Channel 7 - Today Tonight (Adelaide)
The Case of Henry Keogh - 30 July 2002

This version of the transcript has been edited by Dr Robert N Moles

The Baby Deaths homepage
The Henry Keogh homepage
Article on Australian miscarriage of justice cases
Article on UK miscarriage of justice cases
Article on USA miscarriage of justice cases

In order of appearance

John Riddell - Presenter
Bob Moles - academic and author
Rohan Wenn - Reporter
Susan Keogh - former wife of Henry Keogh
Peter Lewis - Independent MP and Speaker of the South Australian Parliament
Paul Young - victim of child abuse
Valerie Armfield - Solicitor
Alexis Keogh - daughter of Henry Keogh
Kevin Borick QC
Paul Rofe QC - Director of Public Prosecutions

Program

Presenter:

Hello everyone and welcome to the program. Tonight, the health of our justice system. It's the least tangible, but possibly the most defining test of a fair society. Under the microscope is the work of the former chief of the South Australian forensic centre responsible for crucial evidence in a string of major investigations. Incredibly, the head man, Dr Colin Manock lacked the proper qualifications for the job. And although authorities knew of the shortcomings, little was done to guard against critical errors being made. And senior doctors and lawyers now say errors were made in many cases, including the controversial trials which led to Henry Keogh being jailed for the murder of his young fiance Anna-Jane Cheney. We will reveal startling evidence in that case which has never been tested - as well as the breakdown in procedures over the past 30 years that has lawyers and politicians calling for a Royal Commission into the justice system. Rohan Wenn has this report.

Bob Moles:

It's quite clear that justice has not been done.

Susan Keogh:

This has been going on for about 8 years now - something is not right.

Rohan Wenn:

While much of this story focuses on a controversial Adelaide murder trial - it really goes much deeper. It goes to the heart of whether our criminal justice system gives us blind justice or simply turns a blind-eye to injustice.

Bob Moles:

We all need to believe in the justice system.

Rohan Wenn:

And it is the follow up punch in South Australian Speaker Peter Lewis' call for a Royal Commission.

Peter Lewis:

I want these allegations to be properly examined and the truth to be determined.

Rohan Wenn:

It was never just about the dubious sale of paedophile judge Peter Liddy's assets or even the decades of silence which covered for his appalling behaviour.

Paul Young:

It astounds me that for starters - that the courts can let children stay over in the court houses - someone must have known that there was a magistrate staying in these court houses with kids.

Rohan Wenn:

But rather a litany of failures in the system that stretched back over 30 years.

Valerie Armfield:

I don't know whether it's just through friendships and the old boys network - or - I just don't know.

Rohan Wenn:

It's a system that tolerates incompetence and turns a blind-eye to errors and injustice - at times sending innocent people to jail - while allowing the true villains to escape punishment.

Alexis Keogh:

People like myself and my family - we're not looking for sympathy - we just want the truth to come out.

Rohan Wenn:

It's been 8 years since attractive young Adelaide lawyer Anna-Jane Cheney was found dead in her bath. And almost 7 years since her bank manager fiance Henry Keogh was sent to jail for her murder. Do you believe that Anna Jane Cheney was actually murdered?

Bob Moles:

No I don't. I don't think there's any sufficient evidence to indicate that a crime took place at all.

Kevin Borick:

There's a strong body of evidence to show that he's not guilty of the charge.

Valerie Armfield:

Almost every government department that was involved in the investigation failed to do their job properly.

Rohan Wenn:

Solicitor Valerie Armfield was a colleague of Anna-Jane who became fascinated with the Keogh matter whilst investigating another case.

Valerie Armfield:

I can't believe that so many people didn't do their jobs.

Rohan Wenn:

Convinced that the court got it horribly wrong - Valerie contacted Kevin Borick QC - and former Adelaide University Associate Professor of Law Dr Bob Moles.

Bob Moles:

Our justice system needs to be fixed.

