Pestaños’ expert more credible ‘by a thousand miles’
In his Inquirer Metro column of July 14, 2015, Mon Tulfo sloppily dismissed the qualifications of American forensic expert Wayne N. Hill Sr. (who was presented by the Pestaño family in the investigation conducted by the Senate in 1997 on the killing of Ensign Phillip Pestaño) as inferior to those of a Filipino “medico-legal” officer.
Without demeaning the lady doctor’s qualifications as a medico-legal practitioner, fairness demands that the reading public should not be misled by Tulfo’s brash assertion that Hill is but a “comedian.”
In truth, not only did Hill acquire the requisite knowledge that qualifies him as a forensic expert-witness in criminal cases; he also teaches subjects and writes books on forensic evidence.
Moreover, he is (or, at least, was, at the time he testified before the Senate investigation) a member/cochair of several organizations dealing with forensic evidence. Among these organizations are: American Board of Forensic Examiners (ABFE); Executive Board of Scientific & Technical Advisors; The Forensic Examiner (contributing editor), ABFE publication; cochair, Committee for Professional Standards, Check Mate Services Inc.; advisory board cochair, Vidocq Society; cochair, American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers; Police Self-Defense Instructors-International; Law Enforcement Alliance of America; and associate member, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Hill is likewise recognized as a forensic expert by the American Board & College of Forensic Examiners; a fellow of the American College of Forensic Examiners, and a recipient of the American College of Forensic Examiners’ Golden Eagle Award for Excellence.
He was also accredited as a private occupational school instructor by the Massachusetts Department of Education of such subjects as Homicide Scene Investigation/Crime Scene Photography.
In sum, Hill as an expert witness on “homicide events” and as a “reconstruction expert” has been recognized in many American states, including Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas.
Moreover, in February 1997, Hill published the second edition of his work, a large volume consisting of 624 pages—“Homicide Events Reconstruction Guide,” a course textbook with 411 illustrations and photographs.
On the other hand, the lady doctor who theorizes that the ensign died of suicide, pardon my temerity for saying so, appears to have had a rather limited experience on forensic issues.
Thus, regarding the question posed in Tulfo’s column, “Whom do we believe?” between the two, the answer should be obvious to the unbiased mind: Wayne Hill by a thousand miles.
In closing, I hope that henceforth, Tulfo, a well-read columnist, would be a little more circumspect and allow the Manila Regional Trial Court to rule on the issue of guilt or innocence of the accused in the slaying of Ensign Pestaño pursuant to the demands of due process.
That’s what the courts are there for.
—NENE PIMENTEL
