Sponsored By
The Cricket Statisticians
Networked Knowledge
Edward Splatt Homepage
Author of this page: Dr Robert N Moles
"There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.� Charles de Montesquieu
The Edward Splatt Archive
Shortly after Mr Splatt went to a care-home, Bob Moles visited with the family, and found that a vast collection of Mr Splatt's collection of materials about his case were
about to be sent to the dump. Mr Splatt had been quite obsessive about collectiing all of the materials relating to his case. His collection included the full transcript of
the Royal Commission proceedings which lasted some 196 hearing days. He kept detailed diaries during his time in prison. His letters to people appealing for help and his
correspondence with officials was all there. However, whilst Mr Splatt could never get over the injustice which had been inflicted upon him and his family, the family themselves
were quite sick of hearing about it. They wanted rid of the reminders of those dreadful experiences.
Fortunately, they readily agreed to allow Bob Moles to remove them. He took them to the Flinders University law library. They are now retained there as part of their
'special collections' and may be accessed by anyone who wishes to undertake research into this important and tragic case.
Overview
Mr Edward (Ted) Splatt was charged with the murder of Mrs Rosa Amelia Simper, a 77 year-old Adelaide woman who had been badly beaten, sexually assaulted and strangled in her bedroom. The case was complex, dealing with paint, wood, birdseed and biscuit particles found in her room. It was a rare case in that the only evidence leading to the identification of Mr Splatt was the scientific evidence. No one had ever seen Mr Splatt with the deceased or in her house.
Ted Splatt was convicted of the murder in 1978. His appeals were unsuccessful. However, Stewart Cockburn, a journalist with the Adelaide Advertiser, became convinced of the unsatisfactory basis of the prosecution case. He ran a campaign in the paper for about two years before the government agreed to a Royal Commission. Mr Splatt was subsequently granted a pardon in 1984 and he was paid some $300,000 by way of compensation. At the time, he was unaware of the fact that a pardon does not set aside the conviction, but merely excuses the person from further punishment. He is currently taking steps to secure the overturning of his conviction.
The commissioner was highly critical of the conduct of the trial, especially the operations of the expert witnesses. He put forward a number of principles concerning the way in which lawyers and expert witnesses should work. Had they been adopted, they may have prevented many of the apparent miscarriages of justice that have occurred subsequently in South Australia.
Ted Splatt (left) with Dr Bob Moles in February 2009
The Royal Commission Report on the case of Edward Charles Splatt 1984
This is a more detailed overall summary of the Royal Commission Report
This is a summary of chapter 9 of the Royal Commission Report dealing with wood particles
This is a summary of chapter 10 of the Royal Commission Report dealing with foam spicules
This is a summary of chapter 11 of the Royal Commission Report dealing with hairs and fibres
The Splatt case is important because it was an authoritative source by which proper procedures could be identified. Judge Shannon, the Commissioner, was critical of the procedures which had led to the conviction. In his report he adopted the recommendations from the scientific experts that had been called from the United Kingdom, about how things should be done for the future.
The Commissioner said that some at least of the scientists appeared also to have a dual role; and when one came to seek to analyse what they said and what they had done it was difficult to determine whether that was said or done in an investigative police role or as an integral step in proper scientific analysis. These things could only happen in a system which was �an incorrect one with serious defects�. [p43]
The Commissioner also said of the evidence in the case:
"..the quoted statements are not only completely non-scientific statements: they are statements which have all the indicia of a
police investigatory suggestion." [p45]
He said that a system which did not distinguish between scientific observations and deductions by police in their investigatory capacity, was �a defective and therefore a non-acceptable forensic system� and that �in each instance the dual roles are, in my opinion, incompatible�. [p47]
Sergeant Cocks was a police investigator who had taken a lead role in this investigation. He had also been closely involved in the investigation and prosecution in the Lindy Chamberlain case. The Commissioner said, "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. 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."