Rohan Wenn:

At the centre of their concerns is this man - Dr Colin Manock - the prosecution's expert witness - and startling evidence which challenges about everything that Dr Manock told the court.

Kevin Borick:

That the evidence given by Dr Manock in the Keogh case was wrong - and in lots of other cases was wrong.

Rohan Wenn:

Dr Colin Manock was the State's Director of Forensic Pathology for almost 30 years. But amazingly, he never had any qualifications in the crucial field of histopathology. So he hadn't done the training, but they gave him the gig?

Bob Moles:

He was given the job. And then there were some notes in one of the earlier proceedings where they said that we knew we were taking a bit of a risk - because we knew that we were appointing someone without proper qualifications - but it was our view that he would get the qualifications after he was appointed.

Rohan Wenn:

But after getting the top job Manock failed to do that further training - never becoming a qualified forensic specialist. With little more than a basic medical degree and hands-on experience Manock gave evidence in trial after trial much of which is now being savaged by other pathologists who are vastly better qualified.

Kevin Borick:

In my view, what happened in Keogh was a miscarriage of justice.

Rohan Wenn:

Just one astounding example of his failings came to light in 1992. Attending this suspicious death - Dr Manock concluded that the victim must have accidentally struck his head and died of a brain haemorrhage. Later, a bullet hole and a bullet were discovered in the man's head. Something our chief forensic pathologist simply missed at the time. One view of Manock's evidence in the Keogh case now raises similar concerns.

Kevin Borick:

If I were describing this evidence to the jury at the trial of Keogh, I would have said that it was incompetent and unprofessional.

Rohan Wenn:

Just prior to Manock being assigned to the Keogh investigation, alarming questions were being raised by doctors and police over Manock's findings on the deaths of 3 small children. Our head pathologist reported they died innocently of bronchopneumonia. But he was to be proven hopelessly wrong.

Bob Moles:

And an independent pathologist said that there was no evidence of bronchopneumonia at all.

Rohan Wenn:

A Coronial inquiry into Manock's evidence on the Baby Deaths cases was being conducted at the exact same time as the Keogh trials. And in fact the Coroner had prepared this report which was highly critical of Manock during the second Keogh trial - but he didn't release it.

Bob Moles:

The Coroner takes the view that he ought not to release his report, disclosing the extent of Dr Manock's incompetence until after the trial. He says it might interfere with the trial.

Rohan Wenn:

If the jury had known Dr Manock's evidence had been so heavily criticised in those cases would they have ever convicted Henry Keogh? Eventually Keogh got 25 years. Then two days later the Coroner released his findings into the Battered Babies - but thanks to Manock's incompetence no one has ever been charged for the infant deaths. In his defence, Manock claimed that he was not an expert in infant pathology.

Bob Moles:

So why would the Coroner appoint Dr Manock to do the autopsy of Anna Cheney when he previously had extensive evidence over the previous 12 months that Dr Manock wasn't doing his job properly?

Rohan Wenn:

During the Keogh trial - our State Director of Public Prosecutions - Paul Rofe - relied heavily on Manock as an expert witness. The fact that Manock's reputation was in tatters was never raised by anyone?

Paul Rofe:

He was the senior forensic pathologist in this State.

Rohan Wenn:

Yet he had no training in pathology or histopathology, and you were still confident enough to use him as an expert witness?

Paul Rofe:

Yes. He had vast experience.

Rohan Wenn:

But just because you do a job frequently doesn't mean you do it well?

Paul Rofe:

No - this is possibly true.

Rohan Wenn:

Paul Rofe prosecuted Henry Keogh in the 2 murder trials - the first ending with a hung jury.

Paul Rofe:

This whole process has been so upsetting to the Cheney family - and - its just being - prolonged by these sorts of...

Rohan Wenn:

We certainly don't want to upset the Cheney family, but if there is two victims here and one of them is in jail, shouldn't we be looking at that?

