Graham Stafford denies killing Leanne Holland despite new evidence

GRAHAM Stafford, who had his conviction for murdering schoolgirl Leanne Holland overturned, has been confronted with evidence police say proves he is the only one who could have killed the 12-year-old.

• DNA breakthrough in murder

GRAHAM Stafford has been confronted with damning new evidence police say proves he is the only one who could have killed schoolgirl Leanne Holland.

One of the most extensive reviews in Queensland history – kept secret for five years – used new technology to find Leanne’s blood “projected” high up in her shower and in the boot of Stafford’s car.

The review confirmed a maggot found in his car boot exactly matched those found on Leanne’s body and imprints on her buttock and thigh exactly matched the mat in the boot of his type of car.

Leanne Holland

And for the first time, police have evidence Leanne was part way through dyeing her hair when “the process inexplicably ceased”. Stafford has long maintained Leanne left home to buy hair dye and never returned.

The new evidence was put to Stafford by Channel 7’s Murder Uncovered after the network obtained a copy of the 500-page police review.

The program also challenged Stafford to a lie-detector test – which he refused – before returning with the results of one he’d arranged independently. His polygraph examination proved “inconclusive”.

Leanne’s badly beaten body was found in bushland on September 26, 1991, four days after she was last seen alive.

The 12-year-old died from head injuries and her skirt was pulled above her waist.

Stafford was charged with her murder and convicted the following year. But he was released after serving 14 years, his conviction overturned and a new trial ordered.

The Director of Public Prosecutions decided against holding a new trial because of the time Stafford had already served.

In an interview with journalist Michael Usher, Stafford referred to the new evidence as “rubbish, absolute rot”. He denied helping her dye her hair on the day police believe she was murdered.

“She certainly did not have peroxide put in her hair and I certainly didn’t do it,” he said, adding he “didn’t care” about the scientific evidence to the contrary.

Murder Uncovered’s Michael Usher with Graham Stafford at the site where Leanne’s body was found in 1991.

Usher also questioned him about 60 spots of blood found “sprayed” at a height of 180cm in the shower. Blood on the shower curtain has now been identified as belonging to Leanne.

“Yeah, well, I’m just being, you know, stitched up again. That’s what it is,” he responded. “Why would I be putting myself in this position (agreed to the interview) if I’d actually committed the crime? Wouldn’t I have just gone to ground and kept quiet?”

Usher responded: “I wouldn’t understand the psychology of that.”

Stafford last night told The Courier-Mail he had nothing to hide and wanted an inquest into Leanne’s death. He has previously said he is prepared to go to trial again.

Stafford’s conviction was overturned on Christmas Eve 2009 with one appeal court judge heavily dissecting the Crown’s case and stating that he should have been acquitted.

Queensland Supreme Court of Appeal justices Patrick Keane and Hugh Fraser determined that his conviction be quashed and a new trial ordered however Justice Catherine Holmes went further and said Stafford should have walked free.

Justice Holmes agreed with Justice Keane, the first to summarise the case, that Stafford was not afforded a fair trial but she then went on to state: “I do not consider that, on the evidence which remains, a jury could be satisfied beyond doubt of Mr Stafford’s guilt.”

One of the biggest hurdles for the Crown, and also noted by Justice Keane, was the time afforded Stafford to commit the murder, move the body and not have large amounts of blood found in the boot or on his clothes.

There was also the question of the murder weapon, a Cyclone hammer, having no blood on it.

“That hammer was examined by a forensic scientist. It had no human blood on it,” Justice Holmes wrote.

She noted how if Mr Stafford killed Leanne Holland then he showed an “extraordinary competence in managing a brutal murder without leaving evidence of it on his clothing or shoes which were seized by police.”

Her comments are in light of the fact a forensic scientist and a pathologist said there would have been “massive splashing” from the blows inflicted on Leanne Holland.

According to Stafford’s girlfriend, Stafford was wearing “Broncos shorts” when she left for work that morning and he still had them on that night when she got home.

“There was no obvious staining on them, nor on the Reebok shoes that Mr Stafford wore,” Justice Holmes wrote.

“No human blood was found in the interior of Mr Stafford’s vehicle, particularly the driver’s seat or the steering wheel.

“The evidence was that Mr Stafford had always had a normal and affable relationship with Leanne. The sudden killing of the girl, with indicia of sadism, with no clue to be found in Mr Stafford’s previous blameless and unremarkable history and no suggested motive, simply seems, although not impossible, unlikely.

“It is possible that Mr Stafford killed Leanne Holland. It is also possible that after (witness) Ms (Belinda) Collins saw her and before she reached home she was abducted and murdered by some other person. In my view, a jury presented with the Crown case as it now stands would experience a reasonable doubt as to Mr Stafford’s guilt. [208] I would enter a verdict of acquittal.”

A full transcript of the Appela court decision can be found here: http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2009/QCA09-407.pdf