Speaker 1: Kiota, I'm Chelsea Daniels and from the team behind the
Speaker 1: front page. The New Zealand Herald's daily news podcast, This
Speaker 1: is Accused The Polkinghorn trial over a series of weeks,
Speaker 1: in conjunction with our usual daily episodes, will be bringing
Speaker 1: you regular coverage as one of the most high profile
Speaker 1: trials of the year makes its way through the High
Speaker 1: Court at Auckland. A warning, this podcast contains disturbing content.
Speaker 1: Originally due to run for six weeks, the trial of
Speaker 1: Philip Polkinghorn is now in its seventh week. The former
Speaker 1: Auckland eye surgeon is accused of murdering his wife, Pauline Hannah,
Speaker 1: who was found dead on April fifth, twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: He maintains she took her own life. More witnesses from
Speaker 1: the defense took to the stand to discuss their thoughts
Speaker 1: on how Hannah died and the risk factors that could
Speaker 1: have pushed her to take her own life. New emails
Speaker 1: from Hannah were read to the court, and the question
Speaker 1: on if she used her phone on the night before
Speaker 1: she died saw one Crown witness return to the stand.
Speaker 1: Day twenty seven saw Professor Stephen Cordner continue his evidence
Speaker 1: He is the defense pathologist whose evidence began on day
Speaker 1: twenty six. Under questioning from defense lawyer Ron Mansfield, Cordner
Speaker 1: continued running through his findings related to Hannah's body. He
Speaker 1: confirmed there's no evidence of sexual activity or a sexual
Speaker 1: assault from the pathology report or photographs he's examined. At
Speaker 1: the time of death. Cordner said that mobility remains for
Speaker 1: twelve to twenty four hours. Three to six hours before
Speaker 1: Hannah was found is a fair estimate for the time
Speaker 1: of death, he said, but it's not always cut or dry.
Speaker 1: There was still mobility between the time the body is
Speaker 1: at the scene on April fifth, twenty twenty one, and
Speaker 1: the autopsy the following day. There was no specific injuries
Speaker 1: indicative of a past assault. Mansfield then turned to earlier
Speaker 1: evidence of one of the pathologists called by the Crown,
Speaker 1: doctor Martin Sage, who was called to discuss the evidence
Speaker 1: of the pathologist who undertook the autopsy, doctor Keelak Kesher.
Speaker 1: Sage had said the lack of marks on the neck
Speaker 1: are uncommon, as was the fact the mark on one
Speaker 1: side of her neck disappeared from the time her body
Speaker 1: was found to the autopsy the next day. Cordn had disagreed.
Speaker 1: He said it's a well recognized phenomenon. Little or no
Speaker 1: mark can be left by a ligature in a hanging.
Speaker 1: He said he doesn't think it's common, but his I'm
Speaker 1: not sure any pathologist has a good reading on how
Speaker 1: common or uncommon it is. Sage was then asked about
Speaker 1: the fact that mark was an artifact by the time
Speaker 1: of the post mortem and said he thinks it doesn't
Speaker 1: tell us much. Cordner says, it tells us one thing
Speaker 1: that the interaction between the belt and the neck was static.
Speaker 1: If there had been relative movement between the belt and
Speaker 1: the neck, there would have been something in the way
Speaker 1: of an abrasion. Earlier, Cordner said the lack of neck
Speaker 1: abrasions went against the strangulation theory, given strangulation homicides a violent,
Speaker 1: dynamic affairs where the ligature is likely to move around.
Speaker 1: Mansfield then asked Cordner for his views on Keelak and
Speaker 1: Sage both ruling that Hannah's cause of death was neck compression.
Speaker 2: So, as you know, doctor Kellix have been reported and
Speaker 2: has report that death was as a result of neck compression,
Speaker 2: and so doctor Sage was being asked for it might
Speaker 2: be vague or could that be criticized as being vague?
Speaker 3: I think was the point. What's your response to that?
Speaker 4: Well, I agree with the way his.
Speaker 5: Summarize it, which is it neither he nor doctor Kelak
Speaker 5: prepared to say what sort of neck compassion, So they.
Speaker 4: Leave either.
Speaker 5: Suicidal hanging or homicidal ligature manual strangulation open.
Speaker 4: As possibilities.
Speaker 5: So as we've already said, I think my view is
Speaker 5: that it's reasonable, and it's.
Speaker 4: My view to go a bit further.
Speaker 3: And what would you what would you say.
Speaker 5: The cause of dempos the finding support hanging and there's
Speaker 5: no findings just support homicidal ligature or manual strangulation. And
Speaker 5: that's the way we approach all the hangings that we
Speaker 5: deal with.
Speaker 4: So that's what I think a reasonable to part here is.
Speaker 1: Mansfield then asked Cordner about several parts of the case
Speaker 1: that are considered suspicious. Cordner said, there isn't anything suspicious
Speaker 1: about the ligature not circling the entire neck, nor is
Speaker 1: there anything unusual about the scene being tampered with.
Speaker 2: One for the question I have for you, and it
Speaker 2: might be about a leab apparent already if you were
Speaker 2: responsible for this case by way of the attending pathologist,
Speaker 2: how would you have reported the cause of death?
Speaker 4: I think.
Speaker 5: If I had been responsible for this case, would have
Speaker 5: concluded that because of death was hanging, because the findings
Speaker 5: fit with hanging and there are no findings to support
Speaker 5: the alternative of homicidal ligature or manual strangulation.
Speaker 2: And yeah, what do you think about the absence of
Speaker 2: those injuries, meaning it needs to be left open?
Speaker 5: Well, if we added into that where you've you know
Speaker 5: that somehow you've you know, we've had the discussion abat
Speaker 5: the absence of findings and whether that might be compatible
Speaker 5: with an arm around the front of the neck. And
Speaker 5: if we allow that possibility, then we'd be not coming
Speaker 5: to conclusions of hanging in all the cases we do,
Speaker 5: because we'd have to say in answer to that question, well,
Speaker 5: you know, in this in every case of hanging, there's
Speaker 5: a possibility that it's a person has been done away
Speaker 5: within that surptitious way.
Speaker 1: It was then Auckland Crown Solicitor Alicia McClintock's turn to
Speaker 1: begin her cross examination of Professor Stephen Cordner. Cordner said
Speaker 1: that his answers are grounded in forensic pathology, and he
Speaker 1: can't answer on factors such as if Hannah was suicidal
Speaker 1: the night before her death. Cordner confirms he knows doctor Sage.
Speaker 1: McClintock asked if Sage is the leading forensic pathologist together
Speaker 1: with doctor Simon Stables.
Speaker 6: Oh.
Speaker 5: Look, I said in my report that you know, I
Speaker 5: think everybody involved is providing their professional evidence and advice
Speaker 5: and contribution, so you know, perfectly for people to have
Speaker 5: different point of view and other people will work out
Speaker 5: which point of view.
Speaker 7: Is preferred, of course, And I think doctor Sage told
Speaker 7: us that he's seen eleven I think hangings this year in.
Speaker 8: Something like eight hundred overall.
Speaker 7: So he's seeing this in his daily practice, including at
Speaker 7: current point and time. And that's your understanding of his
Speaker 7: his He's.
Speaker 4: A very experienced fantic pathologist.
Speaker 7: Yes, and so really it reduces to a narrowish I guess,
Speaker 7: although important issue is the extent to which the pathology
Speaker 7: can truly help on the distinction between whether this case
Speaker 7: involves homicidal net compression or suicidal net compression.
