Speaker 1: Approache Production.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to our little Ladie.
Speaker 3: It's been a while since we've recorded our last episode,
Speaker 3: but that doesn't mean that Eden has been forgotten all
Speaker 3: the work has stopped. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
Speaker 3: In the last months, a lot has happened. There is
Speaker 3: more and more for Jason and Amanda, their family, and
Speaker 3: the millions of supporters that have listened to this podcast
Speaker 3: to be hopeful for. So over the next few weeks,
Speaker 3: you're going to hear from Jason and Amanda with some
Speaker 3: big bits of news. But in this episode, we're going
Speaker 3: to speak to an expert in forensic pathology about an
Speaker 3: interim report that he's just completed for the Westbrooks.
Speaker 1: My name is doctor Richard Byron Collins. I'm a consultant
Speaker 1: forensic pathologist in private practice, and I've been practicing forensic
Speaker 1: pathology and pathology for approximately fifty years. During that time,
Speaker 1: I've worked largely for the defense. That's because I'm in
Speaker 1: private practice as opposed to being a salaried forensic pathologist
Speaker 1: with a forensic institute in any of the States. During
Speaker 1: that period of time, I've been a lecturer in forensic
Speaker 1: pathology at Monation Melbourne, universities and carried out approximately ten
Speaker 1: thousand post mortem examinations on all types of deaths, largely
Speaker 1: under the jurisdiction of the coroner. And I've been involved
Speaker 1: in giving evidence in suppose almost all courts throughout Australia
Speaker 1: and in some courts overseas.
Speaker 2: How did you hear about the Eden Westbrook case?
Speaker 1: I form memory, which is not all that good these days.
Speaker 1: I think I was approached by Channel nine originally and
Speaker 1: got involved through a number of journalists and the family themselves.
Speaker 2: So as part of that work that you've been doing
Speaker 2: with the family, you've just recently handed down a preliminary
Speaker 2: finding on your investigation. Is that right?
Speaker 1: Yes, I have. I've headed it really preliminary comments because
Speaker 1: I didn't have all the materials which I would normally
Speaker 1: have to properly review a case where the cause of
Speaker 1: death and the circumstances of the death have come into question,
Speaker 1: either by a family member or a legal firm or
Speaker 1: the coronial system itself.
Speaker 2: We have spoken before, But what was missing? What would
Speaker 2: you have hoped to have seen?
Speaker 1: There were basically three exercises which I as yet have
Speaker 1: been unable to carry out and therefore unable to provide
Speaker 1: a final report, most important of which were the collection
Speaker 1: of autopsy photographs taken during the performance of the post
Speaker 1: mortem examination, which should have shown any abnormalities which were
Speaker 1: present and identified by the pathologist. I haven't as yet
Speaker 1: looked at the light microscope slides, which are made from
Speaker 1: small pieces of tissue which are harvested at the time
Speaker 1: of the autopsy and processed so that each major organ
Speaker 1: can be looked at under the microscope, or a sample
Speaker 1: of each organ can be looked at under the microscope,
Speaker 1: in order to identify any disease processes which might be
Speaker 1: present and may or may not have contributed to the death.
Speaker 1: And where a death is difficult, or whether circumstances are
Speaker 1: difficult to ascertain, and the contents of the autopsy report
Speaker 1: may be difficult to understand. And I'm not necessarily saying
Speaker 1: that that's so in this case, but that's my common
Speaker 1: practice to speak with the pathologist in order to clarify
Speaker 1: some issues that might arise out of the autopsy report.
Speaker 1: And this has certainly been so in this particular case.
Speaker 3: You've heard doctor Collins before in this podcast. He came
Speaker 3: on about a year or so ago to talk about
Speaker 3: how astounded he was that he was unable to access
Speaker 3: photographs of the autopsy. As a forensic pathology expert.
Speaker 2: He said it was.
Speaker 3: Highly unusual and not providing these photographs was hindering the
Speaker 3: family's opportunity for closure. To date, doctor Collins still hasn't
Speaker 3: seen those photographs, and that's why this is only a
Speaker 3: preliminary finding because without those photos it's hard to finalize
Speaker 3: his report.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm fervently hoping, and it may be that I'm
Speaker 1: hoping that pigs might fly. But in reality, if I
Speaker 1: have access to the photographs and am able to speak
Speaker 1: to theol just to clarify some issues and look at
Speaker 1: the microscope slides, then I'm prepared to provide a further document.
