Forensics Science Assignment Final PDF

Preview

Summary

This was the final assessment. Scored well...

Description

The Death of Caroline Byrne

On the 8th of June 1995, a 24-year-old model Caroline Byrne’s body was found at the bottom of the cliffs of a notorious suicide spot known as ‘the Gap’ in Watson’s Bay Sydney. A witnesses revealed that a model-like girl was seen in the area with two men the night of her disappearance. The following day, Byrne’s father and brother and her partner at the time, Gordon Wood searched the area. During the search, Wood observed that he could see her legs and the sneakers she was wearing when he saw her last ("ABC: Trial and Error", 2011). This was later confirmed by police investigators. At the time of the event, the location of Caroline Byrne’s body was noted down. Her body was found wedged headfirst in a deep cavity of large rocks at the base of the cliff. This being a key piece of evidence for investigation. Gordon Wood had told police that she was suffering from depression and was sick with the flu before her death ("ABC: Trial and Error", 2011). Therefore, at the time of her death it was judged by her family and investigators that it was an unfortunate suicide. New evidence came to light and investigators grew suspicious that her death might not have been a suicide. Subsequently, almost a year later on May 29th 1996, the case was passed onto the homicide squad indicating foul play may have been involved. Gordon Wood, who was her boyfriend at the time of her death was a major suspect. When Caroline’s autopsy results were re-examined they revealed that she had experienced extensive impact injuries to both her head and upper body from the fall, however no injuries were present in the lower part of the body (Wainwright, 2007). There was also no drugs or alcohol found in her system. The location of her body, the injuries she sustained and the landing spot were crucial pieces of evidence to be noted which led to determining whether foul play was the reason for her death. Pool Experiments A Physics Professor, Rod Cross who worked at the University of Sydney, was employed as an ‘expert witness’ to answer the biggest question of the case, was this really a case of suicide? He conducted a series of calculations from Point A where her body was found and from cliff height and other measurements supplied by the police force. Pool experiments using both male and female participants of falling/jumping into a pool were also undertaken by Cross. From the conclusion of his own experiments of the fall, he believed that Caroline Byrne was thrown using a ‘spear-throw’ technique by a strong man. Rod Cross’s calculations were of great significance at the time leading to Gordon Wood’s conviction in 2008. Witness Testimony There were several witnesses when the inquest into Ms Byrne’s death was initiated. A particular witness named John Doherty provided evidence to take to the courtroom. Doherty said just before the time of Caroline Byrne’s death, he saw three people, two matching the descriptions of Gordon Wood and Caroline Byrne, arguing beneath a streetlight from his studio apartment window (CCA 2012). Another witness said they saw her walking past their local café accompanied with two men the day of her death. The descriptions these witnesses provided matched those of Gordon Wood and Caroline Byrne. This evidence was not enough

to convict Wood of murder nor could they identify the second man who was supposedly present on the night of her death. From the evidence provided, particularly Rod Cross’s experimental analysis, Wood was placed on trial for Byrne’s murder in 2008, where he was found guilty of Caroline Byrne’s murder and sentenced to a minimum of 13 years in jail. On the 23rd February 2012, the Criminal Court of Appeal were unable to find valuable evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Wood murdered Ms Byrne and he was released from jail.

In the investigation of the death of Caroline Byrne, a variety of issues and misconceptions were presented as forensic evidence to the Court. Leading to uncertainty and a total lack of transparency involved in the case. It is crucial for forensic scientists, to understand that crime scene processing is a critical stage in any investigation that is analysed (Julian et al., 2012). To prevent losing the value of forensic evidence, the crime scene must be analysed correctly, and a detailed investigation needs to occur with all traces collected and analysed effectively (Julian et al., 2012). In saying this, it is not entirely down to the forensic scientists but also the various experts throughout the investigation play an important part in preventing issues with evidence.

In the death of Caroline Byrne case, there was a lack of communication and considerable amount of time between conviction and recovery of the body leading to inconsistency in the evidence. From the beginning, the officers at the time of Caroline Byrne’s death formulated their own bias thoughts on the cause of the death, due to official medical reports of her suffering from depression and Gordon Wood’s insisting attitude of it being suicide. As a result, a secure crime scene was never established at the location of her body at ‘The Gap’ due in part, to its reputation of being a common suicide spot. This perceived idea of ‘suicide’ led to an investigation lacking transparency and evidence supposition leaving this case unsolved. The problem of having a strong opinion on the reason of death is not unique to the Caroline Byrne case. It is important that prior notions of suicide must not be considered, as it could cause incorrect crime scene analysis, with the forensic scientists treating the scene differently (Geberth, 2013). This, occurred in the case of the death of Nadine Haag. In 2009, Nadine Haag was found in the shower of her apartment block with her wrists slashed and a suicide note was left beside her. During the investigation, the police immediately assumed her death was suicide. This was stated in the Sydney Morning Herald, “When 33-year-old Nadine Haag was found dead in the shower of her Sydney unit, the police said it was a suicide” (Coulthart, 2021). In August 2013, the coroner subsequently over-ruled the police suicide finding indicating there were some inconsistencies in evidence and returned an open finding as to the cause of her death (Coulthart, 2021). This bias notion that was portrayed in Haag’s case, was also depicted in reflection to the police officers assigned to the case of Caroline Byrne’s death. Due to the nature of the circumstances which the ‘witness’ testimony of Caroline Byrne’s case was gathered, significant issues arose in the reliability of identification evidence. It was stated by the Chief Justice that the witnesses “may have been influenced by what they saw on a television program that featured Mr Wood in it” and that the witness evidence was not

