Thursday 3 August 2006 - Channel 7 Today Tonight (Adelaide)

Dr Alan Cala and the Justice System in South Australia

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

In order of appearance

Rosanna Mangiarelli - presenter
Dr Bob Moles - author and legal researcher
Graham Archer - interviewer and producer
Professor Maciej Henneberg - professor of anatomy

Program

Rosanna Mangiarelli

Tonight - another extraordinary story about our troubled criminal justice system. It’s the story the Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Pallaras, didn’t want the jury in a current murder case to see. While we make no reference to the matters before the court we are questioning the past performance of an expert witness in the DPP’s case - State Forensic Pathologist - Dr Allan Cala. You might ask why the DPP would object to a jury having access to all the details before considering their verdict. Still, that’s not new in this State. 

That aside, alarm about Dr Cala’s work was raised recently over a case in NSW in which he mistook a double murder for a motor vehicle accident. However, we’ve been troubled by Dr Cala’s conduct since he first came to Adelaide 3 years ago - and what we’ve discovered raises to a new level the urgent need for an inquiry into how our justice system has operated over many years. Here is Graham Archer.

Bob Moles

It's the most serious situation I've ever been able to contemplate. In all my research, I haven't found anything like this in the other states or indeed overseas.

Graham Archer

If ever you wanted evidence of how by ignoring one ‘justice-system scandal’, others can follow, this is it.

Robin Napper [file tape]

It’s a complete Pandora's Box Graham. I mean if they lift the lid any higher how many more might pop out? How many more Henry Keoghs are out there?

Graham Archer

That was just three weeks ago. Now our floundering forensic science fraternity have this to deal with.

Graham Archer

When Bill and Pam Weightman's bodies were discovered in their cars six years ago Dr Cala found it was an accident. What he missed is that the Weightman's son had drugged them and smothered them before rolling them down the embankment.

These terrible events have been known to Today Tonight for some time. But until recently the details have been suppressed. It's an extraordinary story of how a boilermaker recognised the signs of murder, from day one, when the experts failed to do so.

Police officer speaking on news bulletin

Initial investigations show that for some unknown reason the vehicle has lefty the road and gone down an embankment.

Graham Archer

Most telling though was forensic pathologist Dr Allan Cala, now working in Adelaide, found nothing suspicious despite unmistakable signs that the couple had met with foul play. Cala even laughed at suggestions of murder which were put to him by horrified family members. Because of his blunder the killers were allowed to go free for years and would never have been caught at all if it hadn't been for the relatives who eventually forced the slain couple's adopted son to confess to murder.

Bob Moles

Well, I thought, ‘what a tragedy’. Here we have a case where some people have been murdered - and it was written off as an accident. Sadly in South Australia we are all too familiar with that scenario. But every time it happens - it’s terribly sad for those involved.

Graham Archer

The whole unbelievable story will eventually be told in full - and trust us - there's more.  In the meantime, Dr Cala continues to work in Adelaide. However, when he started as our Acting Chief Forensic Pathologist in early 2003, he'd already been in trouble interstate’ trouble which led to the ‘body snatchers’ inquiry in 2001. For years staff at Glebe Morgue removed organs and bones and practised plastic surgery without relatives even knowing or consenting.

He was one of those caught unlawfully supplying body parts from autopsies to other scientists for unrelated research without authorisation. Human bodies treated like this.

Glebe Lab Technician

They're just lumps of meat with names on them - that's all they are - that's all they can be.

Graham Archer

In one case, Dr Cala ordered the skull of a deceased person to be smashed with a hammer to record injury patterns. Naturally, the conduct appalled public authorities and stricken relatives.

Voice over Glebe Mortuary Report

It's totally inappropriate for these practises to continue and we have to make sure they are prevented.

Graham Archer

Though no action was taken against those involved, in the Inquiry Findings, Dr Cala was singled out as the only pathologist who wouldn't accept that what he'd done was inappropriate.

