Everyone is aware of my criticism over the police handling of the investigation and my repeated calls for justice in the matter of the Leanne Holland murder. Lately I have felt the media have been attacking me personally over this matter. Take today’s Courier Mail for instance. This is a direct assault on my credibility.

Yesterday I was contacted by the Courier Mail to advise me they were running the story. For those of you who do not know how the media circus works, if I did not reply they would add the following comment to their story “We contacted Crowley for comment but he did not reply”. But I did reply. Obviously my reply did not suit their story so they ignored it. The journalist even agreed it was in the public interest to have an inquest.

Instead of providing a balanced story AND calling on the government for an Inquest, the Courier Mail instead focused on their own agenda which appears to include pushing the police line that Stafford is guilty as charged. What they do not say is the ‘new’ evidence is untested. And for every piece of evidence that shows Stafford is guilty, there is as much evidence to show he did not commit the crime. So can we please just push the Qld Government for an Inquiry into this matter instead of getting personal with me.

From: Kate Kyriacou <kate.kyriacou@news.com.au>
Sent: Sunday, 19 March 2017 5:43 PM
To: Graeme Crowley
Subject: Re: Fw: [Who Killed Leanne Holland] Contact Us

I can’t agree more with your last point. It is certainly in the public interest to have an inquest.
The evidence should be tested by a court.
Thanks for getting back to me.
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 at 4:21 pm, Graeme Crowley <graeme5353@live.com> wrote:

Hi Kate

4 people identified “Steve’ at the body disposal site; 3 were family and 1 neighbour (that I know of). I can understand family may have a motive for making that up but not sure about the neighbour.

During the police reinvestigation Det Sgt (name provided) told me (in his words)”they had confirmed that Steve was at the body site. Other police who were at the scene were not happy about it but there it is”.  No doubt he and the police service will (strenuously) deny that little gem so what can I say- I am making it up? There was no one else present and I did not record it.

In case you are wondering how that came about I will explain. I spoke with ……… about every 2 – 3 months during the course of the investigation, usually over a coffee. It was a joke really as he would say nothing. But over the 2 years he told me two things – the above and one other. Slip of the tongue? Don’t know.

I would point out that the Qld Govt is of the opinion that ‘it is not in the public interest’ to hold a corner’s inquest into this matter; yet 25.5 years later it is still in the media.


Graeme Crowley

From: Kate Kyriacou <donotreply@wordpress.com>
Sent: Sunday, 19 March 2017 4:50 PM
To: graeme5353@live.com
Subject: [Who Killed Leanne Holland] Contact Us

Name (Optional): Kate Kyriacou

Email (Required if reply expected): kate.kyriacou@news.com.au

Comment: Hi Graeme

I am a reporter at the Courier Mail. You may have noticed we have been running some coverage on the Leanne Holland review.

Tomorrow there will be an article about the man standing with police at the crime scene where Leanne’s body was found. He’s been identified as a plainclothes police officer and not – as has been claimed – the sex offender and police informant ” Steve”.

I spoke to the police officer who is adamant the man pictured is him.

If you wanted to discuss this, or anything else, please let me know.

Time: March 19, 2017 at 3:50 pm
IP Address:
Contact Form URL: https://whokilledleanneholland.com/contact-us/
Sent by an unverified visitor to your site.
The Courier-Mail
The Sunday Mail
Cnr Mayne Road & Campbell Street Bowen Hills QLD 4006
GPO Box 130, Brisbane, QLD 4001
T +61 7 3666 6432 M +61 412 710 410
E kate.kyriacou@news.com.au W www.couriermail.com.au







  1. I am not trying to argue, I simply want the truth. I do believe Stafford is guilty, yet I am most happy if you can persuade me, by means of evidence, otherwise. If I could read the full 2012 report I would know 100% as I have studied science and forensics extensively. However, I only have ‘bits’ “media snippets” of this report. I believe Stafford’s lawyer has read the report, however, his bias is on his $$$ client- he made a ridiculous statement- a logical fallacy- “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.” This deflects concern away from the evidence of the boot mat. Why did he not explain that. Furthermore, can he explain why ANY blood is in Stafford’s boot? This case should be about TRUTH, not about power or authority or making books or media articles. A little girl was murdered.
    Graham, can you please substantiate these claims:

    1. “the ‘new’ evidence is untested.”

    2. “for every piece of evidence that shows Stafford is guilty, there is as much evidence to show he did not commit the crime.”


  2. Hi. By untested I mean just that. The findings of the police review need to be tested by a court to determine their accuracy. In relation to the second point I make the comment that the crown case relies on 2 theories – the murder occurred during a specific time frame on the monday; and that the murder occurred in the bathroom of 70A Alice St Goodna. There is considerable evidence (some tested,some untested) to show both these theories are incorrect. Cheers


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s