Allison Baden-Clay - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD #40

[DrWatson]

Again, apologies for the off-topic, but here is an interesting (short) read about the Leanne Holland case and Graham Stafford for those who may not be familiar with it:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/graham-stafford-aus-ex-cop-who-helped.html

 

[AAAA]

Bit off topic - sorry - but in response to Marly's pointer to the Leanne Holland case - the police really do not like losing, do they? Graham Stafford has had his conviction quashed, and there are several high profile people who are convinced of his innocence, including criminologists, and an ex-detective who worked on the case. Yet the police case has only ever focused on the one suspect, and they STILL can't get their focus off him.

I really have to wonder sometimes. I've read quite a bit about that case, and I'm probably leaning fairly heavily to the side that believes that Stafford was innocent all along. But the police have just spent 2 years allegedly reviewing their own case, and come to the conclusion - still - that it WAS him.

So - who is right? The public prosecutor won't try him again, so we'll never find out this "new evidence" the police say they have. And criminologists like Paul Wilson are convinced he is innocent, and that they in fact know who DID do it.p



Are we looking at police with blinkers on here, or a criminal who is simply maintaining his innocence despite everything? And will we ever really find out?

Sorry for the off-topic reference. Back to normal service now....

I personally know the man that was quoted in the book "who killed Leanne Holland". He has given his statement that there is no way that Graham Stafford's tyre matched the tyre tracks at the scene. I personally believe that he didn't do it. I think it's unfortunate for both Graham and Leanne's family that it will go no further. There is a lot of talk about who may have been responsible. OT, sorry mods. IMO.

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Bit off topic - sorry - but in response to Marly's pointer to the Leanne Holland case - the police really do not like losing, do they? Graham Stafford has had his conviction quashed, and there are several high profile people who are convinced of his innocence, including criminologists, and an ex-detective who worked on the case. Yet the police case has only ever focused on the one suspect, and they STILL can't get their focus off him.

I really have to wonder sometimes. I've read quite a bit about that case, and I'm probably leaning fairly heavily to the side that believes that Stafford was innocent all along. But the police have just spent 2 years allegedly reviewing their own case, and come to the conclusion - still - that it WAS him.

So - who is right? The public prosecutor won't try him again, so we'll never find out this "new evidence" the police say they have. And criminologists like Paul Wilson are convinced he is innocent, and that they in fact know who DID do it.

Are we looking at police with blinkers on here, or a criminal who is simply maintaining his innocence despite everything? And will we ever really find out?

Sorry for the off-topic reference. Back to normal service now....

Jumping in before reading background - thinking that they possibly can't retry him again because of this exception to the 'double jeopardy' rule - (autrefois convict and autrefois acquit.) The 'new evidence' might not get up under 678D.

678B Court may order retrial for murder—fresh and compelling
evidence
(1) The Court may, on the application of the director of public
prosecutions, order an acquitted person to be retried for the
offence of murder if satisfied that—
(a) there is fresh and compelling evidence against the
acquitted person in relation to the offence; and
(b) in all the circumstances it is in the interests of justice for
the order to be made.
(2) The Court may order a person to be retried for the offence of
murder under this section even if the person had been charged
with and acquitted of a lesser offence.
(3) If the Court orders an acquitted person to be retried for the
offence of murder, the Court must quash the person’s acquittal
or remove the acquittal as a bar to the person being retried.

678D Fresh and compelling evidence—meaning
(1) This section applies for the purpose of deciding under this
chapter whether there is fresh and compelling evidence
against an acquitted person in relation to the offence of
murder.
(2) Evidence is fresh if—
(a) it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the
person was acquitted; and
(b) it could not have been adduced in those proceedings
with the exercise of reasonable diligence.
(3) Evidence is compelling if—
(a) it is reliable; and
(b) it is substantial; and
(c) in the context of the issues in dispute in the proceedings
in which the person was acquitted, it is highly probative
of the case against the acquitted person.

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/legisltn/current/c/crimincode.pdf
Criminal Code Act 1899

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Me too! OT- but interesting to read about recent accusations about Paul Wilson.

That guy has never impressed me much:twocents:

 

[alioop]

LegallyB, Graham Stafford wasn't acquitted, his conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered which has not and seems will not happen.

 

[AAAA]

Jumping in before reading background - thinking that they possibly can't retry him again because of this exception to the 'double jeopardy' rule - (autrefois convict and autrefois acquit.) The 'new evidence' might not get up under 678D.

678B Court may order retrial for murder—fresh and compelling
evidence
(1) The Court may, on the application of the director of public
prosecutions, order an acquitted person to be retried for the
offence of murder if satisfied that—
(a) there is fresh and compelling evidence against the
acquitted person in relation to the offence; and
(b) in all the circumstances it is in the interests of justice for
the order to be made.
(2) The Court may order a person to be retried for the offence of
murder under this section even if the person had been charged
with and acquitted of a lesser offence.
(3) If the Court orders an acquitted person to be retried for the
offence of murder, the Court must quash the person’s acquittal
or remove the acquittal as a bar to the person being retried.