persuasive (CCA, 2012). This is not common only to Ms Byrne’s, hence infamously given the term of the “displacement effect”. Which could have potentially happened in this case making the evidence provided from these witnesses as ‘worthless’ (CCA, 2012). With regards to any identification evidence, it becomes simply ineffective when the potential witness has seen an image of a person from TV or photographs. In this case, when the two witnesses ‘recalled’ seeing a man who was similar in appearance to Wood, their memory could have been due him being present on a television program influencing identification. Photography for crime scene analysis was firstly introduced in the late 1800s and has since gained wide use throughout the forensic industry. For crime scene analysis it can be considered the gold standard, for documentation and identification purposes serving as a permanent visual record for cases (Kapoor & Kapoor, 2015). In the investigation into the death of Caroline Byrne, no photographic evidence of the landing spot, or the location/position of her body and the surrounding area was taken. Due to this, it was almost impossible to precisely determine the location of her fall or how she landed. Photographic evidence would have been able to deduce whether her death was solely an unfortunate suicide or due to other factors such as foul play. Which was evidently depicted later by the work of the expert witness Professor Rod Cross. The case was further impacted when the police provided inconsistencies regarding the landing spot of Ms Byrne’s body in early constructed sketches. The first spot was wrongly identified in 1996, by Sargent Powderly in an evidential video. Powderly narrated the evidential video at the top of the cliff while another officer videoed from the bottom of the cliff, this conflict in position led to an incorrect location being identified. The correct spot, "Hole A", was later identified in 2004. There was also an issue with the evidence of the runup distance from the safety fence to the tip of the ledge at the site of the crime. It was originally recorded as 4 metres, taking into consideration a 1-metre difference due to a particular vegetation species present in the photograph. It was said that the vegetation would shorten a person’s running distance, therefore the running and jumping experiment was commenced at this 4-metre position. The photograph was incorrectly labelled as being taken in 1995, but it was taken later in 2003. Therefore, these assumptions significantly undermined the work of Professor Rod Cross, in his experimental analysis and calculations. Again, to maintain the chain of custody, a more structured protocol should have been put in place for this investigation.

The key evidence presented in court was heavily reliant on the expert witness Professor Rod Cross’ experimental analysis of the landing point and pool experiments. However, there are several factors Cross did not consider. Cross expressed opinions beyond his specialised field of knowledge. He had extensive knowledge in plasma physics obtaining a PhD, however for this case consulting a biomechanics expert would have been more appropriate. Cross also made several assumptions as to the athletic ability of both Gordon Wood and Carolyne Byrne in his experiments and calculations. In his pool experiments, the female and male participants had a different physical build in comparison to Gordon Wood and Caroline Byrne. As a result, due to wrong calculations and these assumptions the evidence for the Prosecution of Gordon Wood for the murder of Caroline Byrne was held in disregard from both the judge and the defendant. The defence challenged Rod Cross in the court room stating “he clearly

saw his task as being to marshal the evidence which may assist the prosecution to eliminate the possibility of suicide and leave only the possibility of murder” (Cross, 2014). Therefore, as you can see, it is significantly important to follow correct legislation and laws of the code of conduct as an expert witness avoid being misinterpreted by the courtroom.

Today, the case remains unsolved and for many the spiral of evidential issues has caused significant disregard or frustration. In 2017, Gordon Wood who was a prime suspect at the time of her death attempted to sue the State of New South Wales for 20 million dollars describing the case as “hopelessly corrupted” and “ridiculous”. The infamy of the trial into the death of Caroline Byrne and now the recent attempt to sue by Gordon Wood, evidently depicts the systematic issues of the outcome of the case based on the overall poor management of all aspects relating to the case. The lack of communication throughout the investigation shows how it can quickly change the perspective of both forensic and expert analysis in the courtroom. Thus, it highlights the paramount importance of communication between each person assigned to the case to ensure justice is served in the fairest way possible.

References Coulthart, R. (2021). Note and new forensics point to foul play in mum’s death. 7NEWS. Retrieved 13 November 2021, from https://7news.com.au/spotlight/7news-spotlightinvestigation-uncovers-new-forensic-evidence-in-death-of-nadine-haag-c-3237625. Julian, R., Kelty, S., & Robertson, J. (2012). Get it right the first time: Critical issues at the crime scene. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 24(1), 25-38. Vernon J. Geberth, (2013).Practical Homicide Investigation, Law & Order Magazine, Vol. 61 No. pp 54-567 Kapoor, R., & Kapoor, A. (2015). Importance of Still Photography at Scene of Crime: A Forensic vs. Judicial Perspective. Crime-scene-investigator.net. Retrieved 13 November 2021, from https://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/importance-of-still-photography-atscene-of-crime.html. Wainwright, R. (2007). Model's body 'did not bounce'. Brisbanetimes.com.au. Retrieved 13 November 2021, from https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/models-body-did-notbounce-20070613-ge8s09.html.

ABC Trial and Error. Four Corners. (2011). Retrieved 13 November 2021, from https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/trial-and-error/3612532. Rod Cross (2014) Misinterpretation of expert evidence in Wood v R, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46:4, 368-382, DOI: 10.1080/00450618.2013.879207 24 February 2012 - Wood v R [2012] NSWCCA 21 - summary of key findings in Court of Appeal judgment...