Episode 1 Gratuitous Violence is now available
Find the podcast at Apple, Spotify or wherever you obtain your podcasts
Here is the link
Episode 1 Gratuitous Violence is now available
Find the podcast at Apple, Spotify or wherever you obtain your podcasts
Here is the link
My new Podcast launches Monday 23 August 2021.
Over 7 indepth episodes I cover the brutal murders of Neelma Singh, Kunal Singh and Sidhi Singh at Bridgeman Downs, Brisbane Australia that was discovered on 22 April 2003.
Max Sica is serving 35 years imprisonment for the murders.
In 2009 The Crime & Misconduct Commission (CMC) furnished a report into Allegations of Misconduct by Queensland Police appropriately called Dangerous Liaisons. It is a very interesting and damning but lenghty (140 pages) read. There are many instances of “Removing Prisoners from Custody” discussed. One of the alternate suspects in the murder of Leanne Holland was “removed from custody” on numerous occasions by detectives. Ostensibly, it was to assist with ongoing criminal investigations. This suspect however bragged it was to spend conjugal time with his wife, and “go to the pub”. The detective involved in the Holland murder was then transferred to another police district and the removal of prisoners from custody continued at his next posting. Pages 70 – 82 of ‘Dangerous Liaisons” refer to activities investigated by the CMC relating to that matter where ‘The General’ as he was known had his own locker at the local police station. The locker was marked “The General”. This man was serving life imprisonment for murder. He would be removed from prison, taken to the police station where he changed his clothes and released into the community for the day. Charges were laid against the detective but dismissed when his diary, which was part of the evidence, went missing. He later resigned from the police before disciplinary charges could be laid.
There has NEVER been a coronial inquest into the death of Leanne Sarah Holland. We believe an Inquest will help identify Leanne’s killer and we ask you to sign the attached petition.
To that end we are petitioning the Queensland Attorney General to order an Inquest into her death. The AG has previously refused applications by Graham Stafford and others to hold an Inquest. She deemed it was ‘not in the public interest’.
It is a requirement by law in Queensland that every unexplained death goes to the coroner. There is an ‘out’, usually where someone is arrested in relation to the death as happened in this case. Graham Stafford’s conviction for her murder was quashed therefore no one has been held accountable.
We recently had the pleasure of having Greg Cary on the Podcast. If you live in Queensland you would definitely know of Greg; and possibly if you live in Australia also. Greg had a career with radio 4BC spanning some 30 years. Whilst on radio he became aware of the Leanne Holland murder. He interviewed many people regarding the murder and subsequent investigation and jailing of Graham Stafford. One of the more notable callers to his radio programme was the jury foreman on the murder trial of Graham Stafford. Greg is releasing his memoir in November 2020 and one of the chapters is devoted to this case.
Criminologist Ann McMahon contacted us and offered to work up a profile of the killer. We gladly accepted. We provided her with all the relevant material. She had no prior knowledge of the case. She had no knowledge of the alternate suspects we had discovered.
Here is her report.
Chapters 1 – 10 of the Podcast “Who killed Leanne Holland” are available now at Apple Podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts. Here is a link:
It appears there are some VERY nervous people out there who are extremely upset about our forthcoming podcast. We have received some 30 emails threatening legal action if the podcast proceeds. Most of the comments are too offensive to display here. As the emails are all originating from the below IP addresses we can only conclude there are 2-3 people who are VERY concerned with the matter being put under the microscope in a podcast. These persons have concealed their identity and used false email addresses in their posts.
The contacts are all coming from the following IP addresses:
103.217.166.(240), 103.217.166. (19), 103.217.166.(224)
One email reads:” If you had bothered to read the police review you would know (name deleted) has an air tight alibi.”
The only known persons who have had access to the police review are (very) senior Qld police officers and some staff of Channel 7. As you may or may not know, the police review was illegally and unlawfully leaked to Channel 7 to enable them to use for commercial purposes. However, the Qld Police Service made no effort to investigate the leak. As only a handful of very senior police had access to the review I guess we know why no investigation was commenced.
In many of the other emails, the same unnamed person threatens defamation lawsuits if the podcast proceeds.
One comment that we can report reads as follows:”Dear Graeme just so you know Stafford groped and assaulted several of Leanne’s friends at the rental house in Alice street.”
How does this person know this? No women have come forward and made a complaint against Graham Stafford, to my knowledge. None gave evidence at his trial or in any of the appeals, about this type of conduct. Channel 7 made no mention of it when they broadcast various findings of the review. We have not had access to the police review but we believe Ch 7 would have made a big issue of this allegation if it were contained in the review. Would the Qld Police not investigate Graham Stafford if they had received such allegations? We believe they most certainly would! This case remains a continuing embarrassment to them.
If you are wondering why Graham Stafford nor his solicitors have not seen the police review we can say that the Qld Police have vigorously resisted the review being released for the past 6 years. In October 2019 the matter was finally resolved through the courts that the defence were entitled to receive the review. However, the review is yet to be released.
What is held in the review that the Qld Police found the need to fight so hard to prevent its release. When the review was initially announced, it was going to be transparent and available to all. They found a need to move the goal posts obviously.
I wonder what the REAL reasons are why these anonymous individuals do not want this podcast to proceed? After all, the podcast is only pursuing the truth about Who Killed Leanne Holland and to pressure the Qld Government into holding an inquest into the death of Leanne Holland. An inquest has never been held, despite it being a requirement of law in this state that an inquest be held in a death of this nature.
The podcast will be launching early April 2020.
