‘Seek the truth’: Sensational murder claims at Jeffrey Brooks inquest

A WorkCover subcontractor who investigated the death of scientist Jeffrey Brooks has sensationally claimed that he was murdered.

• Top cop’s ‘embarrassing’ admission
• Owner reveals threats before mystery death

A WorkCover subcontractor who investigated the death of Jeffrey Brooks has sensationally claimed that he was murdered and withdrawn earlier claims that police officers involved in the case were incompetent.

The coronial inquest into the death of Jeffrey Brooks who was killed in 1996 after a firearm he was reaching for accidentally discharged, continued on Friday.

Jeffrey Brooks.

Mr Brooks was working at a Beenleigh crayfish farm at the time and despite his death being ruled an accident 26 years ago, his family believe foul play was involved.

The inquest today heard from retired police crime scene examiner Jamie Hanson and Dennis Walker, one of two men contracted to investigate the farm death on behalf of WorkCover.

During his short time on the stand Mr Hanson maintained he had “limited recollection” of the crime scene but did confirm reporting that the ute drivers seat where Mr Brooks’ body was found, “soaked in blood.”

Mr Hanson told the court that to this day he was still sure there was “nothing he could have offered” investigators that would confirm if Mr Brooks’ death was either an accident or murder.

Mr Walker, however, expressed a far stronger opinion on what he thought happened to young Jeffrey Brooks, saying he was sure his death was not a suicide or accident.

“We knew from the start that it wasn’t a suicide. I just know Jeffrey was too careful of handling weapons to do anything silly and I do not believe he would have used that gun,” he said.

“There was no evidence whatsoever of anything to support the police theory that Jeffery was reaching in to grab the barrel of the gun and pull it back out of the car when it’s accidentally discharged.”

WorkCover investigator Dennis Walker. Picture David Clark

Despite claiming his job was to ultimately “seek the truth,” it was revealed to the court that Mr Walker and his senior colleague Laurie Newell had been instructed to narrow their investigative scope to specifically find out if: Mr Brooks didn’t die by accident; if foul play was involved; if the gun was not owned or maintained by farm owner Johannes ‘Hans’ Grieger; or if Brooks would not operate the gun that killed him at all.

It was put to Mr Walker that he was instructed to find evidence of foul play to prevent Mr Brooks’ wife Nicole from receiving a WorkCover insurance payout.
Mr Walker denied having a predetermined goal before beginning his investigation.

“Whichever way it went … we’re investigators and we get paid regardless of the outcome,” he said.

Three separate WorkCover reports were presented to the inquest, all displaying different overtones regarding the probability that Jeffrey was murdered or accidentally killed.

The initial report was extremely critical of police work and claimed to have found many “inconsistencies” with things like ballistics, gunshot residue, purchasing of shotgun shells and evidence of the guns' accidental discharge.

It also included a specific complaint that “main players and suspects” weren’t “aggressively” investigated by police and that police had ignored evidence, at one point calling one person “incompetent.”

However, the second and third reports were less damning of police investigations.

Mr Walker said both he and Laurie Newell (now deceased) came to the final conclusion that Mr Brooks was too far away from the gun to shoot himself and had therefore been murdered -possibly by his employer Hans Geiger. Mr Geiger has never been charged with any wrongdoing in relation to mr Brooks’ death.

The ute where Jeffrey Brooks’ body was found. Picture: Qld Police

“The discussions that Laurie Newell and I had during the course of the extensive inquiries really pointed the finger back towards the only persons of interest who would have means, motive and opportunity, (which) may well have been Geiger or an unknown person,” Mr Walker said.

“I believe there is forensic evidence in there to suggest the gun was on a higher plain than Jeffrey and the shot has hit him at a lower level … GSR (gunshot residue) tests were not conducted which we both felt were very strange.

“We did a lot of background work with Mr and Mrs Brooks, Jeffrey’s brother, Greg Milam, and a range of other people who had explained that Jeffrey Brooks had been brought up in a family that were hunters, regular users of firearms for sporting purposes, that he had been taught to respect a weapon at all times … it just wouldn’t happen that a man of that knowledge and safety of weapon would reach to go to grab such a weapon in that manner.

“There was no evidence, I think, of any flash burns, on either of Jeffrey’s hand nor up the side of his arms, which, especially an old weapon like this, would leave if you took it like so, and then the size of the entry would at 3cm and Jeff’s reach, (which) if I remember rightly was 65cm either arm. And (there was) no evidence of a barrel anywhere near his hands, (which) indicates to me that the gun was further away from him.”

Jeffrey Brooks’ parents, Lawrie and Wendy Brooks. Picture: Liam Kidston.

There was also an issue with the disappearance of X-ray photographs of Mr Brooks’ post-mortem, which Mr Walker maintained he had little to no knowledge about due to them being lost, despite the X-rays being mentioned in his own report.

“Post-mortem photographs? I’ve never seen them ever. We did request however the X-rays that were taken at the post mortem which were very vital at the investigation which were able to show an angle of (gunshot) entry,” Mr Walker said.

“Mr Newell attended the precinct the next morning and - this is from my memory now - the sergeant was very upset, dare I say shocked, that when he went to get the negatives and the copies that he couldn’t find them.”

But when Counsel assisting the coroner Sarah Lane grilled him on why the X-rays would appear in one of his three reports Mr Walker said he was “perplexed.”

“I’d agree that contradicts what I’ve already said,” Mr Walker said, conceding he would have had access to the X-rays at one point.

Before allowing Mr Walker to leave the stand, Coroner Mackenzie addressed his earlier claims regarding police officers not doing their job correctly.

“That such gross incompetence by certain unknown persons cannot escape the justice that should be applied to them, that’s under your hand in this report,” Coroner Mackenzie said.

“I would dismiss that as hyperbole but is it eyebrow raising that you would make such a comment. At the very worst, people have made decisions on which you don't agree.

“I'm giving you the opportunity to withdraw it.”

Mr Walker reluctantly withdrew the comments made in the report.

“That allows me to take your opinion more graciously,” Coroner Mackenzie said.

The inquest continues.