The forensic expert whose evidence proved critical in convicting David Eastman has been warned he will be questioned over whether he misled the inquest into the ACT police chief's death.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Victorian expert Robert Barnes worked on the case from the night Assistant Federal Police Commissioner Colin Winchester was shot dead in his neighbour's driveway on January 10, 1989.
The forensic expert is being questioned in an inquiry into Eastman's 1995 conviction, and is responding to criticism over his actions, and concerns about the reliability of his work.
Counsel assisting Liesl Chapman, SC, spent Tuesday afternoon grilling Mr Barnes about work he did to match gunshot residue found at the scene and in Eastman's car with PMC brand ammunition.
Mr Barnes was forced to admit that, from the work he was shown on Tuesday, the gunshot residue could not be distinguished from other ammunition, such as Winchester and RWS.
Inquiry head Acting Justice Brian Martin asked Mr Barnes whether he had been "even handed" in his analysis, or whether his work was made to suit his belief that the particles were PMC.
Mr Barnes said he had been even handed and used many characteristics to make the finding that the particles were from PMC ammunition.
But Ms Chapman told the expert his evidence at the inquest into Mr Winchester's death could not have been anything other than misleading.
Mr Barnes said he would need to check what he had told the inquest, but he thought he had put appropriate caveats and qualifications on it.
That prompted Ms Chapman to warn him she would question him on the issue on Wednesday morning.
Earlier on Tuesday, Mr Barnes deflected blame over failures to keep track of crucial gunshot residue used to link Eastman to the murder scene.
Records tracking the handling and movements of the green particles, which would later become significant evidence, are missing.
Some of the particles were never recorded as being logged with the Victorian State Forensic Science Laboratory, where Mr Barnes worked, after the expert took them from the Australian Federal Police in Canberra.
Other particles are recorded as having come to the Victorian lab, but as never having been taken out by Mr Barnes for testing.
Mr Barnes said his colleagues at the laboratory must have made mistakes and not recorded their movements properly.
He also gave earlier evidence that he believed he was not subject to policies requiring forensic work to be peer-reviewed by other scientists.
The expert reiterated his belief that an audit of his work, instigated after concerns were raised in a separate court matter in which he had given evidence, were designed to undermine him.
His evidence continues on Wednesday.
