User:WLRoss/Sandbox4

New article under construction

Edward Charles Splatt
Born	20 December 1924 Geelong, Victoria Australia
Known for	Murder conviction based solely on flawed Forensic science led to the longest and most expensive Royal Commission in Australian history and ultimately a Royal Pardon. As a consequence of the Royal Commission, the Government of South Australia instituted major reforms to forensic services which were later implimented at a national level.
Relatives	Yvonne (wife) Sons: three Daughters: one

Edward Charles Splatt (20 December 1924) was convicted of the 1977 murder of Rosa Simper in Adelaide, South Australia and sentenced to life in prison. Convicted solely on the basis of flawed forensic evidence, journalist Stewart Cockburn became convinced that Splatt had been wrongly convicted and ran a two year campaign in Adelaide's daily newspaper, the Advertiser, to re-open the case. In 1983, the government agreed to a Royal Commission and Splatt’s conviction was subsequently overturned in 1984.

The Splatt case is significant because it was an authoritative source from which the Royal Commission could identify the weaknesses of a system that did not distinguish between scientific observations and deductions by police in their investigatory capacity. Police acting in dual roles as forensic scientists and police investigators led to inappropriate scientific testing and, in their capacity as expert witnesses at Splatt's trial, the acceptance of pseudoscience and untested theories as fact by the jury.

Murder of Rosa Simper

Rosa Simper, aged 77, lived alone in Cheltenham, an industrial suburb of Adelaide, South Australia and was in the habit of leaving the window blind in the lounge room down to indicate to her daughter that she was sleeping. On 3 December 1977 her daughter Christina, who lived in the house next door, became concerned that the blind remained down during the day and upon investigating further she noticed that a screen from a window on the side of the house was lying on the ground and called on her husband to enter the house. Both climbed through the side window to find the house in disarray, Simper's body was found face down across her bed.

Simper had been beaten about the head, raped, strangled and violated with a chisel like instrument. The cord of a digital clock had been pulled from it's socket with the clock reading 2.48am and a pathologist later confirmed a time of 3am to 4am as the time of death. The intruder had placed a hot iron on the bed however, the setting was too low to start a fire and it scorched the bedspread instead. Possessions with a value of around $200 were missing, including a commemorative coin, personal jewellery, a jewel box, a watch and a red and black 6v torch. The coin and torch in particular would later be considered relevant to the investigation as Splatt had small coin collection and owned two red and black 6v torches.

Senior Sergeant Cocks led the police investigation and was the principal scientific witness during the trial that followed. Cocks had founded the first South Australia Police scientific section in 1961 and was placed in charge of the SA Police Forensic Science Laboratory when it was set up in 1965. The laboratory was later renamed the Police Laboratory section of the Technical Services Region.

Suspect

Detective Sergeant Cocks had recovered material from the bedspread, windowsill and floor that he surmised had been left by the murderer. The material consisted of spheres of reddish orange paint and a few spheres of dark blue, dark green, pale green, yellow and silver coloured paint. He also recovered particles of metal, wood, black wool fibres, balls of yellow fibres, and hair. From the lower sheet, Cocks recovered seed fragments, brown spicules of a foam-like substance, a green feather particle, two sugar crystals, hairs, cotton fibres with reddish orange paint adhered to their surfaces, and fibres with blue and white striations.

The likely source of the paint and metal particles was Wilson Engineering, a factory diagonally opposite Simpers home and on 14 December detectives visited the premises to take possession of items of clothing from its fifteen employees, who included spray-painter Edward Splatt. Police knew Splatt as a small-time criminal and while they allowed the other employees to wash up and change before following them home in unmarked police cars to collect the items of clothing, Splatt was made to drive home in his over-spray covered overalls followed by five marked police vehicles. The police collected tools and clothing in plastic bags which were stacked out the front of Splatts home where they also conducted some testing of clothing for blood in full view neighbors. Splatt bred budgerigars and police also took samples of their cage-floor sweepings. Returning to work the following day the other employees told Splatt that the police had shown little interest in them and had primarily questioned them regarding Splatt's behaviour following the murder.