Speaker 8: Again, that's the number of the thing.
Speaker 9: Isn't it that.
Speaker 4: Yes, I've said that.
Speaker 1: Before mcclentock and Corner went back and forth a two
Speaker 1: centimeter bruise on Hannah's temple. Cordner said earlier it was
Speaker 1: a non specific injury that could have occurred anytime in
Speaker 1: the twenty four hours before death, McClintock said. Cordner said
Speaker 1: earlier the bruise could be the result of a fall
Speaker 1: into something, but a punch or other manual blow can't
Speaker 1: be excluded. But McClintock said there's nothing to positively suggest
Speaker 1: a full versus a punch, hence the conclusion non specific injury,
Speaker 1: said Cordner. He said quantifying force for this bruise is difficult.
Speaker 7: He used the term trivial, I think in relation to
Speaker 7: other injuries. So can we take from that that this
Speaker 7: one the level of force to cause it, and you'll
Speaker 7: use more than what the trivial A snitch agreat with
Speaker 7: that you told us in evidence, and again this is
Speaker 7: at two five, three three of your honor's notes. It's
Speaker 7: actually quite difficult to bruise the scalp with a punch
Speaker 7: because it's such, you know, it's pretty thick sort of skin,
Speaker 7: and a punch usually a broader sort of area, a
Speaker 7: broader area of contact.
Speaker 8: But I cannot distinguish what sort of impact do you
Speaker 8: remember saying that?
Speaker 7: Yes, so can we agree, professor that if it is
Speaker 7: a punch, appreciating the qualifications about that.
Speaker 8: Then it's been a decent one.
Speaker 4: I think it's probably reasonable.
Speaker 5: And I think, you know, probably is a bit easier
Speaker 5: to get such a burse, you know, knocking into a
Speaker 5: wall or door or something like that.
Speaker 7: Sure, but if it's a punch on the level of
Speaker 7: force you have described, it's a decent one.
Speaker 5: I think a decent punch would be a fair description.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: McClintock next went onto the wound to Hannah's nose bridge,
Speaker 1: described by Mansfield as a small graze. The autopsy pathologist,
Speaker 1: doctor Kesher, had said there was a hemorrhage associated with
Speaker 1: the injury. Having seen it both at the scene and
Speaker 1: at the autopsy, Cordner said he accepts there was a hemorrhage.
Speaker 1: He earlier said he believed the injury could have been
Speaker 1: caused after death, similar to the injury to Hannah's ear.
Speaker 1: Cordner said that the bleeding of the nose injury increases
Speaker 1: the likelihood it occurred while Hannah was alive, but he
Speaker 1: didn't rule out the injury being suffered after death. The
Speaker 1: jury then asked a question on this, which was read
Speaker 1: out by McClintock. On the photograph of Hannah's nose, to
Speaker 1: the layman, it looks bruised.
Speaker 10: The pathologist says, it's not bruised.
Speaker 1: Can you please explain the bruised appearance, they asked. Cordner
Speaker 1: said that while the nose looks slightly swollen, that's not
Speaker 1: bruising and may have been the shape of Hannah's nose.
Speaker 1: He said, the purple color is post mortem development resulting
Speaker 1: from congestion. That's when you block the veins, but the
Speaker 1: blood is still being pumped into the head via the arteries,
Speaker 1: which require more pressure to obstruct. They then moved on
Speaker 1: to the constellation of bruises to Hannah's right arm. Mansfield
Speaker 1: pulled a photo of the bruises out on day twenty six,
Speaker 1: where the bruises weren't seen at the Upland road scene.
Speaker 1: Cordner earlier testified that he doesn't believe they occurred prior
Speaker 1: to death, but under questioning from McClintock, Cordner said that
Speaker 1: it's fair to say he doesn't know for certain when
Speaker 1: the injury occurred. If it didn't happen in life, you said,
Speaker 1: there's more to discuss, is that what you said, asks McClintock.
Speaker 8: If it did happen in life, there's more to discuss.
Speaker 8: You see.
Speaker 4: It's yes, yep, And.
Speaker 8: Presumably that's because a grip to the arm and life.
Speaker 7: What you mean is, well, look, that possibly is an assault,
Speaker 7: but it's possibly something else. Yes, and we know that
Speaker 7: it's not yellow, so that at least gives us that
Speaker 7: time frame. So if it did, and this is a
Speaker 7: matter for the jury again, isn't it But if it
Speaker 7: did happen prior to death, we would now have three
Speaker 7: injury is within a similar time frame, either prior to
Speaker 7: or about the time of death. It's also possible that
Speaker 7: this one, based on your analysis, could have occurred another way.
Speaker 8: Set fifth.
Speaker 1: Cordner and Kesha both agree that an abrasion to Hannah's
Speaker 1: back likely occurred after death. They also agreed that blood
Speaker 1: from Hannah's ear likely wasn't an injury either. The blood
Speaker 1: from the ear seems apparent on the pillow on which
Speaker 1: she was lying on after her body had been moved.
Speaker 1: Cordner said, he said, that's the best conclusion. McClintock then
Speaker 1: showed Cordner photographs of Hannah's hands adorned with rings. She said,
Speaker 1: there's no obvious sign of blood on the underside of
Speaker 1: her hands.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think you want to resist the temptation of
Speaker 5: time to come to too many specific conclusion in a
Speaker 5: circumstance where you know the predictability of where bits and
Speaker 5: pieces are moving turn farm and around in between, as
Speaker 5: the dynamism of moving a dead body from one place
Speaker 5: turnout may be.
Speaker 4: Happened.
Speaker 5: So the possibility, the way I have thought about this
Speaker 5: is just possibly at some point while a body's being moved,
Speaker 5: the hand has somehow got close to the air. That's
Speaker 5: the way I've been thinking about it.
Speaker 7: And if that's happened though, somehow the blood's ended up
Speaker 7: in between her fingers, yes, but nowhere else that we
Speaker 7: can sit.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, well, I really, I really don't think you
Speaker 5: should be skeptical about that.
Speaker 7: But that's what's happened based on this is the only
Speaker 7: place we have blood is in between her fingers and
Speaker 7: not otherwise on her hand, And.
Speaker 8: As a pathologist not interpreting the rest of the evidence.
Speaker 7: As a pathologist, you can't discount that their hand's been
Speaker 7: cleaned and that blood's been missed.
Speaker 5: Oh, as a pathologist, but you know, I imagine they
Speaker 5: looked for that sort of possibility where they're fibers or
Speaker 5: anything on it that might have suggested that.
Speaker 8: As a pathologist, you can't discount it, though.
Speaker 9: Can you.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 4: No, Well, I don't.
Speaker 5: Nothing to specifically suggest it to me as a pathologist.
Speaker 4: But if you're saying to me, could that hand have been.
Speaker 5: You know, as a sort of factual thing cleaned, I
Speaker 5: can't say no.
Speaker 1: Onto the horizontal impression on her neck, Cordner said, impartial suspension,
Speaker 1: you don't get the clear upward ligature mark.
Speaker 10: Instead, it's broadly horizontal.
