Blog

In June 2016 Graham Stafford wrote to the Queensland Government requesting an inquest be held into the death of Leanne Sarah Holland. An inquest into her death has never been held and it is most unusual in Australia to not hold an inquest into a death, in particular a violent death. In fact, it is law that an inquest be held into ever death. However, there is an opt-out clause of ‘no good purpose’. Stafford’s request was refused, citing not in the public interest, and a reply was received in September 2016 (with an apology for the delay in responding). In April 2017 Graham Stafford again wrote to the Qld Government requesting an inquest into the death of Leanne Sarah Holland. He also raised other concerns. He received a reply on 7 November 2017. On 29 October 2017 a state election was called. According to law, from that time on the sitting government could not make a decision regarding an inquest. Was it deliberate or just incompetence that the matter lay untouched for over six months and did not warrant a reply before that time? During the same time, the AG ordered a second inquest into the 44 year old Whiskey Au Go Go murders, within days of the convictions of two men to some related 1973 murders. Within days of the release of the identity of the killer of Sharron Phillips, the AG ordered an inquest into her death. In 2016 the AG ordered a second inquest into the death of Daniel Morcombe, at the request of the Morcombe family to assess the adequacy of the police response. Assistant police commissioner Mike Condon is facing misconduct allegations over that investigation. It should also be noted Mike Condon was in charge of the police review of the Holland murder. The Qld Government has shown it has the will and the ability to order inquests when it suits their needs. WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO FORCE THE QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT TO HOLD AN INQUEST INTO THE DEATH OF LEANNE SARAH HOLLAND?

Inquest Rejection 2017

Application to Coroner 2016

AG inquest rejection letter 2016

On 6 October 2017 Queensland Police made a stunning announcement.

Homicide Detective Inspector Damien Hansen was quoted as saying: “Raymond Peter Mulvihill died in 2002. As a result of the investigation (and) the evidence that we have gathered, if Raymond Peter Mulvihill was alive today, he would be arrested for the murder of Sharron Phillips.

Inspector Hansen said police had looked into allegations that Mr Mulvihill might have murdered other women, Julie-Ann Gallon, who went missing from Ipswich Road in August 1990, and Leanne Holland, whose body was found at Redbank Plains in September 1992. He dismissed suggestions Mr Mulvihill was a serial killer”.

The Queensland Attorney General immediately referred the matter to the coroner.

Mulvihill’s son Ian, told The Courier-Mail he had tried for years to convince people his father was responsible for the infamous murder. He claimed he called Crime Stoppers on six occasions claiming his father was a serial killer but no one took him seriously until 2016.

Ian said his father asked him to go to police about the murder shortly before his death from bowel cancer in 2002.

He said his father claimed to have murdered others.

“On his death bed he said, you need to come forward and tell them about these girls,” Ian said.

He said his father told him: “We’ve got to give the girls back.”

In 1985 Sharron Phillips went missing on Ipswich Road Wacol, about 5 klms from Goodna. Her body has never been recovered. At the time Mulvihill, a taxi driver, was living in Redbank Plains.

In 1990 Julie-Ann Gallon went missing on Ipswich Road Riverview, about 7 klms from Goodna. Her body has never been recovered. These disappearances are covered in the book “Who killed Leanne Holland”.

In 1991 Leanne Holland went missing in Goodna and her body was recovered in Redbank Plains.

There are a number of other women who have disappeared in South East Queensland and who have never been seen since, in particular three women on the sunshine coast in the 1990’s.

Curiously, no local media has followed up on Ian Mulvihill’s claims that his father was a serial killer. An email to Kate Kyricou, chief crime reporter with the Courier Mail on that topic went unanswered. Kyricou has written articles on the Holland case.

Am I the only one who finds it bizarre that Raymond Mulvhill confesses to murder on his deathbed but then lies about it and exaggerates the number of murders he committed? I would have thought an investigative journalist would be all over that.

