|
|
|
| September 09, 2006 | Saturday | Sha'aban 15, 1427 |
‘Forensic evidence not enough’
LONDON, Sept 8: Forensic evidence about the ball used in the Oval Test is unlikely to help prove a ball-tampering charge, said prominent science lecturer Allan Scott here on Friday. "Any defence lawyer would demolish this kind of evidence," said Scott who spent 25 years working with various police forces and now lectures on forensic science at the Univerity of Central Lancashire.
He said the main problem was that the ball, having been used for 56 overs, would show damage caused by bats, boundary ropes and boards so there would be few clean striation marks. But it would be almost impossible to prove whether they indicated deliberate gouging or picking of the leather.
Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq faces twin charges of ball-tampering and bringing the game into disrepute after his team initially refused to take the field after the tea interval on August 20 in protest at a five-run penalty imposed by umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove.
On Wednesday, the International Cricket Council revealed a forensic test on the ball used in England's second innings at The Oval was "being suggested". It is understood there is no compelling video evidence available.
“You could never say whether the marks were caused deliberately or accidentally,” said Scott. "It's not like a burglary, where you would have one mark on a window frame with someone trying to force a window with a screwdriver.”
"With a game of cricket, how many hands have passed through a ball? And in that time, you could never say whether the marks were caused deliberately or accidentally. In court, a crime scenes investigator would be asked: 'Is it possible this happened accidentally?' The answer would have to be 'yes it is possible'.” —Agencies
|
|
|
|
