Wednesday, May 26, 2010

CHARLES SMITH BLOG AWARD GOES TO JOURNALIST STEWART COCKBURN AND SCIENTIST TOM MANN FOR THEIR ROLES IN THE EXONERATION OF TED SPLATT;


"I AM PLEASED TO AWARD THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG AWARD" TO AUSTRALIAN JOURNALIST STEWART COCKBURN FOR HIS GROUND-BREAKING WORK IN "THE ADVERTISER" WHICH EXPOSED THE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE SUFFERED BY TED SPLATT AND TRIGGERED THE ROYAL COMMISSION WHICH LED TO SPLATT'S EXONERATION. I AM ALSO PLEASED TO NOMINATE AUSTRALIAN SCIENTIST TOM MANN FOR HIS STERLING EFFORTS TO PUBLICIZE THE INJUSTICE PERPETRATED ON TED SPLATT IN THE COURTS INCLUDING THE PUBLICATION OF "FLAWED FORENSICS: THE TED SPLATT CASE AND STEWART COCKBURN", A MONUMENTAL BOOK WHICH DEMONSTRATES THE TRAGIC CONSEQUENCES WHICH CAN UNFOLD WHEN SCIENCE GETS TWISTED OUT OF PROPORTION IN THE COURTS AND THOSE ENTRUSTED WITH THE TASK OF PROTECTING OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ABDICATE THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES."

HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;

PHOTO: TED SPLATT (LEFT); STEWART COCKBURN (RIGHT);

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

BACKGROUND: While preparing a recent post on Dr. Ross James' court challenge to the Medical Board of South Australia's finding of professional misconduct in connection with his evidence in the Henry Keogh case, I was intrigued by the reference to a Royal Commission called into the conviction of a man named Edward Charles Splatt and decided to learn more about him. For a start, I learned that Mr. Splatt was set free after the Shannon Royal Commission heard additional scientific evidence which cast doubt on the validity of the Supreme Court verdict against Splatt - and Justice Carl Shannon ruled that, "it would be unjust and dangerous for the verdict of guilty to stand." But it was clear to me that Mr. Splatt was only exonerated because of the intervention of a phenomenal investigative reporter named Stewart Cockburn who burrowed into the case and drew public attention to it - and because of dedicated lawyers who had the ability to tackle the scientific evidence in the case - virtually the only evidence to incriminate him. We learn from the Networked Knowledge Web-Site, that Rosa Amelia Simper died on 3 December 1977. Don Spurling, her son in law who lived next door found her on her bed, strangled with her bra, mutilated about the vagina and rectum, with a chisel like instrument, her nose broken, clothing torn, house ransacked. A few possessions and about $200 were taken. The clock in the bedroom had stopped at 2.48am after the plug was removed. A pathologist said she had died between 3am and 4am, allowing for 2 hours either way. An iron had been turned on and left on the bed beside the body for the apparent purpose of starting a fire. But the heat was on too low and it only resulted in scorching. The government offered a reward. Traces of paint and metal were found on the windowsill, where the window had been jemmied open by an intruder. The traces were also found on the bed sheet. Attention was focused on the Wilson factory only 40 metres away. Of the 8 or 9 men who worked there, Ted Splatt was determined to be the prime suspect. He was arrested 3 March 1978, and found guilty 24 November. Justice Roma Mitchell sentenced him to life. His appeal was dismissed on 28 February 1979. The High Court refused him leave to appeal on 12 September 1979. Stuart Cockburn took up his case and a movement started. A Royal Commission was set up, and Judge Carl Shannon QC on 1 August 1984 recommended he be pardoned. In the soul searching that followed, it was decided that a reform of the South Australian forensic science system was necessary, and in fact it was carried out. Today the Forensic Science Centre in South Australia is independent of the police force. For administrative purposes only, it is under the Department of Services and Supply. It has all disciplines housed under one roof and has a highly qualified director. The investigation of the case has become a model and an inspiration for those confronted by apparently unshakable court decisions. Splatt was not well educated and was a spray painter at Wilson’s. He had some petty convictions. He had not been in trouble during the previous 8 years. It is said he had a bit of a temper. There was no evidence that he knew Mrs Simper. Some youths playing around nearby said they saw someone near her gate, but could not identify Splatt. Sergeant Frank Barry Cocks was a policeman specialising in forensic science, and describing himself as a technician concluded that the traces must have been left by the murderer. With trace elements smaller on the window sill than on the bed, Cocks theorised that those on the bed must have fallen out of the turn-ups of the trousers of the murderer. There were paint flecks, birdseed, hairs and metal traces. It is said the search narrowed too quickly. It should have looked at other factories, and the preponderance of the elements in the environment. Splatt’s clothing was found to include trace elements at the scene including those not at the factory. Splatt said that he had been out at an office party that night. At 2am he had gone to his mother in law’s room to get some tablets. His wife said that he was with her all night. Mrs Condon swore an affidavit, but died some 2 weeks before the trial. Bette Rogers, the JP who was present at the signing of the affidavit said that Mrs Condon seemed reluctant to sign it, and unwilling to touch the bible when she swore on it. There was no primary evidence to implicate Splatt. Cocks found 3 fibres from the bed sheet, which were like those on Splatt’s trousers. Anna Parabyk was a forensic chemist involved with the case. There was some confusion over whether she had been sent grey fibres which were in the trousers too. The trousers were also found to contain paint, metal and birdseed traces similar to those found at the scene. A shirt of his also had fibres similar to those found at the scene. His car coat had similar foam particles to those found at the scene. Rex Kuchel, a botanical expert, identified wood from the windowsill as being jarrah, like a particle found on Splatt’s car coat. Both fragments looked as thought they had been painted. Dr Colin Jenner, from the Waite Institute said that the seed particles had not been heated or cooked, so they were unlikely to have come from a biscuit. Splatt had a birdcage at his home with similar seeds being used. Splatt had said he had not worn the trousers since 1975, and had put on 14 kilos so they no longer fitted him. The case focused on the theory of proportionate transfer – paint to metal (75/25) on the trousers matched the proportions at the scene. The Locard principle of transfer backed this up. The proportions on other employees were more the other way around. Cocks had a dominant role in the case. Splatt was convicted, and the Court of Criminal Appeal said that there were too many coincidences. Cockburn said he found the scientific evidence almost impossible to follow, and some jurors had told him the same thing. Trevor Griffin as the Attorney-General ordered 2 reviews of the case by Bishop and Bollen. Moran eventually recommended a Royal Commission. Mr R.L. Fish from the Home office was critical of the State’s forensic science system. Cocks had been at the crime scene, done the initial scientific evaluation, and instructed the scientists. Possibly some particles had been deposited at the crime scene by the investigators. It was said there were fibres on the bed sheet which could have matched every shirt in Splatt’s wardrobe. Parabyk could not judge the significance of her sample, because she did not know anything about the wider selection which was available. There were 30,000 suits similar to Splatt’s. With the hair found on Ms Simper’s breast, Dr Harry Harding did not receive it until 7 months after the investigation began. What objective measurements had been made to confirm the proportions referred to? Many of Cock’s assumptions had been converted to facts. The Shannon Commission began on 5 April 1983 – and said that when the evidence was examined in detail, it lost its superficial plausibility. The foam spicules were covered in 5 minutes at the trial, but covered 3 weeks of the Commission. Shannon concluded the evidence should not have been admitted.
The zinc particles on the window sill were found to be quite different to those of the alleged nail which was found. The fibres sent to Parabyk were found to be not representative of the trousers at all. There was doubt as to whether there had been any grey fibres at all – which were evident in the trousers. It seemed that the wood particles could have been jarrah – or some other hardwood. The oil in the wood which was thought to be evidence of paint turned out to be the sap in the wood. The ‘seeds’ too had probably been wrongly identified. The fragments could have come from a biscuit after all. It seemed that Kuchel had been told what to expect before he examined it. It seemed that the particles involved could have been airborne. One does not have to prove that, he said, it only has to be a possibility. Even the trace elements on the windowsills had not been compared to other windowsills at the house. Dr Robertson from Strathclyde said that the jury were seldom given appropriate context to enable them to weigh the evidence. Michael Abbott and Stewart Cockburn were told that another man had committed the crime. But the investigation was now 7 years old and really it was impossible to say. The case demonstrated how apparently solid scientific evidence can come undone.

