POST: "Under Investigation with Liz Hayes sets, 2023 return," posted by Ryno, on 'Ryno's TV' on February 1, 2023. (Ryno is a media analyst who describes himself as having a "passion for television.")
GIST: "Join Australia’s leading experts and investigators at the War Table where the country’s most baffling crimes are reopened and re-examined on Under Investigation with Liz Hayes when it returns next week.
This marks the return of Nine’s flagship studio program for 2023 when acclaimed investigative journalist Liz Hayes, together with new teams of criminal and forensic experts, puts eight captivating cold cases under the microscope. There’s fresh evidence, exclusive witnesses – and extraordinary revelations............
The program also investigates a legal scandal without parallel in the Western world: the case of South Australia’s chief forensic officer, Dr Colin Manock, who for more than 30 years conducted thousands of autopsies and gave expert testimony in hundreds of cases without the key specialist qualification. Innocents were jailed, potential murderers went free – and as revealed by UI, senior members of South Australia’s criminal justice system knew the truth."
The entire post can be read at:
under-investigation-with-liz-hayes-sets-2023-return
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: My thanks for bringing this program to my attention, to Dr. Bob Moles an Australian legal scholar who, together with Prof. Bibi Sangha, has fought to vindicate the all too many victims of Colin Manock, such as Derek Bromley still wrongfully behind bars - and to expose the role played by South Australian authorities in protecting Manock, in spite of their knowledge of his lack of qualifications and incompetence. Indeed, Dr. Moles did not mince words in an a recent letter to South Australian Attorney General Kyam Maher, which read in part:
"The crown’s pathological evidence at the trial was given by Dr Manock. At the time Manock gave his evidence, it was not revealed that his employer had previously (1975) given sworn evidence in the Supreme Court of South Australia to say that Manock was not qualified to certify cause of death – and that he had no expert qualifications. (This is the transcript containing that evidence)
If those facts had been revealed at the time of the trial, as they should have been, then Dr Manock’s evidence would not have been admitted.
Shortly before Mr Bromley’s trial, the High Court had determined in the case of Mrs Emily Perry that Dr Manock’s evidence was ‘not fit to be taken into consideration’ and that prosecutors in South Australia should use people who are ‘substantially’ and not just ‘nominally’ experts in their field.
It was subsequently revealed that Dr Manock had made false and misleading statements in his various job applications to the forensic science centre in South Australia. (The applications are available here and concern his prior experience in the UK)
The Coroner of South Australia had also determined that Dr Manock was not only incompetent, but that he had also given false evidence on oath before the Coroner. (This was in relation to the South Australian Baby Deaths, further details here)
For the DPP to continue to insist that the matter before the High Court should be resolved by the court without disclosing the information now known about Dr Manock’s lack of qualifications and other manifest failures would be, I suggest, a serious breach of prosecutorial duties.
As the Senior Law Officer in South Australia, you have a legal duty to ensure that the DPP complies with his legal obligations, and in particular does not mislead the High Court. If you should fail to properly exercise that responsibility, then clearly it will have implications for the integrity of the legal system in South Australia and beyond.
You should be aware that a major television network is about to broadcast a national program on these issues as part of one of their major prime-time series. It is due to go to air within the next few weeks. It would be most unfortunate if the Bromley appeal were to proceed on the basis of information widely known to the Australian public, but apparently, not known by the High Court of Australia.
There are of course grave concerns being expressed at a national level about the extent to which the voices of aboriginal people are not being heard, and how that impacts upon the numbers of aboriginal people being incarcerated. If Mr Bromley’s conviction is overturned by the High Court, that would set a record for Australia, Britain and Canada. In none of those jurisdictions has any person been imprisoned for so long (40 years) before being found to have been wrongly convicted.
If, of course, Mr Bromley’s conviction is not overturned, and it should then transpire that the High Court was misinformed as to the circumstances of his trial and subsequent appeals, that will be bound to create an even greater international concern about the state of our justice system. As our first Aboriginal Attorney-General in South Australia, it would be reassuring to know that you take these issues concerning an aboriginal man seriously, and that you are doing all within your power to ensure that respect for human rights and the rule of law is being scrupulously observed. Regrettably, that has not been the experience to date, as the forthcoming television program will reveal.
Yours sincerely,Dr Robert N Moles ACII (UK) LLB (Hons) (Belf) PhD (Edin); Adjunct Associate Professor (Business, Govt and Law) Flinders University Networked Knowledge;
The entire letter can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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;
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
------------------------------------------------------------------
YET ANOTHER FINAL WORD:
David Hammond, one of Broadwater’s attorneys who sought his exoneration, told the Syracuse Post-Standard, “Sprinkle some junk science onto a faulty identification, and it’s the perfect recipe for a wrongful conviction.”
------------------------------------------------------------------
