Friday, November 30, 2018

Back in action: David Harold Eastman. Australia; Back in action: On-going: Aftermath: (Part 8): Acquitted, his battle for compensation is now back on track, The Canberra Times reports. (Reporter Michael Inman)..."Lawyers have speculated Mr Eastman could be eligible for up to $20 million in compensation if he were to win a payout via the courts. David Eastman has been found not guilty of the 1989 murder of AFP assistant police commissioner Colin Winchester. The ACT government could, however, settle the matter out of court and provide Mr Eastman with an ex gratia payment. Governments can make ex gratia payment to compensate a person without having to admit liability. Mr Eastman served 18 years, 11 months behind bars for the murder after being found guilty at trial in 1995. A 2014 inquiry, however, found the trial had been a miscarriage of justice and the full bench of the Supreme Court quashed the conviction. Mr Eastman's retrial for the murder began in June and ended with a verdict of not guilty on Thursday. The civil case, launched in 2015, had been stayed pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Mr Eastman served more time than the high profile case of Perth man Andrew Mallard, who received a $3.25 million payout in 2009 after spending 12 years behind bars for a murder he did not commit. Mr Mallard was cleared in 2006 and received an ex gratia payment of $200,000 upon his release. Alice Lynne "Lindy" Chamberlain received $1.3 million in compensation in 1992 after she had been wrongly convicted of killing her nine-week-old daughter, Azaria, at Uluru in 1980. She spent about three years behind bars before her sentence was overturned. A coronial inquest in 2012 found a dingo had killed the child."

---------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Eastman compensation case clear to proceed," by reporter Michael Inman, published by The Canberra Times on November 22, 2018.

GIST: "David Harold Eastman's bid to sue the ACT government for wrongful imprisonment is back on. An ACT Supreme Court jury on Thursday returned a not guilty verdict on whether Mr Eastman had murdered Colin Winchester in January, 1989. Lawyers have speculated Mr Eastman could be eligible for up to $20 million in compensation if he were to win a payout via the courts. David Eastman has been found not guilty of the 1989 murder of AFP assistant police commissioner Colin Winchester. The ACT government could, however, settle the matter out of court and provide Mr Eastman with an ex gratia payment. Governments can make ex gratia payment to compensate a person without having to admit liability. Mr Eastman served 18 years, 11 months behind bars for the murder after being found guilty at trial in 1995. A 2014 inquiry, however, found the trial had been a miscarriage of justice and the full bench of the Supreme Court quashed the conviction. Mr Eastman's retrial for the murder began in June and ended with a verdict of not guilty on Thursday. The civil case, launched in 2015, had been stayed pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. Mr Eastman filed an ACT Supreme Court lawsuit alleging the territory is liable to pay him compensation under two sections of the Human Rights Act. Court papers, filed by Mr Eastman's lawyers, Ken Cush and Associates, at the time, said the civil claim came as a result of their client's unlawful detention and wrongful conviction. It alleged the former Treasury official's imprisonment caused him deprivation of liberty, lost income, to suffer mental harm, damage to his reputation, and he had expended legal cost and time in fighting to reverse his conviction. He has also asked for interest and costs. "[Mr Eastman's] imprisonment and detention was unlawful by reason that the deprivation of his liberty was not on grounds or in accordance with procedures established by law," court documents said. The government, in its defence, argued Mr Eastman's detention had been lawful and the Human Rights Act did not give rise to any cause of action. Mr Eastman served more time than the high profile case of Perth man Andrew Mallard, who received a $3.25 million payout in 2009 after spending 12 years behind bars for a murder he did not commit. Mr Mallard was cleared in 2006 and received an ex gratia payment of $200,000 upon his release. Alice Lynne "Lindy" Chamberlain received $1.3 million in compensation in 1992 after she had been wrongly convicted of killing her nine-week-old daughter, Azaria, at Uluru in 1980. She spent about three years behind bars before her sentence was overturned. A coronial inquest in 2012 found a dingo had killed the child."

The entire story can be read at:
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/act/eastman-compensation-case-clear-to-proceed-20181119-p50gxn.html

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; 






Thursday, November 29, 2018

Back in action: On-going; Author Linda Fairstein: False confessions; The Central Park Five: (A very questionable honour! HL); Her past as a prosecutor overseeing the Central Park Five case has triggered an award controversy, says Steph Cha,a novelist, editor and attorney who has been a member of Mystery Writers of America since 2013..."“Linda Fairstein became a sex-crimes prosecutor during a time when sex crimes were almost impossible to prosecute. In her 30-year tenure at the Manhattan DA’s Office, she was a pioneer in the war against rape, fighting for historic changes to the criminal justice system and for justice on behalf of victims of the most heinous crimes.” It’s not like they didn’t Google her. They just neglected to mention her most famous case, the one that’s become synonymous with prosecutorial overreach and misconduct. Shortly after the announcement, author Attica Locke — whose “Bluebird, Bluebird” won the 2018 Edgar Award for best novel —took Mystery Writers of America to task on Twitter, begging the group to reconsider its decision to name Fairstein a Grand Master."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "As the head of the Sex Crimes Unit, Fairstein was instrumental in the wrongful conviction of five black teenagers accused of raping a white woman jogger in Central Park in 1989. It was a case that made headlines across the country and captivated television audiences, a story fueled by racial tensions and racist rhetoric. Fairstein was personally involved in securing the false confessions that formed the prosecution’s entire case. Her conduct was so reprehensible that then-appeals court Judge Vito Titone called her out by name in his dissenting opinion in defendant Yusuf Salaam’s unsuccessful appeal, which details her calculated efforts to isolate and induce a confession from the then-15-year-old suspect. The Five served six to 13 years in prison before their convictions were vacated following the confession of a serial rapist, confirmed by DNA evidence, in 2002. Fairstein has never apologized or changed her position on their guilt. (Nor has Donald Trump, who in 1989 took out full-page newspaper ads in New York City calling for the return of the death penalty after the teens were arrested.) Only four months ago, in a letter to the editor of the New York Law Journal, Fairstein maintained that the questioning [of the Central Park Five] was respectful, dignified, carried out according to the letter of the law and with sensitivity to the young age of the men.”

---------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Writer Linda Fairstein's past as a prosecutor overseeing the Central Park Five case causes award controversy," by reporter Steph Cha, published by The L.A. Times on November 27, 2918. Steph Cha is  described as a novelist, editor and attorney who has been a member of Mystery Writers of America since 2013.

PHOTO CAPTION:  "Author Linda Fairstein, center, signs her ninth crime novel, "Bad Blood," to Donna Hanover, left, with novelist Mary Higgins Clark, right. Fairstein has been named a Grand Master at the 2019 Edgar Awards"



GIST: "Mystery Writers of America announced the recipients of its 2019 Grand Master Award on Tuesday, but the announcement has been met with more outrage than celebration. The Grand Master Award, presented at the annual Edgar Awards banquet in New York, is one of the most prestigious distinctions in the mystery genre, an honor held by the likes of Stephen King, Walter Mosley and Agatha Christie. Next year, the award will go to Martin Cruz Smith and Linda Fairstein. I’d heard of Smith, but not Fairstein. And really, I should have known her name. Not for her internationally bestselling Alexandra Cooper series, but because in her former life working for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, she oversaw the prosecution of the Central Park Five. She shouldn’t be the toast of a black-tie literary gala — she should be notorious. As the head of the Sex Crimes Unit, Fairstein was instrumental in the wrongful conviction of five black teenagers accused of raping a white woman jogger in Central Park in 1989. It was a case that made headlines across the country and captivated television audiences, a story fueled by racial tensions and racist rhetoric. Fairstein was personally involved in securing the false confessions that formed the prosecution’s entire case. Her conduct was so reprehensible that then-appeals court Judge Vito Titone called her out by name in his dissenting opinion in defendant Yusuf Salaam’s unsuccessful appeal, which details her calculated efforts to isolate and induce a confession from the then-15-year-old suspect. The Five served six to 13 years in prison before their convictions were vacated following the confession of a serial rapist, confirmed by DNA evidence, in 2002. Fairstein has never apologized or changed her position on their guilt. (Nor has Donald Trump, who in 1989 took out full-page newspaper ads in New York City calling for the return of the death penalty after the teens were arrested.) Only four months ago, in a letter to the editor of the New York Law Journal, Fairstein maintained that the questioning [of the Central Park Five] was respectful, dignified, carried out according to the letter of the law and with sensitivity to the young age of the men.” Here’s what Mystery Writers of America had to say about Fairstein’s legal career, in this cheery news release on Tuesday morning: “Linda Fairstein became a sex-crimes prosecutor during a time when sex crimes were almost impossible to prosecute. In her 30-year tenure at the Manhattan DA’s Office, she was a pioneer in the war against rape, fighting for historic changes to the criminal justice system and for justice on behalf of victims of the most heinous crimes.” It’s not like they didn’t Google her. They just neglected to mention her most famous case, the one that’s become synonymous with prosecutorial overreach and misconduct. Shortly after the announcement, author Attica Locke — whose “Bluebird, Bluebird” won the 2018 Edgar Award for best novel —took Mystery Writers of America to task on Twitter, begging the group to reconsider its decision to name Fairstein a Grand Master. Locke, whose television writing credits include an upcoming Netflix series on the Central Park Five directed by Ava DuVernay, has long been familiar with the case, but didn’t realize until recently that Fairstein had reinvented herself as a crime writer, or that so few crime writers seemed to know about her background. I was one of the clueless until I saw Locke’s thread, and I’ve been entrenched in the mystery world since my first book came out in 2013. I’ve attended countless book events and conferences — it’s very likely I’ve been in the same room as Fairstein — and have been editing the crime section of the Los Angeles Review of Books since 2015. There are certainly big-name authors I don’t run across, but I tend to hear the gossip. I knew about Anne Perry’s background (see the movie “Heavenly Creatures”) and that former L.A. prosecutor Marcia Clark was publishing mystery novels. I find it disturbing that I never heard a word about Fairstein’s history. Her presence among us should be the scandal of every conference — it probably would’ve been earlier if there had been more crime writers of color when the Five were exonerated in 2002. But at some point, her background must have become old news, an uncomfortable thing the larger crime world has been happy to ignore. How many of us have been polite to her on accident because the rest of us were polite to her on purpose? Tacit approval is one thing, of course; the Grand Master Award is another. Mystery Writers of America has made a lot of fuss about diversity over the last few years, and I do believe that the mystery community has made some meaningful strides toward inclusion. But we’re apparently still at a place where the board of Mystery Writers of America thinks calling the white prosecutor who oversaw the conviction of innocent black boys “Grand Masteris a good idea. It’s also worth noting that the Edgar Awards banquet will take place in April, almost exactly 30 years after the Five were wrongfully arrested and imprisoned. After Locke’s thread spread widely, Mystery Writers of America said via Twitter: “We are taking seriously the issues raised by @atticalocke . Our Board is going to discuss these concerns as soon as possible and make a further statement soon.” It seems as though the blowback has taken the board by surprise. On the one hand, the lack of foresight is breathtaking. But on the other, it sure did look as if everyone was cool with Linda Fairstein for a while there. Mystery Writers of America is now in a tough spot. Many crime writers have already called for the revocation of Fairstein’s award. Meanwhile, Fairstein is sparring with Locke on Twitter, and I doubt she or her supporters would be happy to see the organization cave to the pressure. While the mystery writing community has changed somewhat over the last few years, it has long been embarrassingly white and, if not outright conservative, less than progressive in its collective values (hello hero cops and beautiful dead girls). Fairstein has made a name for herself writing legal thrillers about a sex crimes prosecutor who serves justice and saves the day. She's made enormous profits with these stories, and has been astoundingly successful in shaping her own narrative and retaining the respect of her community. Whatever Mystery Writers of America decides –– and let's remember that the loss of a reward is not comparable to the loss of freedom –– this debacle will show our divisions. Fairstein's actions can no longer fly under the radar. We all have to deal with her now."


