BODY IN THE FREEZER the Case of David Szach Acknowledgements I am indebted to editorial comments and suggestions from Jan McInerney, Pat Sheahan, Anthony Bishop, Dr Harry Harding, Michael Madigan, and Dr Bob Moles. Andrew Smart of Blackjacket Studios designed the cover. I especially appreciate the support of my wife, Liz. ISBN: 978-0-9944162-0-9 This book is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Printed in Adelaide by Griffin Press Any enquiries to the author’s email: [email protected] BODY IN THE FREEZER the Case of David Szach TOM MANN Author’s note Following the publication of the Edward Splatt case in Flawed Forensics, David Szach approached me to examine and write up his case. I met with David Szach a number of times to record his version of events and his efforts to clear his name for the murder of lawyer Derrance Stevenson. After examining the trial transcripts, the grounds for appeal, and the reports by forensic scientists investigating the evidence presented by the forensic pathologist, I unravel the crime to reveal its hidden nature and consequences. CONTENTS Introduction … 1 1: Body in the freezer … 3 2: Prime suspect … 7 3: Derrance Stevenson and the Adelaide scene … 21 4: Before the trial … 26 5: Trial evidence … 32 6: Dr Colin Manock’s evidence … 47 7: David Szach’s statement … 60 8: Shaky underpinning for the Crown … 73 9: Blood and fingerprints … 79 10: Possibilities and confusion … 85 11: Defence address … 100 12: Crown address … 108 13: Judge’s summing up … 115 14: The sentence … 129 15: A possible scenario of events … 132 16: The appeal … 137 17: Adelaide crime scene in the 1970s and 1980s … 141 18: Further inquiries … 147 19: A closer look at Dr Manock’s evidence … 150 20: Appeal to the Attorney-General … 166 21: Petition to the Governor … 177 22: Channel 7 investigates … 184 23: Manock’s evidence and the need for change … 195 24: From the Governor … 209 25: Why no progress … 214 26: A tortuous process … 221 27: Innocent people locked up in jail … 227 28: Miscarriage of justice … 244 29: A landmark case lights up Szach’s hope for justice … 247 Index … 249 Introduction No one protests their innocence year after year, for more than thirty-five years, without good reason. David Szach, convicted for the murder of 44-year-old lawyer Derrance Stevenson in 1979, was given a life sentence. The Parole Board of South Australia could have offered an early release if Szach had been prepared to come to terms with his wrongdoing. Maintaining his innocence, Szach refused any suggestion that he could be released with the setting of a non-parole period. Throughout his fourteen years in prison from 1979 to 1993, Szach had not anticipated being released on parole. He sought and expected a judicial inquiry into the circumstances of his arrest and conviction. To his way of thinking, his release depended on the outcome of that inquiry. Szach’s persistence for an inquiry, and his denial of guilt along with an absence of remorse, excluded his suitability for release on parole. But the Government of South Australia amended its existing legislation to enable the Parole Board to apply for a non-parole period on behalf of the prisoner. Szach was not required to plead his case. What prompted the government to secure David Szach’s release under such extraordinary circumstances? 1 No precedent had existed for such an action by the government. A life sentence meant at least twenty years. With no strong backing from the media, no overwhelming plea from the public for justice, and no overruling physical or mental condition which might have persuaded the State Governor to act mercifully, how could Szach’s release happen? Nothing could account for the release of a convicted murderer before his time was up, unless, of course, David Szach had become an embarrassment or liability. Talk to anyone who has knowledge of Szach’s case, and serious doubts emerge about his conviction. A lawyer who would not be named said, ‘They knew he was innocent. David Szach was an embarrassment and wouldn’t accept his fate.’ Justice Millhouse granted David Szach parole on 23 March 1993. Released in May 1993, he straightaway contacted his lawyers about obtaining a review of the pathology evidence that played a central part in his conviction. David Szach needed clearance and closure. Three years after his release another sentence loomed. Afflicted with motor neurone disease, causing degeneration of nerves and loss of muscle function throughout his body, Szach had to fight against time to have his conviction overturned. His prime concern was not compensation but exoneration for a crime he had not committed. He wanted his two teenage sons to be free from the stigma of their father having been given a life sentence for premeditated murder. And he sought improvement for South Australia’s legal system. 