The laywer X case here is just one of many many cases occurring in Australia where it has highlighted the failings of our police force.
As a society we have grown up to place our faith and trust in a system that was meant to protect us all and we could rely upon that system to in times of need for the truth to be heard and ultimately for justice to prevail. However it seems that the very people we entrust to seek out the truth are burying the truth for the sake of securing 'that conviction'.
As stated by Anthony Dowlsey (herald Sun senior crime reporter), The Lawyer X and Silk-Miller story share a key element: Victoria Police didn't want the public to read either of them. The result is upon us all now; that police had manipulated lawyer Nicola Gobbo as she was playing both sides of the fence. In the Garry Silk and Rodney Miller case, it has emerged that doctored witness statements were placed before the court in the trial of Jason Roberts.
But these are only two cases that have been highlighted. There are plenty more. My husbands case has all the same elements as these cases. And if you think this is just occurring in Victoria, think again. Ian Jones from the ACT who was jailed for 4 months on false rape allegations by his then fiancee Sarah Parkinson highlighted in a recent interview that police failed to “interview or substantiate any of the accusations made by Ms Parkinson with any member of the family, destroyed evidence that did not suit their case, manufactured evidence (and) threatened and intimidated witnesses that did not or would not corroborate their wild accusations,”. The Sue Neil-Fraser case in Tasmania that has been extensively covered by Eve Ash in Shadow of Doubt, highlights a substantially flawed police investigation of which the police version of events doesn't fit the objective evidence.
In all of these cases there is a common trend emerging. The police are using a methodology to investigate serious crimes using a methodology known as 'researcher bias' or 'pseudo science'. That is they decide prior to investigating what 'could' have happened, and then only find the evidence to fit this idea (hypothesis).
Here's the example using my husbands case;
Upon arrival at the accident scene the leading investigator was told by a senior sergeant that "the black car has hit the blue car up the rear". The sergeant had only been on the scene for a very very short period of time. No reconstruction or calculation of the scene had been done and the sergeant isn't a scientist.
The leading investigator (who was deemed an expert in the eyes of the court) then proceeded to only find that evidence to support this statement. In his investigation the lead investigator with his team;
did not bother to inspect both cars accurately. In fact he didn't even check the engine numbers accurately. If had he would have discovered that the engine number of the black ute (my husbands car) was in fact different to the one that he reported in the police brief.
did not bother to calculate the speed of the blue car (the other car). He was apparently trained in crush analysis and had undertaken a total of 18 days in trained specific courses to calculate speed but didn't bother to calculate the speed of the blue car.
did not bother to check or even look for either of the ECU or 'black boxes' in the car, to determine the true speed.
did not secure all witness on the day failing to even secure the first witness on the scene. I found this first witness on scene via a facebook post after the accident!
secured witnesses that were not even at the scene that day and had nothing to do with the accident.
overlooked vital evidence that the driver of the blue vehicle had a phone in his hand and was the reason as to why the other driver veered into the lane that day.
Never bother to correlate tread patterns and because of this placed my husbands car in the wrong lane. He simply re-plotted the cars on the road in his reconstruction using no scientific analysis or procedure.
did not bother to secure the black car in a reliable secure tow yard. It was tampered with and evidence was collected from my husbands car whilst open to the public. They did however remove the blue car and place in a police tow yard.
He applied incorrect formulas to calculate speed (he changed his calculations 4 times!), and furthermore applied a formula that was not applicable to a 100km freeway. The formula was only good for upto 83.1kms/hr.
When psuedo science is used to investigate, the results of ensuring that the evidence fits the crime involves a certain level of corruption and collusion on one's behalf to ensure that the lie is maintained through out the investigation and subsequent trial.
In the Jones case; Mr Jones said ACT police “passed information from phone intercepts, texts and emails either directly to her (Ms Parkinson or through her NSW Police boyfriend (now husband) to cover the glaring holes in her statements, which were then amended to fill these holes. A former Victorian policeman who was one of the first at the scene of the murders of officers Sergeant Gary Silk and Senior Constable Rodney Miller has told the corruption watchdog IBAC there is a possibility he committed perjury.
In my husbands case the lead detective and his team;
Provided in-correct information to the court when questioned about the availability of data for the ECU module in the Blue Ford and in the Black Holden also. He misled the court by ‘avoiding’ the questions and then went on to provide incorrect definitions to the court when discussing the ability for these cars to retain speed information. The answers he gave in court were found to be totally incorrect after trial.
The lead detective directly lied to the court in trial by informing the court that the Black Holden Ute had no data available. He was directly asked by the judge on several occasions regarding this. Notably I found a speed recording device in my husbands car after exhaustion of all appeals and at the start of my own investigation.
He blamed an error in his speed calculations on a machine that he used at the time that would not have allowed for an error to have been recorded at all. At the time of trial everyone including our own defence lawyers believed him!
The investigation team submitted trace evidence that was collected from my husbands car after it had been released to the public!! This trace evidence should never have been allowed in court.
Provided an 'out of date' sick certificate to the court from the first attending police officer on scene to ensure he could not attend. This police officer had made a statement prior about the passenger only being alive at time of impact and not the driver - this police officer and his statement were vital to my husbands case. No one picked up the error on the sick certificate. I did after trial when I became privy to all this evidence.
Submitted witnesses at trial that weren't even at the accident scene with one witness identifying the sound and speed of a car from his balcony that he was standing on several streets back from the freeway. Even when he couldn't see the freeway at all from his balcony!!
