Monday 4 June 2007 - Channel 7 Today Tonight (Adelaide)

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

The Weightman Family and Dr Allan Cala

In order of appearance

Leigh McCluskey, Presenter
Graham Archer, Producer and interviewer
Meg and Alan Urwin

Program - Leigh McCluskey

Tonight, the extraordinary story of a cold blooded double murder and the Adelaide pathologist who pronounced the deaths were the result of "an accident" after looking at results from the wrong brain. It was seven years ago when Pam and Bill Weightman were found dead in their car and the police quickly moved to rule their deaths as accidental. But something didn't sit right with Pam's sister Margaret and her husband Alan who felt immediately that something very obvious was being overlooked - including the bizarre attitude of the dead couple's adopted son David. And yet, wherever they turned, their fears of murder were dismissed out of hand; to the point where the forensic expert - who later became Adelaide's acting Chief Pathologist – Dr Alan Cala - laughed at them out loud, describing them as paranoid. But they weren't paranoid. And almost four years later, their nephew confessed they'd been right all along. He'd murdered his adopted parents for money. So why hadn't the forensic expert and the police uncovered the blinding truth? Graham Archer has this investigation..

Meg Urwin

I think they give him more than you would your birth child, to be honest, because he was given to them as a gift

Alan Urwin

For him to turn around and do what he did to them - it's just - we are at a total loss as to how he could do this - this atrocious thing.

Graham Archer

It was an act of the most monstrous betrayal.  

Meg Urwin

They wanted a child so badly the only alternative they had was to go through adoption and everybody was absolute elated when they had a child - when they had David – yes.

Graham Archer

Two loving parents murdered by the abandoned child they adopted and nurtured for 20 years. And as parents how were they?

Meg Urwin

The best. The best of the best.

Graham Archer

So they were completely devoted to David?

Meg Urwin

Completely. One hundred percent.

Graham Archer

Killed in cold blood - for the cash they would have gladly given him - and which he was sure to inherit anyway.

Alan Urwin

It’s been a nightmare. But it’s been a nightmare created by government departments refusing to do their job - and I do mean refusing to do their job.  

Meg Urwin

I don't think I would believe it if I was reading about it or watching it on television. I wouldn't be able to believe it.

Graham Archer

But you've lived it, haven't you?

 Meg Urwin

We've lived it. It's there.

Graham Archer

Being the family of victims in such a tragedy is one thing. But watching the authorities deny a crime had been committed is quite another.  

Alan Urwin

There is more red flags flying in this case than in mayday in Moscow. And if they couldn't get this one right, how the hell do they get the difficult ones right?

Graham Archer

So let down were they that they were forced to solve what to them was an obvious double murder all on their own - while living with the killer.

Alan Urwin

The only people who thought there was nothing wrong was the police the pathologist and the Coroner. Everybody else did.

Graham Archer

And amongst the official bungling and belligerence is South Australia's expert forensic recruit Dr Allan Cala.

Alan Urwin

Everything we said to Dr Cala he disregarded. He didn't take nothing we said on board.

Graham Archer

This almost unbelievable saga begins on the afternoon of January 9th 2000 in NSW when middle-aged couple Pam and Bill Weightman were found dead in their family car - which appeared to have run off the road and down an embankment. The police at the scene immediately declared the deaths accidental - or at worst – suicide.  

News report

Investigations show that the vehicle has left the road for some unknown reason and gone down an embankment.

Graham Archer

However, Pam Weightman's sister Margaret Urwin and her husband Alan - who had the distressing duty of identifying their loved ones - were immediately troubled.

Alan Urwin

I said to Margaret - I said “it just looks like they've been in a fight”.

Graham Archer

And being a double fatality - they assumed there'd been at least one other vehicle involved.  Their real doubts set in when they quizzed police about the circumstances.

Alan Urwin

I said there's been a motor vehicle accident - two people are dead - there's another car involved? He said “don't you know the situation?” and I said “No” - and he said “they ran their car off the road”. That was the point I thought there was something wrong here. This is not right.

Graham Archer

It was just the beginning of ever-growing alarm over the suspect evidence. From the superficial damaged to the car -

Alan Urwin

When the car went over it didn't hit anything substantial. It was basically the scrub that stopped it - so there was no real impact to the car. So, in effect, there was very little damage to the car.

