Bulletin: David Eastman; Australia; (5); Stay application..."The riddle is why other potentially exculpatory material which emerged after his conviction was not drawn to defence or public attention until quite recently. It was withheld from last year's public inquiry – the Martin inquiry – although it was plainly material to its purpose. That's a question going beyond the conduct of a particular prosecution team, and particular set of investigators. It goes to the attitude, approaches and policies of both the AFP (Australian Federal Police) and the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) prosecution system. It has the potential to suggest that some ACT police and prosecutors are more interested in covering up their institutional mistakes than in promoting justice." ..."The enigma is about how and why a defendant was not shown possibly exculpatory material in the possession of police and prosecutors before his trial. Eastman was not told about critical evidence that might have helped him. A judicial inquiry, under Justice Brian Martin, found that this failure was inadvertent, but that it nonetheless deprived Eastman of a fair trial and made his conviction a miscarriage of justice. Now Eastman is in court arguing that the failure was not inadvertent, but deliberate misconduct, warranting an order that the new trial be permanently stayed." Jack Waterford; Columnist; Brisbane Times; (Must Read. HL);

"Inside the Colin Winchester murder mystery is an enigma and a riddle. The first is a question so delicate that it can scarcely be articulated, at least in public, at this stage of a case in which David Eastman may face another trial, later this year, for his alleged murder of an assistant police commissioner 27 years ago. The second cannot, it seems, be addressed for years, lest it somehow compromise the prosecution of that case. The enigma is about how and why a defendant was not shown possibly exculpatory material in the possession of police and prosecutors before his trial. Eastman was not told about critical evidence that might have helped him. A judicial inquiry, under Justice Brian Martin, found that this failure was inadvertent, but that it nonetheless deprived Eastman of a fair trial and made his conviction a miscarriage of justice. Now Eastman is in court arguing that the failure was not inadvertent, but deliberate misconduct, warranting an order that the new trial be permanently stayed. Justice David Ashley is considering the argument, if in guarded terms for fear, apparently, of prejudicing potential jurors should the trial proceed. [On which account a good deal of previously public material has suddenly, if without actual public explanation, been removed from open access records.]  The riddle is why other potentially exculpatory material which emerged after his conviction was not drawn to defence or public attention until quite recently. It was withheld from last year's public inquiry – the Martin inquiry – although it was plainly material to its purpose. That's a question going beyond the conduct of a particular prosecution team, and particular set of investigators. It goes to the attitude, approaches and policies of both the AFP and the ACT prosecution system. It has the potential to suggest that some ACT police and prosecutors are more interested in covering up their institutional mistakes than in promoting justice. David Eastman was convicted in 1994 of the murder, with a silenced rifle, of AFP Assistant Commissioner Colin Winchester in January 1989. He has always denied his guilt, and been in continuous appeals, ancillary litigation and inquiries ever since – all fiercely resisted by the AFP and the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions). Last year Justice Brian Martin recommended the quashing of Eastman's conviction, after finding that Eastman had been denied a fair trial. The leading forensic witness, Robert Barnes, a Victoria Police forensic technician, was fundamentally discredited. The defence was not told of doubts, held by overseas experts, of Barnes' work and conclusions.........FBI scientist Roger Martz was one of a number of forensic investigators whose work was heavily criticised by an FBI whistleblower in about 1995, soon after he gave evidence in Canberra. This led to an inquiry into deficiencies in the FBI investigation of major US terrorism cases. The allegations against Martz were familiar ones to those used to seeing the modern flourishing and glorification of scientific evidence. Martz was said to have lost detachment, and to have become the advocate and player for the prosecution team rather than the independent scientist. He was said to be poor in his record-keeping. He was said to venture well outside his field of expertise, and to become defensive and dogmatic about conclusions, once formed. The FBI review was completed in 1997. Soon police and prosecutors around the US were being notified that the FBI no longer stood by the evidence a score of their experts had given in court cases over the years. Government lawyers and detectives were invited to review prosecutions which had depended on this "expert" evidence, and, if necessary to drop cases, organise fresh trials or, perhaps have forensic work redone. The review led to many convicted Americans being released once it was realised that the prosecution cases had become tenuous. The report itself was not publicly issued until a few years ago. It is possible, however, that copies of the report came into Australian hands 19 years ago. It was certainly in official hands in Australia 16 years ago.........The Martin inquiry was closely focused on the reliability of Barnes. The reliability of Martz was not in the terms of reference. This might excuse a failure to volunteer the US Department of Justice report, but is hardly consistent with claims of a completely clear prosecution conscience. The AFP also indicated that it had adopted a policy at the Martin inquiry of defending the verdict and the investigators, not in evaluating any new material. It passively co-operated, but without enthusiasm or initiative. Evidence of its "file and forget" approach to new evidence emerged only by accident. Martin was to find that one recent tip, said to record an admission of involvement in the murder, made by a very senior Calabrian crime figure to a Victoria Police informant, was ignored as a matter of policy. Had it been properly investigated, it could have supported an alternative theory of who did the murder."
 http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/david-eastman-faces-the-accountability-mirage-over-murder-mystery-of-colin-winchester-20160211-gms5l5.html