For the next two weeks Splatt was followed by police who several times conducted additional searches of his house. His wife Yvonne fell and broke her wrist and his mother-in-law, who lived with him, was in hospital with terminal cancer. His mother-in-law was in fact his main alibi as she insisted that at 2am on 3 December, Splatt had been in her bedroom helping her with medication, although willing, she was too ill to testify and a statement was later prepared in the presence of a justice of the peace. Eventually the stress caught up with him and Splatt began vomitting blood and was rushed to hospital where he was diagnosed as suffering from hematemesis (haemorrhaging gastric ulcers) and had also had a minor heart seizure. Discharged a week later on 3 March 1978, Splatt returned home to find a police car waiting to take him to the Birkenhead police station for questioning.

At Birkenhead Splatt was presented with the evidence against him. While none of the evidence could be matched to samples taken from Splatt or his workplace, they were considered similar. The spheres of coloured paint were similar to those collected from Wilson's Engineering and Splatt's clothing. The particles of metal, wood, black wool fibres, balls of yellow fibres, and hair were similar to materials taken from Wilsons, Splatts home, workshop and garage. Splatt regularly ate lollipops which could explain the two sugar crystals. The five types of seed found in Simpers home were found in Splatts bird cages and he had green birds similar in colour to the feather particle found. The brown spicules, cotton fibres and fibres with blue and white striations were similar to those from three articles of Splatt's clothing, albeit two of those items were too small to have been worn by Splatt. Splatt was arrested and taken to Adelaide Gaol. At a remand hearing on 5 May, bail was refused.

Committal hearing and Trials

The committal hearing commenced on 9 June 1978. Lacking motive, weapon or fingerprints and with almost no cross transfer from the victim’s environment to Splatt, Detective Sergeant Cocks, the principal scientific witness, relied heavily on a one way transfer of material via the Locard principle to make the case. Early on, brass particle and green feather evidence was dropped by the prosecution after the defense proved that the brass came from a broken brass picture frame found on the bedspread and that the feather came from a chicken rather than a budgerigar. While the crime scene evidence could not be specifically matched to samples taken from Splatt, they were considered similar with no "dissimilarities" which added significant support to the primary evidence. The primary evidence was the paint and metal spheres from Wilsons Engineering. Work clothing was far too contaminated to have been responsible for the small quantity of spheres found in Simpers home so it was assumed that transfer was from work clothing to non-work clothing during washing and then to the crime scene. Cocks testified that with the exception of Splatt who was the companies spray painter, the non-work clothing of employees generally had the spheres in the proportion of 50/50. Splatt's non-work clothes in contrast had in excess of a 75% paint to metal ratio. The particles from the Simper home were in the ratio of 75/25 indicating that transfer from Splatt was the only possibility. The committal hearing ended on 30 June after 21 sitting days with bail again refused.

Splatt’s mother-in-law passed away ten days before the trial was due to start. Shortly before the trial, the law firm representing Splatt closed and he was appointed new legal representation by the Law Society.

At the committal hearing, Simpers daughter had testified that her mother was a diabetic and didn’t use sugar. The police had searched the premises and found no sugar so the prosecution maintained that the two sugar crystals had to come from the murderer's clothing. On 24 August 1977, the defense team, Mr Elliott and Mr Rowell, along with the prosecutor and sergeant Cocks visited Simpers home and not only found sugar but a large quantity of it. Cocks also found a pink sugar coated fish-shaped lolly on the bedroom floor under a piece of paper despite evidence being given earlier that everything on the floor had been examined, catalogued and boxed. Mr Elliott noted that papers were laying everywhere when he walked into the bedroom. At the trial, the prosecutor would now maintain that the lolly had dropped out of Splatts pocket when he climbed in the window.

