Shandee Blackburn murder: Scientist Linzi Wilson-Wilde not asked about her notes at DNA inquiry

The scientist at the centre of a DNA scandal was not asked in a commission of inquiry’s hearings about her working notes.

Queensland's DNA lab chief Linzi Wilson-Wilde. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen

The scientist at the centre of a DNA scandal was not asked in a commission of inquiry’s public hearings about her working notes.

The existence of such notes was confirmed by Linzi Wilson-Wilde in a recorded interview with The Australian in which she specifically referred to notes she kept during her examination as an expert witness of a catastrophe known as Project 13.

Dr Wilson-Wilde, the new chief of Queensland’s DNA lab, volunteered the existence of her notes during the phone interview about Project 13 on September 8.

“And when I went back and looked at my notes, I can see I’ve underlined …” she stated.

It is a common practice for ­expert witnesses and many other professional people to make notes while studying a matter.

A version of the interview with Dr Wilson-Wilde was provided to retired judge Annabelle Bennett SC’s inquiry. However, the ­inquiry has redacted most of the transcript and conversations between Dr Wilson-Wilde and The Australian.

Transcript deletions by the ­inquiry include Dr Wilson-Wilde’s reference to her working notes about Project 13.

As Dr Wilson-Wilde has ­repeatedly insisted that she identified a “yield” or DNA recovery catastrophe in a Project 13 report, and as she had asserted that she kept notes, The Australian anticipated that the Bennett inquiry would examine the notes and publish them.

But an examination of Dr Wilson-Wilde’s written statement and attachments published by the inquiry shows no reference to the existence of her working notes from when she examined Project 13.

She mentioned in oral evidence that she has notes but she wasn’t asked about them.

“I have some recollection, but a lot of it is blurred and I’ve had to rely heavily on my emails and notes and documentation,” she told the inquiry.

The Australian sought responses on Monday from the senior lawyer assisting the inquiry, Andrew Fox SC, about whether Dr Wilson-Wilde provided or had been asked to provide the notes.

“It would be inappropriate for us to provide comment. The Commissioner will deliver her final report on November 17,” an inquiry spokeswoman responded.

Defence lawyer and former Queensland Law Society president Bill Potts said courts commonly sought contemporaneous notes and used them to ensure witnesses were truthful.

“The general rule of law is that courts are interested in the best evidence,” Mr Potts said. “The best evidence may be documentation, it may be eyewitness testimony, or it may be photographs, tape recordings and the like.

“When a person has taken contemporaneous notes, they are often used to refresh a person’s memory and to ensure that allegations of recent invention are not sustainable.

“Accordingly, in these types of inquiries, the investigators taking the statements would have usually inquired whether Dr Wilson-Wilde had taken contempor­aneous notes.”

The role of investigators was to ask open-ended questions and expect the honesty and co-operation of witnesses in the public’s ­interest, Mr Potts said.

“The notes themselves may be evidence, but more often than not they are simply a tool by which a person refreshes their memory,” he said.

“They are not only discoverable, but are entirely desirable by a court to ensure that the evidence that is given is fulsome, frank and honest.”

The Australian’s podcasts Shandee’s Story and Shandee’s Legacy led to two commissions of inquiry into Queensland’s DNA lab.

The inquiry was called as a ­result of investigations by independent forensic biologist Kirsty Wright and The Australian’s podcast Shandee’s Legacy into a flawed DNA extraction system that may have missed vital evidence in tens of thousands of crimes from 2007 to 2016.

Dr Wilson-Wilde examined the system for the Sofronoff ­inquiry but failed in her expert report to disclose serious problems it was having in recovering DNA.

As a result, the Sofronoff ­inquiry missed the forensics disaster, which Dr Wright blames for the failure to identify who killed Shandee Blackburn in 2013.

Dr Wilson-Wilde initially claimed in interviews with The Australian and in her evidence at the inquiry that she disclosed the “yield” issues to a lawyer assisting the Sofronoff inquiry, Susan Hedge. After Ms Hedge said she had no memory of being told and would have investigated any systemic issue raised with her, Dr Wilson-Wilde said that in the “fog of memory” she may have been mistaken about informing the lawyer.

If Dr Wilson-Wilde’s working notes supported her claim that she saw the massive yield failure last year, she did not mention it to The Australian.

Dr Wilson-Wilde and her lawyers were contacted for comment.