Speaker 1: It may or may not alter from what I've said
Speaker 1: in my preliminary statement. And also I would hopefully have
Speaker 1: access to any police investigations which hopefully again had been
Speaker 1: carried out on any items of clothing or the rope
Speaker 1: or the scene at the time of the event.
Speaker 2: You stated in your comments that you are not prepared
Speaker 2: to accept the cause of death as is it as
Speaker 2: fhixial is that he say.
Speaker 1: Yes the term in the autops of report, which is
Speaker 1: not one that I would commonly use. Although I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that it's not necessarily correct. It is really difficult
Speaker 1: to sort out the mechanism of the cause of death
Speaker 1: in somebody who has been found hanging. It's not necessarily
Speaker 1: due to asphixiator. There are other factors which may occur
Speaker 1: once the neck has been constricted, and so I would
Speaker 1: prefer to if I were happy with the circumstances and
Speaker 1: the findings, to give a cause of death as hanging.
Speaker 1: It might be in this case that if I'm not
Speaker 1: happy with the circumstances and the findings in the additional
Speaker 1: materials that I hopefully obtain, then I will provide the
Speaker 1: cause of death as I have already as undetermined.
Speaker 2: You mentioned that the location of a fracture I'm guessing
Speaker 2: around the neck I think, in your words, said should
Speaker 2: have rung alarm bells. Can you tell me about what
Speaker 2: you found?
Speaker 1: Yes, Look, I have to be fairly careful at the
Speaker 1: moment inasmuch that I don't divulge too much anatomical information,
Speaker 1: and that's why I might be appearing rather vague. But
Speaker 1: suffice it to say that the ligature in this case
Speaker 1: was found around the upper part of the neck, in
Speaker 1: other words, beneath the angle of the you, which is
Speaker 1: not an uncommon place to find a ligature in somebody
Speaker 1: who's died or has been found hanging. So there was that,
Speaker 1: and then there was a fracture in a structure, a
Speaker 1: cartilaginous structure in the voice box, which was well away
Speaker 1: from the actual location of the ligature. Now, it's not
Speaker 1: all that uncommon to find fractures in the voice box
Speaker 1: in somebody who has died by hanging, but in this
Speaker 1: particular situation, it is very uncommon for the fracture to
Speaker 1: be located in the particular part of the voice box
Speaker 1: as it was in this manner. So that's why I
Speaker 1: think that, And this is really no reflection on the pathologist.
Speaker 1: It's just a general comment that if there is a
Speaker 1: fracture in an unusual place, then that should prompt further
Speaker 1: investigation by the investigating officers.
Speaker 2: Are there any alternative explanations on how that injury might
Speaker 2: have been sustained or have you seen it in previous cases.
Speaker 1: I suppose a fracture is occasioned by blunt force trauma,
Speaker 1: and that may have been as a result of compression
Speaker 1: of the neck by another mechanism as opposed to the
Speaker 1: ligature around the neck. Now, there's no evidence that the
Speaker 1: ligature was initially applied lower in the neck. That would
Speaker 1: make me feel much more comfortable about the fracture in
Speaker 1: this particular cartilage. So it says to me that there
Speaker 1: has been some localized pressure by whatever means to that
Speaker 1: particular area, rather than transmitted pressure from a ligature higher
Speaker 1: up in the neck. If there's going to be transmitted
Speaker 1: pressure in the tissue within the neck itself, that usually
Speaker 1: results in fractures in a totally different location.
Speaker 2: Can I pose a question and you may or may
Speaker 2: not be able to answer it, But I guess I'm
Speaker 2: asking this question for the audience. Would it be fair
Speaker 2: to say that an injury to that part of the
Speaker 2: neck might be caused by someone strangling somewhat?
Speaker 1: Well, it might be, and then we'll get into the
Speaker 1: argument of And this is a three day lecture on
Speaker 1: what are the signs of manual strangulation or ligature strangulation?
