Australia - Leanne Holland, 12, abducted & murdered, Ipswich, Qld, 23 Sept 1991

New Posts

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
 
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
Bohemian said:
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
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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?
 
Morrisa said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.



Lou Lou said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Karo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Karo said:
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.
Click to expand...

I remember seeing something on Australian Story I think it was, very well done, that showed a lot of faults with the investigation.
 
Strangely GS has still not been given the review yet Channel 7 have it, Graeme Crowley stands by him still and his lawyer, Joe Crowley says the "new evidence" has not been tested. They really should order an inquest, if only to get Justice for LH and her family.

Adrianna said:
I remember seeing something on Australian Story I think it was, very well done, that showed a lot of faults with the investigation.
Click to expand...
 
I would never take a lie detector test or advise anyone else to take one they are notoriously inaccurate and the only people who usually pass are psychopaths who have no emotions or guilt regarding any crime they have committed. I bet Donal Trump could pass one lol.
 
Leanne Holland case: New details revealed
Kate Kyriacou, Paula Doneman, The Sunday Mail (Qld)
March 20, 2017 1:00am

‘FOR years he was the man police had apparently overlooked – the sex offender and informant so close to officers he’d allegedly been photographed with them at the place where Leanne Holland’s beaten body was found.

But now, one of the biggest conspiracy theories in the schoolgirl’s murder has been debunked.

The man in the photographs has been identified as a plainclothes police officer conferring with colleagues.

A police review of Leanne’s death found major inconsistencies in claims the informant was the killer.

Instead, the almost 600-page review – kept secret for five years – found further forensic evidence pointing to Graham Stafford, the man once convicted of the 12-year-old’s murder.

The informant and Stafford were among 16 persons of interest in Leanne’s murder investigation. Fifteen were eliminated, and new evidence points to Stafford.

Stafford, the boyfriend of Leanne’s older sister, was home alone with Leanne on the day she disappeared. He told police she had gone to the shops and never returned.

He was arrested within days and convicted the following year. A series of appeals failed but he was released 14 years later on a legal technicality.

His supporters, including private investigator and former Queensland detective Graeme Crowley, have long criticised police for not further investigating a police informant and sex offender jailed for incest with his daughter.

Detectives conducting the review examined allegations raised by Stafford’s supporters in Mr Crowley’s case notes and also those in a 2007 book on Leanne’s murder co-authored by Mr Crowley and Professor Paul Wilson. Mr Wilson was jailed late last year for historical child sex offences.

The review found statements made by the man’s daughter “Kim” were “inconsistent”.

Mr Crowley and other Stafford supporters used the apparent presence of the informant in crime scene photographs to fuel speculation he was the real killer.

Breaking his silence for the first time in almost 26 years, retired detective Jim Wardhaugh told The Courier-Mail the man pictured is definitely him.

He said he was devastated to learn his photograph had been wrongly used to claim a pedophile had been with police when Leanne’s body was found.

Mr Wardhaugh said he had had no idea of this use until a detective conducting the review contacted him and asked him to come and look at a series of photographs.

“The first was myself and other officers on the side of the road,” he said.

Mr Wardhaugh said he was angry that the QPS did not correct the reports at the time they were made.

Detectives showed the photographs to the sex offender’s daughter, who confirmed her father was not pictured.

“(The informant) was never anywhere near that scene,” Mr Wardhaugh, who was there as an exhibits officer, said.

The review team did not criticise Mr Crowley for taking on the investigation and supporting Stafford but recommended the DPP consider laying charges over his conduct.

“Graeme Crowley should too be held responsible for false and inaccurate information which both formed material for Graham Stafford’s petitions for a pardon and for not substantiating information before making public claims which, when scrutinised, were found to be incorrect,’’ the review team wrote.

The review recommended the DPP consider prosecuting both “Kim” and Graeme Crowley for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

In an interview with Channel Seven’s Murder Uncovered Mr Crowley said he had not committed any criminal offences during his investigation into Leanne’s murder and there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

In response to the review findings against “Kim”, Mr Crowley said he was very careful to corroborate her information and did not recall “coming across inconsistencies”.

No charges have been laid against Mr Crowley or “Kim”.‘

Read more at:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...d/news-story/e6dde2c0a7f53511a139cc5fca3ac99f
 
‘LEANNE KNEW HER KILLER

An independent panel of some of the country’s best forensic experts found it was “nonsensical” to suggest Leanne Holland was murdered by a stranger and that her “thick hair” would account for the amount of blood found in the bathroom.

