Approache Production.
Welcome back to our little Ladie.
It's been a while since we've recorded our last episode, but that doesn't mean that Eden has been forgotten all the work has stopped. In fact, it's quite the opposite. In the last months, a lot has happened. There is more and more for Jason and Amanda, their family, and the millions of supporters that have listened to this podcast to be hopeful for. So over the next few weeks, you're going to hear from Jason and Amanda with some
big bits of news. But in this episode, we're going to speak to an expert in forensic pathology about an interim report that he's just completed for the Westbrooks.
My name is doctor Richard Byron Collins. I'm a consultant forensic pathologist in private practice, and I've been practicing forensic pathology and pathology for approximately fifty years. During that time, I've worked largely for the defense. That's because I'm in private practice as opposed to being a salaried forensic pathologist
with a forensic institute in any of the States. During that period of time, I've been a lecturer in forensic pathology at Monation Melbourne, universities and carried out approximately ten thousand post mortem examinations on all types of deaths, largely under the jurisdiction of the coroner. And I've been involved in giving evidence in suppose almost all courts throughout Australia and in some courts overseas.
How did you hear about the Eden Westbrook case?
I form memory, which is not all that good these days. I think I was approached by Channel nine originally and got involved through a number of journalists and the family themselves.
So as part of that work that you've been doing with the family, you've just recently handed down a preliminary finding on your investigation. Is that right?
Yes, I have. I've headed it really preliminary comments because I didn't have all the materials which I would normally have to properly review a case where the cause of death and the circumstances of the death have come into question, either by a family member or a legal firm or the coronial system itself.
We have spoken before, But what was missing? What would you have hoped to have seen?
There were basically three exercises which I as yet have been unable to carry out and therefore unable to provide a final report, most important of which were the collection of autopsy photographs taken during the performance of the post mortem examination, which should have shown any abnormalities which were
present and identified by the pathologist. I haven't as yet looked at the light microscope slides, which are made from small pieces of tissue which are harvested at the time of the autopsy and processed so that each major organ can be looked at under the microscope, or a sample of each organ can be looked at under the microscope, in order to identify any disease processes which might be present and may or may not have contributed to the death.
And where a death is difficult, or whether circumstances are difficult to ascertain, and the contents of the autopsy report may be difficult to understand. And I'm not necessarily saying that that's so in this case, but that's my common practice to speak with the pathologist in order to clarify some issues that might arise out of the autopsy report. And this has certainly been so in this particular case.
You've heard doctor Collins before in this podcast. He came on about a year or so ago to talk about how astounded he was that he was unable to access photographs of the autopsy. As a forensic pathology expert.
He said it was.
Highly unusual and not providing these photographs was hindering the family's opportunity for closure. To date, doctor Collins still hasn't seen those photographs, and that's why this is only a preliminary finding because without those photos it's hard to finalize his report.
Well, I'm fervently hoping, and it may be that I'm hoping that pigs might fly. But in reality, if I have access to the photographs and am able to speak to theol just to clarify some issues and look at the microscope slides, then I'm prepared to provide a further document. It may or may not alter from what I've said
in my preliminary statement. And also I would hopefully have access to any police investigations which hopefully again had been carried out on any items of clothing or the rope or the scene at the time of the event.
You stated in your comments that you are not prepared to accept the cause of death as is it as fhixial is that he say.
Yes the term in the autops of report, which is not one that I would commonly use. Although I'm not saying that it's not necessarily correct. It is really difficult to sort out the mechanism of the cause of death in somebody who has been found hanging. It's not necessarily due to asphixiator. There are other factors which may occur once the neck has been constricted, and so I would prefer to if I were happy with the circumstances and the findings, to give a cause of death as hanging.
It might be in this case that if I'm not happy with the circumstances and the findings in the additional materials that I hopefully obtain, then I will provide the cause of death as I have already as undetermined.
You mentioned that the location of a fracture I'm guessing around the neck I think, in your words, said should have rung alarm bells. Can you tell me about what you found?
Yes, Look, I have to be fairly careful at the moment inasmuch that I don't divulge too much anatomical information, and that's why I might be appearing rather vague. But suffice it to say that the ligature in this case was found around the upper part of the neck, in other words, beneath the angle of the you, which is not an uncommon place to find a ligature in somebody
who's died or has been found hanging. So there was that, and then there was a fracture in a structure, a cartilaginous structure in the voice box, which was well away from the actual location of the ligature. Now, it's not all that uncommon to find fractures in the voice box in somebody who has died by hanging, but in this particular situation, it is very uncommon for the fracture to be located in the particular part of the voice box
as it was in this manner. So that's why I think that, And this is really no reflection on the pathologist. It's just a general comment that if there is a fracture in an unusual place, then that should prompt further investigation by the investigating officers.