Trial began on 5 September 1978 with Justice Roma Mitchell presiding, however, the jury was discharged on 28 September after a juror fell ill and new trial was set for 3 October. The second trial was aborted on 24 October after another juror fell ill. Justice Mitchell announced that the third trial would start immediately and asked the new jury "Anyone who is ill or likely to be ill, please raise your hands." No one responded.

Third Trial

The third trial repeated the evidence of all those who had previously given evidence at earlier trials. During the ninth day of the trial, the prison guards began a strike, ordering Splatt to return to Adelaide Goal with them which would have aborted the trial. A furious Justice Mitchell told the guards to return without him, placing Splatt in the hands of a court orderly so the trial could continue and he was given considerable freedom while sleeping in the court holding cells for the following two days.

In his summing up, the Counsel for Splatt, Mr Elliot, downplayed the similarities of the evidence as much as possible. The Counsel for the Crown, Mr Bishop, emphasised the importance of the number of types of materials and their similarities to samples taken from Splatt. Bishop ended his summing up with a re-enacting of the murder, throwing himself around in front of the jury before standing up and shouting loudly; "Splatt is the killer of Mrs Simper." After Justice Mitchell gave her instruction to the jury, the foreman questioned her regarding the weight of rejecting or accepting "individual evidence" in the "overall en masse evidence". Justice Mitchell replied:

"if you have finally reached the conclusion in your deliberations that the trace elements which the Crown says were found on the bedsheet were in fact there, and that the trace elements which the Crown says were found in the accused’s trousers and in his car coat were in fact there and you reach the conclusion that they must have come from the same source, then you will probably have no difficulty in deciding that the only way that they got onto the bedsheet was because the accused was there and, if he was there, then you have probably got no difficulty in deciding that he was the killer. So that the case for the Crown is based upon the united force of all the circumstances which the Crown says point inevitably to the accused as being the person who entered the bedroom of Mrs Simper, probably around midnight or in the early hours of the morning of 3rd December 1977, and caused her fatal injuries. It relies upon the microscopic examination of vacuumings from the sheet, the comparison of the items obtained therefrom and items obtained from the clothing of the accused. In addition it relies upon the pink fish lolly found by Sergeant Cocks on the floor of the bedroom on 24th August 1978 and a piece of blue and white thread adhering to that lolly, and it relies upon some other items such as the torch, concerning which it asks you to draw certain conclusions, and finally, it asks you to draw from the evidence for the accused."— Justice Mitchell

After deliberating for five hours the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty. Justice Mitchell then dismissed the jury and after announcing a sentence of life imprisonment, Splatt yelled out loudly, "Not guilty. Not guilty. I am innocent" before being led from the court.

Stewart Cockburn

Following the conviction of Splatt, Stewart Cockburn, an investigative journalist from the Adelaide Advertiser, took an interest in the complicated case. He reviewed trial transcripts, interviewed jurors, investigated the scientific evidence and on May 2, 1981, Cockburn wrote the first of a series of articles claiming that the conviction was a miscarriage of justice. A nearly continuous series of feature articles exposing the flaws in the case eventually forced the government to appoint a Royal Commission to look into the Splatt case.

Royal Commission

The Royal Commission headed by Judge Carl Shannon sat for 196 days over 14 months, produced 19,000 pages of transcript, several thousand pages of proofs of evidence and more than 200 exhibits, and was the most expensive hearing in South Australian legal history.

While the Crown called an additional five scientific witnesses, the defence called 25, some from overseas, who formed the most highly qualified assembly of scientists ever to testify in an Australian courtroom. The Royal Commission commenced on 24 January 1983. After the opening address and reading of the terms of reference, Judge Shannon granted a 10-week adjournment to allow the scientists sufficient time to carry out tests on the evidence. The Commission recommenced on 5 April.