Speaker 1: And sometimes there is basically nothing on the surface of
Speaker 1: the skin, whereas there may be some damage in the
Speaker 1: underlying tissues. Now, the only surface damage in this case
Speaker 1: that I could identify was an area of bruising below
Speaker 1: the ligature mark on the left side of the neck,
Speaker 1: and this was well away from the actual fracture in
Speaker 1: the cartilage. So that's one of the reasons why I
Speaker 1: am extremely keen to hand the autopsy photographs, because there
Speaker 1: may be something that shows up on the photograph which
Speaker 1: has for whatever reason, been omitted in the post mortem
Speaker 1: examination report. And I would have to say that, you know,
Speaker 1: it's not impossible for a pathologist, and I'm just speaking
Speaker 1: generally here and not referring to this particular pathologist, where
Speaker 1: when you're dictating your notes or writing your notes, you
Speaker 1: might put down the wrong side or you might for
Speaker 1: whatever reason, omit to write down a particular injury or finding.
Speaker 1: And that's why it's mandatory basically to have photographs for comparison.
Speaker 3: You may remember across our reporting of this case that
Speaker 3: Eden Westbrook's post mortem was carried out by a pathologist,
Speaker 3: not a forensic pathologist like doctor Collins. I know, across
Speaker 3: the years this has been a question that Jason and
Speaker 3: Amanda have asked, why did an expert in forensics carry
Speaker 3: out in z autopsy and not just a pathologist.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that I like the term just a pathologist.
Speaker 1: We're all fellows of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia,
Speaker 1: with varying degrees of training. Now it's my understanding, and
Speaker 1: I could be wrong that the particular pathologist in this
Speaker 1: case was a well trained anatomical pathologist and not necessarily
Speaker 1: a forensic pathologist, but would have some forensic pathology skills,
Speaker 1: because as part of the training of an anatomic pathologist,
Speaker 1: you need to have performed a number of post mortem examinations.
Speaker 1: But an anatomical pathologist may not necessarily appreciate the subtleties
Speaker 1: of something abnormal or the subtleties of something normal in
Speaker 1: a particular post mortem examination. I understan and where you're
Speaker 1: coming from, And it's quite a reasonable question, and I
Speaker 1: must say that I have to couch all my comments
Speaker 1: with the caveat that I haven't yet spoken to this pathologist, and.
Speaker 2: The conversation with the pathologist would help you deliver a
Speaker 2: more comprehensive if you like finding Yes.
Speaker 1: You're quite right there. Look, it's not only a matter
Speaker 1: of courtesy to notify another pathologist that you are involved
Speaker 1: in a particular case and assessing their work. The assessment
Speaker 1: might be less than helpful in the long run, but
Speaker 1: it is common courtesy to do so. But it also
Speaker 1: and I found this personally over the years, very important
Speaker 1: and very useful to to the fat with the pathologist
Speaker 1: in relation to the findings that have been documented and
Speaker 1: which may not have been documented but are obvious on
Speaker 1: the photographs. And similarly, that applies to the microscope slides.
Speaker 1: Perhaps a little less relevant in a case where death
Speaker 1: has been due to trauma, as is supposed to be
Speaker 1: in this case, but I've been involved in a number
Speaker 1: of cases where I've requested to look at the light
Speaker 1: microscope slides and found disease conditions which weren't obvious to
Speaker 1: the naked eye. And that is not uncommon to have
Speaker 1: a diseased organ that looks normal macroscopically or to the
Speaker 1: naked eye, and these conditions, it was argued, could have
Speaker 1: played a significant role in the demise of a particular individual.
Speaker 1: And so again that's why I want to look at
Speaker 1: the slides. And it's really a process of dotting the
Speaker 1: eyes and crossing the t's when you're examining something, examining
Speaker 1: a case, it needs to be complete. As far as
Speaker 1: I'm concerned otherwise it's a waste of time really as
Speaker 1: an exercise.
Speaker 3: Doctor Barron Collins also had some other things that he
Speaker 3: found were unusual in this case. In particular, it was
Speaker 3: some of the things that were not done in his
Speaker 3: expert opinion as a forensic pathologists. For instance, there was
Speaker 3: never any genital swaps done on Eden.