Speaker 1: So the mark scene on Hannah's neck is perfectly compatible
Speaker 1: with a partial suspension hanging, he said. Cordner agreed when
Speaker 1: McClintock asked whether a homicide victim's ability to resist an
Speaker 1: assault may be affected by the body's position they're in
Speaker 1: at the time, Cordner agreed, someone who could do a
Speaker 1: corroded or choker hold would be able to do it
Speaker 1: to someone on their front, and that hold can cause
Speaker 1: unconsciousness within ten to twelve seconds, but the hold would
Speaker 1: need to be sustained.
Speaker 5: Perhaps another qualifier of your question might be you mentioned,
Speaker 5: you know, provided the person you had to do it,
Speaker 5: if they weren't intending to kill the person, they're obviously
Speaker 5: less likely to get injured. But you know, you might
Speaker 5: think that someone who's trying to kill someone might apply
Speaker 5: more force to that arm around the neck, and they've
Speaker 5: more more likely to leave injuries. And that accord with
Speaker 5: my own sort of view that in death associated with
Speaker 5: that it would be more likely to see injuries.
Speaker 7: You know, it just very much depends on what's happening
Speaker 7: at the time, doesn't.
Speaker 4: It depends on what's happening at the time. Yes.
Speaker 7: If a person has been surprised by an assailant or asleep,
Speaker 7: for example, and someone manages to get pressure on their neck,
Speaker 7: that person is you've told us, could lose consciousness really
Speaker 7: quite quickly, couldn't they.
Speaker 5: Yes, People of course can wake up very quickly, even
Speaker 5: more quickly.
Speaker 7: Yes, it's surprised or asleep that.
Speaker 8: Might affect their ability to resist.
Speaker 4: Data. It's Mike.
Speaker 1: Referencing Cordner's earlier reference of a case where an eleven
Speaker 1: year old was drugged and unable to fight back from
Speaker 1: an assault McClintock said that Hannah did have twice the
Speaker 1: recommended level of the sedative sleeping pill zopper clone in
Speaker 1: his system, so it was self sedated and had drunk
Speaker 1: alcohol as well. Cordner said it was a pretty low
Speaker 1: level of alcohol.
Speaker 7: The degree of sedation and a victim is certainly a
Speaker 7: relevant factor to the degree of resistance that they can
Speaker 7: put up, and to use your terminology, whether that victim
Speaker 7: is unable to fight back, it's a factor, isn't it.
Speaker 4: It is a factor.
Speaker 5: But I think you know to complete the discussion, I
Speaker 5: mean you mentioned the possibility that you know, if you
Speaker 5: take those sorts of dug large zopper climb for a
Speaker 5: period of time, you get used to them. And so
Speaker 5: not clear to me that you know, because it seems
Speaker 5: she has been taking them for a long time, that
Speaker 5: she would necessarily be significantly affected by them. And if
Speaker 5: she's awake, they're not doing their purpose, are they.
Speaker 1: McClintock then asked, you don't know whether Pauline Hannah was asleep,
Speaker 1: and you don't know what body position she was in
Speaker 1: when she died. Cordner said the expectation would be that
Speaker 1: such a person would wake rapidly, instantly, and would do
Speaker 1: anything in their utmost power to resist and escape from
Speaker 1: the position they're in. And if there is a great
Speaker 1: disparity in strength, then that's a relevant factor too. On
Speaker 1: Hannah's potential tolerance to ZOPPA clone, McClintock said, we don't
Speaker 1: know that for sure because it wasn't prescribed to her,
Speaker 1: instead being prescribed in the name of Polkinghorn. Cordner said
Speaker 1: it may or may not have had an effect. He
Speaker 1: also reiterated that it would have been difficult for one
Speaker 1: person to move a body around even if they were
Speaker 1: in a fireman's hold. Asked what the positive pathological findings
Speaker 1: for suicide that aren't also explained by a homicide, Cordner said,
Speaker 1: it's a combination of the signs of the compression of
Speaker 1: the neck plus the static mark on the front of
Speaker 1: the neck. In circumstances, whether lividity is compatible with the
Speaker 1: deceased having been seated onto the small fresh wound found
Speaker 1: on Polkinghorn's forehead, Cordner says had been told that was
Speaker 1: an injury to do with moving Hannah's body down from
Speaker 1: the chair, as Polkinghorn told police he did. On the
Speaker 1: instructions of the one one one call taker.
Speaker 7: It could be a nail mark. And I think you
Speaker 7: said as much yourself in your report, didn't you?
Speaker 4: Yes, And.
Speaker 7: The studies that you have looked at in relation to this,
Speaker 7: I think you see this about thirteen out of twenty
Speaker 7: of the cases you looked at did.
Speaker 8: Have nail marks or some other nail.
Speaker 3: Oh, there is injuries.
Speaker 4: There is a reported.
Speaker 5: You know, there's a paper in the electric looking at
Speaker 5: injuries to people alleged to be assailants in manual or
Speaker 5: ligature strangulation cases. And as you said, thirteen out of
Speaker 5: twenty had some injuries.
Speaker 7: You accept that that injury based on what you saw,
Speaker 7: putting aside what explanation there may or may not be
Speaker 7: about it, that that injury could be a nail mark
Speaker 7: on his forehead.
Speaker 4: I couldn't rule it out, non.
Speaker 8: May I suggest? Is the case on the pathology with
Speaker 8: many things in this.
Speaker 5: Particularly that there is further discussion to be had about
Speaker 5: it if you want to. But I mean, as you've
Speaker 5: asked the question, can I rule that out as being
Speaker 5: a result of a a nail.
Speaker 4: The enter is no.
Speaker 5: But the photo of that injury is virtually another one
Speaker 5: that I've seen virtually useless.
Speaker 1: Cordner said he would think more of it if there
Speaker 1: was a single, ill defined injury on his forehead. The
Speaker 1: Crown ended their cross examination. Defense lawyer Ron Mansfield then
Speaker 1: addressed McClintock's suggestion that Hannah was sedated due to Zopper
Speaker 1: clone a sleeping pill. McClintock said she's not suggesting at
Speaker 1: all Hannah was sedated to the point of unconsciousness, but
Speaker 1: possibly to the point it had affected her ability to resist.
Speaker 1: Mansfield says he wanted to make sure the Crown case
Speaker 1: wasn't pivoting to suggest Hannah was unconscious or unable to
Speaker 1: respond at all. Turning to the witness, Mansfield asked how
Speaker 1: quickly someone would wake if they were assaulted. Cordner said
Speaker 1: very quickly, and they would began resisting almost immediately. He
Speaker 1: also said there's still the chance of injuries to both
Speaker 1: the assailant and the victim, and would have expected that
Speaker 1: and Hannah given her age. Asked again about the blood
Speaker 1: found between Hannah's fingers, Cordner said it should not be viewed.
Speaker 10: As a suspicious circumstance.
Speaker 1: The next defense witness was doctor Olav Nielsen, who has
Speaker 1: a Master of Criminology and a PhD from the University
Speaker 1: of Sydney. He's also a consultant psychiatrist and works with
Speaker 1: the homeless. Nielsen has a particular professional interest in depression
Speaker 1: and suicidal risk, he said, is published about forty papers
Speaker 1: on suicide and it's a big part of his work
Speaker 1: with the homeless. He confirmed he is aware of the
Speaker 1: Crown case against Polkinghorn and he's reviewed his April fifth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one police interview transcript, the toxicology report, the
Speaker 1: long Lands recording, and some medical notes from Hannah's GP
Speaker 1: and prescription details. Under questioning from defense lawyer Ron Mansfield,
Speaker 1: Neilson said she definitely had an alcohol use disorder, though
Speaker 1: it may have lessened in recent years.