Provided no GPS data for phone records of the other driver - simply forgot about that even though we are part of the MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty) with Google if which as far back as 2009 through the application of the Transparency Report produced by Goolge identifies that Australian Government agencies have been readily contacting Google for access to data.
Submitted no police recreation. I did this after and you can view it here.
Ensured that the only real witness that was driving through the accident scene did not attend blaming it on his age. In a comprehensive analysis of witness statements this man and his wife were the only true witnesses to the accident occurring. All other witnesses were not in the actual location of the accident scene.
Submitted a ‘Police report on the collision’ that had incorrect methodology applied to determine speed calculations. He used methodology that would provide a 15% higher speed determination. I engaged the services of Professor Jesse Mason from Detroit to undertake a full comprehensive reconstruction to identify the speeds of both vehicle with a comprehensive video reconstruction also. It was found that the initial yaw marks could not possibly belong to the my husbands car but the Ford and that prior to yawing my husbands car was traveling at or near the speed of 100km/hr.
And if your a good lier, you always remember the lie.
The investigator didn't.
At time of investigation he simply placed my husbands car in the right hand lane. Though in trial he inadvertently told the court numerous times that the blue car was in the right hand lane and veered over to the left hand lane. At one stage he clarified the path of my husbands car that he had placed in the right hand lane by stating.. "there is a corner coming up so he's steering to that corner...he's only just yawing, we have returned to the correct direction, seems to indicate he has a degree of control". In this conversation note the word return. If my husband was to return to his lane, being the RHL as the investigator says he was, he would have ended up in the trees where the blue car unfortunately did end up. He has inadvertently discussed the movement of the blue car but attributed to the black car (my husbands car). Following this statement in court he quickly back tracked and said; "Like I said, we're not exactly sure where the crash - where they actually touched".
But the best part of psuedo science is when the lie begins to unravel and people such as my self start asking questions. To ensure the integrity of the lie the cover-up commences.
In my husbands case, the investigating team failed to disclose some very important evidence to both the prosecution and defence (that I have recently discovered). This evidence resulted in reports being written based on unsubstantiated claims, that went before trial. The result of this non-disclosed evidence is ..... a suppression order on me!!
But that's not all... in my endeavors to discover the truth, I learnt of an off duty CFA person being first on the scene who I wanted to obtain a statement from. The text message I received from my informant was; "my enquiry has prompted some unwanted attention. I have received a formal request from a Senior officer of CFA who has requested me not to contact him about the incident. He was serious about the situation. My advice would be leave it alone. Remember you didn't get this info from me"... this text message did provide me with a name however of the first on scene...but CFA don't want anyone to speak about it.
How is it that this is and continuing to occur?
The application of pseudo since by some units of the police force is occurring due to a a very large inconsistency in our law. You see the law does not clearly define what an expert is before the court. There is a a guideline for expert evidence but there is no 'check system' in place by the courts to ensure that experts entering the court are bona-fide experts. And here's where the problem lies. What the police force think is an expert by their standards, in the realms of science from a university standpoint many of them are not experts at all. There is no vetting system in place and because of this, police experts are presenting unchecked evidence to court rooms and undertaking investigations using 'pseudo science' methodology that no scientist would ever think of using!!
Marry this up with other factors occurring such as defense teams that fail to forensically investigate, and a legal system that is not connecting to the public when they enter the system, the result is a guaranteed criminal conviction for the police. The convicted person going to jail is then on a very long journey of proving their innocence. In the case of Henry Keogh from South Australia that took 20 years!
For a person to prove their story whilst in jail is IMMENSELY difficult, especially once you have exhausted your only appeal opportunity in this state. And here is where the second biggest error lies within our current law. You can have all the 'fresh and new evidence' that shows you didn't commit the crime or have been incarcerated on a miscarriage of justice, but our law doesn't allow it to be heard. You just simply can't waltz back to court. Your now out of the realms of the court rooms. Your in outer space!! Your at the mercy of the Attorney General of this state and you must apply directly to that person.
This person doesn't have to consider your application at all. You are at the total mercy of one person deciding your fate. And if that person who holds the AG badge does decide to look at it, well that could take years, given the workload they have of other cases, and their own ministerial portfolio to undertake. To bad if your innocent, your not getting out any time soon.
Here's a thought.... imagine if we had a second appeal opportunity in this state! OMG that would mean all those lawyer x cases would be able to apply directly back to the court system. They would be assessed by the judges as to whether they should be re-tried or quashed. Judges do cop a lot of flack in the media, but you must remember the evidence that they see is the evidence that is submitted to them by the police/prosecution and the defence team. They can only determine an outcome based on what is presented to them. If the correct evidence wasn't presented in trial how are they meant to know?? And in trial if a police expert is presenting evidence that is not correct... who is there to check the validity and the correctness of the evidence??
A second appeal system in this state...the judges will quickly sort out all these cases which are bona-fide miscarriage of justices. As it stands now when you do go for appeal you can only get an appeal based on strict criteria. This criteria would also apply to those undertaking a second appeal if it was available. Its a no-brainer and would ease the massive task of these cases being decided by one person or having countless royal commissions being undertaking at the expense of the tax payers money.
For the time being it seems our judicial system is greatly under attack by the very people that are supposed to support it. There are some very big loop holes being exploited by those in it, and for our judicial system to find its feet again these holes need to be fixed very swiftly, starting with the deletion of pseudo science from the rule book of investigating.