The Australian Forensic Reference Group – engaged by detectives who reviewed the 1991 murder – used new evidence to dispel long-held “theories” about the 12-year-old’s tragic death.

The 500-plus page secret review, obtained by Brisbane’s Seven News and Murder Uncovered, used the latest technology to uncover new evidence that again pointed to Graham Stafford being the killer.

Leanne’s body was found in bush at Redbank Plains in Ipswich, four days after she disappeared from her home in nearby Goodna.

Stafford, the then boyfriend of Leanne’s older sister, was convicted of her murder the next year but released after serving 14 years, his conviction overturned and a new trial ordered.

The Director of Public Prosecutions decided against a new trial, saying Stafford had already spent a substantial amount of time behind bars.

The review used modern DNA technology to identify Leanne’s blood in the bathroom of her home and in the boot of Stafford’s car.

It also determined, through microscopic and chemical examinations, that Leanne was in the process of bleaching her hair when she died. Stafford has long maintained Leanne never made it home after walking to the shops to buy the dye, so she could not have been murdered in the bathroom.

The review also found further evidence that police who initially searched Stafford’s car did, in fact, find a single maggot in the boot after detectives tracked down the diary of a work-experience student – now a police officer – who diligently recorded the discovery.’

‘The reference group disagreed that there were burn marks on Leanne’s body, saying her injuries were too “non-specific” to make that determination.’

‘Other questions the group answered included:

● When asked whether Leanne would have known her killer, the group said if she had been killed by a stranger, there would have been no reason to move her body from the bathroom.

● Asked about her head wound, the group said it would have bled “briskly” but the blood was likely to have become caught up in Leanne’s thick, curly hair.

● Asked whether the “body disposal scene” had been staged, the team said it was unlikely. They found Leanne’s murder was most likely a result of “intense and overwhelming anger” and her body dumped to confuse police.

● Asked about motive, the panel said the positioning of Leanne’s body, her torn/cut underpants and a stab wound to her perineum “all suggest sexual homicide”.’

Read more at:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...d/news-story/e6dde2c0a7f53511a139cc5fca3ac99f
 
Bohemian said:
Leanne Holland case: New details revealed
Kate Kyriacou, Paula Doneman, The Sunday Mail (Qld)
March 20, 2017 1:00am

‘FOR years he was the man police had apparently overlooked – the sex offender and informant so close to officers he’d allegedly been photographed with them at the place where Leanne Holland’s beaten body was found.

But now, one of the biggest conspiracy theories in the schoolgirl’s murder has been debunked.

The man in the photographs has been identified as a plainclothes police officer conferring with colleagues.

A police review of Leanne’s death found major inconsistencies in claims the informant was the killer.

Instead, the almost 600-page review – kept secret for five years – found further forensic evidence pointing to Graham Stafford, the man once convicted of the 12-year-old’s murder.

The informant and Stafford were among 16 persons of interest in Leanne’s murder investigation. Fifteen were eliminated, and new evidence points to Stafford.

Stafford, the boyfriend of Leanne’s older sister, was home alone with Leanne on the day she disappeared. He told police she had gone to the shops and never returned.

He was arrested within days and convicted the following year. A series of appeals failed but he was released 14 years later on a legal technicality.

His supporters, including private investigator and former Queensland detective Graeme Crowley, have long criticised police for not further investigating a police informant and sex offender jailed for incest with his daughter.

Detectives conducting the review examined allegations raised by Stafford’s supporters in Mr Crowley’s case notes and also those in a 2007 book on Leanne’s murder co-authored by Mr Crowley and Professor Paul Wilson. Mr Wilson was jailed late last year for historical child sex offences.

The review found statements made by the man’s daughter “Kim” were “inconsistent”.

Mr Crowley and other Stafford supporters used the apparent presence of the informant in crime scene photographs to fuel speculation he was the real killer.

Breaking his silence for the first time in almost 26 years, retired detective Jim Wardhaugh told The Courier-Mail the man pictured is definitely him.

He said he was devastated to learn his photograph had been wrongly used to claim a pedophile had been with police when Leanne’s body was found.

Mr Wardhaugh said he had had no idea of this use until a detective conducting the review contacted him and asked him to come and look at a series of photographs.

“The first was myself and other officers on the side of the road,” he said.

Mr Wardhaugh said he was angry that the QPS did not correct the reports at the time they were made.

Detectives showed the photographs to the sex offender’s daughter, who confirmed her father was not pictured.

“(The informant) was never anywhere near that scene,” Mr Wardhaugh, who was there as an exhibits officer, said.