Voice over Glebe Mortuary Report

Only Dr Cala, one of the pathologists on the Institute staff, appeared partly to contest this…

Graham Archer

Of course, none of this appears in Dr Cala's application for the Adelaide job - acquired by Today Tonight under Freedom of Information back in December 2003 - when we first had concerns about his fitness for the position. All the while his biggest blunder was yet to surface.

Graham Archer

Do you have to wonder about how exacting the selection process was that we employed?

Bob Moles

Well, of course, because for these incredibly important tasks it’s very important we have exactly the right person in the right job.

Graham Archer

What we have discovered is that when Dr Cala gained entry to the Royal College of Pathologists, enabling him to work as a forensic expert, back in June 1994, his Examiner for the College was none other than disgraced forensic pathologist Dr Colin Manock.

Bob Moles

I was absolutely horrified. And the main reason being that Dr Manock was involved in passing someone for an examination, and it was an examination he'd never taken himself.

Graham Archer

So Dr Manock gave us Dr Cala?

Bob Moles

Absolutely.

Graham Archer

Author of two books about Dr Manock's flawed forensics, Bob Moles is shocked by the news.

Could get could things get much worse?

Bob Moles

Well they're already much worse than I ever contemplated they could be - so therefore it's very difficult to imagine how they could possibly be worse.

Professor Henneberg

Personally, emotionally - I feel outraged.

Graham Archer

Here's the potential for killers to go free and never be caught?

Professor Henneberg

Yes.

Graham Archer

Disturbed too is Professor Maciej Henneberg, a forensic anthropologist, who says the work of experts like Dr Cala should routinely checked to ensure objectivity.

Professor Henneberg

Since the opinions of expert witnesses are scientific, well informed and unbiased opinions - they should be subjected to peer review.

Graham Archer

So we've had a history of ‘lone rangers’ acting on their own? Only one person getting a say?

Professor Henneberg

Yes - and that's where the problem lies.

Graham Archer

The extent of the potential damage done by Dr Manock was highlighted recently by the release of confidential Medical Board documents written by senior pathologists scathing of Manock's performance in the Keogh case.

Voice over – Notes of Dr Mark Coleman

The conduct of the autopsy and the quality of the resulting evidence was markedly sub-standard to the point of incompetence.

Graham Archer

Add to that his failed leadership of our Forensic Science Service for three decades.

Voice over – Notes of Dr Mark Coleman

Dr Manock was not just a senior pathologist he was the Chief Forensic Pathologist for the State. He had the opportunity and indeed the responsibility over many years to raise the standards, to introduce up-to-date systems, guidelines and protocols. On the evidence of the Cheney autopsy, he did not.

Graham Archer

Those documents raise pressing questions about the how the Medical Board then came to exonerate him. But now heaped on top we have this further alarming aspect of Dr Manock's legacy.

Bob Moles

Sadly, the human fallout is much broader, wider and deeper, than anyone would like to contemplate.

Graham Archer

It was well known that Dr Manock himself had never done the appropriate study or examinations to properly qualify as a forensic pathologist, let alone being made the Department Head. The State Government had even admitted ‘taking a risk’ with Manock's employment in Adelaide from the very start.

When he was first employed in 1968 did they know he didn’t have the proper qualifications?

Bob Moles

Yes they did, because it said on the court record that they knew he didn't have the proper qualifications, and in that sense they were taking a bit of a risk, but they had assumed he would get the qualifications soon after he was appointed.

Graham Archer

And did he?

Bob Moles

No.

Graham Archer

He never did?

Bob Moles

He was given the qualifications some years later without having to take the written examination.

Graham Archer

Yet he was allowed to practice as our chief forensic expert for three decades. But equally shocking, as we've now learned, he was also given the power to pass or fail other hopefuls, like Dr Cala, wishing to become forensic pathologists. From the beginning, many of his cases were considered suspect, and have received significant public criticism. Take the Emily Perry case which goes back to 1981.

Graham Archer

When the ‘attempted murder’ charges, laid largely as a result of Doctor Manock's work, were set aside by the High Court, what did they say about that?