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



PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am pleased to award The Charles Smith Blog Award" to Australian journalist Stewart Cockburn for his ground-breaking work in "The Advertiser" which exposed the miscarriage of justice suffered by Ted Splatt and triggered the Royal Commission which led to Splatt's exoneration.

I am also pleased to nominate Australian scientist Tom Mann for his sterling efforts to publicize the injustice perpetrated on Ted Splatt in the courts including the publication of "Flawed Forensics: The Ted Splatt case and Stewart Cockburn", a monumental book which demonstrates the tragic consequences which can unfold when science gets twisted out of proportion in the courts and those entrusted with the task of protecting our criminal justice system abdicate their responsibilities.

I established this award in 2009 to honour an author who has done outstanding work in exposing a miscarriage of justice anywhere in the world involving flawed pathology, flawed pathologists, or a combination of both.

Previous honourees are:

0: Kevin Morgan (AUSTRALIA): author of "Gun Alley: Murder, Lies and Failure of Justice, who single-handedly fought for and obtained the forensic materials which led to Colin Ross's pardon almost ninety years after he was executed.

0: Michael Hall (U.S.A.): For his excellent work in Texas Monthly exposing the miscarriages of justice that have occurred as a result of scent-lineups and the "experts" who conduct them, and

0: Sun-Sentinel reporter Paula McMahon (U.S.A.) for her ground-breaking reporting over a nine year period which led to the freeing and exoneration of Anthony Caravella.

I welcome suggestions as to other writers who deserve to be nominated for this award for their work in exposing miscarriages of justice flawed pathology, flawed pathologists, or a combination of both at hlevy15@gmail.com;

Harold Levy...Publisher; hlevy15@gmail.com;