The review team did not criticise Mr Crowley for taking on the investigation and supporting Stafford but recommended the DPP consider laying charges over his conduct.

“Graeme Crowley should too be held responsible for false and inaccurate information which both formed material for Graham Stafford’s petitions for a pardon and for not substantiating information before making public claims which, when scrutinised, were found to be incorrect,’’ the review team wrote.

The review recommended the DPP consider prosecuting both “Kim” and Graeme Crowley for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

In an interview with Channel Seven’s Murder Uncovered Mr Crowley said he had not committed any criminal offences during his investigation into Leanne’s murder and there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

In response to the review findings against “Kim”, Mr Crowley said he was very careful to corroborate her information and did not recall “coming across inconsistencies”.

No charges have been laid against Mr Crowley or “Kim”.‘

Read more at:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...d/news-story/e6dde2c0a7f53511a139cc5fca3ac99f
Click to expand...

I think that the pedophile's daughter identified him at the scene, however the photo the police showed her was not the correct one. In other evidence, the clothes Leanne was wearing were not her own, the pedophile's daughter identified them as belonging to herself and her sister.
 
I’ve just become aware of this case through the Little Girl Lost podcast. Just listened to the episode where the report from the police review done in 2012 was detailed.

I’m curious about a couple of things. One is, couldn’t he blood in the bathroom and elsewhere be from Leanne’s menstrual cycle? Is there a way to differentiate?

The second thing is about the part of the review that said her hair had obviously been dyed in an uneven application, suggesting to them that she was killed while dying her hair. But doesn’t her hair look previously dyed in the picture? Could they tell that this was fresh dye and if so, how?

I’ve included a link to one of many articles that has this same picture and will upload the pic as well.

Leanne Holland murder evidence uncovered | Daily Mail Online
 

Attachments

  • 15554C37-987D-411B-90FE-86EA68C51E6B.png
    15554C37-987D-411B-90FE-86EA68C51E6B.png
    422.4 KB · Views: 2
Doghairrules said:
I’ve just become aware of this case through the Little Girl Lost podcast. Just listened to the episode where the report from the police review done in 2012 was detailed.

I’m curious about a couple of things. One is, couldn’t he blood in the bathroom and elsewhere be from Leanne’s menstrual cycle? Is there a way to differentiate?

The second thing is about the part of the review that said her hair had obviously been dyed in an uneven application, suggesting to them that she was killed while dying her hair. But doesn’t her hair look previously dyed in the picture? Could they tell that this was fresh dye and if so, how?

I’ve included a link to one of many articles that has this same picture and will upload the pic as well.

Leanne Holland murder evidence uncovered | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...
I don't know what the forensic procedures are, but in principle menstrual fluid is different from circulating blood.

When the menstrual blood proteome was compared with those of circulating blood (1774 proteins) and vaginal fluid (823 proteins), 385 proteins were found unique to menstrual blood. Proteomic Analysis of Menstrual Blood
 
I have now finished the podcast and think Stafford is probably guilty. But I am puzzled at the refusal to release all of the review to the public and be totally transparent about what they found and how they found it.
 
There’s an awful lot of things not right about the evidence in this case . Firstly the photo of the suspect they called Steve and said it was Jim Wardaugh .... wrong photo I did in fact send Micheal Usher the correct photo of Steve and was verified as being him by his daughter and neighbors from that time .
The next thing Leanne’s body was found with a skirt a multifit multicolour according to the autopsy but who’s was it ? It wasn’t Leanne’s or her sister Melissa’s
Sadly Murder Uncovered got so
Much wrong and the podcast by Kate was even worse .
Blood in the bathroom? You seen the bathroom was old and tiles missing everywhere cleaning it from a murder was impossible.
Shower curtain blood ? Up high on the curtain? They folded it up
So Leanne could have cut herself shaving her legs and folding it has transferred it . The shower rose too could have been transferred this was not a spotless bathroom even in the crime photos .
And now she’s not dying her hair titan red it’s not bleaching it with the remainder still in samples ? Rubbish if you read the autopsy her hair and head were closely examined there would have been bleaching agents in the wounds and chemical burns from it being on there for days . Not sure if the public will ever see the report as Graham Stafford hasn’t even though he raised the $3000 to get it . Queensland Police have only ever leaked it to Channel 7 I think it’s disgusting they need to seriously take this further and stop denying Leanne true justice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 121 more.
Total: 2,682 (members: 122, guests: 2,560)

Online statistics

Members online
122
Guests online
2,560
Total visitors
2,682
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,179
Messages
17,964,675
Members
228,715
Latest member
hannahdunnam
Back
Top