Forensic scientist warns of limits

Press, 5 March 1987, Page 34

Forensic scientist warns of limits

PA Palmerston North Forensic science failed the public over the Arthur Allan Thomas case, says a leading forensic scientist. Professor James Ferris, president of the International Association of Forensic Sciences, listed the Azaria Chamberlain case as another “forensic failure” when he presented a paper to the Australia New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science Conference.

Professor Ferris gave evidence to the Chamberlain inquiry in Sydney, at which he said bloodstains found on Azaria’s jumpsuit were consistent with the baby being decapitated after death. This conflicted with evidence from other forensic experts that the baby had either had its throat cut with a pair of scissors or

been killed by a dingo.

Professor Ferris said forensic science’s problems stemmed from science’s rapid evolution. “It is very difficult to keep up to date and to provide the scientific information the public and judiciary expect,” he said. Professor Ferris said the development of “super experts” had led to problems in the courts.

“The current conflict within forensic sciences is that the technical expertise required to give evidence in court is such that it is almost impossible for the expert witness to have an over-all comprehension of the relevance of his own particular area of expertise.” Opinion evidence, because of its special status within an adversarial judicial system, must be ac-

cepted with caution, he said.

“It is important that the opinions expressed in court under the qualification of expert should be confined to the area of proven expertise and that other opinions should be subjected to limited or very specific qualification.

“Without such witness control, the special privileges of the expert opinion witness may be abused and the court may be misled by opinions which fall short of the usual judicial standards associated with the qualified expert.

“It should be remembered that titles, status or degrees should not allow an opinion witness to stray beyond (their) area of proven expertise.”