An international forensic expert believes it is extremely unlikely a silencer was used in the 1989 killing of the ACT's police chief, a finding directly contradicting crucial evidence used in the case against David Harold Eastman.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The inquiry into Eastman's 1995 conviction for the shooting of Colin Stanley Winchester lifted a gag order on Monday, which had prevented the reporting of evidence from Northern Ireland-based scientist James Wallace.
That suppression order was designed to protect unfair damage to the professional reputation of the original forensic expert Robert Barnes, who gave evidence at the 1995 trial linking gunshot residue from the crime scene to particles found in Eastman's Mazda.
In his evidence late last week, Dr Wallace spoke of his own, more recent testing and analysis of the gunshot residue, which cast doubt on the evidence used against Eastman at his trial.
Dr Wallace, who specialised in the chemistry surrounding firearms, said his own analysis of propellant particles suggested a sawn-off weapon, rather than one equipped with a silencer, was used in the killing.
Dr Wallace said the amount of particles retrieved from the crime scene - from Mr Winchester's hair, the driveway, and his Ford - was a ''remarkably high number'', given the significant disturbance of the crime scene by investigators.
''It suggests the possibility of a sawn-off barrel which would substantially increase the number of particles exiting the muzzle,'' Dr Wallace said.
That would be consistent with the evidence of a neighbour of Mr Winchester, who gave evidence of hearing two gunshots at the time of the killing.
On Monday, lawyers for the original forensic expert, Robert Barnes, began questioning Dr Wallace about his evidence.
Mr Barnes' counsel Ian Freckelton, SC, accused Dr Wallace of giving up any notion of neutrality and acting as an ''advocate'' for Eastman.
Dr Freckelton questioned Dr Wallace about contacting a judge to express his concern about the reliability of eyewitness evidence used at the trial to identify Eastman at the home of a Queanbeyan gun trader, something completely unrelated to his area of expertise.
''Your propensity to use emotive and strong language about an area right outside forensic science is indicative that from 2007 you have abandoned neutrality and embraced a role as an advocate for Mr Eastman,'' Dr Freckelton said.
Dr Wallace replied: ''I strongly disagree.''
Eastman has always maintained his innocence, and the inquiry was ordered after fresh doubt was raised about his conviction. He has already served 18 years of a life sentence.
In further evidence last week, Dr Wallace criticised the use of a database, developed by a masters student, to underpin the forensic work.
He said the database was based largely on the analysis of single propellant particles, something that made it of very limited practical use.
Dr Wallace also said there was nothing to indicate Mr Barnes had subjected his work to peer review, which he said was normal practice.
Dr Wallace's findings also cast doubt on whether the gunshot residue found in Eastman's car boot was definitely PMC ammunition, the type used in the murder.
He found there was nothing in the casework to verify the gunshot residue in the Mazda was from PMC ammunition, nor was there anything to exclude dozens of other ammunition types.