Speaker 10: A bottle of wine a night for.
Speaker 1: Over a decade, as she described around twenty thirteen, was
Speaker 1: a hazardous level for a woman. Neilson says alcohol is
Speaker 1: excellent at relieving anxiety until it wears off when anxiety worsens.
Speaker 1: He notes Hannah was on fluexitine aka prozac for about
Speaker 1: twenty years, and so how does.
Speaker 3: The use of alcohol with that medication?
Speaker 2: Are there any factors or are there any complexities? That
Speaker 2: we need to be aware of in relation to the
Speaker 2: use of alcohol with those medications.
Speaker 9: Well, just rendering them less effective.
Speaker 11: For basically, it's just an arm wrestle where the alcohol's winning.
Speaker 1: She was prescribed medications to treat alcohol use disorders. There
Speaker 1: was also a prescription for diazepam to mitigate with dural symptoms.
Speaker 1: He agreed it might be relevant that Hannah had consumed
Speaker 1: red wine the night before she was found dead in
Speaker 1: the morning. The alcohol renders the antidepressant medication ineffective, countering
Speaker 1: any beneficial effect.
Speaker 10: From her long term use. He says.
Speaker 1: Hannah was also on weight loss medication, including one which
Speaker 1: was then removed from the market. It was replaced with
Speaker 1: fentamine about twenty ten, which Hannah then began taking.
Speaker 2: And what's fit to mein what can you help us
Speaker 2: or tell us.
Speaker 11: About that particular drone. Look, it's basically an amphetamine. It's
Speaker 11: a lowish dose, you know, fifteen milligrams. They come in
Speaker 11: a thirty milligram tablet as well. But they work exactly
Speaker 11: this name as every other amphetamine you know dex amphetamine
Speaker 11: for ADHD, you know amphetamine or methamphetamine.
Speaker 9: They working in the same way.
Speaker 2: So that particular medication would how would that work in
Speaker 2: combination with the medication you've told us she's on in
Speaker 2: relation to depression and anxiety.
Speaker 9: Yeah, well, again it's it's not a very good practice.
Speaker 9: I'd have to say.
Speaker 11: I don't mean to criticize a colleague, but the firstly,
Speaker 11: if you try and prescribe phetamine or fluoxetine when a
Speaker 11: person's already on it, you're you're your prescribing program will
Speaker 11: say there's a contry indication. So there is a potentially
Speaker 11: dangerous contra indication.
Speaker 3: People's there, what's a contra indication?
Speaker 11: Perhaps there's an interaction. I should have said, it should
Speaker 11: have been the word I used, a potentially dangerous interaction
Speaker 11: in that the phantomine can cause serotonin syndrome, which is
Speaker 11: a sort of an excess serotonin in people who. I mean,
Speaker 11: it's a rare and obviously you know there's plenty of
Speaker 11: people on that combination, but even so it's that's hazardous and.
Speaker 3: What does that mean?
Speaker 9: By way of that come.
Speaker 11: Yeah, well it's a look, it causes a dangerous delirium
Speaker 11: with a sort of an autonomic and.
Speaker 9: Again I don't want to get technical, but.
Speaker 11: Where there's too much serotonin and people become confused and
Speaker 11: have rabbit heartbeat and can even die. This is what,
Speaker 11: for example, kills young people at music festivals. It's the
Speaker 11: serotonin syndrome from taking MDMA for example.
Speaker 1: Neilson said that the combination of drugs was not ideal
Speaker 1: and that Hannah clearly developed a tolerance to several of
Speaker 1: them due to long term use, and it didn't work
Speaker 1: well with her mental health issues. In particular, the combination
Speaker 1: of Hannah's chronic depression and the combination of Zoppo clone
Speaker 1: and alcohol are very dangerous for suicide, he said.
Speaker 10: He said that.
Speaker 1: It's clear that Hannah was very perfectionist, and we've heard
Speaker 1: that from others in the trial as well. He said
Speaker 1: high achievers can take their own lives, even if unsuccessful
Speaker 1: people are more likely to, and that it's not uncommon
Speaker 1: for people to mask their true mental state and feelings
Speaker 1: from those around them, such as colleagues. Nielsen says only
Speaker 1: thirty to forty percent of people leave suicide notes he
Speaker 1: didn't see any evidence of Hannah having seen a psychiatrist
Speaker 1: or psychologist on any long term basis. Based on Hannah's
Speaker 1: alleged previous attempt as told to the court by her
Speaker 1: sister Tracy, and Hannah's work pressures, and the cocktail of
Speaker 1: drugs and alcohol that put Hannah in a higher risk group.
Speaker 1: Nielson confirmed he's not here to confirm anything about whether
Speaker 1: she committed suicide. He's just here to speak about the
Speaker 1: factors that very greatly increased her risk compared to other people.
Speaker 1: For coverage of other news events in New Zealand, listen
Speaker 1: to the front page The Herald's daily news podcast wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. The start of week seven of
Speaker 1: the trial was delayed due to an illness of a
Speaker 1: jury member, so Day twenty eight started on the Tuesday
Speaker 1: with the defense calling doctor Christopher Milroy. He appeared via
Speaker 1: video link from Canada. He's the second high profile pathologist
Speaker 1: the defense have called to give evidence. Doctor Milroy confirmed
Speaker 1: he's been a colleague of doctor Stephen Cordner for about
Speaker 1: thirty years. He's been called by the defense to comment
Speaker 1: on Cordner's evidence. Following comments earlier in the trial by
Speaker 1: a Crown witness, doctor Martin Sage, suggested Cordner was trying
Speaker 1: too hard to contend the death was a suicide, but
Speaker 1: Milroy disagreed.
Speaker 12: I would still say that the most likely cause of
Speaker 12: death in this case was hanging with partial suspension features.
Speaker 6: But we would therefore give the cause of death as hanging.
Speaker 2: Thank you, and having reviewed this case, do you have
Speaker 2: any concerns with their opinion.
Speaker 12: I don't have concerns with giving an opinion of hanging.
Speaker 1: Milroy has also seen the evidence given by all three
Speaker 1: previous pathologists who have all given evidence in this trial.
Speaker 1: He went on to explain why he supported Cordner that
Speaker 1: Hannah's death was self inflicted.
Speaker 12: I really would expect if it was manual strangulation through throttling,
Speaker 12: to see external injuries and internal injuries, and particularly in
Speaker 12: a lady of miss Hannah's age, damage to the voice
Speaker 12: box structures and or hyoid bone, because they are more
Speaker 12: frag brittle.
Speaker 6: As we get older. We lay down their cartilage when
Speaker 6: we're young.
Speaker 12: So it's typical not to see anything in young people,
Speaker 12: even in homicidal strangulation in terms of damage to the
Speaker 12: voice box cartilage and the hyoid bone, which is this
Speaker 12: bone that's just above.
Speaker 6: But as you get older.
Speaker 12: Income they become more like bone, and they become more brittle.
Speaker 12: They become more like chalk that can snap. And so
Speaker 12: if you compress someone manually, I would have expected to
Speaker 12: have seen fractures.
Speaker 1: Milroy added for homicide or ligature strangulations, you would usually
Speaker 1: see resistance and expect to see external injuries. Mansfield moved
Speaker 1: on to Hannah's use of the sleeping pill Zoba clone.