Paul Rofe:

Oh, yes, as I said I'm not afraid of media scrutiny but I think that, I mean, that it's got to be properly based.

Rohan Wenn:

But our investigation has revealed a litany of errors - failures in the system extending to the Coroner, the police, the DPP and of course Dr Colin Manock. So what did all of these people upon whom we rely get so wrong?

Kevin Borick:

I think it's like an archaeological dig - it's been there all the time - but it was a matter of bringing it out - looking at it and piecing it together.

Rohan Wenn:

Put simply, the evidence was contaminated long before any proper investigation was done. Contrary to required procedures, police failed to secure the scene.

Bob Moles:

The police Forensic Science Manual states quite clearly that where there is a sudden or unexplained death the scene should be cordoned off. Well, in the case of Henry Keogh, that certainly didn't happen.

Rohan Wenn:

In fact, more than a dozen people entered Anna-Janes' bedroom and bathroom that night.

Bob Moles:

A police officer was appointed to stand guard at the door, but when family or friends turned up and said they were family or friends, or something of that sort, he said apparently - that's alright, you can go in - and they went in and walked around - and this is what we'd call contamination of the scene.

Rohan Wenn:

But apparently Paul Rofe doesn't seem overly concerned by this lapse in the basic rules of investigation.

Mr Rofe:

No the death didn't - I guess to those attending - wasn't regarded as suspicious at the time.

Rohan Wenn:

But no cause of death had been established?

Mr Rofe:

No, that's right.

Rohan Wenn:

So it should have been cordoned off?

Mr Rofe:

Well it would have been better if it had been.

Rohan Wenn:

Furthermore, the body was tampered with. Police photos show Anna-Jane's hair was combed and makeup had been applied to her face.

Bob Moles:

You can simply see the two photographs, you can see the difference between the two photographs, and nobody has made any reference in any statement to anything related to that.

Rohan Wenn:

Paul Rofe says that he didn't know about that, but adds - it really doesn't matter anyway.

Rohan Wenn:

But, it does indicate that somebody has been dealing with the body?

Mr Rofe:

That's your interpretation of it.

Rohan Wenn:

Well how else does she get made up and then get her hair done?

Mr Rofe:

I have got no idea. But it may be someone who just out of respect for a dead person.

Rohan Wenn:

Which is fine, except it does indicate that somebody has been dealing with the body?

Mr Rofe:

Well it may have been the Coroner's assistant. I don't know.

Rohan Wenn:

Making her up at the scene of the death?

Mr Rofe:

Look I honestly don't know, but it doesn't concern me.

Rohan Wenn:

The body then went to the morgue where Dr Manock's post-mortem according to accepted procedures should have been witnessed by investigating police. But no police were ever present. Wouldn't it be a concern?

Mr Rofe:

Again, I'd probably ask why it hadn't happened and if the explanation wasn't sufficient then I'd be concerned.

Rohan Wenn:

But to date that's a question you haven't asked?

Mr Rofe:

I haven't been told this before.

Rohan Wenn:

The next and more critical breakdown in procedures occurred with the autopsy. Dr Manock was the only pathologist to examine the body. It's a breach that is further amplified by this amazing admission from our DPP when questioned by Today Tonight. Was it unfortunate that Manock was the only one to see the body?

Mr Rofe:

No, as I said that was the established procedure at the time, in my experience.

Rohan Wenn:

But it goes against the Police Forensic Guidelines?

Mr Rofe:

Well I haven't seen those, and I'm not aware of them.

Rohan Wenn:

Well, here they are. Paul Rofe later called us to say that no one has heard of the Police Forensic Guidelines. But when we offered to send him our copy, he declined.

Kevin Borick:

If you use bad science, you're going to get problems.

Rohan Wenn:

But the lapses in procedure went from bad to worse. Anna-Jane's body was released by the Coroner for cremation, the very day her death was declared to be a major crime. No one had examined the body but Colin Manock - and now - no one else ever would.