Graham Archer

- to the location itself -

Alan Urwin

It was a well known area to the police for dumped cars - and we just looked - and I can't speak for my wife - but I was sitting in the police van I was shocked. I though “what the hell is Pam and Bill doing over here?”

Graham Archer

Was it a place they'd normally visit?

Meg and Alan Urwin

No. No.  

Graham Archer

Any reason for them to be driving there?

Alan Urwin

No, no reason.

Graham Archer

Strangely, Pam had the most serious injuries of the two - despite being found wearing a seat belt - while husband Bill uncharacteristically wore none. And even to a layman like Alan the types of injuries didn't seem to fit a car crash.

Alan Urwin

Because - there was specific bruising on the fingers and the arms. And you know, the fingers and the arms.  

Graham Archer

So many things just didn't add up.

Meg Urwin

There were unusual things left around the home. I knew she wouldn't go anywhere without her wedding ring on. Apparently the time of death indicated very, very early in the morning. The beds were made. There were wine glasses left on the draining board. Lots of little signs that I would know that no one else would know.

Graham Archer

But their appeals to police to take a closer look fell on deaf ears.

Alan Urwin

They didn't want to know. They wouldn't even talk to us. Aside from being sceptical about the evidence - even more confronting for the Urwins was the all too obvious absence of remorse from Pam and Bill's adopted son of 20 years - David Weightman.

Meg Urwin

He showed no signs of emotion. He didn't shed a tear. His behaviour to me was so unusual.

Alan Urwin

It was like he had won Lotto - not the grieving - he wasn't grieving - he was celebrating liked he'd won Lotto.

Graham Archer

He put the house on the market?

Meg and Alan Urwin

Almost immediately. The same day – immediately.

Graham Archer

This video of David’s 21st - just weeks after the deaths of his parents - is a chilling example of how unaffected he appeared, while his friends and family tried to rally round him. In poignant contrast to his apparent indifference was the arrival of two birthday cakes - one from Margaret - and a second which arrived unexpectedly from devoted mum Pam - ordered before her death. But their greatest bewilderment was with the absolute certainty about the cause from forensic expert Dr Allan Cala - who three years later took up the position of acting Chief Forensic Pathologist in >Adelaide. But back then he performed the autopsy in the case. The diagnosis of the autopsy that Pam and Bill died from the trauma of the vehicle going down the embankment. So a motor vehicle accident?

Meg and Alan Urwin

That's right

Graham Archer

To the Urwins, this failed to account for the most basic facts including the types of injuries. So a meeting with Dr Cala was arranged?

Alan Urwin

I think I asked most of the questions because I was really, really puzzled and for me, the car gone off the embankment, I couldn't work it out.

Graham Archer

But Dr Cala refused to budge. So, somewhat reluctantly, the Urwins raised their deepest suspicions.

Alan Urwin

I said, look I think that they were murdered. And, and he basically said, "what?" and I said "yeah" and he said "who done it?" and I said "their son, David." And he swung around on the office chair, rocking on the office chair and he basically laughed.

Graham Archer

He laughed at you?

Alan Urwin

He laughed. He said – that’s when he said, "You're starting to become paranoid now and you should get on with you life. I can assure you that this was a tragic accident and their deaths is consistent."

Graham Archer

It was clear from this point on the Urwins were completely on their own.

Meg Urwin

We did get on with our lives. But unfortunately in the wrong way. We tried to help our nephew as much as possible. We felt guilty.  

Graham Archer

They tried valiantly to suppress their suspicions. And as his only remaining family they took David into their home.

Meg Urwin

We worked hard to makes sure the welfare of David was taken care of. We were the only relatives he had so we completely turned our lives around.

Graham Archer

But all the while David Weightman continued to lavish his newly inherited wealth upon himself.

Meg Urwin

H went through half a million dollars in less that two years.

Graham Archer

With David’s inexplicable behaviour - typified by his use of a Samuri sword to cut his mum's cake - and having to stomach being told by a Coronial counsellor this was his way of grieving - Alan and Margaret could no longer ignore their instincts.