678D Fresh and compelling evidence—meaning
(1) This section applies for the purpose of deciding under this
chapter whether there is fresh and compelling evidence
against an acquitted person in relation to the offence of
murder.
(2) Evidence is fresh if—
(a) it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the
person was acquitted; and
(b) it could not have been adduced in those proceedings
with the exercise of reasonable diligence.
(3) Evidence is compelling if—
(a) it is reliable; and
(b) it is substantial; and
(c) in the context of the issues in dispute in the proceedings
in which the person was acquitted, it is highly probative
of the case against the acquitted person.

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/legisltn/current/c/crimincode.pdf
Criminal Code Act 1899

I fully believe that the killer was another man named and also questioned. If you want to read about it download the book, it might give you a bit more info on the case if you're not from QLD. Don't forget that forensics were pretty basic then, but whoever did this, I wish that the powers that be would not sweep it under the carpet cause its too hard!

 

[LegallyBrunette]

Again, apologies for the off-topic, but here is an interesting (short) read about the Leanne Holland case and Graham Stafford for those who may not be familiar with it:

http://smithforensic.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/graham-stafford-aus-ex-cop-who-helped.html

Thanks for that Doc. Now I'm going to read the transcripts :shush:

 

[LegallyBrunette]

I fully believe that the killer was another man named and also questioned. If you want to read about it download the book, it might give you a bit more info on the case if you're not from QLD. Don't forget that forensics were pretty basic then, but whoever did this, I wish that the powers that be would not sweep it under the carpet cause its too hard!

Thanks for this, I'm going to read the trial transcripts and see what the judges had to say

 

[alioop]

Thanks for this, I'm going to read the trial transcripts and see what the judges had to say

I'd love to hear your thoughts when you have read up on this case. From what I have read, scrutiny of the evidence presented at trial and other information about another person being the likely killer very strongly indicate that Graham Stafford is not Leanne's killer.

 

[AAAA]

Thanks for this, I'm going to read the trial transcripts and see what the judges had to say

It's worth looking at to form your own opinion. The way things were handled back then as compared to now are completely different. This was such a huge case here at the time there is much speculation that the police decided who they wanted and set out to get him. Anyway, all this is way off topic so back to the bumbling Gerard! IMO.

 

[LegallyBrunette]

I'd love to hear your thoughts when you have read up on this case. From what I have read, scrutiny of the evidence presented at trial and other information about another person being the likely killer very strongly indicate that Graham Stafford is not Leanne's killer.

Ali, you've probably already said this - reading today's media release that DPP has decided not in public interest to proceed with prosecution.
'Public interest' is the second limb of the test, so DPP must have been satisfied as to the 'sufficient evidence' test.

Just saying this to clarify the Police position.

 

[summer_breeze]

Hello everyone!

Happy Holidays to you all. May the joy of the season fill your hearts and homes.

Merry Christmas Allison. You are in my thoughts.

~Summer_Breeze

 

[LegallyBrunette]

It's worth looking at to form your own opinion. The way things were handled back then as compared to now are completely different. This was such a huge case here at the time there is much speculation that the police decided who they wanted and set out to get him. Anyway, all this is way off topic so back to the bumbling Gerard! IMO.

In a perverse way it's a breath of fresh air for a brief time, away from the tales of Basil of Brookfield.ullhair:

 

[DrWatson]

Ali, you've probably already said this - reading today's media release that DPP has decided not in public interest to proceed with prosecution.
'Public interest' is the second limb of the test, so DPP must have been satisfied as to the 'sufficient evidence' test.

Just saying this to clarify the Police position.

May also be simply that Stafford has already served 15 years in jail, so they're highly unlikely to put him back in there again.

Or maybe, the DPP may have read the book, and have doubts....

 

[summer_breeze]

Marlywings or myself would be happy to start a thread for you to discuss in detail the Graham Stafford/Leanne case if you would like! Just let us know!

Sounds very interesting.

 

[DrWatson]

Hello everyone!

Happy Holidays to you all. May the joy of the season fill your hearts and homes.

Merry Christmas Allison. You are in my thoughts.

~Summer_Breeze

Thanks Summer B - that's a lovely touch of normality among a forum full of crimes And the same to you, Kimster, and the other Mods. Thanks for looking after us all :rocker:

 

[AAAA]

Marlywings or myself would be happy to start a thread for you to discuss in detail the Graham Stafford/Leanne case if you would like! Just let us know!

Sounds very interesting.

Hi there Summer, given that its back in the news and a huge case in QLD I think that's a great idea. Get your hands on transcripts of the case and a copy of the book "Who Killed Leanne Holland" if you can. It's a little bit like the disappearance of Sharron Phillips. Another mystery....

 

[summer_breeze]

Thanks AAAA!

The link below will take you to a discussion thread for the Graham Stafford/Leanne Holland case.

It is currently located in the CRIMES IN THE NEWS forum. We can move it later if need be.

:cheers:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8650846#post8650846"]Queensland DPP says it will not retry Graham Stafford - Leanne Holland - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[Susan12]

But it IS a good point they make. And along with the Facetime call having apparently been disproved, it's a bit of a concern that the credibility of the forensic examiners who analysed the phone is starting to look a bit dodgy...

I hadn't heard the FaceTime call was disproved. How was that; was that in MSM?

By the way regarding the interference with the corpse charge, I'm hearing the missing hands rumour again from reasonable sources.

 

[Aberline_1979]

Lucky that he was watching Telly with his mummy

I reckon that, while planning to "dispose" of his wife, GBC watched a few PERRY MASON episodes because he thought they were documentaries