What if it is shown that Mulvihill or someone else killed Leanne Holland? As well as being very inconvenient for Queensland Police I suggest several serving and former members of the service would be looking at lengthy prison sentences. It would also reflect poorly on the Queensland Government who have repeatedly rejected calls, by many people, for a coronial inquest into the murder of Leanne Holland.

So will there be forces at work to ensure no matters, other than those pertaining to the murder of Sharron Phillips, are raised at her inquest? This issue concerns me but we shall have to wait and see.

Graham Stafford is seeking legal advice as to whether he can be represented at the coroner’s inquest into Sharron Phillips, to ensure any evidence regarding Mulvihill being a serial killer or being involved in the murder of Leanne Holland is tabled.

In the meantime we await a ruling by QCAT as to whether the police review will ever be made public. A review the Queensland Police Service and DPP are desperately trying to keep secret. For those who are not aware, the review was conducted by Queensland Police into their original investigation. The review found police were satisfied with the original investigation and the outcome. As the review has never been released, we do not know if the numerous concerns raised in the book “Who killed Leanne Holland” and by others were addressed.

For those who wish to read the original Supreme Court trial transcript in this matter it has now been added to the website. You can find it located in ‘Court Links’ on the website. Because of its size it has been divided into 5 parts and for ease I attach part one here.

Part 1 – Trial Transcript 1992

This week marks the 26th year since the disappearance and murder of Leanne Holland. The Crown alledge she was taken on 23 September 1991. The evidence indicates overwhelmingly she disappeared on 24 September 1991. Defence Lawyers are still seeking the release of the Police Review by appealing to the Queensland Administrative Appeals Tribunal (QCAT). As you may be aware Channel 7 obtained a copy illegally sometime in 2016 and broadcast a program based on some of the content. Despite this, the Qld Police and Qld DPP are desperately fighting its release to Stafford’s legal team. The QCAT hearing has been going for almost 12 months, with the Judge’s decision to be given on a date yet to be announced. The saga continues.

In the interim, and at the request of a number of people, I attach the Police committal proceedings transcript from 2 December 1991. It makes for interesting reading, bearing in mind this was the police case at its strongest. The Trial Transcript will follow soon. It is ironic that the Crown Prosecutor at those proceedings, A V Lakshman later refused to prosecute Graham Stafford at his Supreme Court trial as he did not believe in his guilt. However, that information did not become public for 20 years.

Stafford Police Committal 2 December 1991 at Ipswich Court House

https://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/police-the-innocent-victim-of-leak-in-graham-staff/3192487

We all know Graham Stafford killed Leanne Holland. The police told us so, after their exhaustive review of the case which was finalised in 2012.

But when did he kill her?

The crown case is that she died on Monday 23 September 1991 between 8am and 4.30pm. It is acknowledged that if she did not die during that time frame, Graham Stafford was not the killer. The Commissioner of Police wrote on 23 August 2012 “….. entomological research has determined the approximate time of death was 23 September 1991″.

So does that mean time of death may have been 22 September 1991 or 24 September 1991? One definition of approximate is ‘close to the actual, but not completely accurate or exact.’

25 years ago the crown forensic expert put the time of death as close to sunset on the Monday. Even that timing was outside the time frame mentioned above. Exhaustive tests by the defence put the time of death as definitely being on the Tuesday, perhaps even as late as Tuesday evening.

It is my understanding that the police case is now that Graham Stafford committed the murder on the morning of the Monday, not the afternoon. However as I have not seen the reinvestigation report I cannot confirm this. Stafford’s legal advisers have been refused a copy through legal channels. The police and crown have repeatedly refused to release it. Perhaps Channel 7, who do have a copy of the report, can enlighten us. I am particularly interested in perusing the credentials and experience of the person who calculated the time of death as being on the morning of the Monday.

Below is a timeline of the period from 7am – 8.30pm on Monday 23 September 1991. The timeline includes all known sightings, contested and otherwise. It does not include disputed sightings of Leanne Holland on the Tuesday. The police commissioner wrote in the correspondence referred to above “…It has been determined the last credible sighting of Leanne Holland was about 10.15am on 23 September 1991″.

In the police case, Graham Stafford had up to 3 hrs to commit the murder and cover it up. More than sufficient time apparently. If any one of the disputed sightings is correct, then that time frame is reduced significantly.

I believe the coroner, not the police should decide the last credible sighting of the deceased.

I also believe the coroner, not the police should determine the date and time of death.

The assistance of Bassem Nimah in producing the timeline is acknowledged and appreciated.

ANOTHER ARGUMENT WHY THIS MATTER NEEDS TO GO TO A CORONER:

In 1991 the police held the view Graham Stafford had helped dye Leanne’s hair in the bathroom and things became sexual, he got carried away and he killed her.

This is what was said by the defence at the 1999 Appeal ( I have not added the explanatory notes)

Confusion relating to the dyeing of the deceased’s hair

30.  An issue arose in the original investigation of the case regarding the deceased’s hair being dyed. The original Police hypothesis seems to have been that the killing was sexually motivated[1] and was precipitated by the Petitioner dyeing the deceased’s hair in the bathroom[2]

 31.  When the body of the deceased was found her hair was a burgundy or titian colour[3].  It was originally posited by the Police that the deceased’s hair was dyed[4]. The Police case lacked a motive for the murder and the hypothesis of the hair dye provided a link to a sexual motive.  This hypothesis was supported by Dr Ashby in her autopsy report and in her evidence at trial[5]. It was raised by Police in their interviews with the Petitioner[6] [Disc 1- 36:50mins, 40:00-40:25mins 28/09/91, Disc 2- 7:00-7:40 mins & 20:18-22:00, 28/09/91].

 32.  There was no evidence found by Police to support their hypothesis[7] and subsequent scientific tests showed that the hair of the deceased was not dyed[8]. In fact, despite Dr Ashby’s evidence at trial, the Police had abandoned this theory as early as the Committal hearing[9].  The evidence quite clearly indicated that the deceased’s hair had not been dyed.  The Crown did not otherwise suggest a motive for the murder.

 33.  Unfortunately the hair dyeing hypothesis went before the jury in the Police interviews and was unwisely raised by Defence Counsel with a number of witnesses at trial[10]. Further, the issue of the deceased’s hair being dyed was mistakenly revived by later courts[11]. This misconception added an extra element to an already complicated case. The Prosecution had a responsibility to make it clear at trial that their case did not suggest the deceased’s hair had been dyed and that they were not relying on it. Unfortunately the confusion remained and was exacerbated by the evidence the Crown led regarding the wheelie bin.

Fast forward 21 years to 2012 and the police now hold the view Graham Stafford had helped Leanne put peroxide in her hair in the bathroom and things became  sexual, he got carried away and he killed her.

The Commissioner of Police wrote, in part, to the DPP on 23 August 2012: ” Leanne Holland had applied peroxide bleach to her hair but had not been able to fully spread the bleach through the hair before the process inexplicably ceased. This has been confirmed by microscopic and chemical examination of Leanne Holland’s hair. It was Leanne Holland’s stated desire to bleach her hair on 23 September 1991 with the assistance of Graham Stafford”.

What the chemical analysis would not show is the date and time the peroxide was placed in  the hair and whether this occurred in the bathroom at 70A Alice St Goodna. A rather quantum leap, in my humble opinion, for the Commissioner to make that connection.

And of course that theory only has legs if it can be proven the murder occurred in the bathroom of 70A Alice St Goodna; and that claim is seriously questioned.

I wonder whether the scientists and the police considered the chemical reaction between peroxide and blood. (see youtube video below). I am not a scientist so help me out here. Would this be evident in the hair? Would it would make a lot more mess to clean up? In addition to the blood from the bashing to the head?

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.

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.

Cheers

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: 122.108.253.186
Contact Form URL: https://whokilledleanneholland.com/contact-us/
Sent by an unverified visitor to your site.

—

KATE KYRIACOU

Journalist

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

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.

23 Aug 2012. COP letter to DPP

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 http://www.whokilledleanneholland.com’.