Speaker 1: Well, I suppose it's just that it's out of abundance
Speaker 1: of caution, particularly in the circumstances such as this particular
Speaker 1: case where you've got a young teenage girl. One never
Speaker 1: knows what might have happened. And it's quite obvious that
Speaker 1: the police have made no comment in relation to any
Speaker 1: abnormal finding or suspicion of some event that might have occurred.
Speaker 1: But it's too late, after the horse has bolted and
Speaker 1: you've done the autopsy and the bodies being buried or
Speaker 1: cremated to think, oh, for goodness sake, I should have
Speaker 1: taken some genital swaps. It would be out of an
Speaker 1: abundance of caution. But you never know what you're going
Speaker 1: to find. As I say, particularly in the circumstances as
Speaker 1: these are.
Speaker 2: Is that standard forensic procedure.
Speaker 1: No, it's not, and there are no detail guidelines as
Speaker 1: far as I'm aware from the College as to what
Speaker 1: you must do in a post mortem examination. It's left
Speaker 1: up to the pathologist to decide what the extent of
Speaker 1: the investigation, whether it's only going to be an external
Speaker 1: examination or an external and internal with a number of
Speaker 1: ancillary investigations, which would include normally histology and possibly toxicology
Speaker 1: and perhaps biochemistry and microbiology, and then the sampling of
Speaker 1: forensic material. But that's up to the pathologists generally to
Speaker 1: decide what he or she wants to do. That decision
Speaker 1: may or may not be prompted by comments from the
Speaker 1: or information from the investigating police officers. Not so in
Speaker 1: this case. It seems to me sadly that for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: the investigating officers at the scene decided that it was
Speaker 1: basically a simple suicide by hanging, and that.
Speaker 3: Was welcome back to our in depth chat with doctor
Speaker 3: Barron Collins, who's a forensic pathologist who's working pro bono
Speaker 3: for the Westbrook family to try and find an answer
Speaker 3: to what happened to their little ed. Doctor Collins has
Speaker 3: undertaken up perliminary report for the family after examining some
Speaker 3: of the materials that he's been given he can't complete
Speaker 3: his work because the Corners so far has refused to
Speaker 3: allow him or the family access to the autopsy photos.
Speaker 1: As far as I'm concerned, the credibility of this investigation
Speaker 1: is severely in question, and it's lacking in the totality
Speaker 1: of what, as I understand it at the moment, were
Speaker 1: the investigations by the forensic officers. One never knows what's
Speaker 1: going to turn up, and as I said before, it's
Speaker 1: too late once the body's gone and the materials have gone,
Speaker 1: to say, of christsake, we should have looked at that
Speaker 1: particular aspect. I might have to eat humble pie in
Speaker 1: this particular case, because, as with some other bits and
Speaker 1: pieces in it, I have not been provided with any
Speaker 1: of the results of investigations of the forensic officers, which
Speaker 1: may or may not have been carried out at the laboratory.
Speaker 1: There may be some results, and there may have been investigations,
Speaker 1: and then I'll be, as I've said, just eating the
Speaker 1: humble pie. But at the moment, my impression and understanding
Speaker 1: is that there was nothing that was taken away from
Speaker 1: the scene which was then examined which could have provided
Speaker 1: evidence of, perhaps of a third party involvement.
Speaker 2: You also noted that there's no reliable evidence to determine
Speaker 2: the exact day of death. Can you tell me about that.
Speaker 1: I see in the coroner's finding that it was decided
Speaker 1: that the death occurred on the seventeenth and the body
Speaker 1: was found on the eighteenth. Now, I have no idea
Speaker 1: what the reasoning behind that is, because it's just absolutely unfounded.
Speaker 1: Whatever the reasoning is or unreliable. The determination of the
Speaker 1: time of death is fraught with difficulty, and in the
Speaker 1: old days it used to be based on the presence
Speaker 1: of post mortem changes such as the presence of rigamortis
Speaker 1: and post modern abidity and body temperature. Now there have
Speaker 1: been some monumental stuff ups over the years by so
Speaker 1: called expert pathologists who have pontificated about the time of
Speaker 1: death and caused considerable concern in the courts and wrongful convictions.