The entire story can be read at:
https://www.latimes.com/books/la-et-jc-mwa-linda-fairstein-20181127-story.html#nws=mcnewsletter

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; 

Back in action: On-going; Motherisk lab debacle: Ontario; Parents suffer set-back in court in lawsuit over flawed hair-testing at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto losing their second bid to launch a class-action, the Toronto Star reports. (Investigative reporter Rachel Mendleson)... "Despite the “knee-jerk denials” of Motherisk experts and the Hospital for Sick Children, it wouldn’t be hard to prove in court that the lab’s drug and alcohol hair tests were broadly unreliable. However, establishing this fact wouldn't advance individual cases enough to make a national class-action lawsuit the right approach for thousands of families seeking compensation. That is the finding of a Toronto Divisional Court, which has upheld the decision of a Superior Court judge not to certify the class-action lawsuit because of the highly individualistic nature of the claims by those who say they lost their children or were wrongly convicted due to the flawed testing."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The people who were harmed by the Motherisk laboratory deserved better than this,” said the plaintiff’s lawyer, Kirk Baert. “This isn’t the last word by any means. We will be seeking leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal and I am confident we will obtain it.” Sick Kids made millions from Motherisk’s hair tests, which were used for decades in a handful of criminal cases and thousands of child protection cases, primarily by child welfare agencies as proof of parental substance abuse. In many of these cases, satisfying the criteria for compensation the Divisional Court has outlined will be challenging, because Motherisk did not follow proper chain-of-custody procedures and did not have a records retention policy from 2005 to 2010. Baert argued in court last week that despite Lang’s findings, the defendants in the case — Motherisk’s founding director Dr. Gideon Koren, former lab manager Joey Gareri and Sick Kids, which housed the lab until it was shut down in 2015 — continue to deny that the tests were unreliable and failed to meet forensic standards in every case, making these significant “common issues” for the roughly 9,000 individuals who tested positive for drugs or alcohol from 2005 to 2015."

----------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Parents lose second bid to launch class-action suit against Motherisk over flawed hair tests," by Investgative Reporter Rachel Mendleson, published by The Toronto Star on November 27, 2018.

PHOTO CAPTION: "A government-commissioned review by retired judge Susan Lang found Motherisk’s hair testing testing was deemed “inadequate and unreliable” for use in court from 2005 to 2015."

GIST: "Despite the “knee-jerk denials” of Motherisk experts and the Hospital for Sick Children, it wouldn’t be hard to prove in court that the lab’s drug and alcohol hair tests were broadly unreliable. However, establishing this fact wouldn't advance individual cases enough to make a national class-action lawsuit the right approach for thousands of families seeking compensation. That is the finding of a Toronto Divisional Court, which has upheld the decision of a Superior Court judge not to certify the class-action lawsuit because of the highly individualistic nature of the claims by those who say they lost their children or were wrongly convicted due to the flawed testing. “In this case, the class members were not harmed by the tests being systemically unreliable. Rather, only class members who can show that they received a false test result and that the false test result caused them to suffer an adverse outcome in legal proceedings will have compensable claims,” Justice Fred Myers wrote in a unanimous decision, which makes clear that Motherisk victims face a “very difficult” road. But the battle is not over for the plaintiff, a Toronto mother who claims access to her son was limited for several years because of Motherisk’s faulty testing. The testing was deemed “inadequate and unreliable” for use in court from 2005 to 2015 in a government-commissioned review by retired judge Susan Lang, following a Star investigation. “The people who were harmed by the Motherisk laboratory deserved better than this,” said the plaintiff’s lawyer, Kirk Baert. “This isn’t the last word by any means. We will be seeking leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal and I am confident we will obtain it.” Sick Kids made millions from Motherisk’s hair tests, which were used for decades in a handful of criminal cases and thousands of child protection cases, primarily by child welfare agencies as proof of parental substance abuse. In many of these cases, satisfying the criteria for compensation the Divisional Court has outlined will be challenging, because Motherisk did not follow proper chain-of-custody procedures and did not have a records retention policy from 2005 to 2010. Baert argued in court last week that despite Lang’s findings, the defendants in the case — Motherisk’s founding director Dr. Gideon Koren, former lab manager Joey Gareri and Sick Kids, which housed the lab until it was shut down in 2015 — continue to deny that the tests were unreliable and failed to meet forensic standards in every case, making these significant “common issues” for the roughly 9,000 individuals who tested positive for drugs or alcohol from 2005 to 2015.  However, Myers said, in light of Lang’s findings, “I doubt that proof of the systemic issues will be a particularly difficult piece of litigation,” because the defendants “cannot ignore the reality that ... a party will be able to point to the evidence unearthed very publicly on these points if they arise.”

Koren’s lawyer, Darryl Cruz, said in an email on Tuesday that the Divisional Court made the right decision. “While it is tempting to look to the Lang Report as a way to simplify a case, that report was never directed at questions related to civil liability. Proof of concerns related to the general reliability of any testing will not make advancing individual claims easier,” he said, adding that a class-action is “clearly not the preferable procedure” in this case."

The entire story can be read at:
https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2018/11/27/parents-lose-second-bid-to-launch-class-action-suit-against-motherisk-over-flawed-hair-tests.html

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; 

Back in action: On-going: David Harold Eastman. (Australia); Aftermath; (Part 7); Reporter Alexandra Back (Canberra Times) on "The inside story of David Eastman's murder trial."..."The jury took in mountains of evidence and submissions, more than 5000 pages worth of transcript. But the public will only ever know a portion of why this jury came to the conclusion it did. A veil of secrecy came down on the trial early on. Closed sessions and various suppression orders knit into a poorly constructed quilt of prohibited communication about various names and incidents tendered during the trial, many detailing the suggestion it was the Mafia behind the killing. The orders - countless, clouded - will live on in perpetuity unless otherwise ordered, though so too will the names and details of much of what has been suppressed, already on Google or Trove, or books or documentaries. Or in one case, the witness whose name and evidence was detailed - unsuppressed - in Acting Justice Martin's 2014 report."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "There were many reasons not to hold a retrial after the first miscarried, damaged irreparably by deeply flawed forensic evidence. There was the exorbitant cost to the taxpayer, Eastman’s age (he turned 73 during the trial) and the time since Winchester's murder, to name a few. Acting Justice Martin, the head of a judicial inquiry that found Eastman’s 1995 conviction should be quashed, considered a retrial would be both unfeasible and unfair. Who would convict him? Would a judge jail him again if so? Ageing witnesses or those dead or unable to attend court became a feature of Eastman’s fresh trial. There were 127 live witnesses for the prosecution and a further 41 pieces of evidence from those unable to take the stand. For those unable to attend, their police statements, or transcripts of their evidence at the first trial or the inquest were read out by two prosecutors in a deadpan role play, neither daring to put their own inflections on the evidence.  Some witnesses were more frail than the last time they gave evidence in the trial of Eastman. Some entered court with the help of a walking stick. Others grizzled on the way in and out, or apologised for the aches and pains that slowed their movements."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "The inside story of David Eastman's murder trial," by reporter Alexandra Back, published by The Canberra Times on November 22, 2018.
SUB-HEADING: "The behind-the-scenes story of the retrial that led to David Eastman's acquittal - and the big changes compared with the first time he faced a jury."