The Evidence

Seeds

The five types of seed found at the murder scene were particles of endosperm, each about a quarter of the size of a pinhead and had been identified as wheat, oats, sorghum, sunflower and safflower. Examination of seeds from Splatt's aviary and clothing had revealed seven seed types which included all five and no one had questioned the identification. Biscuits found in Semper's home had never been tested to determine if they were the source of the seed fragments as testimony at trial was given that the seeds showed polarisation crosses under polarised light, indicating that they had been uncooked. Evidence at the commission was given that identification to genus level was too precise given the size of the samples. The wheat could have just as likely have been barley or rye and the oats may have been rice etc. The fragments were also purely endosperm, without husk, bran or embryo material adhering suggesting that they came from a milled product, unlikely for birdseed and unlike the samples from Splatt which included husks. It was also shown that when cooking starch [endosperm] in low amounts of water or in the presence of large amounts of sugar or fat, loss of polarisation does not occur. In reply, the scientist who had testified at the trial regarding the polarisation stated; "I made an incorrect inference...at the time of the trial I was not aware of the existence of any cooked food stuff in which there would be starch granules that had no detectable loss of polarisation," he also conceded to going too far in his identification stating; "Upon reading the evidence now, it does seem to me that it might have appeared to the members of the jury that I was so confident of being correct that they could dismiss the possibility of my being incorrect." It was now obvious that the seed particles could just as easily have originated from eating a biscuit in bed.

Judge Shannon concluded that to go from the first stage of similarity to a belief in a common source with that of the aviary "involved a massive leap on the part of the jury" and that if the jury have been told that there were serious and substantial limitations in the process of identification, the Crown "edifice" would have collapsed. He concluded that the scientific testing, which had established that the bedspread material was not from a cooked product, was scientifically invalid and that "the evidence of similarity or matching of the various particles on the bedsheet with the nominated seeds from the Splatt’s aviary was also scientifically invalid."

Wood particles

Wood particles had been found on the bedspread, windowsill and in a drawer of the victim’s dressing table. A scientist had testified that the dark particles were jarrah splinters from the window being jimmied open, while the other particles were two types of Pinus radiata. Vacuumings from Splatt’s coat had revealed a splinter of similar dark reddish wood the scientist had identified as jarrah. Sergeant Cocks had made much of the Locard principle regarding the splinter as it was important to show that the evidence transfer was both ways. One scientist for the defence concluded that the examination and procedures performed by the prosecutions scientist were of a poor standard and inconsistent with good scientific practice. All that could be said of the wood particles from the windowsill, the bedspread and Splatt from a microscopic inspection, was that all three were hardwoods. Even if it was jarrah it was of little scientific value as jarrah was such a common wood, pointing out that wood particles with paint adhering from the multi-layered painted surface of the windowsill would have had more evidential value and none had been found on Splatt's clothing. His conclusions were suported by another scientist who stated that appropriate systems were available but not used for the identification of wood species. The prosecutions scientist admitted he had used his "scientific knowledge" to determine that the windowsill couldn’t be red gum or karri, two similar hardwoods, when he compared a sample with particles from the bedspread and coat which matched in colour, he had assumed that if they were the same colour, they must all be jarrah.

Judge Shannon concluded that the identification of the bedspread and coat fragments as jarrah was inadequate and unscientific and that "the Crown case was not founded upon acceptable scientific evidence."

Yellow fibres

The balls of yellow fibres (described as balls of fluff) from the bedspread contained approximately 50 yellow or yellow-orange coloured fibres; about half were cotton and half were rayon. Sergeant Cocks examined the fibres and found them to be similar to fibres from the seat covers of Splatt’s car. Samples were tape-lifted from the cover on 14 December 1977 and again on 17 January 1978. Cocks maintained at trial that both samples came from the same seat covers. However, Yvonne Splatt claimed that she had given her husband new seat covers for Christmas which she had fitted herself in early January, her husband being unable to do so due to the limited mobility of his left hand due to an injury many years before. At trial, a neighbour had also testified that she had spoken to Yvonne while she was changing the covers. A textile technologist from Ciba-Geigy examined the samples and concluded that the tape-lifts came from different covers as the defense had maintained. He also gave testimony that the fibres found on the bedspread could have come from either the new or old covers, or from any other object made of similar fabric.