2 Chapter 1 Body in the freezer A man in his mid-twenties, of slim build and shoulder- length hair, called on the offices of the Legal Services Commission in Adelaide at about 8.15 am on Tuesday 5 June 1979. Anne Shea, a conscientious receptionist at the Commission, first became aware of the man when he knocked on the window. The Commission offices were not yet open for business, but Ms Shea opened the door anyway to receive him. ‘Can I help you?’ she said. ‘Is Justin in?’ the man asked. ‘Have you an appointment?’ ‘No.’ Ms Shea, puzzled by this early morning request, asked, ‘Are you a client of Justin’s or is it about an application?’ ‘Not yet, but I need help.’ 3 ‘What type of matter is it?’ ‘A crime.’ ‘Have you seen a solicitor or is a solicitor willing to act for you?’ ‘Only Derrance Stevenson, but when I left him last night he was in no condition to act for anyone. I have to see Justin because he is the only lawyer in Adelaide who will help me.’ ‘You might ring later in the day and arrange an appointment,’ suggested Ms Shea. The young man sought assurance that anything he had said was confidential. Ms Shea gave that assurance, and the man left, never to be seen or heard of again. Justin O’Halloran, the solicitor, on being told about the young man, could shed no light on his identity. Mrs Flaherty, the relieving secretary for Derrance Stevenson, arrived at Derrance’s office at 189 Greenhill Road, Parkside, at 9 am on Tuesday 5 June 1979, to resume her duties, not suspecting anything untoward, and assuming that Derrance had gone to court because his car was not in the driveway. A little later Mrs Flaherty received two calls from clients to inform her that Derrance had not appeared in court. She became concerned about his whereabouts and at 11.20 am she received a call from Coober Pedy. A male voice asked, ‘Is Derrance there?’ 4 ‘No, he’s left for court,’ Mrs Flaherty said, wondering who the person was. ‘Could you please leave a message on Mr Stevenson’s desk? Would you tell him I have arrived safely and I’m just about to go and do what he asked. If he wants to contact me, he can contact me. I am at Christianos’ but I will ring him at nine o’clock tonight,’ said the caller. ‘Who is it?’ asked Mrs Flaherty, who had been caught out before with callers not leaving a name. ‘You know me. It’s David Szach.’ ‘You don’t know where he might be, do you, David, because I have had a couple of calls from clients and he hasn’t arrived in court?’ ‘No.’ ‘But I assumed he had gone to court, because his car was gone when I arrived for work,’ Mrs Flaherty said. ‘The car’s all right. Derrance lent me the car. It’s here with me in Coober Pedy.’ Following the phone call, Mrs Flaherty became increasingly worried, and at 11.45 am she phoned Derrance’s permanent secretary, Mrs Makowska, who suggested that Mrs Flaherty try to enter the living room, next door to Derrance’s office. Mrs Flaherty tried to open the door but it was locked. On resuming the call, Mrs Makowska remarked, ‘That’s strange. The door has never been locked before. There is a spare pair of keys in the strong room. You could try those.’ 5 With the spare keys, Mrs Flaherty entered the living room. The radio was on and the room was hot — heaters had been left on in the lounge, bedroom and bathroom. She noticed Derrance’s diary and inhaler. Derrance never went anywhere without those two items. Perplexed, she rang solicitor Peter Waye, a friend of Derrance’s, shortly after noon. Mr Waye became concerned and wanted to be kept informed. After another phone call at 3 pm to Mr Waye, the police were notified. The police arrived at the premises and began to search for clues that might lead to finding Derrance. Mrs Flaherty received her second call from David Szach, at 3.45 pm: ‘Is Derrance back yet?’ he said. ‘No! We are worried because we don’t know where he is. He hasn’t appeared in court,’ said Mrs Flaherty. ‘Oh! Could you leave a message on his desk to say, “I’ve done what you asked me to do. I came to get a stone cut and I had to go 40 miles out”.’ ‘Well, you know we are very worried.