Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

Did Graham Stafford Murder Leanne Holland?

Insight into to the crime scene investigation

Conclusion

  • The evidence that was produced during the initial investigation by the Police in 1991 was riddled with malpractice conducted by the Investigators, which under normal circumstances would have made the exhibits inadmissible to the courts.

  • By failing to maintain an auditable chain of evidence, doubt is cast upon the exhibits through risk of alterations or tampering occurring during the undisclosed period.

  • Protocols, procedures and quality assurance are key in for the admission of evidence within an investigation to by protecting, maintaining and securing the integrity and accuracy of evidence.

  • This was failed to have been conducted throughout the entirety of the investigation.

  • Based upon the examination of the crime scene, evidence provide by the Police is now defined as inconclusive as to where Graham Stafford committed the Crime.

  • Failure to follow protocols and maintain quality assurance of the evidence and crime scenes, irreparably altered integrity of the investigation, making it challenging to ascertain if Stafford actually committed the crime.

References

Crucial evidence Against Stafford

[1] Crowley, G, Wilson, P. Who Killed Leanne Holland? : One girl’s murder and one man’s injustice. Updated Edition. Australia: New Holland Publishers; 2010. 19-31, 52-58, 71-76,

[2] Wiltermuth, D. The Law around a Miscarriage of Justice in Queensland. Bond University Student Law Review. 2007; 3(1): 21-25.lnmm

[3] R v. Stafford. QCA 407 (2009).

[4] Napper,R. The Queen and Graham Stafford expart Attourney General of the State of Queensland (Afidavit). 2007.

[5] Edited by Peter White. 2010. Crime Scene to Court: The Essentials of Forensic Science. 3rd Edition. Britian: Royal Society of Chemistry. Pp: 31-33, 86-105.

[6] Edited by Byrd,J and Castner,J. 2010. Forensic Entomology: The Utility of Arthropods in Legal Investigation. 2nd Edition. Singapore: CRC Press. Pp: 127-382.

[7] Bell,S. Encyclopedia of Forensic Science. New York: Fact On Files Books; 2004.Pp 116.

[8] Li,R. Forensic Biology. USA: CRC Press; 2008. Pp: 85-92.

[9] Greenberg, B, Kunich,J. Entomology and the Law: Flies as Forensic Indicators. Cambridge: The Cambridge Press; 2002. Pp: 184-203.

Summary[5],[6],[7]

The essential pieces of evidence of the Crown against Graham Stafford culminated down to:

  • The Entomological Evidence
  • Provided Postmortem Interval [PMI]/ Time Elapse since Death
  • Relied upon by the Police to supply entomological-based PMI than a PMI derived from the body due to Postmortem changes occurring to the exposed corpse.

The integrity maintained within the Leanne Holland murder case was minimal, limiting the credibility of the evidence produced to the Court by the Crown prosecutor’s.

  • The crime scenes were not methodically and accurately examined, which is standard for examination of the scene.
  • Failure to ensure the protection and security of Redbank Plains scene negatively influenced the integrity of the evidence ascertained from this location.
  • Lack of protective clothing worn during examination of ANY of the crime scenes insinuates a high risk of contamination of exhibits retrieved by the police.
  • Compounded by fingerprint analysis occurring before blood testing of the Alice street residence, which may have resulted in the multiple false positives attained by Crick.
  • Continuity of the exhibits was not well maintained, which was exemplified within the case via gaps in the auditable chain of evidence and the loss of the alleged murder weapon (Stafford’s silver hammer).
  • The crucial PMI that was established during the initial investigation was calculably a day earlier than the new PMI calculated PMI, which was based upon more accurate meteorological data.

The evidence that was produced during the initial investigation by the Police in 1991 was riddled with malpractice conducted by the Investigators, which under normal circumstances would have made the exhibits inadmissible to the courts.

The Question: Did Graham Stafford Murder Leanne Holland?

