and towards the back was slightly less, gave a slightly less strong glowing reaction but was again long lived. (emphasis added)
       
      McHoul under cross-examination by Gunson SC (when referring to luminol testing in the context of the Vass DNA sample on the yacht) at T673:
       
      Are there any other screening tests that you could have, or should have applied to determine what the substance was on the deck that had returned the Luminol positive result? ….. There are certainly further tests that could be done however as a standard practice, I guess you’d say, if we have a luminol positive stain then really the only tests that we apply are those tests that might help us to determine that it’s blue [blood] because luminol is the test we use for blood. (emphasis added)”

      From Dr Bob Moles’ report:
       “.. no attempt should ever be made to align the visual colour, duration and / or intensity of any luminol reaction to the presence of human blood without confirmatory scientific support. Where no such testing is undertaken, or the results of those tests are negative the presence of blood should not be reported or  opined. To do so, essentially amounts to a ‘guess’ and is scientifically misleading.  

      “…such subjective expressions (are) inadmissible in legal proceedings.” 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.