Judge Shannon found that the fibres had limited probative value.

Carpet fibres

Carpet fibres were another case of a possible cross-transference when the Crown alleged that the killer had picked up a fibre from kneeling on Mrs Simper’s carpet to examine articles. Vacuumings of Splatt’s trousers had revealed a single matching fibre three millimetres in length, made of nylon 66 which is one of the most common nylons on the market. Another matching fibre came from tape liftings from the trousers in August 1978, eight months after they had been returned to Splatt. At the Commission, evidence was presented that Simper’s carpet had been in very good condition with no signs of deterioration and that the nylon yarns were very strong and not liable to fracture into fragments as small as those found on the trousers. The second fibre, found so long after the trousers were returned was rejected by Judge Shannon as lacking in any scientific value.

Overall, Judge Shannon said that the fibres had no probative value and that the jury would have reached the same conclusion if the "totality of evidence had been tendered."

Blue and white cotton fibres

A red and white fibre with paint globules attached and five blue and white cotton fibres, four of which had paint globules attached, had been found on the bedspread, on a fish-shaped lolly and on a handkerchief allegedly dropped by Splatt. Splatt did not have a red and white shirt so a blue and white checked work shirt was investigated as a possible source for the blue and white fibres. A common origin for the fibres fom the bedspread, handkerchief, lolly and Splatt's blue and white shirt had formed a substantial part of the Crown case. All the fibres "looked the same" according to the forensic chemist. The colouration of Splatt's shirt was white to pale blue to dark blue and this colouration was similar to two of the fibres from the handkerchief but not to any of the fibres from the bedspread and lolly which had a discontinuous pattern of blue and white. Evidence was given that the particular colour of fabric used in Splatt's shirt was very common, some 500,000 metres of the fabric had been sold prior to the murder. There was no evidence that the handkerchief belonged to Splatt and it could have belonged to an elderly gentleman who stayed in the victim’s home on weekends or it could have belonged to Simper’s son-in-law who owned a similar blue and white cotton shirt. No attempt had been made to determine ownership. Regarding the fibres having attached paint globules, tests indicated that the probability of Splatt's shirt shedding fibres with paint attached was very low, whereas five of the six fibres recovered had attached paint, including those that could not be linked to Splatt. The lolly was found eight months after the murder, however, testing suggested that the lolly would be consumed at a steady rate by cockroaches and other insects in three to four months so the lolly was rejected by the Commission.

Judge Shannon concluded that it would be unsafe to attach any probative value to the handkerchief. The Judge emphasised that once again the limitations of the scientific findings were not spelled out to the jury, who had been left with claims of similarity and an absence of dissimilarity.

Black wool

At the trial, the Crown case was that the three black wool fibres from the bedspread matched the black wool fibres in the trousers Splatt allegedly wore at the time of the murder. Splatt’s trousers were actually composed of black and dark grey fibres in the ratio of 7/5. At the Royal Commission it was revealed that there had been an additional six tape-lifts from the bedspread which had collected around 100 black and grey fibres in the ratio of 50/50, but these were never examined by the prosecutions expert. Sergeant Cocks told the Commission this was an oversight. It was also revealed that the wool from the trousers showed a natural crimping not evident on the overlooked fibres from the bedspread. Judge Shannon decided that no credence should or could be given to these fibres. At the Royal Commission, the prosecutions expert, a forensic chemist, admitted that one of the three fibres was "purplish" and did not match any from the trousers. Two defense experts found that the other two black fibres lacked the distinct scale pattern found in the fibres from the trousers and therefore did not match. At trial it was testified that there were "no dissimilarities" between the two sources of fibres and that the black fibres from both the bedspread and trousers behaved in an identical way to each of four reagents which would have seemed damning to the jury. However, the expert failed to tell the jury that three out of the four reagents did not cause any reaction at all or that the "purplish" fibre had reacted to the same four reagents in the same way as had the black fibres. Further, it was revealed that the jury was never told that the black fibres found on the bedspread were consistent with having come from Semper's passageway carpet. The jury were in fact clearly told during the trial that there was no match between the passage carpet fibres and those from the bedspread; according to the forensic chemist, the passage carpet contained no black fibres, only grey. An examination of the passage carpet by the Commission found that it contained black, dark grey and light grey fibres indistinguishable from the black and grey fibres found on the bedspread.