You will recall I previously wrote an article titled “What is Happening” regarding the QCAT application to obtain the elusive Police Review. Graham Stafford’s lawyers initially applied to the Queensland Administrative Appeals Tribunal (QCAT) in March 2016 to set aside the decision of the Information Commissioner refusing access to the Police Review with a hearing into the matter in September 2016. There is a Practice Direction in the Qld Supreme Court that judgments should be delivered within 3 months. However, the system obviously doesn’t always work that way. Judgement was finally delivered in May 2019. More than 3 years after lodging the application!
Even two newspaper articles about the delay by David Murray of The Australian did not appear to have any impact on the timing of the delivery of the verdict.
QCAT found in favour of the applicant (Stafford) but in a bizarre twist, rather than order the Review to be handed over Judge Sheridan ordered the matter be remitted to the Information Commissioner in case there were other grounds for exemption!
You will find the actual decision attached.
However, in the meantime the QPS appealed the decision. The matter has been referred to the Court of Appeal which in Queensland means the Supreme Court. The matter is set down for hearing on Friday 18 October 2019. The QPS have engaged a Queen’s Counsel to appear on their behalf so to say they are defending the matter vigorously would be an understatement. We can only hope we do not have to wait 3 years for a decision.
Why do I have the feeling the QPS do not want the Police Review released under any circumstances? If they are confident of their investigation and findings what do they have to hide? Do they forget that police commissioner Atkinson, when announcing the review stated publicly the review would be open, accountable and available to all upon completion. Who overrode that directive? And on whose authority? And what was the pressing need that required an otherwise straight forward review to be closed, unaccountable and available to no one? And finally, what is the pressing factor that they have to defend release of the review so aggressively?
I am very keen to know how they dealt with the matters I alerted them to in the lead up to the review including the time of death, other possible suspects, police fabricating evidence and committing perjury and various other matters as raised in the book “Who Killed Leanne Holland?”.
I have been told only very brief snippets of the review. One such snippet was a group of some 12 forensic scientists reviewing the scientific evidence concluded Stafford could not have acted alone. There has NEVER been any suggestion of an accomplice. So based on that result alone, why hasn’t the QPS reopened the investigation to identify and prosecute the accomplice? So many questions, so few answers.
We can only hope that obtaining the Police Review will answer so many questions.
In December 2018 on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland a 66 year old male was arrested and charged with four counts of Rape and one count of Indecent Treatment of his 11 year old granddaughter. He was held in custody but eventually granted bail. We cannot identify this man due to Qld legislation, so I shall call him Pedo.
Pedo appeared in the Maroochydore Magistrates Court in April 2019 and was committed to stand trial in the Maroochydore District Court on all charges. No date for the trial has yet been set. We shall watch with interest when it does.
At his committal hearing we were able to take photographs of him leaving court.
Pedo has a lengthy criminal history dating back to at least 1970. He has convictions for many offences, including sexual offences and has served several terms of imprisonment. He was sentenced to, and served 8 years imprisonment for the incest of his two daughters in 1998.
During my investigations into this murder I nominated three persons who were, in my opinion, more likely to have murdered Leanne Holland than Graham Stafford. Pedo was one of those persons I nominated.
I have been told that in the Police Review, Pedo was exonerated and eliminated as a suspect in the murder. I have also been informed I was criticized for even suggesting he may have been involved. Channel 7 used Pedo as their start witness and go to person to show Graham Stafford was the rightful offender.
I also claimed that Pedo was at the body dump site dressed as and in the company of detectives. A claim QPS strenuously denied, despite one of the detectives on the Police Review team telling me personally that Pedo had been at the crime scene. In a podcast presented by Channel 7, Pedo claimed he attended the home of the deceased on the morning the police investigation started, at the request of detectives, to ‘see what he could find out’. QPS have stated this was the murder site. So we now have a career criminal with a lengthy criminal history at a crime scene and body disposal site.
A photo is in existence of the male accompanying police at the body disposal site in 1991. We were able to have an expert compare that photograph to the photograph of Pedo taken outside Maroochydore Magistrates Court in 2019. Although there is a gap of some 28 years between photographs, we were told there is a ‘strong’ resemblance between the two person depicted in the photographs.
I have asked this question before and must ask it again:” What is a criminal doing attending crime scenes and seemingly involved in a murder investigation?”. The question becomes particularly relevant when a NUMBER of persons believe HE was involved in the murder of Leanne Holland.
The presumption of innocence aside I have prepared two profiles.
GRAHAM STAFFORD- 56 years of age. No criminal history. No history of sexual offending. No motive presented for him killing Leanne Holland. No witnesses to him killing Leanne Holland. No direct evidence of him killing Leanne Holland. Forensic and circumstantial evidence only connecting him to the crime which has been heavily criticized and contested. Does not smoke and never smoked. He only knew Leanne for approx 3 months. Has not offended since his release from prison in 2005. His conviction for the murder was quashed but he remains the only suspect. Continues to campaign his innocence of the crime.
PEDO – 66 years of age. Lengthy criminal history including sexual offences. Has served several terms of imprisonment including 8 years for incest of his daughters. His daughters claimed he burnt them with cigarettes. Leanne Holland had similar marks on her body. He did smoke at that time. Her lived next door to the Hollands for some years and lived at the Holland house for a few weeks before the murder.It has been claimed he took Leanne on trips with him in his truck. His daughters claim he had sex with them in the same bush spot where Leanne’s body was found. his daughters claimed he told them they would end up like Leanne if they told anyone what was happening between them. Other close family members support claims made by his daughters.
There has never been an inquest into the death of Leanne Holland, despite this being a requirement under Queensland legislation. Graham Stafford and a number of other persons have written to the Attorney General requesting an inquest. The AG’s official position is that ‘it is not in the public interest’.
The above and many other matters need to be explored by a coroner to get to the real truth behind the murder of Leanne Holland.