Are there any alternative explanations on how that injury might have been sustained or have you seen it in previous cases.
I suppose a fracture is occasioned by blunt force trauma, and that may have been as a result of compression of the neck by another mechanism as opposed to the ligature around the neck. Now, there's no evidence that the ligature was initially applied lower in the neck. That would make me feel much more comfortable about the fracture in
this particular cartilage. So it says to me that there has been some localized pressure by whatever means to that particular area, rather than transmitted pressure from a ligature higher up in the neck. If there's going to be transmitted pressure in the tissue within the neck itself, that usually results in fractures in a totally different location.
Can I pose a question and you may or may not be able to answer it, But I guess I'm asking this question for the audience. Would it be fair to say that an injury to that part of the neck might be caused by someone strangling somewhat?
Well, it might be, and then we'll get into the argument of And this is a three day lecture on what are the signs of manual strangulation or ligature strangulation? And sometimes there is basically nothing on the surface of the skin, whereas there may be some damage in the underlying tissues. Now, the only surface damage in this case that I could identify was an area of bruising below the ligature mark on the left side of the neck, and this was well away from the actual fracture in
the cartilage. So that's one of the reasons why I am extremely keen to hand the autopsy photographs, because there may be something that shows up on the photograph which has for whatever reason, been omitted in the post mortem
examination report. And I would have to say that, you know, it's not impossible for a pathologist, and I'm just speaking generally here and not referring to this particular pathologist, where when you're dictating your notes or writing your notes, you might put down the wrong side or you might for whatever reason, omit to write down a particular injury or finding. And that's why it's mandatory basically to have photographs for comparison.
You may remember across our reporting of this case that Eden Westbrook's post mortem was carried out by a pathologist, not a forensic pathologist like doctor Collins. I know, across the years this has been a question that Jason and Amanda have asked, why did an expert in forensics carry out in z autopsy and not just a pathologist.
I'm not sure that I like the term just a pathologist. We're all fellows of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia,
with varying degrees of training. Now it's my understanding, and I could be wrong that the particular pathologist in this case was a well trained anatomical pathologist and not necessarily a forensic pathologist, but would have some forensic pathology skills, because as part of the training of an anatomic pathologist, you need to have performed a number of post mortem examinations.
But an anatomical pathologist may not necessarily appreciate the subtleties of something abnormal or the subtleties of something normal in a particular post mortem examination. I understan and where you're coming from, And it's quite a reasonable question, and I must say that I have to couch all my comments with the caveat that I haven't yet spoken to this pathologist, and.
The conversation with the pathologist would help you deliver a more comprehensive if you like finding Yes.
You're quite right there. Look, it's not only a matter of courtesy to notify another pathologist that you are involved in a particular case and assessing their work. The assessment might be less than helpful in the long run, but it is common courtesy to do so. But it also and I found this personally over the years, very important and very useful to to the fat with the pathologist in relation to the findings that have been documented and which may not have been documented but are obvious on
the photographs. And similarly, that applies to the microscope slides. Perhaps a little less relevant in a case where death has been due to trauma, as is supposed to be in this case, but I've been involved in a number of cases where I've requested to look at the light microscope slides and found disease conditions which weren't obvious to
the naked eye. And that is not uncommon to have a diseased organ that looks normal macroscopically or to the naked eye, and these conditions, it was argued, could have played a significant role in the demise of a particular individual. And so again that's why I want to look at the slides. And it's really a process of dotting the eyes and crossing the t's when you're examining something, examining
a case, it needs to be complete. As far as I'm concerned otherwise it's a waste of time really as an exercise.
Doctor Barron Collins also had some other things that he found were unusual in this case. In particular, it was some of the things that were not done in his expert opinion as a forensic pathologists. For instance, there was never any genital swaps done on Eden.
Well, I suppose it's just that it's out of abundance of caution, particularly in the circumstances such as this particular case where you've got a young teenage girl. One never knows what might have happened. And it's quite obvious that the police have made no comment in relation to any abnormal finding or suspicion of some event that might have occurred.