GIST: "On June 4, 2018, David Harold Eastman began a second chance at justice. The scene where the man formerly convicted of the cold-blooded killing of Canberra's most senior police officer would begin this once unthinkable scenario was an unceremonious back entrance at the rear of Yarralumla’s Albert Hall, among the garbage bins. The former public servant was ushered inside by his lawyer while hundreds of potential jurors queued at the front. The first trial in 1995 was a shambles, marked in part by the chaos Eastman himself brought upon it. As the trial judge remarked at the time, Eastman had committed forensic suicide, dooming himself to conviction. A judicial inquiry nearly 20 years later found there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice. Acting Justice Brian Martin declared a retrial would neither be feasible, nor fair. He made that conclusion and another - that while he was almost certain of Eastman's guilt, he retained a nagging doubt. The 2018 jury also had a doubt, and on November 22, on their seventh day of deliberations, they returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty to the murder of Australian Federal Police Assistant Commissioner Colin Winchester. The man: Eastman's temper is infamous, perhaps one explanation for why tension grew around his name as the trial crept closer. There is a long list of people he has offended or physically assaulted, including a fellow student while at university. He once assaulted a female journalist and punched the deputy registrar of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (he had an assault conviction overturned on appeal on a technicality), and another time crushed a secretary's hand in a door. In September 1992, Eastman forced staff to wheel him from the court after he refused to move in protest. During the first trial, Eastman routinely attacked his lawyers, in one particularly vitriolic stream of abuse describing one barrister as "this evil, twisted little dwarf". In fairness to Eastman, it has been a long time since his poor behaviour, or his rage and anger, made headlines. But the court’s memory is slow to fade. During the retrial this year the question that was often on the mind of those familiar with his in-court antics was how was the notorious disrupter behaving now? In the event, the former Treasury official was a model defendant, at least in public. An unexplained turnaround from his former theatrics..
With newfound discipline, he did not sack one lawyer, at odds with the carnage of a case he left behind after sending his defence team packing 11 times during his first. Instead of throwing a jug at a judicial officer, as he did to one magistrate in 1992, he sipped water from a plastic cup. Where he once abused the “corrupt shit” of a judge and swore at the prosecutor, this time he was silent and restrained. He thanked the jury and judge at the verdict. Eastman’s intemperate actions at the first trial gave way to a studied if never fully relaxed ability to sit back and let his lawyers do the talking this time around. That meant trial number two was professional, smooth, and mostly uneventful. The 73 year old, in his daily uniform of black sneakers, neat cuffed jeans, pressed collared shirt, and navy sweater, sat placid and alone at the back of the court, each day unpacking a bottle of water and a notebook from a tattered plastic Aldi bag, and jotting on the occasional Post-It note for his lawyers. Was this almost timid, elderly man the same one who spent 19 years in jail for the brutal murder of a respected police chief? The public will only ever know a portion of why this jury came to the conclusion it did. Eastman - whom one witness described as suffering a persecution complex before the defence objected to the opinion - still had grievances and sought to communicate them, but now it was via a delicate word from a sheriff or lawyer. A complaint about a sniffing journalist in the public gallery, and another about a member of the public sitting too close behind him. Eastman the accused was emotionally inscrutable but when it came to the evidence his steely gaze did not waver, even when graphic images of Colin Winchester’s slain body paused on the screen in front of him. One witness had to be ushered from the room by the sheriffs while complaining loudly about why Eastman was allowed to “eyeball” him but he couldn’t return the favour. The question about Eastman's behaviour at the first trial was whether he was deliberately acting out to get a retrial on appeal, believing the bad press would mean a second trial would never take place, or whether he was simply out of control, a product of his mental health. Maybe he was out of luck when the ACT director of public prosecutions in office at the time made the unpopular and unlikely decision to prosecute Eastman for a second time. The unanswered question now is what tamed him? Was it age and weariness? Treatment of his mental health? Or was it the base fear of being sent back to jail? The jury: When this latest jury was empanelled on June 4, Acting Justice Murray Kellam, a retired member of the Victorian judiciary, told the 500-odd crowd that whoever did not think they could perform their duties as a juror on this case could leave. The tactic must have been effective because the 16 finally chosen were dedicated to the enormous task before them. Their impassive faces would break only to share the occasional joke with the judge or lawyers. They sat patiently for months absorbing the mountains of material before them. They also became friends. Three months into the trial, the jurors asked whether they could meet socially, outside of courtroom hours. There was talk of a picnic in Tidbinbilla. A diplomatic Acting Justice Kellam let them down gently, while thanking the members for their integrity and honesty. The jury lost one of their number early on after a member of the public dobbed her in. Despite all his warnings not to talk about the case outside the jury room, a note to the judge from the anonymous citizen suggested the juror had been boasting about her role in the Eastman trial at a local massage joint and about how she had already made up her mind - not guilty. The juror was dismissed, the remaining members left to guess why. Another juror later fell sick and was also excused. The jurors to their credit remained attentive until the last moment. When it came time for the ballot and for the jury to be whittled down from the remaining 14 to 12, in a sad moment, one of the more studious jurors was selected to leave. She shook her head in bitter disbelief. October 11 was the last day the trial was to sit in the old Supreme Court building and a constant buzzing noise gave one juror a headache. It could not be fixed and the other jury courtroom was just as bad. The old building seemed to have given up so the judge abandoned the day’s work and sent everyone home for an extra long weekend. On October 15, the trial moved into the new court room. It was fitting that Eastman, whose history is intertwined with the ACT Supreme and Magistrates Court, should also appear as defendant in the new building. The trial: There were many reasons not to hold a retrial after the first miscarried, damaged irreparably by deeply flawed forensic evidence. There was the exorbitant cost to the taxpayer, Eastman’s age (he turned 73 during the trial) and the time since Winchester's murder, to name a few. Acting Justice Martin, the head of a judicial inquiry that found Eastman’s 1995 conviction should be quashed, considered a retrial would be both unfeasible and unfair. Who would convict him? Would a judge jail him again if so? Ageing witnesses or those dead or unable to attend court became a feature of Eastman’s fresh trial. There were 127 live witnesses for the prosecution and a further 41 pieces of evidence from those unable to take the stand. For those unable to attend, their police statements, or transcripts of their evidence at the first trial or the inquest were read out by two prosecutors in a deadpan role play, neither daring to put their own inflections on the evidence.  Some witnesses were more frail than the last time they gave evidence in the trial of Eastman. Some entered court with the help of a walking stick. Others grizzled on the way in and out, or apologised for the aches and pains that slowed their movements. Others seemed shocked to be here again while many struggled to recall with precise detail unmemorable everyday events from 30 years ago. The jury took in mountains of evidence and submissions, more than 5000 pages worth of transcript. But the public will only ever know a portion of why this jury came to the conclusion it did. A veil of secrecy came down on the trial early on. Closed sessions and various suppression orders knit into a poorly constructed quilt of prohibited communication about various names and incidents tendered during the trial, many detailing the suggestion it was the Mafia behind the killing. The orders - countless, clouded - will live on in perpetuity unless otherwise ordered, though so too will the names and details of much of what has been suppressed, already on Google or Trove, or books or documentaries. Or in one case, the witness whose name and evidence was detailed - unsuppressed - in Acting Justice Martin's 2014 report. Before the trial began, the judge partly agreed to an application by the defence to suppress Eastman’s image and banned publication of photos of Eastman from before January 2016. This was lifted following the trial. During the trial, the judge went on to reject the media's request for access to innocuous photographs tendered as exhibits, and another request for a transcript of the barristers’ closing addresses. The media's attempt to fact check during the trial with another request to see an exhibit was reluctantly allowed, but only with the defence and Crown’s support. On August 29, still early days, the public was excised from hearing what the Crown said was evidence of Eastman admitting the killing. The court turned silent disco as jury, judge, lawyers, barristers and Eastman placed headphones over their ears to listen to mutterings recorded by police bugs planted in Eastman’s flat. The rest - including the media responsible for keeping the public informed - sat in a silent open court. Requests to the judge for the media to access the recordings were rejected. At the trial’s end, the media also requested access to a number of exhibits, including the audio of Eastman’s alleged confessions. That appears unlikely to happen. When the trial shifted to the new courtroom, the judge allowed Eastman the luxury of not sitting in the dock for accused people, segregated from the court by a small barrier. He was allowed to sit with his lawyers near the bar table, up until the verdict. We will likely never know the reasons the jury came to their decision. This is the constraint of the criminal system. It is illegal for jurors to disclose details of their deliberations. The question now turns to what happens next. Will there be a fight over compensation? It seems likely. Almost certainly, this will not be the last we hear of David Eastman."

The entire story can be read at:
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/act/the-inside-story-of-david-eastman-s-murder-trial-20181114-p50fx9.html

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; 

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Back in action: On-going; Jeff Wood. Texas: (A psychiatrist Dr. James Grigson (AKA Dr. Death) case.)


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The court argued that Woods posed a future threat because of a previous robbery with Reneau. This assessment was based in part on a 1998 testimony from psychiatrist Dr. James P. Grigson, who carries the nickname "Dr. Death." Grigson's influence in the case has been controversial. His method for determining an inmate's likelihood to reoffend was questioned by Woods' lawyers as they argued that Grigson almost always concluded that defendants would be future dangers. A 2004 article, which looked closely at Grigson's career, states that he often did not even meet with the defendants he recommended for death. Grigson was eventually expelled from both the American Psychiatric Association and the Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians for his predictability methods, which the boards deemed unscientific. Now that the appeals court has made its decision, it will now set an execution date for Woods."