Speaker 1: You'll remember analysis of her blood and hair showed the
Speaker 1: presence of the drug. Milroy said it can be difficult
Speaker 1: to know what effect a drug might have based on
Speaker 1: a post mortem. He explained, even though the trial had
Speaker 1: heard earlier it was twice the normal dose, it was
Speaker 1: still within the therapeutic range. He added, sleeping pills don't
Speaker 1: act in the same way as anesthetic drugs.
Speaker 12: The thing about sedating drugs is that they're intended to
Speaker 12: help you go to sleep, but it doesn't mean that
Speaker 12: they're an anesthetic. It doesn't mean that you render someone unconscious.
Speaker 12: They fall asleep, and then people can be woken up
Speaker 12: from the sleep, and I would still expect the person
Speaker 12: to fight back with this degree of zopiclone. Inordinarily we
Speaker 12: would not consider it in any way relevant to the
Speaker 12: cause of death, but in terms of its effects, it
Speaker 12: can't be.
Speaker 6: It can't.
Speaker 12: I mean, the person may have taken help them go
Speaker 12: to sleep.
Speaker 6: They may be a little bit more.
Speaker 12: Groggy than they would otherwise be if they weren't on it,
Speaker 12: but they may be very tolerant because they've been on
Speaker 12: it for six months and one would expect them to
Speaker 12: wake up if attacked.
Speaker 1: Under cross examination by Crown Solicitor Alicia McClintock, Milroy confirmed
Speaker 1: he provided a report on August twenty first, twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: after doctor Stephen Cordener's approach was questioned by doctor Martin
Speaker 1: Sage during the Crown case. This was well into the trial.
Speaker 1: During her cross examination, McClintock asked if he's familiar with
Speaker 1: the term non fatal strangulation. Milroy explained in England he
Speaker 1: would occasionally see cases of people had been strangled and survived.
Speaker 1: McClintock asked if these non fatal strangulations can often leave
Speaker 1: little or no non fatal injuries. Yes, he said, but
Speaker 1: he's also seen non fatal cases that look worse than
Speaker 1: fatal cases. The other caveat is we don't dissect the
Speaker 1: necks of survivors.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 7: In non fatal strangulation, would you agree as a common
Speaker 7: feature of violence against women? Yes, and is it also
Speaker 7: well none in the medical profession that non fatal strangulation
Speaker 7: is a key marker for the escalation of domestic violence.
Speaker 8: Yes, are you aware.
Speaker 7: Of a British Medical Journal study indicating that it raised
Speaker 7: the risk of someone becoming a victim of a homicide
Speaker 7: or serious future harm by around seven and a half
Speaker 7: at times in victim survivors.
Speaker 12: I'm not specifically aware of that study, but I accept
Speaker 12: and I think it's fair to point out that almost
Speaker 12: all the cases I dealt with clinically have been female
Speaker 12: victims with a male perpetrator.
Speaker 1: You'll remember, earlier in the trial, Hannah's family friends John
Speaker 1: and Pheasant Reardon told the court that she told them
Speaker 1: Pulkinghorn had previously put his hands on her neck as
Speaker 1: a strangulation. Thread her questioning moved on to the differing
Speaker 1: opinions of pathologists called by both sides of the case.
Speaker 7: You're not suggesting doctor Sage hasn't also been fair and scientific,
Speaker 7: nor are you suggesting that of doctor Kesha.
Speaker 6: Is it right? That's correct.
Speaker 7: It's just that they look at the possibilities aspect differently
Speaker 7: to Professor Coordiner and what you've told us today, don't they?
Speaker 9: Well?
Speaker 12: And I say that in my report, I said that
Speaker 12: this is a case where people are looking at possibilities.
Speaker 8: Could we put it this way?
Speaker 7: The pathology is obviously a very important aspect and we
Speaker 7: must take care with its conclusions.
Speaker 8: But you're not saying, and.
Speaker 7: I think you've made this clear, But just so everyone's clear,
Speaker 7: you're not saying pathology is the one source of truth here.
Speaker 6: No, No, absolutely not.
Speaker 1: McClintock questioned his comments on Zoppo clone and how Hannah
Speaker 1: might have developed a tolerance.
Speaker 7: One of the concerns about zopper clone is its use.
Speaker 7: It is a drug used to drug other people. I'm
Speaker 7: not suggesting that's what's happened here at all, but that's
Speaker 7: one of its concerns. Is a particularly combined with alcohol,
Speaker 7: it can be used in that way to cause excess sedation.
Speaker 9: Correct, Well, yeah.
Speaker 12: It's not one of the ones I'm familiar as familiar
Speaker 12: with as some other drugs, but and I could see
Speaker 12: that that could be the case.
Speaker 1: Melroy added the assessment of SR toxicologist Helen Paulson was
Speaker 1: fair that Hannah had taken the drug over a six
Speaker 1: month period, though the frequency and level of use is
Speaker 1: hard to say. McClintock then asked, is sooperclone sometimes used
Speaker 1: to sedate people and how quickly someone sedated on zopperclone
Speaker 1: would wake up.
Speaker 12: What I would say is that the concentrations were not high.
Speaker 12: In other words, there's no evidence of significant excess.
Speaker 6: Of being taken. But I concede that.
Speaker 12: In any drug, in any individual, unless we know exactly
Speaker 12: how they would perform, we are to a certain extent
Speaker 12: speculating both ways in one of them, both in terms
Speaker 12: of it's both in terms of its sedation or non sedation.
Speaker 1: Neutrality came into question.
Speaker 12: Because I think the pathology certainly favors suicidal hanging in
Speaker 12: the context of suicide versus homicide because of the known
Speaker 12: fine soft ligature, partial suspension hanging, and the absence of.
Speaker 6: Injury on the neck.
Speaker 12: And therefore, in my opinion, when you look at it,
Speaker 12: it much more strongly favors suicide ober homicide. So you
Speaker 12: couldn't say it was neutral. It's not a fifty to
Speaker 12: fifty coin toss.
Speaker 1: Before finishing, McClintock asked if strangulations staged as a suicide
Speaker 1: are even a thing. Milroy replied, that's correct. Defense lawyer
Speaker 1: Ron Mansfield had questions in response around the use of
Speaker 1: the term possibilities.
Speaker 6: I've never seen a report on a.
Speaker 12: Hanging, suicidal hanging, or self inflicted hanging where someone has
Speaker 12: put in the caveat I can't exclude homicidal on net compression.
Speaker 6: I've never seen it.
Speaker 12: And just to give some context, in the last fourteen years,
Speaker 12: my unit has done nearly a thousand hangings, of which
Speaker 12: a proportion will be will be partial suspension.
Speaker 1: Milroe said he's only ever seen one case of an
Speaker 1: attempted concealed homicide where someone had tried to make it
Speaker 1: look like a suicide. In his career, he's examined six
Speaker 1: hundred or seven hundred self inflicted hangings. The next witness
Speaker 1: was Atakhan Shaho. He's a director and senior technician at
Speaker 1: a company called Our Computer Guy. The company specializes in
Speaker 1: data security and medical software integration, predominantly in health and law.
Speaker 1: Shaho has a lengthy career working with Apple as a
Speaker 1: software developer and with NASA, as well as with medical systems.