Remains uncertain

Forensic Examination

Issues with the Entomological Evidence[7],[8],[9]

Entomological Evidence [1],[3],[4]

There were three specimen’s that were utilised to produce the PMI:

  • S1 – maggot retrieved from Stafford’s car
  • S2 and S3 – maggots retrieved from the body recovery site

These samples were initially received by David Bennet, a police officer qualified in Entomology.

  • observed S1 specimen to be blackened and disecated
  • Preserved and prepared the evidence for transport to Berryl Morris, an entomological specialist, to calculate PMI.

Detective Fynes-Clinton transported the entomological evidence to Berryl Morris, who was located in Adelaide.

  • Described S1 as being healthy and among largest of all the samples.
  • Calculated the PMI to have been sometime Monday (23/9/91) based upon meteorological data received from the Archerfield weather Station.

Contradictory statements were given by Bennet and Morris about S1, which resulted from mislabelling of specimens when a majority of the labels were lost.

  • Crick, when labelling the specimen containers failed to abide by entomological labelling procedure
  • A dual labelling technique (internal and external label) written in pencil in case of preservation solution leakage or loss of external label
  • Ink is “removed” from paper when in contact with the preservation solution used in preserving the specimens

Meteorological data was received from incorrect weather station.

  • The Archerfield Station was further away from the body dump site than the Ipswich weather station
  • Ipswich station recorded average temperature 2o higher than the Archerfield
  • Altered PMI from Monday to approximately 10am

Meteorological data used to estimate PMI of maggot extricated from the suspects boot did not reflect environmental conditions (temperature) it was subjected to.

  • Crowley (private investigator) produced an experiment that showed differences between internal (car) and external temperatures.
  • When temperature externally was 31o it was 44o inside the boot; 14o outside, it was 11o internally
  • New data further changed the PMI to approximately 10am and 6:30pm Tuesday evening

There were three crime scenes relevant towards the investigation:

  • The 70a Alice Street residence
  • Stafford’s (red) Holden Gemini Sedan
  • The body dump site (Redbank Plains scene)

At each of these scenes, the forensic team lead by Sergeant Crick, examined each of the scenes.

Case Timeline[1]

70a Alice Street Residence

Staffords Holden Gemini Sedan [3],[4]

Redbank Plains Body Recovery Site [1], [3]

Problems with the Redbank Plains Body Recovery Site Examination [5],[7],[8],[9]

Problems with Stafford’s Vehicle Examination [4],[6],[7]

Problems with the 70a Alice Street Examination [4],[5],[6]

Upon entrance into the residence, Wednesday morning (25/9/91), The crime scene investigators initiated fingerprint analysis of the house while conducting evidentiary processing of the scene[1].

  • Forensic personnel dusted relevant surfaces with ‘Magna Powder’[4]
  • A metallic particles suspended within the powder
  • During the evidentiary processing of the household, the police seized many potential exhibits.
  • E.g., Clothes worn by Stafford on Monday yet to be washed; Plastic bags and old shower curtain found in the garbage; silver hammer[1],[3]
  • Following fingerprint analysis, Crick conducted presumptive testing of blood in areas of interest.[4]
  • Use Sangur Strip Tests
  • Multiple positive results were found within the kitchen, hallway and bathroom.
  • A significant quantity of blood was found in the bathroom
  • Stafford becomes “prime” suspect in Leanne’s disappearance[1]
  • Noted in major incidence log

Sergeant Crick conducted the examination and Sangur testing of Stafford’s vehicle before proceeding into the Alice St premises.

  • From statements received from Melissa Holland, the folding chair kept in the boot was missing
  • Crown implicated the removal of the chair allowed for transport of Leanne’s body
  • Stafford stated that as netball season finished, he no longer needed the chair in the boot to watch Melissa practice and it was annoying
  • Presumptive blood testing was conducted on several surfaces of the car which were positive.
  • Stearing wheel
  • lid and lip of the boot
  • Crick observed a sole maggot amongst the contents of the boot.

The vehicle was seized by the Police for further examination back at Police Headquarters

  • Lack of protective clothing (mentioned previously).