POST: "Texas is Trying to Execute a Man for a Murder He Didn't Commit," by reporter Zuri Davis, published by Reason.com on November 27, 2018. (Zuri Davis is assistant editor at Reason.)

SUB-HEADING:  "The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied a recommendation to relieve him of execution.

PHOTO CAPTION: "Can a state sentence someone to death for a murder that they didn't commit? According to Texas, the answer is "yes."

https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/27/tx-jeff-woods-on-death-row

Read the Wikipedia entry at the link below: "James Grigson (January 30, 1932 – June 3, 2004), nicknamed "Doctor Death" by some press accounts, was a Texas forensic psychiatrist who testified in 167 capital trials, nearly all of which resulted in death sentences.[5] He was exposed as a charlatan and expelled by the American Psychiatric Association and the Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians in 1995 for unethical conduct. ]In capital crime cases, Grigson, throughout his career, was typically a testifying expert for the prosecution. Under Texas law, for death to be imposed the jury must believe the defendant not only to be guilty of the crime charged, but likely to commit additional violent crimes if not put to death. In almost every case, Grigson testified (often after meeting the defendant for just a few minutes, or not at all) that the defendant was an "incurable" sociopath who was "one hundred per cent certain" to kill again. The Randall Dale Adams case" One of the most notable, at least after the fact, appearances of Grigson in court occurred in the 1977 case of Randall Dale Adams, who was accused of murdering police officer Robert W. Wood. Adams was found guilty, and, on the basis of Grigson's testimony, was given the death penalty. Grigson told the jury that Adams would be an ongoing menace if kept alive. Adams' conviction was unanimously upheld by the Texas Appellate Court. His death sentence, as a result of a 1980 United States Supreme Court decision, was commuted to life in prison by Texas Governor Bill Clements.  The case was profiled in the 1988 documentary film The Thin Blue Line. In 1989 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex parte Adams  overturned Adams' conviction on the grounds of malfeasance by the prosecutor and inconsistencies in the testimony of a key witness.The prosecution in Texas declined to go to a new trial, and Adams was eventually freed, after having spent approximately 12 years in prison. The Cameron Todd Willingham case: In 1991, Cameron Todd Willingham was accused of the capital murder of his three children due to arson. Grigson testified that Willingham was an incurable sociopath despite having never met him.  His testimony helped prosecutors secure the death penalty, but Willingham's guilt has since been called into question due to modern fire science and a witness recantation. Willingham was executed in 2004. Expulsion: In 1995, Grigson was expelled by the American Psychiatric Association and the Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians for unethical conduct.  The APA stated that Grigson had violated the organization's ethics code by "arriving at a psychiatric diagnosis without first having examined the individuals in question, and for indicating, while testifying in court as an expert witness, that he could predict with 100 per cent certainty that the individuals would engage in future violent acts". Grigson unsuccessfully sued the APA to block his expulsion.  After Grigson's expulsion, the medical director of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law said that Grigson "oversteps the bounds of his professional competence" and that he was testifying in court about hypothetical situations containing insufficient detail for a sound professional opinion to be formed. Grigson officially retired from the psychiatric profession in 2003. ]Death: Grigson died in June 2004 from lung cancer, most likely in Texas."
 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Grigson

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; 











Back in action: On-going; David Harold Eastman; Australia; (Part 6): This historic case is seen as "a boon for legal eagles." Canberra Times reporter Sally Pryer (Sydney Morning Herald)..."The David Eastman case will give generations of academics and law students something to pore over in years to come. From the finer points of evidence law and hearsay, to the age-old conundrum of jury trials and outdated investigation techniques, the Eastman case has plenty to keep legal eagles interested, according to one Australian National University academic."


UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR: "University of Sydney Law School professor David Hamer, who has written in the past about the Eastman case in the context of the effectiveness of criminal procedure, said it would serve as a useful reminder of the infallibility of the legal system. “It is a pretty graphic illustration that the system isn't perfect,” he said."

-------------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "From the finer points of evidence law and hearsay, to the age-old conundrum of jury trials and outdated investigation techniques, the Eastman case has plenty to keep legal eagles interested, according to one Australian National University academic. Anthony Hopkins, a senior lecturer at the ANU College of Law, said the Eastman trial - the 20-year legal saga which culminated in a verdict of not guilty on Thursday - was a unique and remarkable case.  “I think it raises deep questions about the extent to which we can fact-find so long after an event, but in other contexts, like say child abuse, it's often the case that we need to factually interrogate evidence that's decades old,” he said. “[The Eastman case] is almost singularly unusual, not so much that there could be a miscarriage of justice and someone could spend a long time in prison and then be released, but that this was followed by a retrial.”

---------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "David Eastman case a boon for legal eagles," by reporter Sally Pryor, published by The Sydney Morning Herald on November 22, 2018. (Sally Pryor is a reporter at the Canberra Times);




GIST: "The David Eastman case will give generations of academics and law students something to pore over in years to come. From the finer points of evidence law and hearsay, to the age-old conundrum of jury trials and outdated investigation techniques, the Eastman case has plenty to keep legal eagles interested, according to one Australian National University academic. Anthony Hopkins, a senior lecturer at the ANU College of Law, said the Eastman trial - the 20-year legal saga which culminated in a verdict of not guilty on Thursday - was a unique and remarkable case.  “I think it raises deep questions about the extent to which we can fact-find so long after an event, but in other contexts, like say child abuse, it's often the case that we need to factually interrogate evidence that's decades old,” he said. “[The Eastman case] is almost singularly unusual, not so much that there could be a miscarriage of justice and someone could spend a long time in prison and then be released, but that this was followed by a retrial.” He said the fact that the jury had taken so long to arrive at a verdict - 31 hours over seven days - was reassuring, in a way, for the legal system. “There can be no doubt that they've applied their minds to this, and that the system allows and encourages a degree of pressure to be put on to keep thinking, keep trying,” he said. “In some ways, it supports the faith we have in the legal system and the process of trial by jury, that they have clearly given such thought and consideration to the evidence in working towards a verdict. “I think it would have been perhaps more challenging if they'd come back immediately. The rest of us stand on the outside and we don't really know the full extent of the evidence that they've seen and considered. You could pick over this forever, even just thinking about the process of trying to appeal your conviction.” University of Sydney Law School professor David Hamer, who has written in the past about the Eastman case in the context of the effectiveness of criminal procedure, said it would serve as a useful reminder of the infallibility of the legal system. “It is a pretty graphic illustration that the system isn't perfect,” he said. “That's no great surprise, because if you think about what the system is trying to do, it's trying to conduct a historical inquiry where inevitably you've got limited evidence, and the prosecution has to, with this limited evidence, prove its case to a very high standard. “We can't demand absolute certainty because that would be impossible to achieve. Proof beyond reasonable doubt doesn't demand absolute certainty, and that means that there are going to be errors.”

The entire story can be read at:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/act/david-eastman-case-a-boon-for-legal-eagles-20181122-p50hpr.html

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; 

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Back in action: On-going; David Harold Eastman; (Part 5): Aftermath; A compelling account by Jack Waterford, the former editor of the Canberra Times, who has been involved in the Eastman case from the night of the murder, and who was involved, from 1994, in arguing that the case against Eastman was flawed and that his guilt had not been established..."In Western Australia, a sequence of inquiries have seemed to suggest that its judges vie with the cops for being unable to get murder matters right, at great expense to innocent people. Courts and courts of appeal repeatedly failed to find any error or problem with the convictions of men whom we now know positively to have been innocent." Experience has repeatedly shown judges to be reluctant to look anew at old evidence, or to regard anything they thought could have been or should have been discovered before trial as fresh evidence. And there was a steady - if declining - tendency on the part of judges to imagine that good honest policemen could never 'verbal' a defendant, withhold evidence that might support a claim of innocence, or 'brick' or 'fit up' a suspect. Those who suggested it were putting their own good characters on the line and giving prosecutors the option of telling jurors about any previous convictions they might have had. They generally assumed that scientific evidence was the detached and objective conclusions of independent experts, rather than, as shown in many cases, the partisan advocacy of tame witnesses who had taken sides. All these weaknesses were on display in the case in which David Eastman was charged with the murder of Australian Federal Police Assistant Commissioner Colin Winchester nearly 30 years ago. "These weaknesses saw Eastman convicted 24 years ago because of scientific and other evidence that did not stand up to (nor get) proper analysis."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Martin’s inquiry showed that much of the scientific evidence presented at trial was deeply flawed, primarily because of an unscientific approach, and an advocacy role, adopted by the expert imported from Victoria to examine gunshot residue. Some of his findings were untenable; some could not be replicated, and it seemed doubtful that some reported experiments had been carried out at all. It emerged that investigating police knew their expert had been dismissed from Victoria Police for scientific misconduct and the defence was not told."

----------------------------------------------------------

STORY:  "The weaknesses of a complacent justice system," by Jack Waterford, published by The Sydney Morning Herald on November 24, 2018. (Jack Waterford is a former editor of The Canberra Times and has been involved in the Eastman case from the night of the murder, and was involved, from 1994, in arguing that the case against Eastman was flawed and that his guilt had not been established.)