Speaker 1: He was asked to forensically examine the material disclosed to
Speaker 1: the defense from the police as part of the investigation. Specifically,
Speaker 1: he looked at the cloned Celebrate phone data and the
Speaker 1: laptop data. Shaho confirms he's familiar with cell Bright and Axiom,
Speaker 1: the software used by New Zealand police to clone and
Speaker 1: examine the phones and computers.
Speaker 2: You can use Celebrate or Exiom dex is either a
Speaker 2: mobile phone or a laptop. Or if you know what
Speaker 2: you're doing, you can gain xcess to a mobile phone
Speaker 2: or a laptop even if you're not appraised of the
Speaker 2: relevant passwords exactly.
Speaker 13: But you do, you do lose the ability to so
Speaker 13: for example, on an iPhone if it's locked to iCloud,
Speaker 13: and some people might know this that if you don't
Speaker 13: know the pin code or you don't know the I
Speaker 13: Cloud password, you can't get into the data. And that's
Speaker 13: because Apple has a secure enplay in their iCloud and
Speaker 13: that protects the contacts, the calendars, and the usually the
Speaker 13: text messages and other facets of the data on the database.
Speaker 13: Because Apple have a unique encryption service, that not that
Speaker 13: they can no longer break into if asked too. And
Speaker 13: there's many references to the FBI wanting access to phones
Speaker 13: of people with who passed away and they want their fingerprint,
Speaker 13: and an Apple kind of in getting there and they
Speaker 13: choose not to have a back door.
Speaker 1: In June this year, Chahou traveled to New Zealand to
Speaker 1: obtain the information needed for his forensic IT analysis and
Speaker 1: was physically handed Hannah's phone and her middlemore HP laptop.
Speaker 1: He said police weren't able to get into the laptop
Speaker 1: because they didn't know the password. He asked to try
Speaker 1: and circumvent the password, but was denied. He created his
Speaker 1: own clone of Hannah's iPhone and was also provided a
Speaker 1: range of electronic devices belonging to polkinghorn Mansfield then questioned
Speaker 1: Chaho about how Celebrate software works.
Speaker 13: It then takes the abatim copy of all files, logs
Speaker 13: and databases off the phone and creates essentially a Celebrate
Speaker 13: database that can be analyzed. So if you can try
Speaker 13: and imagine breaking into a filing cabinet and taking all
Speaker 13: the files and the information that are in there, regardless
Speaker 13: of how they're stored, and they're in a searchable way
Speaker 13: that someone can actually go in and look for the
Speaker 13: information that they're looking for.
Speaker 3: So as far as information on the phone itself.
Speaker 2: Should be able to secure a copy of that information.
Speaker 13: Yes, So a phone is made up of lots and
Speaker 13: lots of databases and log files, and those they're designed
Speaker 13: by the manufacturer and by the software developers, and that
Speaker 13: information is structured, and Celebrate takes that information, analyzes it
Speaker 13: and puts it into a number of different ways and criterias.
Speaker 13: That allows us to look at the information in human speak.
Speaker 2: And then what about information stored in the cloud, Because
Speaker 2: the phone.
Speaker 13: Stores cloud information on itself as well, sometimes you can have.
Speaker 4: A copy of that.
Speaker 3: If I could give an example.
Speaker 13: One of the phones that was interrogated, the four to
Speaker 13: seven Triple zero, which I believe was the iPhone twalk pro,
Speaker 13: only had three contacts on it. But when I done deeper,
Speaker 13: I found over a thousand contacts that were in the
Speaker 13: cloud that weren't on the phone. And what that tells
Speaker 13: me is the version of the operating system protected the
Speaker 13: iCloud from the Celebrate and in such, the Celebrate extraction
Speaker 13: didn't have those nine hundred and ninety seven odd contacts
Speaker 13: in its extraction.
Speaker 2: Does that mean that some material and the cloud can't
Speaker 2: be excessed via Celebright correct?
Speaker 1: Chaho confirmed one of his tasks was to look for
Speaker 1: communications shedding light on Hannah's well being and her communications
Speaker 1: with Polkinghorn via mobile phone and email. He provided at
Speaker 1: least a year's worth of text messages between the couple.
Speaker 1: The trial then started to hear about emails that Shahoe analyzed.
Speaker 1: He mentions an email which Hannah initially emailed to herself
Speaker 1: before sending it to her brother Bruce, and it related
Speaker 1: to the care of their mother and appears to be
Speaker 1: around the time she was about to be moved from
Speaker 1: the family farm near Havelock North to a care home.
Speaker 1: The email urges Bruce to respect that the property is
Speaker 1: her family home.
Speaker 2: We gave one thousand percent support to you both and
Speaker 2: Mum when the arrangement was being made to take over
Speaker 2: the property, and incidentally head two on that occasion broken
Speaker 2: between you and tracing I Dash. We do not regret
Speaker 2: that decision. I know you have worked on the property.
Speaker 2: That is what life is about, working to build up
Speaker 2: your future furp and I have worked extremely hard to
Speaker 2: where I have got to in life too.
Speaker 3: You are not the only ones.
Speaker 2: I also arge you to think about what you said
Speaker 2: about me. That was brutal and hurtful and I have
Speaker 2: not deserved it, particularly your replication that I am a
Speaker 2: poor aunt to Rose and in brackets, and I did
Speaker 2: say Jacob and the brackets.
Speaker 3: You know, this whole episode with Mum.
Speaker 2: Has been very difficult for me as well as sorry
Speaker 2: as well, And yet I have had to hold the
Speaker 2: line between you and Tracy. I don't think if you
Speaker 2: get that, you seem to think it's only difficult for
Speaker 2: you and Shelley.
Speaker 1: The defense earlier looked at the tensions between the Hannah's
Speaker 1: siblings over the care of her family home. Bruce, as
Speaker 1: you'll remember earlier in the trial, testified for the Crown,
Speaker 1: while Tracy, the youngest sister, testified for the defense. Another
Speaker 1: email to Polkinghorn's son Ben and his wife Bridget, around
Speaker 1: the time of the first COVID cases, had Hannah Wright
Speaker 1: about being asked to run the Northern Region's supply chain
Speaker 1: and had been working all day and emailing into the night.
Speaker 1: It is unbelievable, what is happening?
Speaker 10: She wrote.
Speaker 1: There was another email from April twenty twenty during the
Speaker 1: COVID lockdown, which Mansfield read out to the court.
Speaker 2: But I worked fifteen slat six hours times four.
Speaker 3: Over easter, and yet I am tired and not myself.
Speaker 2: But I've had a horrible day starting with I'm not
Speaker 2: going to name that person whom I have disappointed.
Speaker 3: I'm never good enough despite my effits. Today is the
Speaker 3: twenty fifth day in a.
Speaker 2: Row, but I'm not adding any value. I want desperately
Speaker 2: to tell someone and cry and ask for help, but
Speaker 2: everyone seems to think I'm amazing and does not want
Speaker 2: to know that I have foibles or failings. I've tried
Speaker 2: to bring it up with Fillip, but he tells me
Speaker 2: he hasn't got go time to go over negative tonight
Speaker 2: and brack and that's his equals.
Speaker 3: He has enough. I might stand on my own two feet,
Speaker 3: but I don't know.
Speaker 2: Today if I have two feet or what they look like.
Speaker 2: So I've had three glasses of wine and a beautiful
Speaker 2: dinner thanks to PJP, but I don't know what to
Speaker 2: do with myself dot dot dot.
Speaker 3: So I will go.