Speaker 1: So it is a difficult aspect to look at. The
Speaker 1: most appropriate way to do it, and this is not
Speaker 1: always practicable, is for a pathologist or somebody suitably qualified
Speaker 1: to examine the body, insite you and look for those findings,
Speaker 1: but more particularly, pay some reliance on what might be
Speaker 1: the core body temperature. But even that will only give
Speaker 1: you a window of time, and it's certainly not quite
Speaker 1: as easy as it seems when the good doctor in
Speaker 1: Midsummer Murders gives you down to the house, minute, second
Speaker 1: and nanosecond basically of when somebody died. It's all very
Speaker 1: well in a TV series because the time's helpful sorting
Speaker 1: out your witnesses. It's not that simple in real life.
Speaker 1: My view is always that to say that the time
Speaker 1: of death will be a guestimate and from the pathologist,
Speaker 1: and if you have a reliable lay witness or anybody
Speaker 1: else who is reliable, then that evidence should be accepted
Speaker 1: basically over what the pathologist says in a general sense.
Speaker 1: But in this particular case, we've got a couple of
Speaker 1: policemen who talk about rigor mortis and post mortem libidity,
Speaker 1: and that information is less than helpful, of little probity value,
Speaker 1: and in my view, useless.
Speaker 2: What are the most critical failures in your mind in
Speaker 2: this investigation so far, Well.
Speaker 1: I think they're twofold. One is, again, as I understand it,
Speaker 1: the lack of detailed examination of the crime scene and
Speaker 1: the harvesting of appropriate samples for further investigation and the
Speaker 1: apparent incompleteness of the post mortem examination. But again I'm
Speaker 1: not directly criticizing the pathologist. I'm quite sure that it
Speaker 1: was done to the extent that was at the time
Speaker 1: deemed appropriate and necess except for what I said before
Speaker 1: that I am concerned that if the fracture in the
Speaker 1: voice box is actually located where it's been described, then
Speaker 1: that should have rung some alarm bells. I need to
Speaker 1: comment in relation to the presence of the fracture. All
Speaker 1: this may be a crock of garbage that I'm talking
Speaker 1: about and unnecessarily worry if it is found that the
Speaker 1: fracture was in a different site and that is a
Speaker 1: typo in the report. Now I can conceive that that occurs.
Speaker 1: It's occurred to every pathologist that's ever written a report
Speaker 1: that's been typed by a well meaning typist, either from
Speaker 1: notes or from a voice machine. So it could simply
Speaker 1: be a typo, and if it is, then some of
Speaker 1: the concerns fall away. But if it's not a typo,
Speaker 1: there is a real problem.
Speaker 2: And the only way for you to see if that's
Speaker 2: a typo or actually real is those photos.
Speaker 1: Yes, hopefully there'll be some photographs taken of the next structures,
Speaker 1: and yes, that would be of assistance, and also talking
Speaker 1: to the pathologist that may well clarify this aspect that
Speaker 1: I've placed a lot of store in at the moment
Speaker 1: may fade away at some stage.
Speaker 3: Over and over again, experts, family members and anyone with
Speaker 3: a wide view of this case believe that it should
Speaker 3: be reinvestigated so that the family can finally get peace.
Speaker 2: And it's something that doctor Collins also believes.
Speaker 1: Yes, I do, even if it's simply just by the
Speaker 1: measures that I want to do as a forensic pathologist.
Speaker 1: But I think that what the police have done or
Speaker 1: a peer to have done at the moment should be
Speaker 1: questioned and if there's any more information, it should be provided,
Speaker 1: and if there isn't, well then it's been pathetic.
Speaker 2: Are you hopeful that you'll get to see those photos
Speaker 2: on behalf of the family.
Speaker 1: I am hopeful, you know. Look, I have said in
Speaker 1: my report, it beggars belief why the photographs haven't been provided,
Speaker 1: particularly to somebody like myself who is an expert in
Speaker 1: the area and who's been engaged by the family, who
Speaker 1: have a desperate interest in the accuracy of the autopsier
Speaker 1: report and the findings. I just can't understand why they
Speaker 1: haven't been sent to me with the proviso that I
Speaker 1: won't show them to anybody or talk in detail about them.
