Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Henry Keogh hoping to move on after compensation payment," by reporter Isabel Dayman, published by ABC News on July 2, 2018.
GIST: "An Adelaide man who spent 20 years in prison only to have his murder conviction quashed in 2014 has welcomed the South Australian Government's decision to pay him $2.5 million in compensation. The State Government on Monday announced it had signed a deed agreeing to grant the ex gratia payment, which it said would help to ensure South Australian taxpayers were protected from any future litigation. Henry Keogh, 62, said no amount of money would ever make up for the time he wrongly spent behind bars. "You can't put a price on 20 years," he said. "[But] I can move forward with my life and have some degree of financial independence and security for me and my family." Mr Keogh was found guilty of murdering his fiancé Anna-Jane Cheney in 1995 and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years. He has always maintained his innocence, and made several attempts at freedom during his jail term before his conviction was ultimately quashed in December, 2014. The Supreme Court found the original case against Mr Keogh had been tainted by the unreliable and misleading evidence given by South Australia's then-chief forensic pathologist, Dr Colin Manock. Mr Keogh was convicted of drowning Ms Cheney in a bath at the couple's Magill home in Adelaide's north-eastern suburbs. That conviction was overturned by the Court of Criminal Appeal after it found there had been a miscarriage of justice due to flawed forensic evidence. The court heard Dr Manock, who testified at the trial that Ms Cheney was held under the water, later changed his mind about crucial evidence. Mr Keogh was released from prison, but in 2015 the Director of Public Prosecutions dropped his murder charge rather than holding a retrial. "Of sorts it has [vindicated me] but I've gotten most of my vindication from the finding of the [Supreme Court]," Mr Keogh said. "That's all the vindication I need. "Those that know me know that I'm innocent, and that's all that's important to me. "For my part in this… as the principal actor… [this is the end]… but I still think there are problems with the legal system. "Any legal system that is mature enough can admit that it got it wrong… but [it should] more importantly, take steps to prevent it from happening again." Mr Keogh said he was thankful to his legal team, and to Dr Bob Moles, an academic who wrote extensively about the "miscarriage of justice". The family of Anna-Jane Cheney has requested privacy at this time."
The entire story can be read at:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-02/henry-keogh-hoping-to-move-on-after-compensation-payment/9932560?pfmredir=sm
----------------------------------------------------------
Read the Wikipedia report - with details of Manock's role - at the link below: "Complaints raised by the petitions: Keogh's defence team have raised a number of complaints concerning evidence that has come to light since Keogh's final appeal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Keogh
----------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/c
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-02/henry-keogh-hoping-to-move-on-after-compensation-payment/9932560?pfmredir=sm
----------------------------------------------------------
Read the Wikipedia report - with details of Manock's role - at the link below: "Complaints raised by the petitions: Keogh's defence team have raised a number of complaints concerning evidence that has come to light since Keogh's final appeal.
No presence of bruise:
Manock, when photographing the body, saw what he believed to be four bruises on the left calf of Cheney, caused by what he believed to be a grip mark. When a sample was taken of the thumb bruise and examined for bruising, the result was negative.[11] Despite this, this apparent bruise was used in Manock's proposed theory that Keogh had gripped Cheney's legs to hold her underwater in the bath, drowning her. When asked about the age of the bruises during the trial, he responded: "I could find no evidence of white blood-cell migration into the areas and therefore, I felt they were peri-mortem. In other words, they’d occurred close to the time of death. I felt that was probably within 4 hours." [12] The Prosecution stated during the trial: "But there are two things, you might think, that are crucial to this case. If those four bruises on her lower left leg were inflicted at the same time, and that time was just before she died in the bath, there is no other explanation for them, other than a grip. If it was a grip, it must have been the grip of the accused. If it was the grip of the accused, it must have been part of the act of murder."[13] Manock has since stated that the bruise could have occurred up to a number of days prior to Cheney's death.[11]Infeasibility of drowning scenario:
The method of drowning proposed by Manock was not possible when the physical location of the bath against the wall was considered, requiring an attacker to be positioned where a wall was located.[11] Manock did not visit the scene until three months after the drowning theory was proposed.[12] Maciej Henneberg, Professor of Anatomy at the University of Adelaide, South Australia, has stated that it would be impossible to drown someone by holding their legs over their head, as the power of the extensor muscles in a woman’s leg would always be greater than the power which a man could exert through a fingertip grip of the woman’s calf as proposed by Manock.[12]
Lack of review of autopsy:
Cheney's body was released for cremation on the same day that her death was considered a murder. The body was not examined by anybody other than Manock.Lack of consideration of other possibilities by Manock:
Manock stated at the committal hearing in Mr Keogh’s case that: “I was at no time looking or thinking that the death was accidental because I could find no explanation as to why she would drown.” Photographs taken at the scene reportedly show marks and swelling which may indicate the possibility of a severe allergic reaction. Manock did not at any stage review the medical records of Cheney.[12]No control of scene of death:
The scene of Cheney's death was not cordoned off nor controlled by police, and photos taken at the scene reportedly appear to show that Cheney's body had been 'tidied up'. Keogh's defence claim that this is evidence that the body was tampered with.[14] Only three days following Cheney's death was the death considered suspicious."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Keogh
----------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/c
