This is the letter from Commissioner of Police to DPP in August 2012 reporting on the result of the police reinvestigation.
Here are six VALID reasons why this material needs to go before a Coroner to determine the way forward in this matter.
- This evidence needs to be tested in a court. “The last credible sighting of Leanne Holland occurred at about 10.15am on 23 September 1991.” In fact, the last CREDIBLE sighting was by a family friend of the Hollands who had known Leanne since she was a baby. He saw her at 3pm on 23 Setpember 1991.
- This evidence needs to be tested in a court. Was the peroxide put in her hair on Monday 23 September 1991 or some earlier date. The evidence has always been that she wanted to dye her hair not bleach it; her hair was already blond.
- This evidence needs to be tested in a court. I have already heard varying reports as to the quantity of blood found on the shower curtain and whether it belonged to Leanne.
- This evidence needs to be tested in a court. At least two experts have provided statements that if the body had been in the boot of that car there would have been smell and a LOT of blood. Neither of which was evident.
- This evidence needs to be tested in a court. A scientific officer investigating a murder, sights a maggot in the boot but does not make note of it, film it or video it. A student previously unknown to be at the scene on work experience makes note of it. The officer finds the maggot alive 24 hrs later, still in the boot. Three of his peers give statements that what he has stated is scientifically impossible. To confuse matters the officer mixes up the labeling of exhibits, marking this exhibit as found after the maggots at the scene, instead of before.
- This evidence needs to be tested in a court. “Entomological evidence has determined the approximate date of death as 23 September 1991″. Other entomological evidence determined the time of death as absolutely on 24 September 1991.