The Commissioner said, "Every operation must be documented on the case notes and documented in such a manner that it will still be comprehensible perhaps years later. All major observations must be checked by in independent observer who must indicate that the proper checks have been made by initialling the notes." [p52]
The Commissioner said that the proper scientific approach is not to look for �similarities� but to look for �dissimilarities�. Upon finding none one can say they are similar. One witness said that differences were more important, not identity. The Commissioner said the processes in the Splatt trial were the very antithesis of that. [p49]
The commissioner also said that it was not acceptable for the scientific expert witnesses to say that it was no fault of theirs if the court was left with the wrong impression of their evidence because they were not asked the right questions by the lawyers; they had a responsibility to ensure that their evidence was not misused in that way.
He said that in a trial where the evidence is of such scientific nature, a very serious obligation lies not only on the scientists who give evidence, but on the representatives of the legal system who are responsible for the conduct of the trial.
The vital obligation of the scientists is that they spell out in non-ambiguous and precisely clear terms the weight and significance of the tests and analysis.
The critical responsibility which rests upon legal persons is to ask such detailed and probing questions of the scientists as are likely to elicit the proper evidence.
The Commissioner stated that there are serious obligations on both witnesses and counsel in a criminal trial. The witness had to clearly state all limitations, and counsel to probe and investigate to the furthest limits of relevance.
He said that if the individual items have no evidential value, then the combination of them also has no evidential value.
He also stated that where there is disagreement between two eminent experts with considerable experience, it creates a reasonable doubt as to which of the two sets of viewpoint is correct.
[The above discussion is based upon the Royal Commission Report concerning the conviction of Edward Charles Splatt 1984]
Media Reports
14 June 2018 - Walkley Magazine - Sentenced to silence � the case of Edward Splatt
This is a link to the online Walkley articel with photo of Mr Splastt
29 April 2016 - Law Society of South Australia interview with Hon Chris Sumner AM Attorney-General SA
21 July 2015 - The Advertiser - Murderers lining up to appeal forensic evidence [South Australia]
30 December 2013 - The Australian - Sue Neill-Fraser: when justice loses appeal (referring to Edward Splatt case)
27 January 2012 - The Advertiser - 'Someone got away with murder'
10 March 1990 � Sydney Morning Herald � Malcolm Brown - Pardoned, but now he is almost a non-person
11 August 1986 � Sydney Morning Herald - Arrest staged, says Splatt
18 April 1984 - The Advertiser - Splatt inquiry: the final submissions
9 September 1983 � The Advertiser � Paul Willoughby - Splatt guilt established � Crown opens case at enquiry
9 September 1983 � The Advertiser � Paul Willoughby - Splatt enquiry is sure to be SA�s longest battle
Petition for Edward Splatt
Transcript: 27 March 2012 - Channel 7 Today Tonight (Adelaide) "Edward Charles Splatt and his Pardon"
19 March 2012 - Petition to the Governor of South Australia
19 March 2012 - Covering Letter with Petition to Governor of South Australia
Pardon for Edward Splatt
2 August 1984 - Text version of Pardon
2 August 1984 - PDF version of pardon
Please note that the date of arraignment was 24 October and not 24 November as shown
Book by Tom Mann (December 2009) - "Flawed Forensics: The Splatt case and Stewart Cockburn"
Flyer: 16 December 2009 with images
Review of Tom Mann's book by Keith Hunter
Acknowledgments and Author's note
Foreword by Dr Robert N Moles
Chapter 1: Edward Charles Splatt
Chapter 2: The discovery
Chapter 3: Prime suspect
Chapter 4: Adelaide Gaol
Chapter 5: The Committal
Chapter 6: The first two trials
Chapter 7: Expert evidence
Chapter 8: The alibi
Chapter 9: Opinions and theories
Chapter 10: Summing up
Chapter 11: Sentenced to life
Chapter 12: Forensic firestorm
Chapter 13: Inside Yatala
Chapter 14: Forensic fight-back
Chapter 15: The Royal Commission
Chapter 16: More expert evidence
Chapter 17: Polluted evidence
Chapter 18: A close encounter
Chapter 19: The homecoming
Chapter 20: Consequences of the Splatt Case
Chapter 21: Epilogue
The materials on this site are the copyright of Networked Knowledge. Copyright Notice
The Networked Knowledge web site is hosted and maintained by Howstat Computing Services as a community service. Enquiries to [email protected]