Meg Urwin

I think, generally, because I was very scared - very insecure - we were all living under the same roof, and from there it spiralled really.

Alan Urwin 

The police didn't want to know us. We had been told by a pathologist their deaths were an accident “get on with your lives”. What could we do but take it into our own hands, which is basically what we did do.

Graham Archer

Alan began interrogating David himself - and little by little he broke him down.

Alan Urwin

On a number of occasions I did interrogate him. Such as why David, why do you do it? And he kept his head down and he said "money". So I obviously knew he had done it.

Graham Archer

But David would then deny it and Alan would have to start all over again. This went on for over a year.

Alan Urwin

There was one particular time I said to him “did they suffer?” I said “did your dad suffer?” and he shook his head - so there was some connection. And I said “so your dad didn't suffer?” and I said “what about your mum?” and he wouldn't answer. And so, by that indication, his mum did suffer - and consequently as I found out, she did suffer and terribly actually.

Break

Leigh McCluskey

There was no doubt Alan and Margaret Urwin had been correct all along with their suspicions that their nephew had murdered his parents. But could they ever get him to confess to the police? And even if he did - why had so many so called experts failed to recognise such an obvious crime? And what price should they pay for allowing at least one killer to get away with this terrible act? Graham Archer continues the story.

Alan Urwin 

In late 2003, it was near Christmas, and I've often said this was the worst period of our life. Margaret was not handling the situation and things had deteriorated really bad. David had put his house on the market that he had bought and she obviously thought he was going to leave the State and that's it - was going to get away with murdering his mum, Margaret's sister and her brother in law.

Graham Archer

It was during the incredibly painful period  that Alan and Margaret  learned of the attempted suicide of David Weightman's girlfriend.

Meg Urwin

And the reason why she had tried to commit suicide is that she'd found out that David had tried to murder his parents.  

Graham Archer

Did he confess to her?

Alan Urwin

We don't know. We don't know the exact details of what happened.

Graham Archer

It was enough for them to intensify their efforts. And in February 2004 - four years after the Weightmans' deaths, David finally confessed everything.

Alan Urwin

On this particular day Margaret came around to the house and it all erupted. And after six hours he basically conceded and he told me everything. In fact, I had to stop him because it got to the point that a lot of things he was telling you was quite gruesome - and I basically tried to convince him on going to the police which eventually we went to the police.  

Graham Archer

Their suspicions had been correct all along. And they'd been forced to solve the crime all by themselves under the most harrowing of circumstances. Even then it was a struggle.

Alan Urwin

I told the police what had happened. I said to him “David, he's confessed everything to my wife myself my kids his wife”. He says, “can it wait till Monday?”

Graham Archer

Can it wait till Monday?

Alan Urwin

Can it wait till Monday.  

Graham Archer

But in February 2004 David was charged with the double homicide of his parents.

Alan Urwin

And for that split second I though it was a dream - and it wasn't a dream. We got him!

Graham Archer

It was during the proceeding court process that the truth emerged about Dr Cala's autopsy. According to the official version, back in June 2001, probably as a result of the Urwin's urgings, police asked for a review of the autopsy. It was then Dr Cala discovered his most dreadful error. Amongst other things, he'd recorded injuries of the wrong brain.

Graham Archer

It's a pretty extraordinary blunder, isn't it?

Alan Urwin  

It is for a person in a very high position. A profession that is highly skilled, it's amazing.

Graham Archer

Instead of those of Pam Weightman, Dr Cala had recorded tests from a total stranger who happened to have suffered brain trauma. It compounded with other errors to cement his views of an accident. The finding was altered to "undetermined". But if this is the case, the Urwins were kept in the dark for four years. So, Margaret, when did you first know that the autopsy had been reviewed and the findings altered?

Meg Urwin

We weren't aware of any changes until about 2005.  

Graham Archer

And why wouldn't they tell you that that was the case?

Meg Urwin

That's exactly right.

Graham Archer  

It would get you off their backs?  

Meg Urwin  

Exactly. Yes.

Graham Archer

Equally puzzling during this time, as far as the Urwin's were concerned, police were still using the original autopsy report.  And as far as you knew, the dealings that you'd had with police, none of this had happened?