Speaker 1: The reasoning that the coroner has provided seems to me
Speaker 1: to be meaningless, and it appears that there is no
Speaker 1: real understanding by the cranial system as to how valuable
Speaker 1: these photographs are. Firstly to me to verify the autopsier report,
Speaker 1: and secondly to be able to answer the questions or
Speaker 1: the concerns that have been expressed by the family in
Speaker 1: relation to the presence or otherwise of facial injuries. Now,
Speaker 1: there are certainly some pictures that were taken at the scene,
Speaker 1: but these are not of sufficient quality for me to
Speaker 1: properly interpret at least the facial features in relation to injuries.
Speaker 1: And secondly, they're certainly not the extent that one would
Speaker 1: have in a post mortem examination set.
Speaker 2: I want to ask a personal question here, and feel
Speaker 2: free not to answer it if you don't want to.
Speaker 2: But you're not being paid by anyone to ask these questions,
Speaker 2: So what drives you to find an answer here? Dr Colin?
Speaker 1: The answer to your question is no, I'm not being paid.
Speaker 1: I often get asked this question by the prosecutor when
Speaker 1: I'm giving evidence for the defense in a matter, and
Speaker 1: my simple answer is, yes, I am being paid counsel,
Speaker 1: but so are you look it. I am not a
Speaker 1: hired gun for a particular side. I do do work
Speaker 1: for the prosecution that that's relatively minimal, because, as I
Speaker 1: said before, sitting out in the public domain as an expert,
Speaker 1: it's usually the defense that requests my expertise. I do
Speaker 1: do pro bono work, although not a huge amount, and
Speaker 1: that's what this is. Except I should say that I
Speaker 1: was paid a small amount by Channel nine to provide
Speaker 1: my initial views, but I have not rendered any account
Speaker 1: at all to the family. I am concerned that justice
Speaker 1: has not been done in this case, and I'm happy
Speaker 1: to assist if I can and provide what I think
Speaker 1: is a detailed and unbiased examination of the material. The
Speaker 1: bottom line is that if I'm ever accused of being
Speaker 1: biased in a report, then my credibility goes out the window,
Speaker 1: and so I have to remain down the line so
Speaker 1: that the court can be assisted by what I say,
Speaker 1: whether it's advantageous or useful to the defense or the Crown.
Speaker 1: Or whoever employed me is irrelevant. And just if you've
Speaker 1: got time, and now you've asked the question, I'll have
Speaker 1: to tell you. There was the case some years ago
Speaker 1: where I was employed by the defense to provide a
Speaker 1: report at the committal hearing for an accused person. I
Speaker 1: did so, it was of no use to the defense.
Speaker 1: Somehow it got tabled and the Crown used it in
Speaker 1: the trial. So I went from one side to the
Speaker 1: other side with the same report. So, in other words,
Speaker 1: it was down the middle and it was to assist
Speaker 1: the court, not to assist my pecuniary interests or anybody else's,
Speaker 1: or to get somebody off or to convict somebody. It
Speaker 1: was there for the court to look at. So that's
Speaker 1: a long answer to a fairly short question. But that's it.
Speaker 2: And finally, you've worked in Tasmania a fair bit. I'm
Speaker 2: aware of some of the cases you've looked at in Tasmania.
Speaker 2: Is there a difference in dealing with the Tasmanian coronial
Speaker 2: process than other parts of Australia? Is it harder or
Speaker 2: is this just the way things are? I think it's
Speaker 2: probably just the way things are.
Speaker 1: I've never found a croner to be quite so recalcitrant
Speaker 1: as in this matter. Generally speaking, I will be provided
Speaker 1: with all the materials I require and request in a
Speaker 1: case there are differences from state to state. For example,
Speaker 1: Western Australia won't send me the light microscope slides, so
Speaker 1: I have to rely on the pathologist's actual written report
Speaker 1: or go to Western Australia to look at the slides.
Speaker 1: Other states will provide them to me. I suppose I
Speaker 1: have to couch these comments in relation to the fact
Speaker 1: that I'm usually working in a case that has legal ramifications,
Speaker 1: and so the legal problems were on foot at that time,
Speaker 1: and that may well be why the coroner in Tasmania
Speaker 1: in this particular case was reluctant to provide me with
Speaker 1: the information. But I think if that's the reason, then
Speaker 1: as ap port reason