As everyone is aware there has been intense media interest in this case over the last few days. And rightly so. It is an important case and potentially the most significant miscarriage of justice this country has ever seen. For those who are not aware, there was a police reinvestigation 7 years ago, completed 5 years ago. The report concluded ‘conclusively’ that Graham Stafford murdered Leanne Holland. The QPS/DPP have always refused to release the report. Channel 7 recently received a copy through the back door. Channel 7 produced a program called ‘Murdered Uncovered’. As expected, the program followed the police line.

Graham Stafford’s barrister Joe Crowley sent this statement to Channel 7 ‘Murder Uncovered’.  This is his position regarding the ‘new’ evidence as a result of the ‘reinvestigation’:

‘I spent three hours reviewing the 500 odd page reinvestigation report. It is interesting that at no point does it discredit or subvert the evidence given in 1997 by Police Scientist Leo Freney. In 2009 Justice Holmes (as she then was) said “Mr Freney’s evidence … comprehensively demolished the theory that Leanne Holland was killed at her Goodna home”. Justice Keane said “[o]n the basis of this evidence, it was demonstrably unlikely that the deceased had been killed at her home and the bleeding body … put in the boot of the car”. The material in the report does not detract from those findings. In relation to the house, the report merely establishes that at some time before she was murdered, Leanne Holland had put peroxide on parts of her hair and that a spot of blood on the shower curtain had been DNA matched to her. Evidence that the body had a checked pattern, which was very similar to a pattern that appeared on the boot mat of the Holden Gemini, does not explain why there was negligible blood in the boot. As to the maggot, the report demonstrates that it had no human DNA in it, which indicates that it was not from the body of Leanne Holland. In all, the report does not impeach the evidence of Leo Freney and does not provide evidence of Graham Stafford’s guilt’.

In case anyone is in doubt this is my position regarding the matter:

‘To Michel Usher and Channel 7. Thank you for increasing the public profile of this very important case. As stated at interview, the 10-page Executive Summary is a damning indictment of Graham Stafford’s guilt, if it is an accurate reflection of the 600-page report. My advice is that it is not an accurate interpretation and a more correct title may perhaps be Selective Summary. So, the debate rages on – did Graham Stafford murder Leanne Holland or was he an innocent victim of something more sinister. The law courts are the appropriate forum to test the evidence for and against Mr Stafford. It has always been my position that Graham Stafford should be re-tried for murder. More recently, and due to the considerable nefarious allegations surrounding this whole sordid matter, I have formed the opinion a Coroner’s Inquest would be more appropriate. Until the matter has been properly resolved, I believe Graham Stafford has suffered the ultimate Miscarriage of Justice. The Qld Govt has already rejected a request by Graham Stafford for a Coroner’s Inquest citing ‘not in the public interest’. I think your program will confirm the need for an Inquest and I would beg Channel 7 to call on the Queensland Govt, Queensland Police Service and DPP to hold an inquest into the death of Leanne Holland. You can find more information at’.




  1. I think someone knows something but who ever did it ws more likely someone close to them and yes there should be a new open inquest and with new eyes on it to


  2. This was such an interesting programme I am really confused I just don’t know .. all evidence points to him but if he killed her in bathroom how did he clean up that much mess on floor and leave no trace, and the boot wouldn’t there have been more blood ? And the maggot how did that get in the boot I just don’t know he did look very guilty when interviewed. I live in Redbank plains and I know where the house is…


  3. Australia’s own ‘Making a Murderer’. Actually, none of the ‘evidence’ released to the public points to him at all. An individual capable of such a terrible crime does not come in a mild-mannered package such as Graham Stafford. Why would a guilty man go to such lengths to clear his name after being told he would not be re-tried as he has already served the time for a crime someone else committed? He wouldn’t. No history of violence, no history of perversion, no history of any wrongdoing whatsoever. That there was no blood on Graham’s clothing (that he was wearing from early morning to early evening), he had several documented errands that day, and there were several sightings of Leanne later in the day, should have completely ruled him out as a suspect. That the police didn’t even seem to look seriously at the alternative suspects is truly frightening. This was a stitch up from day one and they have been covering their arses ever since. For goodness sake, a twelve year old girl with no supervision wandering the street alone in Goodna with drunken men lurking outside her home, and a convicted paedophile as an ex-neighbour whose own children stated he did it, and Graham Stafford is the obvious suspect …. Give me a break.


    1. 1 -how would the impression of the gemini boot mat be left on the body unless she was in the boot of the same model gemini .
      2 – what could GS have been doing very early on the next morning when spotted coming back from the body dump site road by melissa . – a direction he usually doesn’t drive .
      3 why does he keep pleading his innocence – obviously so his family and friends don’t totally disown him –
      GS is the culprit – obviously .


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s