Meg and Alan Urwin

We weren't aware. We weren't aware at all.

Graham Archer

In December 2005 David Weightman was finally convicted of murder and sentenced to 28 years jail. It had taken 6 years and the Urwins wanted to know why they'd been put through the ordeal of being victim, police, pathologists and prosecutors all in one.

Alan Urwin

Everything was there for them. Everything was handed on a plate. They couldn't have gotten a more obvious and easy murder to solve.

Graham Archer

Then, in 2006 David’s friend Trevor Donai was arrested as an accomplice to the murders. And the Urwins face another trial in September. In the meantime, they lodged a complaint with the Health Care Complaints Commission against Dr Cala and a complaint of unsatisfactory professional conduct was laid. But when word of Dr Cala's misdiagnosis became public last year the authorities in NSW suppressed the details and held their hearing in secret.

Meg Urwin

It's horrifying.

Graham Archer

A month or so ago, seven years on, Dr Cala - who'd already admitted his error, apologised,  and was found guilty of the complaint and fined the maximum penalty. In the meantime, of course, he'd come to Adelaide. The Coroner, who'd apologised to the Urwins in 2004: “The state Coroner relies on police and forensic pathologists to carry out their investigations with due care and diligence. Unfortunately, this did not happen on this occasion". He gave Dr Cala a glowing reference to work in South Australia in 2003.

Alan Urwin

Oh well, It makes you wonder. It's beyond us really.

Graham Archer

Aside from the shocking pain the Urwins were put through, this debacle poses an interesting dilemma for this state's DPP Stephen Pallaras who has continued to back Dr Cala as an expert witness regardless of the complaint process underway.

Stephen Pallaras DPP at Press Conference[File Tape]

In context, this was, and I remind everybody, still is, an allegation only.

Graham Archer

It was already an admission of a serious error which had derailed a double murder investigation - and kept under wraps for 4 years. And as Today Tonight has revealed this was not the only scandal Dr Cala has been involved in. He was one of those pathologists subject to the “body snatchers” Inquiry held in Sydney in 2001 - over the unlawful testing of body parts. When he came to SA he was asked by the Attorney General's staffer Michael O'connell to justify the work of his discredited predecessor Dr Colin Manock in the Keogh case. Cala supported Manock’s diagnosis of bruising that later even Dr Manock admitted he'd not seen through his microscope. Dr Cala also misused his position in supplying a seemingly official report for use in a private matter intended to stop Today Tonight further investigating the Keogh matter.

Graham Archer

Is it appropriate for a State pathologist to involve himself in the cloak and dagger world of politics and other side issues?

Dr Bob Moles

No it is not. In the Splatt Royal Commission over 20 years ago the Commissioner made it clear that the scientists concerned must stick strictly to the scientific issues involved.

Graham Archer

And most recently failed to ensure all the remains of one of the Gladstone munition blast victims were returned to the relatives. But where does this leave the cases in which Dr Cala has provided expert testimony and those he's working on?

Stephen Pallaras DPP at Press Conference[File Tape]

We are relying on Dr Cala a) because he's been involved in cases in which he's given reports and b) because I am told I can rely on him.

Graham Archer

That was then. What about now? Today Tonight has raised, time and time again, issues about the past failures of our Forensic Science Service. Unless there is an independent review into the way forensic science has functioned in SA - standby for the next scandal. Just pray your family doesn't take the Urwin's place.

Alan Urwin

Unfortunately Margaret wants to go back to the UK to live. What happens? I don't know. After this year is over I think it's just a matter of take one step at a time and take one year at a time.

Graham Archer

What's closure for you?

Meg Urwin

Everything settled. Everything finished, finalised. Answers. I think we've just lost so much faith - and Australian governments - where do you go, where do you go when you lose that faith? There's not a lot left.

Leigh McCluskey

And although Dr Cala admitted his error, he has maintained he is innocent of the complaint of unsatisfactory professional conduct. We tried to contact him via "Forensic Science SA" but received no reply. Nor did the DPP Stephen Pallaras QC choose to acknowledge our attempts to get a comment about his attitude to relying on Dr Cala as an expert in the future.

Top of Page