Foam spicules

At trial the foam spicules that leaked from Splatt’s coat were described as "strikingly similar" to the foam spicules from the victim’s sheet, brassiere and the handkerchief found on the floor. Each spicule was about half the size of a pinhead. Under microscopic examination the colour and shape of the samples were found to be a match and two solvents were eventually found that dissolved both the spicules from the crime scene and those from the coat. A defense expert described the solvent test as "ridiculous" for determining similarity while several chemists stated that colour and shape were unreliable for determining similarity due to the "three dimensional effect" which tends to destroy both colour and form when foam is put under microscopic examination; "It is not possible to tell one foam from another foam on the basis of morphology." The spicules were also tested via gas chromatography with the samples all identified as polyurethane foam. The forensic chemist had displayed the charts to the jury, and despite variation in the heights and depths of the spikes, the chemist had stressed that what was significant was the retention times which were present in both charts, stating to the jury; "there are no dissimilarities between the two chromatograms (crime scene and Splatt's coat). The method of comparing results from gas chromatography is based on retention times of peaks which elute from the column after the initial injection, or in this case the initiating of the pyrolysis run. So that is taken as your starting time zero; and any peaks which appear after that are measured from that time and each peak has a characteristic time. This is what is being compared in the charts of that type." Without an understanding of what the chemist meant, the jury had to accept the match as proven. Three eminent scientists examined the two chromatograms and found that retention times were different for many of the peaks and that there were peaks on one chart that were missing from the other. All three concluded that the two charts were not even similar. Despite the claim at trial that it was the pattern of peaks compared, the Crown now decided to make the comparison on "relative retention times," but even when this was done there were still differences which prevented reaching a meaningful conclusion. The prosecutions chemist explained to the Commission that her expression "no dissimilarities at all" was merely meant to indicate that both samples behaved "like polyurethane". The Crown prosecutor had played upon the statements made by the chemist by valuing them too highly.

Judge Shannon concluded that even accepting the claim of similarity, the most anyone could say was that the spicules were polyester polyurethane and that the crime spicules could have originated from Splatt's coat, or from any other polyester polyurethane foam source showing a similar state of deteriation, which included the victims own mattress.

Paint and metal

The paint and metal particles were "the very foundation of a vital aspect of the Crown case". Given the commonality of some of the other materials and the fact that matches were due to similarities, it had to be shown that Splatt was the only possible source. The 75% paint to 25% metal ratio and the 90% reddish-orange coloured paint was found everywhere at the crime scene, in the cuffs of Splatt's trousers and in the booth where he worked. The trial jury had considered the percentages important and the foreman had asked if the ratios would be constant from transference and the Locard principle had been invoked to account for the consistant transference of the ratios. The Commission revealed that the evidence for the ratios and proportionate transfer was based on a visual examination by Cocks rather than by using counting or sizing analyses. The consistent ratio was heavily critisized, given the different shapes, densities and adhesive qualities of the materials, the ratios should not have been constant if clothing was the source.