GIST: "One of the good things about the Australian criminal justice systems is that it admits that witnesses, juries and even judges can make mistakes. There are courts of appeal that will review evidence, judicial statements of the law and outcomes – and that will not hesitate to intervene if it appears that a mistake has been made. One of the weaknesses of the Australian criminal justice system is that with many of the most significant miscarriages of justice in Australia the judicial system did not – seemed that it could not – recognise a fundamental mistake and a serious injustice. It was too used to mild correctives, and minor criticisms, but not to declarations that the system had failed. That even the courts had failed. We cannot thank the courts for the fact that a grave injustice to Lindy Chamberlain and her husband was uncovered. They lost all of their appeals until the chance discovery of some fresh evidence led to an external review and exposure of just how flawed the case had been. Even then, a player in this week’s Eastman case was on his feet arguing to the last that the conviction should not be disturbed. In Western Australia, a sequence of inquiries have seemed to suggest that its judges vie with the cops for being unable to get murder matters right, at great expense to innocent people. Courts and courts of appeal repeatedly failed to find any error or problem with the convictions of men whom we now know positively to have been innocent. These were men such as Darryl Beamish, a deaf-mute from whom police claimed to have extracted a voluntary signed confession. John Button - a man with a bad stutter which was interpreted by police as nervousness about his guilt - was assaulted by police during a 22-hour interrogation after which he also 'confessed'. Scientific evidence against him was also misrepresented. Andrew Mallard was convicted of murder after a long unrecorded police interrogation and a brief recorded confession. This was a case in which police were shown to have withheld evidence that demonstrated Mallard’s innocence. In Queensland, Kevin Condren’s conviction for murder, based on police coercion and fabrication, was upheld on appeal and he served six years before his conviction was quashed after an external inquiry. Graham Stafford, also from Queensland, served 14 years, after a conviction for murder based on flawed scientific evidence. In South Australia, Henry Keogh served 21 years for murder before it was shown that police had withheld exculpatory evidence (and later, evidence pointing to the real murderer was discovered). Edward Splatt served seven years for murder and sexual assault in the same state before a royal commission showed that the conviction was untenable, scientific evidence was unreliable, and that there had been contamination of the crime scene. Across the ACT border in Queanbeyan, Ziggy Pohl served 10 years for the murder of his wife, despite a lack of motive and steadfast details, and was then released on licence. Seven years later, another man walked into the Queanbeyan police station and confessed to having murdered Mrs Pohl during a botched burglary. Despite such instances of wrongful conviction, moves by politicians to enable external reviews of contested convictions, whether along a model now working successfully in Britain or otherwise, have not got far. Police have zero enthusiasm, judges not much more. Politicians have tended to want finality of cases, even at the expense of certainty. Nor have judges, cops or lawyers thought that something was seriously wrong when modern forensic systems - such as DNA, face recognition, and surveillance technology - have regularly shown here, in Britain and the US, that many old and apparently 'safe' convictions to be doubtful. What distinguishes most such cases, is that justice was finally done only after action outside the formal criminal justice system and then only after action inside that system had failed. Fundamental flaws in police briefs had survived the scrutiny of senior investigators, prosecutors with a formal duty to be fair, experienced trial judges and learned appellate judges. Experience has repeatedly shown judges to be reluctant to look anew at old evidence, or to regard anything they thought could have been or should have been discovered before trial as fresh evidence. And there was a steady - if declining - tendency on the part of judges to imagine that good honest policemen could never 'verbal' a defendant, withhold evidence that might support a claim of innocence, or 'brick' or 'fit up' a suspect. Those who suggested it were putting their own good characters on the line and giving prosecutors the option of telling jurors about any previous convictions they might have had. They generally assumed that scientific evidence was the detached and objective conclusions of independent experts, rather than, as shown in many cases, the partisan advocacy of tame witnesses who had taken sides. All these weaknesses were on display in the case in which David Eastman was charged with the murder of Australian Federal Police Assistant Commissioner Colin Winchester nearly 30 years ago. These weaknesses saw Eastman convicted 24 years ago because of scientific and other evidence that did not stand up to (nor get) proper analysis. This week Eastman was found not guilty of a murder for which he spent nearly 20 years in jail for. It was not a good look for the Australian Federal Police, for the prosecution system, for an ACT judicial system which had repeatedly turned Eastman’s arguments down, and for an ACT government which was generally deaf to representations about Eastman’s innocence. Had any of these branches of government worked properly, ACT taxpayers would be tens-of-millions of dollars better off.

Colin Winchester’s murder was more than a mere murder. It was an assassination, crying for exemplary investigation. It did not want for resources. The biggest and most extensive police investigation in Australian history did not set standards anyone else would want to follow. If AFP detectives cannot get such a case right, people are entitled to wonder about the safety of more run-of-the-mill convictions. In fact, the case showed that the AFP, the ACT, its hierarchy of courts and judges, and its politicians were not immune from the problems besetting other states and territories. Indeed, the AFP, being a smallish and rather inbred force, and the ACT, as a small city-state tended to have fewer, rather than more checks and balances than other jurisdictions. This was because so many of the players knew each other, often under different hats, and had at many times acted for or against, or in league with various of the players. A good many of the magistrates, and even a good many of supreme court judges had at one time or another acted for David Eastman, the man accused of the murder. Two had previously been directors of public prosecutions at the time of the prosecution and had wisely disqualified themselves from matters involving him. The husband of another judge had given evidence against the man at the original trial (before his wife became a judge). Others had been bruised (one literally) by previous encounters with Eastman, or had indicated their general view of the matter in previous hearings. They were often strangely eager (and relieved) to accede to suggestions that they disqualify themselves. Even the supply of additional judges, whether from the Federal Court or the ranks of the retired judiciary was not inexhaustible, and many soon showed themselves quick to come to conclusions and slow to see that there was often more than a molehill of genuine argument in every matter presented as a mountain by Eastman. Almost every proposition raised in non-stop Eastman litigation was arguable, even if it did not win. Eastman was a good advocate, with a strong command of the law. His litigation was designed both to agitate fundamental matters (the safety of his conviction) and specific matter, individual points about errors in previous, lower court judicial reasoning. For 20 years, the courts could provide no justice for Eastman. None showed much concern about evidence of systemic police harassment of Eastman, known to be mentally unwell and to have a quick temper, in the hope that it would induce him to do or say something that could make his guilt plain. Investigators also took seriously psychiatric advice, if obtained at a distance, that Eastman was dangerous as well as unstable, and went out of their way to warn anyone with whom he associated with that they were at risk. The harassment was obvious, and publicly reported, but Eastman’s complaints, including directly to judges, were ignored. Some of the judges believed that Eastman was constantly focused on such matters as a way of distracting from his probable guilt. Others, including the prosecutor and the first trial judge, thought that Eastman was putting on any symptoms of distress, in the hope of forcing the trial to abort. Responding to his complaints, they believe, was “playing his game”. Their determination not to be “baited” accentuated Eastman’s frustration, and made the conduct of the trial more difficult. It also heightened jury antipathy and made his conviction almost inevitable. Eastman hardly helped himself by failing to cross-examine some of the key evidence because of snits with the judge. Rod Campbell - the late legendary Canberra Times court reporter who attended every day of a very long inquest and a six-month trial and any number of other judicial engagements - ended up concluding that a jury could have properly convicted Eastman on the evidence as presented in court, particularly after the judge’s summing up. But, he thought the prosecution case would have been a lot weaker had it been properly tested. He always had a nagging doubt. So did Brian Martin, the retired judge from South Australia and the Northern Territory who conducted the review, who recognised that there was a strong circumstantial case against Eastman. But it left him with a nagging doubt, and he recommended that the verdict be quashed, with no retrial to follow. He found the first trial had involved a serious miscarriage of justice, even if he was reluctant to blame anyone. He was critical of police, and - in initial draft findings - scathing of the prosecution. In the final report, however, he tempered his criticism of the DPP and thought shortcomings of the prosecution, including the failure to produce exculpatory evidence to the defence, as probably accidental and unintentional. Martin’s inquiry showed that much of the scientific evidence presented at trial was deeply flawed, primarily because of an unscientific approach, and an advocacy role, adopted by the expert imported from Victoria to examine gunshot residue. Some of his findings were untenable; some could not be replicated, and it seemed doubtful that some reported experiments had been carried out at all. It emerged that investigating police knew their expert had been dismissed from Victoria Police for scientific misconduct and the defence was not told. Police said they had told members of the prosecution staff, but none of them had any memory of this and claimed they had not known. The defence claimed that other exculpatory material was not shown to them; prosecutors denied any policy of withholding evidence or said that if the defence sought additional material it would have been provided. In some cases, there were doubts about whether prosecutors had passed on material, because Eastman frequently changed legal representatives, and in the passage of materials from team to team, things might have gotten lost or out of order. There were other flaws, still unexplored. The 'proof', for example, that Winchester was killed by a particular Ruger rifle said - though not proved - to be associated with Eastman, depended on spent .22 shells found at the scene. But no one proved that these had contained the bullets that killed Winchester, or even that the shells had been recently fired. The passenger seat in Winchester’s car contained boxes of ammunition he had just been given in preparation for a hunting trip in NSW.  Senior investigators, upset about the murder of a close friend, were very unprofessional in trampling over the crime scene, ignoring the pleas of the scene of crime officers. They are still in denial about its ill effects. Others made early and unwise solo searches of Winchester’s office for clues. The full litany of investigative errors or misconduct is yet to be catalogued, because the full files have not been made available to independent scrutiny. One can be sure that if no external inquiry is announced soon, that documentation of the full debacle will mysteriously disappear. The flaw with a good deal of the overseas expert evidence, from FBI, Israeli Police and British laboratories, was that its confirmations took the form of saying that “if the tests were performed as is stated, and the findings were as stated, then the conclusions are probably right”. When one foreign expert volunteered that he suspected that the Australian expert was too much of a jack of all trades to be an expert in any of them, prosecutors helped him, and the Australian carefully recrafted their evidence to conceal any differences of opinion. The defence team was blissfully unaware, even if, according to prosecutors, they would have been given copies of the notes had they asked. I have argued elsewhere that the police investigation was flawed by tunnel vision, and what some people call confirmation bias. There was also an all too common AFP tendency to cut corners and to be all too clever for words. It was not detached, and internal police politics determined too much of the police tactics, especially a decision to focus on Eastman at the expense of all other lines of inquiry once senior detectives developed a hunch that he was the killer. That was a hunch which arose long before objective evidence to support it. It may have influenced the eager-to-please actions of some of the experts. From then on, the top team was looking for material which supported its conclusion or seeking to dispute, reject or ignore anything which did not support their hypothesis. It was not investigated with all the patience, professionalism, detachment, or, at the end of the day, integrity it needed. The DPP, like his predecessors, and the AFP resisted all efforts, including by several unsuccessful judicial challenges, to have an inquiry. Neither participated in a search for the truth; both were present only to defend their reputations, usually by stonewalling. Both were very slow to produce; even slower to produce anything which showed them in a bad light. Even when it was clear that evidence the original prosecution had argued to be critical was wrong, DPP insisted that the case against Eastman, based on other bits of circumstantial evidence could still be maintained for probable conviction. He was wrong. Having a new trial served another purpose. While anything legal was on foot, the DPP and the AFP could resist any call for an external inquiry. Neither have ever conceded any flaws in what they did. The public, or the jury, was failed the prosecution system, not the other way round it seems. The AFP was loyal to the original investigators, with a mind closed to other possibilities. It did not re-examine its case, search for new evidence, one way or another, or use fresh forensic devices to freshen the evidence. It was take it or leave it. The jury, ultimately, was not satisfied. More than a few cops had anticipated this, but the AFP now had an alibi – that the case had foundered because of the ineptness of the lawyers, and technicalities. The case is not suddenly ancient history, of no relevance to today or with no lessons for current AFP investigators, who are using new investigative tools, are better educated and are differently focused, particularly on terrorism. AFP culture has not undergone a fundamental change – something may manifest by the absolute reluctance of police to admit that anything was wrong. Many involved in the investigations went on to more senior positions, several to commissioner level, including in other forces. The AFP, which at senior levels over recent decades has become dominated by an inbred self-replicating network of good old boys has never been keen on retrospection, examination of conscience or external inquiry. It is the only Australian Police Force not subjected to real external reviews since it was established 39 years ago. By now its weaknesses, idiosyncrasies and hostility to any system of accountability it cannot manipulate, outstare or ignore have become part of its DNA. Being joined with other paramilitarised agencies in the over-powerful, and under-accountable, department of home affairs will potentiate its weaknesses, not its strengths. How sad that the history shows how poorly organised the law and the courts are in preventing serious injustices because of systemic faults in the AFP and the criminal justice system. Once the prestige of the ACT Supreme Court was among the highest in the land, with several of its members ending up as chief justices of the High Court. Its judgments are now not much cited outside the ACT. Once having the most modern technical systems in the land, it has recently opened new quarters with facilities already of a lower standard than elsewhere, unworthy both of the national capital or of a city of highly educated and fairly litigious citizens. In the incestuous ACT, too many judges and magistrates are to be seen hobnobbing with ministers, senior bureaucrats, or sitting on worthy committees with representatives of interests appearing before the courts. Even more lamentable has been the timorousness of the ACT executive in dealing with either the brotherhood and sisterhood of ACT AFP voters, or with the senior police establishment. The AFP is highly political, with media units used to push the police barrow, and ample capacity to leak matters embarrassing to politicians. It was shown, for example, when the world became aware of police concerns about the interactions between a minister, her staff, and the CFMEU - then a target of a deeply politicised police inquiry (one which, typically, has come to nothing). Real law reform, or investment in the justice system is not on the ALP agenda, local or federal. It might frighten the horses. Problem is, as the Winchester case shows, the horses have long bolted."

