Networked Knowledge Publications - Losing Their Grip - the case of Henry Keogh

Author: Dr Robert N Moles

Go to: Networked Knowledge - the Henry Keogh homepage
Go to: A state of Injustice: table of contents

Losing Their Grip - table of contents

Outline Chapter 10 - "The Cause of Death Cannot Now Be Established"

As part of our work on the Keogh case, we obtained affidavits which were completed by a wide range of eminent experts. They set out the various reasons as to why the medical and expert evidence produced at trial was unsatisfactory. Because the affidavits have been sworn, and produced to courts or to the Medical Board and the Solicitor-General, we are able to provide a fair and accurate report of what they contain.

Mr Michael Sykes produced two affidavits in court at Keogh’s second appeal. One of them states that the Coroner told him that he (the Coroner) had held back on the report criticising Dr Manock until after Keogh’s conviction. He didn’t want to interfere with the trial. The other refers to conversations with Judge David who represented Keogh at his trials when he was a QC. Apparently Mr David QC didn’t think it necessary to attack Manock’s credibility at the trial. It also seems that he was unable to properly read the Coroner’s 90 page report on Manock’s work in the three months prior to Keogh’s appeal. In any event, he didn’t see how it would help him.

A Senior Consultant at the Royal North Shore hospital in Sydney says that an acute allergic reaction should have been considered and tested for.

The Head of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine states that the case would never have gone to court in Victoria, and that it would be impossible to rule out an accidental cause of death.

Professor Tony Thomas goes through in some detail, the aspects of the forensic evidence and spells out clearly why it is in his opinion either inaccurate or unreliable. There is no proper chain of evidence. There are no photographs of (a) where tissue samples are taken from and (b) of many important and major observations relating to the cause of death. For example, although staining of the aorta was said to have been an important observation, there is no photograph of such staining. Dr Thomas concludes that there is no proper evidence that Anna drowned, therefore there can be no proper evidence to say that it was a forced drowning. There are many natural explanations such as heart and brain defects which have not been properly investigated and ruled out.

Professor Gale Spring describes what few photographs there are in the case as “appalling” and states they provide no evidence whatever, of marks on the body. The grainy black and white photographs do have some smudges on them, but they could as easily be something on the lens of the camera, or be an artefact of the printing process.

Professor Henneberg, a leading authority on anatomy states that the scenario as depicted by Dr Manock would have been “impossible” to complete.

Back to the Table of Contents

Top of Page