Channel 7 Today Tonight (Adelaide)

Dr Cala and the DPP 7 August 2006

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

In order of appearance

Rosanna Mangiarelli – presenter
Graham Archer - interviewer and producer
Stephen Pallaras QC, DPP from media conference 4 August 2006

Program

Rosanna Mangiarelli

But first, when performing the most crucial part of an autopsy, to discover if a murder has been committed - using evidence from the wrong body would almost certainly produce the wrong result. Unbelievably, that's what Adelaide Senior Forensic Pathologist Dr Allan Cala did in a New South Wales case where a married couple, first found to be the victims of a car accident, were in fact beaten and strangled by their adopted son.

There were many signs that something was wrong. Superficial damage to the car, the wife who was in a seat belt suffered greater injuries than her husband who wasn't wearing one, and there was much more. But, what's worse, Dr Cala examined a report from a completely different body. And the murders would have gone un-noticed if it wasn't for the persistence of horrified relatives. Graham Archer has this exclusive report.

Woman at media conference

How many cases in South Australia could it have affected?

Stephen Pallaras QC at media conference

I don’t know the details of past cases. There are about a dozen on the list of upcoming cases, I believe, in which he is a witness.

Graham Archer

On Friday the DPP held an animated press conference in which he declared his support for Adelaide Senior Forensic Pathologist Dr Allan Cala who currently faces an unprofessional conduct complaint in New South Wales over mistaking the double homicide of Pam and Bill Weightman in January 2000 for a car accident.

Stephen Pallaras QC at media conference

We are in no position to make any medical judgments about the skills or qualifications of Dr Cala or anyone else. For that judgment we rely on the advice of the Forensic Science Centre of South Australia.

Graham Archer

This is surprising, given the DPP must make decisions about the suitability of witnesses every day. His decision was made after consulting Forensic Science SA and Dr Cala himself, who told the DPP that, “He typed into the computer the wrong number, up came the wrong brain form and he produced a report for the Coroner. The report contained the wrong brain report.”

That explanation was read into transcript by DPP prosecutor Jim Pearce in the recent Ballard murder trial in which Dr Cala was an expert crown witness.

News voice over 22 July

“The prosecution still relied upon the evidence of Dr Cala and were reliant on the opinions he gave."

Graham Archer

But what really happened in the case in New South Wales? What we understand from court records is the surviving family recognised the signs of murder from day one. The bruising and scratches to the bodies of the Weightman's, particularly Pam were consistent with a fight and strangulation - not a car accident. They pressed police constantly for an investigation after Dr Cala signed off on his autopsy finding nothing suspicious. This telling letter from the State Attorney General’s Department was read into transcript in 2004 by the Coroner John Abernethy. It notes that in July 2001, “Further information was received by police. In response to this information police contacted Dr Cala and arrangements were made for a further review."

It was only this, 18 months after the deaths, that obliged Dr Cala to look back at his work. What he found is that he had made a terrible blunder which he reported as, “Dr Cala suggested that the error was possibly due to confusion with another neuropathology report. Dr Cala conveyed his sincere apologies for this very significant error.”

However, we understand this was more than just an excusable mix up. Dr Cala had entered the crucial brain pathology report of another person into the Weightman's autopsy findings. There was no mix up of labels. Dr Cala had got wrong person and didn't check, allowing two murders to be overlooked. 

“There have clearly been significant failings and errors in the conduct of the initial investigation. The error on the autopsy report was certainly critical and meant the State Coroner had been misled”.

Stephen Pallaras QC at media conference

He, like any of us, admits to a mistake. He, like any of us, once he's owned up to it, once he has identified it, and once he has reported it, and once he's corrected it, seems to me to be entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Graham Archer

More than a simple error it seems.

Graham Archer at media conference

Have you spoken with the family?

Stephen Pallaras at media conference

No, I haven't is the answer.

Graham Archer

The question also arises why wasn't Mr Pallaras told of the unprofessional conduct complaint when it was discovered by one of his prosecutors back in June?

Stephen Pallaras at media conference

Should she have told me earlier? Perhaps in retrospect and seeing what’s happened since, she might have. But in context this was, and I remind everybody present, still is, an allegation only.

Graham Archer

It was much more than an allegation. It was an admission of making a serious error which effectively defeated the purpose of having an autopsy - and prevented a murder investigation.

Stephen Pallaras QC

I can understand then why she would judge that I did not need to know about every allegation that someone had made in her case.

Graham Archer

Hardly a minor omission. But Mr Pallaras is more inclined to reprimand the media for alerting him to this embarrassing situation.

Stephen Pallaras at media conference

Unhelpful publicity surrounding the position of senior consultant pathologist Dr Allan Cala has caused much unnecessary anguish in the community.

Graham Archer

Not as much as the family of the murdered couple suffered. Even putting those fundamental errors aside - the question remains, why would the DPP play Russian Roulette with around a dozen upcoming cases in which Dr Cala is an expert witness?

Stephen Pallaras QC at media conference

I can’t do anything to avoid that except to take the best advice that I can from those who know. I don’t know. I am advised by those who are employed to give precisely that assessment. They are the best people in town to know. If they don’t know, no one does.

Graham Archer

Surely if this Government has proved itself incapable of reviewing obvious errors of due process made in numerous past cases - why run the risk of adding new ones to the list?

Stephen Pallaras QC at media conference

We are relying on Dr Cala, a) because he has been involved in the cases in which he has given reports and b) because I am told by Forensic Science that we can rely on him.

Rosanna Mangiarelli

Graham Archer with that exclusive report.

Top of Page