The entire story can be read at:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/act/the-weaknesses-of-a-complacent-justice-system-20181123-p50hsx.html

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; 

Monday, November 26, 2018

Back in action: On-going: David Harold Eastman: (Part 4): Australian Capital Territory: Aftermath; Former police chief says investigators failed to exhaust the 'mafia' theory - a defence submission that Colin Winchester, a senior police officer, had been assassinated by disaffected Calabrian drug growers who believed they were under protection from authorities..."The retrial heard Mr Winchester had previously worked on an operation observing the Calabrian mafia growing cannabis in Bungendore - men who believed they were under protection from authorities. The cannabis growers were later arrested and put before court, and the theory went that they believed Mr Winchester had betrayed them. A portion of the mafia evidence during the re-trial was heard in a closed court. In a series of tweets, Mr Quaedvlieg said, as ACT police chief, he had spent “many spellbound weeks reading the old reports”. “The case [against Mr Eastman] was always circumstantial, however some of the avenues of inquiry were fascinating, especially the theory that two Calabrian hit men had travelled to Australia to undertake a mafia assassination on Winchester as retaliation for ‘ratting’ them out,” he said. “When I read the evidence as presented at the 1st trial, my leaning was [Mr Eastman] was guilty but knew it was hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The retrial verdict reflects that view."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY:  "In a series of tweets, Mr Quaedvlieg said, as ACT police chief, he had spent “many spellbound weeks reading the old reports”. “The case [against Mr Eastman] was always circumstantial, however some of the avenues of inquiry were fascinating, especially the theory that two Calabrian hit men had travelled to Australia to undertake a mafia assassination on Winchester as retaliation for ‘ratting’ them out,” he said. “When I read the evidence as presented at the 1st trial, my leaning was [Mr Eastman] was guilty but knew it was hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The retrial verdict reflects that view. “ Mr Quaedvlieg said that, when he read all material, he thought “other avenues needed to exhausted to negate them fully.” “For the record, while I don’t think that avenue of investigation was exhausted to the point of negation, I don’t believe Winchester was a ‘dirty cop’. “The evidence points to the contrary, but the Italian organised crime entities involved may have wrongly believed otherwise.”

----------------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Investigators did not 'exhaust' mafia theory: former police chief," by reports Alexandra Back and Michael Inman (court reporter),  published by The Sydney Morning Herald on November 23, 2018.

GIST: "Investigators did not “exhaust to the point of negation” the theory that Colin Winchester’s assassination had been the work of the Calabrian Mafia, a former Canberra top cop said Friday. Roman Quaedvlieg was the chief of ACT Policing when the re-trial of David Eastman for the murder was ordered in 2014. Mr Eastman was convicted and sentenced to life for the murder after a 1995 trial. He spent almost 19 years behind bars before his conviction was found to be unsafe and quashed, and he was released from jail. On Thursday, Mr Eastman, 73, was acquitted of the 1989 murder after a five month re-trial. Mr Quaedvlieg - one of Mr Winchester's successors - took to Twitter to share his insights into the case, specifically the theory that Mr Winchester had been killed by the Calabrian mafia, after the news of the not guilty verdict broke. The retrial heard Mr Winchester had previously worked on an operation observing the Calabrian mafia growing cannabis in Bungendore - men who believed they were under protection from authorities. The cannabis growers were later arrested and put before court, and the theory went that they believed Mr Winchester had betrayed them. A portion of the mafia evidence during the re-trial was heard in a closed court. In a series of tweets, Mr Quaedvlieg said, as ACT police chief, he had spent “many spellbound weeks reading the old reports”. “The case [against Mr Eastman] was always circumstantial, however some of the avenues of inquiry were fascinating, especially the theory that two Calabrian hit men had travelled to Australia to undertake a mafia assassination on Winchester as retaliation for ‘ratting’ them out,” he said. “When I read the evidence as presented at the 1st trial, my leaning was [Mr Eastman] was guilty but knew it was hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The retrial verdict reflects that view. “ Mr Quaedvlieg said that, when he read all material, he thought “other avenues needed to exhausted to negate them fully.” “For the record, while I don’t think that avenue of investigation was exhausted to the point of negation, I don’t believe Winchester was a ‘dirty cop’. “The evidence points to the contrary, but the Italian organised crime entities involved may have wrongly believed otherwise.” Prosecutors during the retrial had dismissed the mafia theory, saying the murder was the work of an amateur and that Mr Winchester's death served the organisation no purpose. Meanwhile, there have been no wild celebrations by Mr Eastman - who is truly free for the first-time in almost 30 years Mr Eastman became an immediate suspect after the murder, and was questioned by detectives the following day. Although he was released from prison in 2014, he had been subject to bail conditions since then. The former Treasury official did not front the waiting media for a jubilant press conference outside the court after the verdict, instead preferring to quietly slip away through a backdoor. Mr Eastman spoke privately to a number of close supporters immediately afterwards, although those conversations have not been made public. Through lawyers he politely declined a request for comment by The Canberra Times shortly after the acquittal. It is unknown how Mr Eastman spent his first full day of freedom in three decades, other than he has kept his head down in preparation for the litigation of a civil claim. The fallout of the verdict on Friday centred on the decision to pursue the re-trial, with a peak ACT legal body saying it was a waste of taxpayers' money and did not serve justice. The ACT Bar Association criticised ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Jon White SC's decision to mount the retrial despite an inquiry's recommendation a new trial would "not [be] feasible and would not be fair". Mr White declined to respond to the association's criticisms. The full bench of the ACT Supreme Court in 2014 quashed Mr Eastman's 1995 conviction for the murder and ordered he face a re-trial over the assassination. The court, comprised of Justices Steven Rares, Michael Wigney and acting Justice Dennis Cowdroy, found Mr Eastman did not receive a trial according to law. The judges said it had not been convinced that a new trial would be unfair and had even been necessary as a strong circumstantial case of murder of a senior police officer existed against Eastman. The court heard he should not "escape having a jury decide whether or not he is guilty of that crime". "Weighing all the relevant factors and considerations, we have concluded that the interests of justice require that we order a retrial," Justice Rares told the court in August 2014. Despite the court's orders, the ultimate decision on whether to conduct a retrial fell to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Jon White, SC. Bar president Steven Whybrow said there had been little justification in pursuing Mr Eastman the second time. "A judicial inquiry had raised real questions about the fragile forensic evidence and the effluxion of time had further undermined the prosecution case and the accused’s capacity to challenge it," Mr Whybrow said. Mr Whybrow said Mr Eastman's age (he turned 73 during this latest trial), the 19 years he already served in custody, and the cost of the retrial all weighed against the prosecution. "Perhaps most significantly Acting Justice Brain Martin, who undertook the judicial inquiry into the original conviction, specifically expressed the view that even though he thought Eastman was probably guilty, he still had a nagging doubt (probably the same doubt the jury entertained) and in any event a new trial would be neither feasible or fair," he said. "The slaying of Colin Winchester was of course an abominable and serious crime that justified the significant resources that went into the inquest, police investigation and the original trial. "The heinous nature of the crime could not alone justify the retrial of the main suspect particularly where a judge has said such a trial would not be fair and where he had a nagging doubt about guilt."