Kevin Borick:

It is not correct that other pathologists who gave evidence at the trial reviewed his work - all they had to go on was the information supplied to them by Manock.

Rohan Wenn:

So how reliable was that information? Central to Manock's finding was the way he says Anna-Jane drowned. But as you'll soon learn, a controversial video reconstruction shows the flaws in the theory.

Investigator:

This is the bathroom in which Ann Cheney was found - ..

Presenter:

Coming up after the break more in that case, including the evidence which challenges that a murder ever took place - and the views of Keogh's former wife Sue.

Bob Moles:

When you stand up after a warm bath, especially if you have had a glass or two of wine, you can become light-headed and you could faint.

Break

Presenter:

When Henry Keogh was found guilty of murder a number of crucial matters played a role - the first of which is what really happened on the tragic night his fiance was found dead. The cause of death put forward by Dr Manock at the trials was challenged - but never as vigorously as now. Lawyers investigating the case have put the theory to the test - and they say the results just can't be ignored. Rohan Wenn continues the story.

Bob Moles:

The muscles in the leg are much stronger than a fingertip grip.

Rohan Wenn:

A lot has been said about that video re-enactment filmed by Bob Moles, Kevin Borick and Valerie Armfield inside Henry Keogh's former bathroom. They conducted the re-enactment to test Dr Manock's theory on how Anna Jane drowned.

Bob Moles:

Dr Manock was saying that the assailant came in on the right hand side, reached under the right leg, grabbed the left leg with the fingertips, forced it back over the head, whilst pushing down on the head at the same time. The specialists tell us that it simply can't be done.

Investigator:

We're now going to try a couple of various scenarios based on the evidence given by Dr Manock...

Rohan Wenn:

The video re-enactment is too distressing to show - but it is important evidence - because watching the tape, it is clear it would be virtually impossible to drown an adult woman in the manner described by Dr Manock. It is also evident when you watch the tape that Anna-Jane would have been able to fight back, kicking with her right leg and hitting with both arms. But, of course, Henry had no signs of injury. To prove his point in the trial Manock relied on these photos to show what he thought were small bruises on Anna-Jane's ankle - made by Keogh's fingers. You will notice there are no colour photographs. Previously, we do know that colour photos had been used in trials?

Bob Moles:

Yes

Rohan Wenn:

But not for this one?

Bob Moles:

That's correct.

Rohan Wenn:

They went with the black and white?

Bob Moles:

Yes.

Rohan Wenn:

That must cause you some suspicion?

Bob Moles:

It causes me very grave concern - because of course we're talking about evidence of bruising.

Rohan Wenn:

And since then other pathologists have checked the remaining tissue samples and in their opinions they weren't bruises at all.

Kevin Borick:

What was said to be a bruise was not a bruise and that destroys the prosecution case.

Rohan Wenn:

So if it wasn't murder, is there another explanation? Well, one theory is that Anna-Jane simply slipped and hit her head.

Bob Moles:

When you stand up after a warm bath, especially if you've had a glass or two of wine, and you can become light headed and you could faint - and if you banged your head as you fainted you could end up in the water and you could drown.

Rohan Wenn:

Another theory that Anna-Jane had suffered some kind of allergic reaction - something not explored at the trial.

Bob Moles:

In court it was said many many times that she was a fit and healthy person - but we know that she had over 30 medical consultations in the previous three years.

Paul Rofe:

It depends upon who you are I suppose. I don't go to the doctor very often, but people I know would probably go 36 times in a year.

Rohan Wenn:

Some of those visits were to an allergy specialist - and pathologists have recently pointed to what could be an injection mark or a bee sting on Anna-Jane's leg - which could suggest a reaction to some medication, or an insect bite;

Bob Moles:

If she has a pin prick or a mark at that location, it could be a bee sting, it could be an injection, it could be all sorts of things, but it should be explained.