Environmental pollution was ruled out by tests conducted by sergeant Cocks. He had placed Vaseline coated slides on the windowsill for about five months which had shown an average size for windblown particles of 10 microns compared to the particles on the bedspread which Cocks claimed averaged 300 microns, however, no one had kept records of wind direction and velocity or the activities being conducted by Wilsons Engineering during the test. Cocks had said at the trial that only a wind with the force of Cyclone Tracy (59 metres per second) could have transported particles larger than 45 microns from Wilsons Engineering to the windowsill. Before the Commission, Cocks admitted that he had not calculated the sizes of the particles, he had simply noted that they were small, medium and large and this introduced doubts regarding the environmental tests. He also admitted making a mistake, he had used a sieve with a mesh size of 0.0116 and not 0.016 as he had stated at the trial which significantly reduced the claimed average bedspread particle size from 300 microns to 100 microns. Scientists carried out scientific tests to dispute or support the environmental claims. Paint and metal particles collected from other houses in the neighbourhood revealed similar matching particles well in excess of 50 microns. Using Bagnold curves, it was shown that winds of about 2.5 metres per second could easily lift particles of about 100 microns and that winds of 5 metres per second could be expected to lift particles in the range of 50 to 400 microns. It was noted that winds of up to 21 metres per second were common in the area during summer. Measurements taken also indicated that the size range of the windowsill particles (between 100 and 200 microns) was the same as that of the particles from the bedspread but was significantly larger that the average particle size for Spatt's clothes. An examination of Simper's home recovered similar paint particles from areas such as the rafters, the roof and other windowsills on the outside of the house as well as from various areas inside the Simper home. There was also a distinct possibility of paint being introduced inside the Simper house from the clothing or footwear of the investigation team. The experts concluded that there was less than 1 in 10,000 chance of the particles on the windowsill having come from Splatt's trouser cuffs.

Findings

The Commission found that the trial was conducted almost entirely on the basis of scientific principles rather than facts. Some of the jurors who convicted Splatt had publicly admitted that they did not understand the evidence.

"I do not understand how he [Sgt Cocks] was allowed to express the opinions and theories in his evidence. There was no objection on the part of any person to it. Several of those 'opinions' or 'theories' clearly amounted to a categorical assertion that beyond question the prisoner was the guilty man, for the reasons stated. I am bemused that such categorical assertions could have been allowed. One could not determine whether Cocks was speaking in the role of police investigator or scientist. The confusion of roles continued throughout his evidence."—Judge Carl Shannon Commissioner

The Commission found that the system that allowed a policeman not only to collect samples at the scene of the crime, but also, in his dual capacity as a forensic scientist, to take those samples back to a police laboratory and conduct tests on them was "wrong" and that it was "very wrong" that scientists should examine only samples selected by police while denied access to all the samples to allow an assessment of their significance.

Recommendations

Police officers or forensic scientists who collect material, should not be involved in microscopical and other examinations of the material.

Police officers who collect material, should not be involved in the selection of material from that collected for later examination by forensic scientists.

Forensic testing should be carefully carried out and documented, with respect to all items examined, even if they do not appear relevant at the time of examination.

Forensic scientists should be involved in the examination of all trace material, and not just those chosen for them by the police.

Aftermath

Splatt was granted a pardon in 1984 and paid $270,000 compensation. A pardon does not set aside a conviction, it merely excuses the person from further punishment. Splatt continues to campaign to have the conviction overturned.

As a consequence of the Royal Commission, the Labor Government of South Australia instituted reforms to forensic services. These included the creation of a new division of forensic science, the State Forensic Science Centre, which would be independent of the police force and whose services would be available to both the prosecution and defense. Nationally, forensic services, previously provided by a number of agencies, were brought together under one organisation, the National Institute of Forensic Science.

Suspect

Another suspect, a young man with a history of drug use, violence and mental instability, had been identified by police at the time of the Simper murder in 1977. Although a prima facie case against the alternative suspect could have been made, the investigation had been dropped when Splatt emerged as a suspect. Following Splatt’s 1984 release, the attorney-general, Chris Sumner, confirmed that investigations were underway in regards to that suspect after an informant stated that he had heard the father say that his son may have killed Mrs Simper while "in a deranged state." Neither the father nor the son admitted any involvement and the police have indicated that without a confession, with the condition of the evidence and the difficulty of obtaining new evidence from the time of the murder for another suspect, it was unlikely that another prosecution can be launched.