RED FLAGS AND WHAT DO THEY MEAN

Wikipedia defines a red flag as follows:

• Red flag (idiom), a metaphor for something signalling a problem

It is well known that many criminal and civil cases have been referred to the Court of Appeal and the High Court of Australia based on a single red flag identified in the court material.

So what do you do when you find some 50 red flags in a single case? As I did in my investigations into the murder of Leanne Sarah Holland. When the police refused to look at the material, the case ended up in the Court of Appeal and the High Court (twice). In 1997, over 14 years after those discrepancies were found, the murder conviction of Graham Stafford was overturned.

In 2010, after a LOT of pressure, the Qld Police Service agreed to review their original murder investigation. An impartial, unbiased, thorough review of the job done by their brother officers.  The review was to be transparent and the findings were to be released to the public. Two years later assistant commissioner Mike Condon announced they were satisfied with the original investigation and the outcome. The review found Graham Stafford was the killer, he acted alone and the matter was closed. So what about the red flags identified? They did eliminate/clarify each and every issue raised, or at least some of them, right? Well, we do not know what they did or did not investigate. The QPS and/or the DPP have fought long and hard to stop the police review being released for all to see just how thorough, impartial and complete the review was.  There has been finger pointing from both sides as to who is stopping the report being released. Five years on we are still awaiting a decision from QCAT as to whether the report will be released. Can we trust that the QPS at least looked at the major red flags including time of death, multiple sightings, and the other possible suspects? Given their appalling track record in relation to this case I believe that until the review is made public, justice cannot be seen to be done. To muddy the waters further, the QPS have advised the Qld Government an inquest is not necessary as the killer was properly identified. Not in the public interest. Does someone have something to hide here?

RED FLAGS IDENTIFIED WHEN REVIEWING THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION AND SINCE

1. Murder investigation commenced the morning after Leanne Holland reported as a missing person.
2. “Murder of Holland” and “Homicide” recorded on documents prior to body being found.
3. It was evident Graham Stafford was only ever suspect.
4. No motive determined for Graham Stafford to commit the murder.
5. On duty detectives deemed not experienced enough to undertake missing person investigation. More experienced police bought in on overtime.
6. Forensic examination of family home the same morning (the only home searched)
7. Graham Stafford vehicle seized that day for forensic examination (the only car seized).
8. Obvious frustration of forensic police that no blood found on Graham Stafford clothing in house.
9. What was the collection day for the wheelie bin.
10. A forensic officer observed a live maggot in the boot of vehicle owned by Graham Stafford but did not seize it.

11. Officer seized the maggot 24 hrs later from the boot, still alive.
12. Three scientists refuted the maggot.
13. Exhibit 27, a photograph of the boot contents contradicts this claim.
14. The numbering of the exhibit bottles holding the maggots taken from the body.
15. The discrepancy around the time of finding the maggot and the delivery of exhibits to forensic laboratory at 11.35am on Thursday.
16. One scientist described the single maggot as shrivelled and desiccated; the second scientist described it as larger than the others with food in its crop.
17. Two police were detailed to search for Leanne Holland, on motorcycles – a total of approx. 10 hours searching a potential area of several hundred sq kms to find the body.

18. The evidence of the daughters of the convicted paedophile we call Pete.
19. Pete acting as a police consultant and attending both crime scenes (since denied by Qld Police).
20. Who owned the clothing the deceased was found in. Was it owned by a daughter of the man we call Pete?
21. The Crown always claimed Graham Stafford acted alone.
22. At trial, crown witness stated two vehicles were together at crime scene where body located. No effort made to locate second vehicle.
23. The police review found more than one vehicle involved.
24. Scientific review of the case concluded more than one killer.
25. Witness sightings by 2 crown witnesses did not match Graham Stafford car.
26. Graham Stafford was at home at time both witnesses saw car in the bush.
27. Soil from the crime scene did not match soil taken from Stafford’s car.
28. The tyres on Graham Stafford vehicle were said to be identical with the tyre impressions at the scene.
29. Two tyre experts disputed the tyres on Graham Stafford’s car matched the tyre impressions found at body disposal dump site.
30. The impact of the tyre evidence presented to the jury.
31. The significant lack of ‘window of opportunity’ for Graham Stafford to commit murder.
32. Lack of blood on property and clothing owned by Graham Stafford.
33. Lack of blood in the house, despite evidence to jury to contrary.
34. No evidence of blood in the bucket on back stairs; jury told otherwise.
35. Lack of blood in Graham Stafford vehicle; evidence to jury to contrary.
36. The missing (not missing) hammer owned by Graham Stafford.
37. The impact of the not missing hammer presented to the jury.
38. Lack of blood at body disposal site.
39. Bizarre injuries found on deceased.
40. Cigarette burns on deceased.
41. Cigarette butts found at scene but not collected.
42. Cigarette lighter found at scene
43. Graham Stafford did not own a lighter
44. Graham Stafford did not smoke.
45. The queries surrounding the garbage bag found under the body.
46. Evidence of next-door neighbour.
47. The pornographic material found in Leanne Holland bedroom.
48. Claims that Leanne Holland was seeing several young men ignored.
49. By mixing up the day Graham Stafford attended the doctor, the Crown claimed that he was inventing an alibi for Monday. If that was the case, why did he not mention going to Redbank Plains shopping centre, Franklins, and the car wash.
50. The time of death of the victim.
51. The blood in the hair of the victim.
52. The incorrect conclusions by police of the peroxide in the hair theory.
53. The then chief Qld forensic officer concluded the murder did not occur in the house and the body was never in the boot of Stafford’s car.
54. Other family members not eliminated as leaving blood found on items in car.
55. Two forensic scientists contradicted blood transfer onto items in boot.
56. The seemingly indisputable evidence of the bank teller.
57. Conduct of the grandfather of deceased.
58. The failure to produce the CCTV footage from the car wash.
59. Actions of police upon approach by Graeme Crowley.
60. The compelling sighting of a girl matching Leanne at 3.15pm on the Monday at the Goodna special school. (not known at trial).
61. The compelling (but disputed) sighting of Leanne outside the Cecil Hotel at 4pm on the Monday.
62. Sighting of Leanne Holland on the Tuesday.
63. Crown prosecutor refused to prosecute case.
64. The murderer Sean McPhedran.
65. The Hobart murderer Mark Thomas Noble.
66. The two profilers’ opinions.
67. The marks on the underneath of car owned by Graham Stafford.
68. The impact of video evidence presented to the jury.
69. The conduct &background of Trisha Lynch & family.
70. Undercover officer placed in cell with Graham Stafford concluded Graham Stafford was not the killer.
71. Claims of innocence by Graham Stafford, even after release from prison.
72. Request for coronial inquest repeatedly refused by Qld Govt.
73. Startling claims made by son of nominated killer of Sharron Phillips.
74. The police review – why do they refuse to release the report, ten years on.
75. How did the police review team address all the above concerns; or did they?.