Rohan Wenn:

It's a possibility that's never been raised before.

Paul Rofe:

I can only think of things you know that are in my comprehension or that have been brought to my attention, and that certainly wasn't one of them.

Rohan Wenn:

Much of this received little attention from Keogh's defence counsel in the first two trials or the first appeal. Sue Keogh is Henry Keogh's first wife.

Susan Keogh:

He's made lots of mistakes in his life but that makes him human, he's not a murderer. It's a huge leap from making silly decisions, silly choices, and moving to murder. I just know he's not a murderer.

Rohan Wenn:

For the last 8 years, she says she's believed in her ex husband's innocence.

You don't believe that he was responsible for Anna's death?

Susan Keogh:

No - I've never believed that. I've taken the children in to visit - they were only 8, 11 and 13 when it first started. If I'd thought for a moment that he was responsible for her death, there is no way I would have let them have any contact with him.

Rohan Wenn:

The family argues that in the end, Henry was convicted because of mistakes he'd made in the past - including the much detailed stories of infidelity which formed a part of the trial.

Alexis Keogh:

Some of it is true to be honest - like he made mistakes - he obviously had an affair, but there's more to him than that.

Rohan Wenn:

Much too was made of 5 insurance policies that Henry took out for Anna - by forging her signature - worth more than $1m. And whilst on the surface it looks very suspicious - his former wife says it wasn't unusual and alone didn't make him a murderer.

Susan Keogh:

Well, while we were married, as a matter of convenience, Henry always signed papers for me and he had my permission to do that and I had no problem with that, it was just a matter of convenience.

Rohan Wenn:

Evidence was also presented that Henry had taken out the policies to keep his insurance agencies alive.

Bob Moles:

He had recently taken up a new job with a firm of financial planners and was very concerned that within the next few months, it may not work out and he might have to go out on his own - so therefore, why not put a policy through each of the agencies - which might encourage the life insurance companies to keep his agencies open rather than close them off.

Rohan Wenn:

There was also evidence given at the trials, although disputed, that Anna Jane was well aware that those policies existed.

Bob Moles:

There was one question which said how much do you spend on life insurances - and she put beside that $36-00 per week - which is roughly speaking the cost of the 5 life insurance policies.

Rohan Wenn:

The jury however, didn't see it that way. Keogh's new defence counsel did raise Manock's failures in the second appeal and their petition to the High Court, but Paul Rofe countered by saying the forensic evidence was not the deciding factor. An argument accepted by the court.

Mr Rofe:

I think it was a combination of a lot of evidence that was led at trial.

Rohan Wenn:

By this time the die was cast and whatever the truth is, a system that flouts its own rules and tolerates incompetence must surely leave us with lingering doubts.

Kevin Borick:

There must be an independent inquiry, not an inquiry by people who are involved, but an independent inquiry to see if what we're saying has substance.

Rohan Wenn:

Recently, interest in the Keogh case has led to a public campaign to have the matter re-investigated. Meanwhile, Bob Moles and the other lawyers have presented the Governor with a Petition calling for a Royal Commission into this case and the scores of other controversial cases in which Manock's evidence played a key role.

Bob Moles:

I've had probably 20-25 cases where we have very grave concerns about the nature of the evidence which was given.

Peter Lewis:

I didn't come here to make friends - or enemies - I came here to make improvements. And I see this now as an improvement that has to be made.

Rohan Wenn:

And if the government is looking for comfort from Independent Bob Such, well he too has expressed serious misgivings that the system has let us down. As for the rest of us, well the least we deserve is to know that justice will be done in every case.

Bob Moles:

I think we should all be concerned about what's been happening.

Presenter:

Now, compiling that report, we attempted to meet with Henry Keogh but were refused by the authorities concerned. We also asked to speak with Dr Manock, the Coroner, Keogh's defence counsel at the trials, and the Cheney family. All declined.

Top of Page