Bob Moles

One of the High Court judges said that the forensic evidence provided in that case was ‘not fit to be taken into consideration’ and represented ‘an appalling departure from acceptable standards’.

Graham Archer

And that was in 1981?

Bob Moles

Yes

Graham Archer

So that judgment has been around for 25 years?

Bob Moles

Everyone in the field would have known about that judgment and what it said.

Graham Archer

The most notorious case, however, was his complete failure to correctly diagnose the deaths of three babies in the early 90's, and like Dr Cala, enabled potential killers to go free.

So was it appropriate, that at the very time these much publicised errors were being reviewed by the Coroner, Manock was judging others hoping to become forensic experts? And as such, he passed Dr Cala?

Does it surprise you that Dr Manock was nominated as an examiner when the Royal College of Pathologists must have known then about his history?

Bob Moles

Oh absolutely. I mean these are matters of public record for many years past now - and the very idea that Dr Manock would be accepted as an Examiner - at the very time his conduct was under question in the Baby Deaths cases - is a shocking situation.

Graham Archer

Cala may well have passed anyway. But we know Manock passed him after only 6 months specialist training - when up to two years is what's considered the proper standard.  

Should we really be surprised at what we are now facing now?

Bob Moles

Well, no - we shouldn't be surprised. This has been coming for a very long time. If you don't look into things that are plainly incorrect when they are brought to your attention – then, of course, they can only get worse.

Graham Archer

However, from the start, Dr Cala's conduct in Adelaide was not what's expected of an objective scientist. At the Attorney-General's nasty bidding he produced a vicious and grossly inaccurate report attacking Professor Tony Thomas - the pathologist who'd exposed Manock's Baby Deaths bungles - and later raised serious concerns about aspects of Manock's work in the Keogh case.

Now, that was a pretty dirty business wasn't it?

Bob Moles

Yes, it was it was a very shabby affair.

Graham Archer

Today Tonight is also aware of various other mistakes Dr Cala has made since coming to Adelaide. Amongst them, initially misdiagnosing a violent multiple stabbing as a suicide; and later mistaking a body-part in the Gladstone munitions explosion, causing the search for the third victim to be temporarily abandoned. Cala also misused his Government role in offering unsubstantiated opinions in a private complaint intended to stop Today Tonight's inquiries into the Keogh case. When we objected, his boss, Dr Hilton Kobus simply brushed the issue aside. Only when we went to the Minister, Dr Cala was reminded his Government position wasn't for personal use.

Is it appropriate for a State Pathologist to let himself get embroiled in the cloak and dagger world of politics?

Bob Moles

Absolutely not. And it's as clear as can be in the Royal Commissioners Report in the Splatt Case - that the forensic pathologists, the scientists involved - have to stick strictly to their jobs as scientists - and not be detracted into any of the other side issues.

Graham Archer

Quite rightly, there's calls now to review Dr Cala's previous work - but by some of the same people who've been desperately protecting Dr Manock. Surely we can't stop there now that history has repeated itself - and particularly considering we can effectively thank Dr Manock for Dr Cala.

It seems a little hollow when you consider Dr Manock's history doesn't it?

Bob Moles

Well it’s more than hollow. It seems unfair because according to ‘due process’ people who find themselves in similar situations should be subjected to the same process. So, if we are to have an inquiry into Dr Cala's cases, then its self evident that we should have an inquiry into Dr Manock's cases too.

Professor Henneberg

There's no such thing as greater or lesser justice. A case is either justly resolved or unjustly resolved.

Graham Archer

The whole sorry business needs to be cleared up for the sake of public confidence in our justice system.

Now I admit this is starting to sound like a cracked record, but clearly this is not going to go away. What must we do about it?

Bob Moles

Obviously it’s not going to go away - because too much damage has been done and the people who've been hurt will continue to press for a proper inquiry to be carried out. The thing that will have to be done is to have a proper Commission of Inquiry set up with investigators and decision-makers who are not from South Australia. And they must be given the requisite support to do the investigations.

Top of Page