Key statement in Silk-Miller murder trial was falsified
LAWYERS for convicted murderer Jason Roberts will launch a fresh petition for mercy after revelations a statement used to secure his conviction was falsified. A former senior homicide policeman has called for a judicial inquiry into the statement.
Law & Order
Don't miss out on the headlines from Law & Order. Followed categories will be added to My News.
LAWYERS for convicted murderer Jason Roberts will launch a fresh petition for mercy after revelations a statement used to secure his conviction was falsified.
Attorney-General Martin Pakula says he was not aware of the statement when he rejected a petition for mercy earlier this year.
The doctored statement was a key part of the prosecution case presented in court that Roberts was with killer Bandali Debs when Sergeant Gary Silk and Senior Constable Rodney Miller were gunned down in Moorabbin in 1998.
SPECIAL REPORT: DOUBT RAISED ON POLICE CONSTABLE’S DYING WORDS
TASKFORCE COP: WHY THERE’S NO EXCUSE FOR FALSE STATEMENT
In the altered statement, police officer Glenn Pullin said a dying Sen-Constable Miller had said “they were on foot”, indicating more than one gunman was present.
But the Herald Sun has uncovered a copy of the buried original statement Mr Pullin made just hours after the shootings, which does not refer to multiple offenders.
Jason Roberts’ lawyer Simon Moodie said a revised petition for mercy was hoped to be filed before Christmas.
“I’ve heard the Attorney-General would be responsive to a further amended petition of mercy on Jason Roberts’ behalf in light of the evidence that has come to light in the Herald Sun,’’ he said.
DECORATED DETECTIVE: TOP COP BACKS KILLER’S BID FOR FREEDOM
‘TELL THE TRUTH’: JASON ROBERTS’ JAIL PLEA TO BANDALI DEBS
.
“We hope to submit as soon as we can, hopefully by Christmas.
“The amendments will draw on the Herald Sun and possibly other material.’’
Earlier this year Mr Pakula denied a petition for mercy from Mr Roberts, but he was unaware of the falsified statement at the time.
“There is now material which is in the public domain which was not before me when I was asked to consider a referral a year or so ago,” Mr Pakula said.
“There was a petition made last year for Mr Roberts’ conviction to be referred to the court of appeal, none of this material was contained in that petition.”
Former senior homicide squad detective Ron Iddles has called for an inquiry into the falsified statement.
“I think it needs a judicial inquiry,” he told 3AW’s Neil Mitchell.
“This is at the heart of justice.
“This is a manipulation of the facts to fit a theory that the detectives had.
“There is more than one person involved in this, there has to be.
“There has to be more than one person knows about this.”
But Mr Pakula said it was too early to determine whether a judicial inquiry should take place.
“I think calling for a judicial inquiry within a day or two of the matter being handed to IBAC is premature,” he told ABC Melbourne.
“IBAC is the appropriate forum to examine allegations of misconduct by police officers and I think that ought to be allowed to carry on.”
IBAC confirmed today that it is investigating “allegations of serious police misconduct” in relation to the investigation into the Silk-Miller murders.
SCROLL DOWN TO READ THE STATEMENTS IN FULL
Both statements were stamped as having been witnessed by then-homicide detective Charlie Bezzina at 4.25am on August 16, 1998, four hours after the brutal killings.
But the doctored statement was made about the time of the arrests of Roberts and Debs in mid-2000.
Shown the two documents, Mr Bezzina said that though his signature appears on both, he took and witnessed only the original.
“I would remember taking a second statement ... I don’t know how my signature appears on the second statement. I’m not part of this conspiracy ... I’ve been embroiled in this.
“It’s massive. This is going to be explosive,” Mr Bezzina said.
The emergence of the buried original statement, provided to the Herald Sun by a high-level law and order whistleblower, is expected to spark a multi-faceted investigation, including a judicial inquiry into the conduct of the investigating police.
It will also be used by Roberts’ lawyers as fresh evidence in their bid for a retrial, following Mr Pakula’s denial earlier this year.
The Herald Sun has handed both statements to Mr Iddles, who led a 2013 review of Roberts’ conviction.
He and Mr Bezzina yesterday fronted the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission to report a perversion of justice.
The existence of the original statement, likely destroyed, substantiates a confession from Mr Pullin to Mr Iddles in 2015 that he had been asked to alter his statement.
“This strikes at the heart of the justice system,” Mr Iddles said.
“This document confirms what I was told by a police officer: that he was directed to add conversation into his statement after the arrest of Debs and Roberts,” Mr Iddles said.
In his 2015 confession to Mr Iddles, Mr Pullin even admitted that he was unable to recall any details of what the wounded Miller had told him. But he refused to go on the record.
After seeking Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton’s advice about Mr Pullin’s confession, Mr Iddles approached IBAC for the first time.
But Mr Pullin told IBAC he had lied to Mr Iddles about his statement being altered.
A detective attached to the Lorimer Taskforce, which investigated the Silk-Miller murders, was alleged to have requested and taken the second statement from Mr Pullin.
That officer, interviewed by IBAC in 2015, is understood to have said he could not recall approaching Mr Pullin or altering his statement.
Mr Iddles, who has faced criticism for casting doubt on Roberts’ conviction, says that a judicial inquiry is warranted into the emerging issues of corruption.
Mr Bezzina, who has found himself unwittingly embroiled in a corruption scandal, said the emergence of the original statement was “irrefutable’’ evidence of tampering.
“The first I learned of this second statement was when you (the Herald Sun) showed it to me,” he said.
“Pullin can’t deny it once the statements come out.
“I don’t know how my signature appears on the second statement, but I’ve got my ideas. At what point that happened, I don’t know.’’
A Herald Sun report in July that an officer told Mr Iddles he had been ordered to make a second statement about Sen- Constable Miller’s dying words prompted the whistleblower to come forward.
ROBERTS’ LAWYERS SHOULD MAKE NEW REVIEW APPLICATION: PAKULA
VICTORIA’S Attorney-General Martin Pakula has invited Jason Roberts’ lawyers to make a fresh application for a review into his murder conviction.
The change of heart comes as the Herald Sun today revealed documents used to convict Roberts over the death of two police officers had been falsified.
“If a fresh application is made with fresh material which this appears to be, then a completely fresh consideration will be given,” he told 3AW’s Neil Mitchell this morning.
“The allegation that has been made is a serious one.
“The allegation that is being made is that evidence has somehow been altered.
“I don’t know whether those allegations are correct at all but the allegation itself, when you’re talking about a conviction for murder, that is an allegation that is worthy of proper examination and that is exactly what ought to happen.”
Anti-corruption watchdog IBAC will investigate the doctored evidence.
The commission’s findings may give rise to a formal judicial inquiry into Roberts’ conviction over the 1998 deaths of Sergeant Gary Silk and Senior Constable Rodney Miller in Moorabbin.
“These sort of allegations sit very uncomfortably for Victoria Police and I’m sure they want IBAC to get to the bottom of it as much as anybody else,” Mr Pakula said.
He denied Roberts a chance to appeal his conviction in March this year.
Mr Pakula was unaware of the falsified statement at the time.
“There is now material which is in the public domain which was not before me when I was asked to consider a referral a year or so ago,” Mr Pakula said.
“There was a petition made last year for Mr Roberts’ conviction to be referred to the court of appeal, none of this material was contained in that petition.”
Asked later about whether he had consulted the Silk and Miller families during the previous application and would again, Mr Pakula said: “it would be appropriate for anybody who has an interest in the matter to be able to express a view about it”.
“I can take into account a range of views but ultimately the decision will be one for me to make, as it was earlier this year,” he said.