  • Crick was observed to have come in contact with a Sangur strip during testing of the steering wheel.
  • High risk of contamination
  • Compounded by small laceration on back of Crick’s finger

  • Crick failed to correctly document and retrieve the entomological specimen (the maggot) from the boot.
  • Left the maggot in the car overnight before retrieving it Thursday (26/9/91)
  • Did not notify any other personnel of the existence of the specimen.
  • Failed to maintain auditable chain of evidence
  • There was an blatant disregard wearing protective clothing by any of the crime scene investigators throughout the examination. Two distinct reasons for wearing protective clothes:
  • Health and Safety of (scene) examiners and colleagues,
  • Anti-contamination measure
  • Crick was observed to have a cut on the back a finger which came in contact with sensitive Sangur strips.
  • The later of which ensures the integrity and credibility of the scene and evidence collected.
  • Fingerprint analysis superseded bloodstain examination
  • The metallic particles used were present in trace amount on similarly tested surfaces and within the immediate atmospheric vicinity
  • Potentially to produce false positives.
  • Police lost the hammer retrieved from the premise.
  • Police/Crown was unable to produce the exhibit at the court

Thursday afternoon (26/9/91), Leanne’s body was found dumped beneath a tree off a trail within the Redbank Plains bush land. The pathologist, Dr Ashby conducted the initial examination of the body:

  • naked from the waist down
  • Dried blood covered body and clothing
  • skull near unrecognizable due to blows struck to head by blunt force instrument
  • Nature of wounds suggested blood “spurting” out, hence not death scene
  • bruising and laceration to face and forehead
  • Evidence of sexual assault to back and one of her thighs
  • Cigarette/lighter burns ranging her entire body
  • insects (maggots) were retrieved from the body and handed to Crick
  • At the scene, there was the presence of multiple police personnel without a role.
  • Congregating around the surrounding vicinity of the decease’s body.
  • Smoking and discarding of cigarettes on the ground.
  • Not following cleared, standard pathway through the site.
  • Disrupting and affecting the integrity of the scene and evidence
  • None of those conducting the investigation of the scene wore protective clothing.
  • Exception of Dr Ashby
  • Failure to abide by health and safety regulations
  • Cross-contamination of evidence
  • Failure to ensure protection and security of the scenes integrity and credibility
  • Entomological sample retrieved by Dr Ashby was incorrectly processed.
  • Processed with Crick’s unique identification code
  • Incorrect recording and documentation of chain of evidence

Monday, 23rd September 1991: Leanne Holland was last seen.

Tuesday, 24th September 1991: The police were notified Leanne’s missing status.

Wednesday, 25th September 1991: Police start investigation, initiating search at Alice St Home.

Thursday, 26th September 1991: Leanne’s body was found discarded off Redbank Plains track.

Saturday, 28th September 1991: Graham Stafford was officially charged with Leanne’s murder.

Monday, 30th September 1991: Stafford brought to Magistrate Court to face charges.

Key Elements of the Crown's Case

The deceased was last seen alive by Terry (father) and sister (Melissa), on Monday morning,( 23/9/91)when left shared residence to go to work.

Stafford, in de facto relationship with Melissa, was alone in house with deceased and was on rostered day off.

Forensic examination of the bathroom in the house revealed traces of human blood.

Swabs of human blood were obtained from lip and lid of the boot of Stafford’s car.

DNA testing established that blood found on 3 items within the trunk of car;

A blanket

A red and black sport bag where Stafford kept his tools

A chux cloth

(Blood) found to be same type of deceased, occurring on 1-1.5% of Australian population.

Hair on sponge in boot consistent with hair of the deceased.

Only Stafford and Melissa had keys to the boot of Stafford’s red Holden Gemini Sedan; Melissa was excluded as suspect in Leanne’s murder.

A hammer described by Melissa as a silver hammer with a rectangular head belonging to Stafford and which was kept in the bedroom was noted by her to missing after 23/9/91.

Maggot found by the Police (Crick) in boot of Stafford’s car matched those taken from the corpse on 26/9/91 in terms of species and age.

The nature of injuries inflicted on Leanne was such that whoever inflicted them intended to cause death/grievous bodily harm.

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi