1127 users online (146 members and 981 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Under the Southern Cross
    Posts
    12,283
    Graham Stafford claims Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie wants to re-try him for murder of Leanne Holland

    October 17, 2013

    SECRET legal advice has found there is a basis for prosecuting Graham Stafford for the murder of Leanne Holland, but it is not worth pursuing any charges.
    Attorney-General Jarrod Bliejie, who commissioned a review of the case last year, has sought the opinion of yet another lawyer and has refused to rule out re-prosecuting Mr Stafford.

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1226741231124

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Under the Southern Cross
    Posts
    12,283
    Graham Stafford won’t face new trial over murder of Leanne Holland, 13

    April 11, 2014 2:10PM

    GRAHAM Stafford will no longer face the prospect of a new trial over the murder of 13-year-old Leanne Holland.

    Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie has announced he will not proceed with an ex-officio indictment against him.

    Mr Stafford was convicted of the murder in 1992 but the conviction was set aside by the Court of Appeal in 2009.

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1226881013323

  3. #18
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    937
    I was hoping to see more about this by now but it looks like nothing is happening still. I did read recently that Stafford has finally been allowed to have some documents relating to the review after previously being refused and as I understand it, he has to pay over $3000 for the privilege. Seems very wrong to me given it has already been done and paid for from the taxpayers purse.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1
    This whole case is so wrong. I've been researching it for ages and it is so corrupt and unjust.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    937
    Further to this, they still refuse to hand over the documents.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karo View Post
    I was hoping to see more about this by now but it looks like nothing is happening still. I did read recently that Stafford has finally been allowed to have some documents relating to the review after previously being refused and as I understand it, he has to pay over $3000 for the privilege. Seems very wrong to me given it has already been done and paid for from the taxpayers purse.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    AUS
    Posts
    4,662
    Leanne Holland murder: A-G rejects plea for inquest by man jailed for 1991 death of 12yo Ipswich girl
    By Josh Bavas
    ABC News
    Sat Oct 08 19:01:12 EST 2016

    'Queensland's Attorney-General has rejected a plea for an inquest by the man who was jailed for nearly 15 years for the 1991 murder of Ipswich schoolgirl Leanne Holland.'

    'Mr Stafford recently appealed to Attorney-General Yvette D'Ath for a coronial inquest to vet out the evidence in the hope to clear his name once and for all.

    But in a letter, Ms D'Ath said it was not in the public interest to grant an inquest.

    "In determining whether the public interest test is satisfied, I require cogent, reliable evidence or new evidence, sufficient to persuade me that holding of an inquest is in the public interest," she said.

    "After consideration of all the issues you raised in your letter, I have determined the information you have provided does not persuade me that it would be in the public interest for an inquest to be held."'

    Read more

    Related:

    Leanne Holland murder: Graham Stafford will not be retried

    Judge to review Holland murder case

    Stafford lawyer calls for murder inquiry

  7. #22
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    937
    It's probably not in the interest of many people who were negligent and corrupt in the investigation but also they won't have to pay compensation if they bury it. I suppose that's in the public interest.


    s
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    Leanne Holland murder: A-G rejects plea for inquest by man jailed for 1991 death of 12yo Ipswich girl
    By Josh Bavas
    ABC News
    Sat Oct 08 19:01:12 EST 2016

    'Queensland's Attorney-General has rejected a plea for an inquest by the man who was jailed for nearly 15 years for the 1991 murder of Ipswich schoolgirl Leanne Holland.'

    'Mr Stafford recently appealed to Attorney-General Yvette D'Ath for a coronial inquest to vet out the evidence in the hope to clear his name once and for all.

    But in a letter, Ms D'Ath said it was not in the public interest to grant an inquest.

    "In determining whether the public interest test is satisfied, I require cogent, reliable evidence or new evidence, sufficient to persuade me that holding of an inquest is in the public interest," she said.

    "After consideration of all the issues you raised in your letter, I have determined the information you have provided does not persuade me that it would be in the public interest for an inquest to be held."'

    Read more

    Related:

    Leanne Holland murder: Graham Stafford will not be retried

    Judge to review Holland murder case

    Stafford lawyer calls for murder inquiry

  8. #23
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    937
    For those interested, there is going to be a program on channel 7 tonight, Murder Uncovered, about this case.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    586
    Did anyone watch this?

    I wasn't sure what to think about it all, I had previously seen a show a few years ago which pointed at him being innocent. I do worry about commercial tv doing a show and wanting and needing ratings, if they let the truth get in the way.

    I think he was set up to be on the show by the tv station.
    "seek not a life of riches , earthly gold or pearls, seek only a heart that is happy, a heart that is honest, a heart that is pure"

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    450
    I just watched it. I felt uncomfortable with the ambush at the end where they tried to make him take the polygraph. I think anyone would have felt uneasy and under duress after being presented with that report. I also didn't hear anyone saying that his dna was found on her body or at the crime scene?. Unless they didn't do dna testing back then?


  11. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by Morrisa View Post
    I just watched it. I felt uncomfortable with the ambush at the end where they tried to make him take the polygraph. I think anyone would have felt uneasy and under duress after being presented with that report. I also didn't hear anyone saying that his dna was found on her body or at the crime scene?. Unless they didn't do dna testing back then?
    Yes I felt that ambush at the end was for ratings etc, not trying to really get to who murdered Leanne, they must still have samples they could have checked for DNA because they rechecked the shower curtain.

    They got his polygraph reviewed by there person, but did you also notice they didn't get the one they had done reviewed by anyone.
    "seek not a life of riches , earthly gold or pearls, seek only a heart that is happy, a heart that is honest, a heart that is pure"

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    32
    GS had all the right answers...He talked the talk. But didn't walk the walk! I too wanted to give him benefit of the doubt but this new review was methodical. No escaping it's thorough findings.
    No miscarriage of justice in his original finding of guilty.
    No honest person would deny a LDT. The adrenaline running through your veins after hearing an untrue innuendo would propel you to take it, not run, sniveling to your solicitor to worm your way out of it.
    Narcissists love to think they're smarter than everyone else and will push the point to prove it, even if this leads to their further detriment. He should have laid low and accepted he was caught and copped it sweet. Not sought further attention by claiming the "poor me" scenario.
    RIP lil Leanne.
    Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.


  13. #28
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    937
    I think the complete opposit, why would he have persisted with his demands for a new trial if he was guilty, he served his time, he is out, getting on with his life, isn't he? It was 1991, DNA was well and truly in play, no DNA from him on her body, none of her blodd on his clothes, trace blood spots on his shoes, it seems from cross contamination, according to the independent forensics testing. For such circumstantial evidence how could the police have had enough information to exclude 15 other suspects, within such a short span of time and have him tried, convicted and jailed in, 5 months I think it was.
    Jury foreman says they should have never found him guilty, were not told the truth.



    Quote Originally Posted by Lou Lou View Post
    GS had all the right answers...He talked the talk. But didn't walk the walk! I too wanted to give him benefit of the doubt but this new review was methodical. No escaping it's thorough findings.
    No miscarriage of justice in his original finding of guilty.
    No honest person would deny a LDT. The adrenaline running through your veins after hearing an untrue innuendo would propel you to take it, not run, sniveling to your solicitor to worm your way out of it.
    Narcissists love to think they're smarter than everyone else and will push the point to prove it, even if this leads to their further detriment. He should have laid low and accepted he was caught and copped it sweet. Not sought further attention by claiming the "poor me" scenario.
    RIP lil Leanne.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Karo View Post
    I think the complete opposit, why would he have persisted with his demands for a new trial if he was guilty, he served his time, he is out, getting on with his life, isn't he? It was 1991, DNA was well and truly in play, no DNA from him on her body, none of her blodd on his clothes, trace blood spots on his shoes, it seems from cross contamination, according to the independent forensics testing. For such circumstantial evidence how could the police have had enough information to exclude 15 other suspects, within such a short span of time and have him tried, convicted and jailed in, 5 months I think it was.
    Jury foreman says they should have never found him guilty, were not told the truth.
    Because that's the way narcissist operate. They need to dominate Every situation and feel they have the control & upper hand. He can't have Police or a jury tell him he is something he doesn't want to believe he is! Or that what he did was wrong, therefore, punishable.
    He still has a mother too, it must be agony for him that his mother knows he is a child killing scuz bucket. Although it seems she too, (understandably) is in denial.

    Police deal with these situations everyday. They know from the onset who perpetrators are, they're experts. They know who to exclude & why. They are the ones with the training & experience. Sure, they can be wrong at times, but this new review proves they were on the money.

    How do you explain away the peroxide in her hair, the boot mat impressions on her body, the maggot?
    DNA may have been contaminated due to Leanne's exposure after he callously left her dumped out in the elements.

    He did it alright, and instead of trying to "one up" those who have held him accountable, he needs to soul search and face the fact he did an horrendous thing, was caught, punished and now must live with his demons. And what horrifying demons they must be. Suppose that's why living in denial must be an easier path.

    GS- Go see a psych, undergo DBT, come to terms with what you have done & may God have some sort of mercy on your wretched soul.
    Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.


  15. #30
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    937
    I think there are too many strange things that don't make sense with the so called evidence, the bank teller, the other people who saw LH that day, well into the afternoon. The neighbours who were home and police said they weren't, the lack of any real blood in the car or house, not to mention the statements made by the girls who had the faceless person convicted for incest, the pedophile Usher treated with such polite respect.
    The mind boggles.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 417
    Last Post: 10-08-2017, 01:14 PM
  2. TX - Colleen Reed, 28, abducted & murdered, Austin, 29 Dec 1991
    By WasBlind in forum Past Trial Discussion Threads
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-01-2017, 05:24 PM
  3. Australia - Anita Cobby, 26, abducted & murdered, Sydney, NSW, 2 Feb 1986
    By marlywings in forum Past Trial Discussion Threads
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-30-2016, 08:18 AM
  4. GUILTY Australia - Trinity Bates, 8, abducted & murdered, Bundaberg, 21 Feb 2010
    By Texas Mist in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-26-2015, 02:03 AM
  5. GUILTY TX - Melanie Goodwin, 19, abducted & murdered, Denton, 25 Sept 2007
    By TCMom in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-06-2014, 10:49 PM

Tags for this Thread