Expert Evidence & Technical Discrepancies

“For the foregoing reasons, it is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that the hole pictured in Government Exhibits 98-A, 98-B, 98-C, 98-H & 98-I, and in Government Exhibit 101-C (pan two), was not a freshly dug hole nor a freshly opened hole, but had been created by some means and left open for at least several weeks before these pictures were taken. It would take that amount of time for the layer of leaves in that hole to have blown in and be continuous with the leaves in the surrounding ground litter.”

"For the foregoing reasons, it is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that the hole pictured in Government Exhibits 98-A, 98-B, 98-C, 98-H & 98-I, and in Government Exhibit 101-C (part two), was not a freshly dug hole."

"Taking into account the arguments by the respondent and doing the photogrammetry analysis of the depression using three different reference objects, the fact remains that for the depression to have held an ammunition canister of approximately 14.5 inches in depth, even with "a slight comer exposed", would have been physically impossible. Using the same technique that expert witnesses for the respondent use in preparing testimony on its behalf-one in which I am both trained and experienced- it is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that the depression went below the surrounding ground level only from no greater than 8.709 inches at the most shallow to about 10.65 to 10.859 inches at the least shallow."