The entire story can be read at:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/act/investigators-did-not-exhaust-mafia-theory-former-police-chief-20181123-p50hvm.html

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; 

Sunday, November 25, 2018

Back in action; On-going; Aftermath;David Harold Eastman: (Part 3); Aftermath: Canberra Times says it's time to learn the lessons of "the Eastman saga..." The best way to honour Mr Winchester would have been to recognise, from the start, the potential for the investigation to stray in the way that it did, and to assign the task to disinterested outsiders. It is now too late for that, but it is not too late to learn. It is time for the police and the DPP to examine, and to admit to, the flaws in their decisions. Neither have yet shown publicly they are prepared to do that; at every step, they have dismissed criticisms of their handling of the case. Hopefully, Thursday's verdict will change that."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Justice Brian Martin, who, years later, inquired into that original investigation, prosecution and trial, called Mr Eastman's conviction a "substantial miscarriage of justice". His decision in 2014 summarised the flaws: "The issue of guilt was determined on the basis of deeply flawed forensic evidence in circumstances where the applicant was denied procedural fairness in respect of a fundamental feature of the trial process concerned with disclosure by the prosecution of all relevant material. In addition, evidence of inadequacies and flaws in the case file and case work of the key forensic scientists were unknown to everyone involved in the investigation and trial." Justice Martin also chided the police and Office of the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions' inability – even then, almost two decades later – to understand the case's weaknesses. They contended the evidence remained overwhelming; the judge said it clearly wasn't, and that the passing of time had weakened it further. He said a retrial "would not be in the best interests of the community", and recommended that Mr Eastman be pardoned. Nonetheless, for reasons never adequately explained, the DPP pursued a further trial, despite the warning it was not in the public interest and would likely fail."

-------------------------------------------------------------

EDITORIAL: "Eastman saga ends. Now to learn from it," published by The Canberra Times, on November 23, 2018.

GIST: "The saga is over. Twelve of David Eastman's peers have judged him. After a six-month trial, six days of deliberation and, at least initially, an inability to agree, the jurors found him not guilty of murdering ACT police chief Colin Winchester in 1989. Mr Eastman is a free man. Yet his extraordinary legal battle is not quite finished. Mr Eastman spent more than 19 years in jail for the killing and is expected to pursue compensation for that imprisonment, worth potentially tens of millions of dollars. The costs of this crime, and of the botched investigation and prosecution that ensued, continue to mount. David Eastman has been found not guilty of the 1989 murder of AFP assistant police commissioner Colin Winchester. Meanwhile, Mr Winchester's family and friends will likely never see justice served on the police chief's killer. This is no happy ending. The injustice began with Mr Winchester's murder almost 30 years ago. The federal police, no doubt affected by their comrade's death and craving a conviction, made poor decisions. Confirmation biases undermined their work. Justice Brian Martin, who, years later, inquired into that original investigation, prosecution and trial, called Mr Eastman's conviction a "substantial miscarriage of justice". His decision in 2014 summarised the flaws: "The issue of guilt was determined on the basis of deeply flawed forensic evidence in circumstances where the applicant was denied procedural fairness in respect of a fundamental feature of the trial process concerned with disclosure by the prosecution of all relevant material. In addition, evidence of inadequacies and flaws in the case file and case work of the key forensic scientists were unknown to everyone involved in the investigation and trial." Justice Martin also chided the police and Office of the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions' inability – even then, almost two decades later – to understand the case's weaknesses. They contended the evidence remained overwhelming; the judge said it clearly wasn't, and that the passing of time had weakened it further. He said a retrial "would not be in the best interests of the community", and recommended that Mr Eastman be pardoned. Nonetheless, for reasons never adequately explained, the DPP pursued a further trial, despite the warning it was not in the public interest and would likely fail. The ACT government, rightly, supported the DPP's independence. One wonders, though, whether the DPP acted independently from the police, or whether it faced pressure to pursue Mr Eastman over what had become, to many police, a personal matter. The best way to honour Mr Winchester would have been to recognise, from the start, the potential for the investigation to stray in the way that it did, and to assign the task to disinterested outsiders. It is now too late for that, but it is not too late to learn. It is time for the police and the DPP to examine, and to admit to, the flaws in their decisions. Neither have yet shown publicly they are prepared to do that; at every step, they have dismissed criticisms of their handling of the case. Hopefully, Thursday's verdict will change that."

The entire editorial can be  read at: 
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/act/eastman-saga-ends-now-to-learn-from-it-20181122-p50hl4.html

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; 

Saturday, November 24, 2018

Back in action: On-going; David Harold Eastman: Aftermath; (Part 2): Australian Capital Territory; Utter collapse of what a trial judge once called, “one of the most skilled, sophisticated and determined forensic investigations in the history of criminal investigations in Australia”. Guardian Reporter Christopher Knaus) examines Colin Winchester's murder and how the case against Eastman collapsed..."The jury’s verdict on Thursday once again leaves the Winchester case open, again. It means the murderer of the highest ranking police officer in Australia’s history remains at large."


PASSAGE IF THE DAY: "The 2014 inquiry was poring over the forensic evidence used to tie Eastman to the murder scene. It was crucial evidence at the 1995 trial. Gunshot residue found in Eastman’s car boot was said to be a precise match to that found at the scene of Winchester’s death. The analysis was lauded by prosecutors as strong and unchallenged evidence of Eastman’s guilt, and the trial judge later described the police work as “one of the most skilled, sophisticated and determined forensic investigations in the history of criminal investigations in Australia”. The lead forensic witness, who cannot be named, was presented to the jury as completely independent, his veracity and expertise without reproach. That all came tumbling down in a single afternoon. A secret tape, never heard before, was played through the court speakers. Lawyers glanced at one another in expectation. The recording was made by a detective working the Winchester murder, Thomas McQuillen. He had begun to have reservations about the case’s lead forensic investigator. So he secretly taped their conversations. The audio betrayed any notion that the star forensic witness was impartial. “I’m working with you. As far as I’m concerned I’m a, I’m a Crown witness, a police witness,” the supposedly independent forensic expert told McQuillen. “I’m not going to see the brief suffer.’” Then, speaking about other forensic scientists who had reviewed the evidence and disagreed with his findings, he said: “If we don’t put a brake on these turkeys, I mean, we don’t want these bastards putting that sort of stuff in writing. They’ve got to be told, you don’t say I do not agree. You ask questions all right.” Eastman’s defence was never told any of this. In fact, their attempts at trial to discredit the crown’s lead forensic witness were openly and successfully ridiculed by the prosecution. Had they been told of the witness’s behaviour, Eastman’s defence may have had cause to begin questioning the forensic evidence more thoroughly. Had they done that, they would have realised it was deeply flawed. The expert had made embarrassingly basic errors. He mixed up evidence taken from Eastman’s car and the crime scene. The mix-up was ridiculed by the inquiry’s senior counsel assisting, Liesl Chapman SC: “For a forensic scientist, it doesn’t get any worse than that.” He accidentally destroyed evidence, overstated his conclusions and used a deeply flawed database of ammunition types – prepared by a student – to reach the conclusion that the gunshot residue in Eastman’s boot and that at the scene were one and the same. The inquiry found later in 2014 that: “The issue of guilt was determined on the basis of deeply flawed forensic evidence in circumstances where the applicant was denied procedural fairness in respect of a fundamental feature of the trial process concerned with disclosure by the prosecution of all relevant material."

--------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Colin Winchester's murder and how the case against Eastman collapsed" by reporter Christopher Knaus, published by The Guardian on November 22, 2018.