Speaker 2: To bed and not sleep, very unusual for me, and
Speaker 2: it builds up.
Speaker 3: Who knows what might follow? Have to tell.
Speaker 2: Someone, even if no one but God ever sees this.
Speaker 1: In court, Polkinghorn was seen sobbing as the email was
Speaker 1: read out. More emails saw Hannah talk about her mother
Speaker 1: no longer recognizing her. In August twenty twenty while one
Speaker 1: around the twenty twenty election had Hannah fearing how far
Speaker 1: our taxes are going to be ramped up if Jacinder
Speaker 1: Aardern wins. Another email read by Mansfield from Hannah to
Speaker 1: family says my life is insane and her role is
Speaker 1: incredibly difficult and lonely. Alicia McClintock began her cross examination
Speaker 1: asking about differences between email signatures and disparities in font
Speaker 1: and color. Shaho later clarified, under further questioning from Mansfield
Speaker 1: that signatures can change when formatting is stripped after someone replies,
Speaker 1: and that it's possible to have different email signatures when
Speaker 1: sending from different devices. Was the last email Polkinghorn received
Speaker 1: from Hannah at ten forty seven pm on April fourth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one. McClintock asked he agreed. McClintock asked if
Speaker 1: he was asked to have a look at Polkinghorn's deleted searches.
Speaker 1: I don't believe I was, said Shaho. He also didn't
Speaker 1: see communication between Polkinghorn and Madison Ashton in his searches.
Speaker 1: Day twenty nine saw Auckland Crown Solicitor Alicia McClintock recall
Speaker 1: police digital forensic analyst June Lee, who was called at
Speaker 1: the end of the Crown case some weeks ago. Lee
Speaker 1: was stood down part way through defense lawyer Ron Mansfield's
Speaker 1: cross examination.
Speaker 10: To recap the trial.
Speaker 1: Has heard Hannah's phone only looked up two contacts, Polkinghorn
Speaker 1: and the daughter of their family friend at four am
Speaker 1: the morning she died. Prosecutors say it was an automatic
Speaker 1: security process. Says it was Hannah drafting a message to
Speaker 1: Polkinghorn and the young woman. Lee has said that Hannah's
Speaker 1: phone could not have been used. McClintock began her questioning
Speaker 1: saying when Lee gave evidence some time ago, the issue
Speaker 1: was whether entries in Hannah's phone's activity log with the
Speaker 1: result of background activity in Hannah's phone's identity look up service,
Speaker 1: an automatic security feature or someone drafting a text message.
Speaker 10: Lee has since met with Atikhan Shaho.
Speaker 8: And did you show mister Shaho at the d if you.
Speaker 7: The data that you were looking at and taken through
Speaker 7: your explanation as to what you think is happening with
Speaker 7: those log entries?
Speaker 5: Yes?
Speaker 7: And are there still is you understand it some areas
Speaker 7: of disagreement between yourself and mister sharho as to what
Speaker 7: these entries. Okay, So just to recap for the benefit
Speaker 7: of everybody, you've told us that in your opinion, this
Speaker 7: is a background activity rather than user activity, and that
Speaker 7: in your opinion, nobody is using the phone at the
Speaker 7: time of those entries.
Speaker 8: Have I that's fear.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 1: When the phone becomes idle at ten forty seven pm
Speaker 1: the night before the morning of April fifth, there's no
Speaker 1: trace of anything happening. Li said at ten forty seven pm,
Speaker 1: there are signs of the phone being locked. To access
Speaker 1: it again, you'd need to unlock it, for example via password,
Speaker 1: and someone would need to click into the messaging app.
Speaker 10: He says.
Speaker 1: He reiterated several times that his view that Hannah did
Speaker 1: not use her phone after that, and the Identity Lookup
Speaker 1: service in fact, is an automatic background process which only
Speaker 1: runs when in use. It can't be used as evidence
Speaker 1: that Hannah was drafting a message the morning of her death.
Speaker 1: McClintock said police have found the identity Lookup service running
Speaker 1: on April eight, three days after Hannah Diedly confirmed that
Speaker 1: indicates you don't have to be using the phone for
Speaker 1: the identity Lookup service to run and if somebody else
Speaker 1: is using it, like police, there would be evidence of that.
Speaker 10: He said, with exhaustive.
Speaker 1: References to other earlier data on Polkinghorn's phone, suggests Defense
Speaker 1: it analyst Attikan Shaho was mistaken to suggest anomalies in
Speaker 1: the data police used to show the phone went into
Speaker 1: airplane mode. Just as Graham Lang asked a question about
Speaker 1: the series of ons and offs in the airplane mode data,
Speaker 1: Lee says phones work off user habits, So if you
Speaker 1: regularly turn airplane mode on and off, the phone would
Speaker 1: regularly check that.
Speaker 14: So I'm actually speaking between the ten twenty four in
Speaker 14: the morning. In general, there was no log activity or whatsoever.
Speaker 14: So no user interaction.
Speaker 8: Yeah, none at all in that timeframe.
Speaker 7: No, disagree with mister Shaho that this could be Pauline
Speaker 7: Hanna going into the phone to draft messages even if
Speaker 7: they weren't sent.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Defense lawyer Ron Mansfield then began his cross examination of Lee,
Speaker 1: first asking about his background before digging into the process
Speaker 1: of how Lee works and how he receives phones as
Speaker 1: a digital forensic analyst and the process from there.
Speaker 2: I take from your background that you're not a registered
Speaker 2: Apple developer.
Speaker 3: No, and Apple doesn't work.
Speaker 2: With Celebrate or Axiom by way of license or contract
Speaker 2: or even informally.
Speaker 9: Do they?
Speaker 6: I don't believe. So.
Speaker 2: It sounds like prior to joining the police as a
Speaker 2: technician and then as an analyst, your background has been
Speaker 2: with Samsung.
Speaker 3: In relation to answering user inquiries.
Speaker 9: Correct, yes, but I don't really understand your question here.
Speaker 14: What what what relevancy does they have my background to
Speaker 14: the knowledge around the log entries?
Speaker 2: Well, because there's a disagreement between you and mister in
Speaker 2: relation to how the Apple operating system works.
Speaker 14: It's not really Apple how Apple system works. It's more
Speaker 14: like the there's a database ext out of the Apple
Speaker 14: phone would just exhibit that we actually tooking the database
Speaker 14: around it.
Speaker 9: You know where I'm coming from.
Speaker 1: Mansfield and Lee went back and forth on how the
Speaker 1: Apple server connects to a phone. Lee said he disagrees
Speaker 1: with Shahou that the Apple server doesn't connect randomly, but
Speaker 1: only at their request of a user. There weren't other
Speaker 1: background events happening with Hannah's phone, but Lee said he
Speaker 1: can't be sure the phone isn't going through all the
Speaker 1: contacts at once when these background events are occurring. He
Speaker 1: then took leave for the day, but what would turn
Speaker 1: on day thirty. The defense's next witness was another case
Speaker 1: of deja vus, Olav Nielsen, the Sydney psychiatrist earlier called
Speaker 1: by the defense. He returned for cross examination by Crown
Speaker 1: Solicitor Alicia McClintock. Nielsen reiterated an earlier point that a
Speaker 1: previous suicide attempt means there's an increased risk of up
Speaker 1: to one hundred times greater of suicide in the future
Speaker 1: according to research.
Speaker 7: What records, if any, were you given of a hospital
Speaker 7: admission following an attempt at suicide for Paul and Hannah?