SUB-HEADING: "Eastman was convicted of the murder in 1995, had the conviction quashed in 2014, faced a retrial – and has now been found not guilty."

PHOTO CAPTION: "Colin Winchester, the highest-ranking officer to be murdered in Australia’s history."

GIST: "The courtroom was eerily quiet on the day David Eastman’s murder conviction began to unravel. It was late summer 2014 and, outside the walls of the ACT supreme court, the city was flooding. Torrential rain and wild storms were bringing trees crashing down on to houses, flooding schools, swelling stormwater drains and grounding flights. But the court pressed on. The end was in sight to its almost six-month inquiry into Eastman’s 1995 conviction for the assassination of Colin Winchester – the Australian federal police assistant commissioner who commanded the ACT’s police force. It was a crime for which Eastman had spent almost 19 years behind bars and a case that, for many years, gripped the nation. Winchester returned to his Deakin home late from work, about 9.15pm on 10 January 1989. As usual, the police chief parked his car outside his widowed neighbour’s home, a small gesture to make her feel safe. Winchester’s killer waited in the darkness. Two shots were fired as he moved to get out of his car; the first to the back of his head, the second to his right temple. Inside, his wife Gwen heard noises “like sharp stones coming up on to the front of the window”. She walked outside to find her husband slumped behind the steering wheel. Winchester remains the highest-ranking officer to be murdered in Australia’s history. Rumours swirled about the involvement of the powerful Calabrian mafia, known as the ‘Ndrangheta or honoured society, who Winchester had double-crossed in a 1980s undercover sting that brought down their cannabis crops near Bungendore, in New South Wales. A vast, all-consuming police investigation instead shifted its focus to Eastman, a Treasury official, who was furious with police for refusing to drop an assault charge against him. The public watched every step of the case. First as Eastman was charged with murder in 1993. Then as he was convicted in 1995 and sentenced to life imprisonment. And on and on, as Eastman used every possible avenue of inquiry and appeal to free himself from prison and clear his name for a murder he said he never committed. But on that summer afternoon in 2014, the court’s public gallery was all but deserted. National interest had long ago waned and Winchester’s murder was fading from the consciousness of most Australians. The 2014 inquiry was poring over the forensic evidence used to tie Eastman to the murder scene. It was crucial evidence at the 1995 trial.
Gunshot residue found in Eastman’s car boot was said to be a precise match to that found at the scene of Winchester’s death. The analysis was lauded by prosecutors as strong and unchallenged evidence of Eastman’s guilt, and the trial judge later described the police work as “one of the most skilled, sophisticated and determined forensic investigations in the history of criminal investigations in Australia”. The lead forensic witness, who cannot be named, was presented to the jury as completely independent, his veracity and expertise without reproach. That all came tumbling down in a single afternoon. A secret tape, never heard before, was played through the court speakers. Lawyers glanced at one another in expectation. The recording was made by a detective working the Winchester murder, Thomas McQuillen. He had begun to have reservations about the case’s lead forensic investigator. So he secretly taped their conversations. The audio betrayed any notion that the star forensic witness was impartial. “I’m working with you. As far as I’m concerned I’m a, I’m a Crown witness, a police witness,” the supposedly independent forensic expert told McQuillen. “I’m not going to see the brief suffer.’” Then, speaking about other forensic scientists who had reviewed the evidence and disagreed with his findings, he said: “If we don’t put a brake on these turkeys, I mean, we don’t want these bastards putting that sort of stuff in writing. They’ve got to be told, you don’t say I do not agree. You ask questions all right.” Eastman’s defence was never told any of this. In fact, their attempts at trial to discredit the crown’s lead forensic witness were openly and successfully ridiculed by the prosecution. Had they been told of the witness’s behaviour, Eastman’s defence may have had cause to begin questioning the forensic evidence more thoroughly. Had they done that, they would have realised it was deeply flawed. The expert had made embarrassingly basic errors. He mixed up evidence taken from Eastman’s car and the crime scene. The mix-up was ridiculed by the inquiry’s senior counsel assisting, Liesl Chapman SC: “For a forensic scientist, it doesn’t get any worse than that.” He accidentally destroyed evidence, overstated his conclusions and used a deeply flawed database of ammunition types – prepared by a student – to reach the conclusion that the gunshot residue in Eastman’s boot and that at the scene were one and the same. The inquiry found later in 2014 that: “The issue of guilt was determined on the basis of deeply flawed forensic evidence in circumstances where the applicant was denied procedural fairness in respect of a fundamental feature of the trial process concerned with disclosure by the prosecution of all relevant material. “In addition, evidence of inadequacies and flaws in the case file and case work of the key forensic scientists were unknown to everyone involved in the investigation and trial.” Eastman was freed late on the evening of 22 August 2014. He lay beneath a blanket in the back seat of a station wagon, hiding from the cameras as he was bundled away from the prison where he had spent the past 19 years of his life. The inquiry head, Brian Martin, a former Northern Territory supreme court chief justice, said he was “fairly certain” of Eastman’s guilt but said he still had a “nagging doubt”. Martin recommended Eastman not be tried again. The ACT supreme court and local prosecutors took a different view. Prosecutors maintained that, even without the forensics, there was plenty to prove Eastman’s guilt. He was allegedly seen scoping out the area around Winchester’s house, had a burning hatred of police and Winchester, had uttered threats and bought a gun police believed to be the murder weapon. They said the case against Eastman remained overwhelming. This year, almost 30 years after Winchester’s death, it came back to the ACT supreme court for retrial. Jurors heard new evidence about the mafia’s possible involvement, though the evidence was taken largely in secret. Now-ageing witnesses were brought back, again, and the crown once more tried to build a circumstantial case pointing to Eastman’s guilt. The retrial was wholly supported by the Winchester family. The jury spent seven days deliberating. At one point this week, it looked as though it would not reach a verdict. But on Thursday morning, the news came through. A decision had been made. Eastman was not guilty. His legal aid lawyer, Angus Webb, said of the decision: “Justice has been done.” Winchester’s widow, Gwen, died without any semblance of closure. She passed away several months after Eastman’s conviction was quashed and he was released. The remaining family say they are deeply disappointed with the decision. They have been subjected to speculation, rumour, innuendo and legal proceedings since Winchester was shot dead. John Hinchey, the ACT’s former victims of crime commissioner, said police would be similarly upset. “They would be heartbroken, I would believe, and grief-stricken, again,” he told reporters outside court. “It is another day of mourning for the AFP and the Winchesters.” Eastman himself has not spoken publicly." For most of the 2014 inquiry, he was rumoured to be sitting in prison, quietly listening in via audiolink from afar. It was a notable difference from his behaviour in the 1995 trial. Then, he clashed openly with the trial judge, prosecution and his own lawyers, who he repeatedly sacked only to be left self-representing during critical parts of the hearing. “It would not be an exaggeration to describe it as chaotic,” an appeal court noted in 1997. Eastman made “vile, foul-mouthed, vituperative comments” to the judge and prosecutor, and he was removed from the trial for a time and placed in a separate room with a two-way video link. “His honour was able to supervise the sound control so that the volume could be turned down when the appellant’s abusive language warranted such action,” the appeal court noted. Eastman, who has been found to suffer a paranoid personality disorder, has tried, unsuccessfully, to claim he was unfit to plead in the 1995 trial. He said police deliberately placed him under immense pressure during their investigation, hoping he would crack and make a confession. The resources deployed against Eastman were vast. Police bugged his apartment and tailed him everywhere. It was deliberately overt and “in-your-face” surveillance at times, the inquiry found. Police knew of Eastman’s personality disorder, and were advised to keep regular contact with their suspect, in the hope of tipping him over the edge. They falsely accused him of “homosexual activities with boys” and would often knock on his door unannounced to “return property”. On one occasion, police stuck their foot in the door when Eastman tried to dismiss them. They monitored him during him his daily swim at a Canberra pool and had a female officer sunbathe in the pool every day. The lead detective on the case, Richard Ninness, explained the tactic. “He’d usually go to the Olympic swimming pool in Civic and we orchestrated a situation with the policewoman, she was sunbathing at the pool on a daily basis,” he said. “He struck up a rapport with her and invited her on an outing and he took her to the war memorial and we knew in advance where they were going.” When he returned to his car from the war memorial, police were waiting for him. Ninness would even swim at the pool at the same time as Eastman, to keep eyes on him. “I used to go to the swimming pool and he used to swim at the same Olympic pool … it was important that I keep some sort of visual, even though I didn’t talk to him, that he actually saw me there and my presence,” Ninness said. Eastman frequently complained of harassment and his lawyer, Stuart Pilkington, wrote to the police to tell them his client did not want to participate in an interview. In response, Pilkington said he got a drunken call from Ninness. He told the inquiry: “Detective Sergeant Ninness said words to the following effect: ‘I got your fucking letter. If I want to talk to your little cunt of a client, I’ll fucking well talk to him whenever I fucking well like. You can stick your fucking letter where it hurts most’.” The inquiry found the strategy was deliberate and “inappropriate”, even for the attitudes accepted in the 1980s and 1990s. “The harassing and provocative conduct was undertaken with the deliberate intention of provoking the applicant into saying something incriminating, which could be recorded on listening devices in his home,” the inquiry found. The jury’s verdict on Thursday once again leaves the Winchester case open, again. It means the murderer of the highest ranking police officer in Australia’s history remains at large."

Thew entire story can be read at:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/nov/23/colin-winchesters-and-how-the-case-against-david-eastman-collapsed

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/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;