Speaker 9: No, there was none. There's no admissions.
Speaker 11: Just the reference the referral to the to the crisis
Speaker 11: team was the only records that I had.
Speaker 8: Yes, that's that.
Speaker 7: Suicidal thoughts though, isn't it not plans and not an attempt?
Speaker 11: The crisis tam, Yeah, I guess it's an informed plan.
Speaker 11: Isn't it to concresh into a lorry? It was that
Speaker 11: that was in the twenty thirty December nineteen, Yes.
Speaker 7: And so my question is the only evidence that you
Speaker 7: were given about anything to do with an attempt?
Speaker 8: The statement of Tracy Hannah.
Speaker 6: Correct, right, and.
Speaker 7: So it's obviously for the jury whether they accept Tracy
Speaker 7: Hannah's evidence or not. But there's no medical evidence that
Speaker 7: you were given underpinning an attempt at suicide for Pauline Hannah.
Speaker 6: Was there.
Speaker 11: Of medical evidence of an episode of deliberate self harm?
Speaker 9: No, No, no medical records.
Speaker 1: Neilson said that Hannah's behavior and the lead up to
Speaker 1: her death is not necessarily the most important. These decisions
Speaker 1: are often very impulsive, he said, and follow weeks or
Speaker 1: months of stress or depression. McClintock said. Neilson talked about
Speaker 1: her unusual behavior over the weekend before her death, referencing
Speaker 1: her going to the tip.
Speaker 7: Are you suggesting that a trip to the tip is
Speaker 7: indicative of.
Speaker 8: Some sort of mental health deterioration.
Speaker 11: Not not any of itself, but for example, people who
Speaker 11: give away possessions because they've made a decision to kill themselves,
Speaker 11: that would be a sign. For example, people clearing out,
Speaker 11: you know, personal items because that has been a thought
Speaker 11: on their mind might be a sign.
Speaker 9: Again, you know, I don't know that, but.
Speaker 11: That's it's just one factor that may have been relevant,
Speaker 11: I think is.
Speaker 7: She's taking her all of her wildly goods to the
Speaker 7: tap might we might have an alarm, But in that instance,
Speaker 7: what we know is she's taking some old curtains to
Speaker 7: the tap.
Speaker 1: There was also the taking of a meal to some
Speaker 1: old friends, Nielsen said, which he understood to be out
Speaker 1: of character and later confirmed that came from Polkinghorn's statement
Speaker 1: to police, and he is reliant on what he said
Speaker 1: about her suicide risk factors. On the various drugs Hannah
Speaker 1: was on at the time of her death, Nielsen said,
Speaker 1: we don't know about her tolerance. He earlier testified that
Speaker 1: the combination of Zoppa clone and alcohol would have caused
Speaker 1: a disinhibiting effect.
Speaker 7: When you say there was a loss of them in
Speaker 7: that particular night. For that, you again, you're having to
Speaker 7: rely on the idea that she has indeed committed suicide
Speaker 7: necessarily in order to say that, aren't you, because there's
Speaker 7: no evidence of her being disinhibited in the lead.
Speaker 8: Up to that art.
Speaker 11: No, No, it's a predictable effect of you know, a
Speaker 11: bottle of peano and no New Zealand pen four and
Speaker 11: several tablets probably of zopper clone, not just one tablet,
Speaker 11: given the blood alcohol, the zopper clone content, and.
Speaker 7: Where do you get the evidence from that she drank
Speaker 7: the bottle of wine.
Speaker 11: No, No, there was a that was well, I'm assuming
Speaker 11: that's what it was, because.
Speaker 9: That was a Dr. Polkinhorn's son, So we're back to.
Speaker 8: The we have to rely on him for that.
Speaker 1: On Johannah's appearance and Neilson's comments that she might have
Speaker 1: been hiding issues via her good presentation, you remember telling.
Speaker 7: Us that, yes, how many times did you meet her?
Speaker 9: That's a I have never met her.
Speaker 8: Obviously, he can't.
Speaker 7: I mean it's possible people could mask things, right, but
Speaker 7: you can't possibly say that that's what's happening with her
Speaker 7: presenting herself well, can you? Because looking God gives some
Speaker 7: people confidence in themselves, doesn't it.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nilsen also acknowledges Hannah had responded positively after talking about
Speaker 1: suicidal thoughts to a crisis team in twenty nineteen, and
Speaker 1: that the opening of a new vaccination clinic in the
Speaker 1: week after Hannah died would have been a source of
Speaker 1: pride for her despite the stress of her job. McClintock
Speaker 1: later asked about building offender's risk profiles for violent offending.
Speaker 7: One of the key things that you would look at,
Speaker 7: I assume, is whether there is evidence of prior violence, yes,
Speaker 7: and in a male offender, and any evidence that was
Speaker 7: put in front of you of a non fatal strangulation
Speaker 7: incident of a female that would be a red flag
Speaker 7: for a violence profile for an offender.
Speaker 9: Look.
Speaker 11: Yes, the circumstances of previous violence in addition to a
Speaker 11: history of the previous violence would be would be relevant obviously.
Speaker 7: And drug use would also be something that would have
Speaker 7: to be factored into an offender risk profile, wouldn't it.
Speaker 9: Yeah, Yes, of course that's probably the largest, the strongest
Speaker 9: risk factor, the previous.
Speaker 11: Behavior and substance utse you know, both because of the
Speaker 11: antisocial nature of substance abuse and the disinhibiting effect of
Speaker 11: substances to recap.
Speaker 1: The couple's family, friends the Readans both said Hannah had
Speaker 1: described Pulkinghorn having previously placed his hands on her neck
Speaker 1: as part of what they understood to be a strangulation threat.
Speaker 1: Nielsen reiterated presenting well doesn't mean you can't suffer from
Speaker 1: depression or commit suicide, and Hannah not disclosing her thoughts
Speaker 1: to colleagues or family doesn't mean she wasn't considering things.
Speaker 1: He also said the mix of drugs and alcohol could
Speaker 1: have taken away Hannah's fear of death.
Speaker 2: You've obviously had an opportunity to consider my lender of
Speaker 2: friends questioning by way of cross examination. Does that move
Speaker 2: you from the opinion you experienced chief regarding miss Hannah
Speaker 2: presenting with a number of risk factors for suicide?
Speaker 9: That's right now.
Speaker 11: I stand by that original opinion, which is based on.
Speaker 9: My experience and research.
Speaker 1: After the day's testimony, just as Graham Lang then addressed
Speaker 1: the jury saying that due to the trial extending into
Speaker 1: a seventh week and with closing statements not due until
Speaker 1: the eighth week, now one juror's prior commitments means she's
Speaker 1: been stood down so as to not put pressure on
Speaker 1: the jury to deliver a verdict. The jury of eleven
Speaker 1: now eight women and three men, are due to start
Speaker 1: deliberations next week. You can listen to episodes of Accused
Speaker 1: the Polkinghorn Trial through the Front Page podcast feed or
Speaker 1: find it on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: This series is presented and produced by me Chelsea Daniels,
Speaker 1: with producer Ethan Siles and sound engineer Patti Fox. Additional
Speaker 1: production support by Helen King additional reporting from the Heralds
Speaker 1: Craig Capitan and George Block, and for more coverage of
Speaker 1: the Polkinghorn trial, head to Enzidhrold dot co dot nz.