But it's too late, after the horse has bolted and you've done the autopsy and the bodies being buried or cremated to think, oh, for goodness sake, I should have taken some genital swaps. It would be out of an abundance of caution. But you never know what you're going to find. As I say, particularly in the circumstances as these are.
Is that standard forensic procedure.
No, it's not, and there are no detail guidelines as far as I'm aware from the College as to what you must do in a post mortem examination. It's left up to the pathologist to decide what the extent of the investigation, whether it's only going to be an external examination or an external and internal with a number of ancillary investigations, which would include normally histology and possibly toxicology and perhaps biochemistry and microbiology, and then the sampling of
forensic material. But that's up to the pathologists generally to decide what he or she wants to do. That decision may or may not be prompted by comments from the or information from the investigating police officers. Not so in this case. It seems to me sadly that for whatever reason, the investigating officers at the scene decided that it was basically a simple suicide by hanging, and that.
Was welcome back to our in depth chat with doctor Barron Collins, who's a forensic pathologist who's working pro bono for the Westbrook family to try and find an answer to what happened to their little ed. Doctor Collins has undertaken up perliminary report for the family after examining some of the materials that he's been given he can't complete his work because the Corners so far has refused to allow him or the family access to the autopsy photos.
As far as I'm concerned, the credibility of this investigation is severely in question, and it's lacking in the totality of what, as I understand it at the moment, were the investigations by the forensic officers. One never knows what's going to turn up, and as I said before, it's too late once the body's gone and the materials have gone, to say, of christsake, we should have looked at that
particular aspect. I might have to eat humble pie in this particular case, because, as with some other bits and pieces in it, I have not been provided with any of the results of investigations of the forensic officers, which may or may not have been carried out at the laboratory. There may be some results, and there may have been investigations, and then I'll be, as I've said, just eating the
humble pie. But at the moment, my impression and understanding is that there was nothing that was taken away from the scene which was then examined which could have provided evidence of, perhaps of a third party involvement.
You also noted that there's no reliable evidence to determine the exact day of death. Can you tell me about that.
I see in the coroner's finding that it was decided that the death occurred on the seventeenth and the body was found on the eighteenth. Now, I have no idea what the reasoning behind that is, because it's just absolutely unfounded. Whatever the reasoning is or unreliable. The determination of the time of death is fraught with difficulty, and in the old days it used to be based on the presence of post mortem changes such as the presence of rigamortis
and post modern abidity and body temperature. Now there have been some monumental stuff ups over the years by so called expert pathologists who have pontificated about the time of death and caused considerable concern in the courts and wrongful convictions.
So it is a difficult aspect to look at. The most appropriate way to do it, and this is not always practicable, is for a pathologist or somebody suitably qualified to examine the body, insite you and look for those findings, but more particularly, pay some reliance on what might be the core body temperature. But even that will only give you a window of time, and it's certainly not quite as easy as it seems when the good doctor in Midsummer Murders gives you down to the house, minute, second
and nanosecond basically of when somebody died. It's all very well in a TV series because the time's helpful sorting out your witnesses. It's not that simple in real life. My view is always that to say that the time of death will be a guestimate and from the pathologist, and if you have a reliable lay witness or anybody else who is reliable, then that evidence should be accepted basically over what the pathologist says in a general sense.
But in this particular case, we've got a couple of policemen who talk about rigor mortis and post mortem libidity, and that information is less than helpful, of little probity value, and in my view, useless.
What are the most critical failures in your mind in this investigation so far, Well.
I think they're twofold. One is, again, as I understand it, the lack of detailed examination of the crime scene and the harvesting of appropriate samples for further investigation and the apparent incompleteness of the post mortem examination. But again I'm
not directly criticizing the pathologist. I'm quite sure that it was done to the extent that was at the time deemed appropriate and necess except for what I said before that I am concerned that if the fracture in the voice box is actually located where it's been described, then that should have rung some alarm bells. I need to
comment in relation to the presence of the fracture. All this may be a crock of garbage that I'm talking about and unnecessarily worry if it is found that the fracture was in a different site and that is a typo in the report. Now I can conceive that that occurs. It's occurred to every pathologist that's ever written a report that's been typed by a well meaning typist, either from notes or from a voice machine. So it could simply be a typo, and if it is, then some of
the concerns fall away. But if it's not a typo, there is a real problem.
And the only way for you to see if that's a typo or actually real is those photos.
Yes, hopefully there'll be some photographs taken of the next structures, and yes, that would be of assistance, and also talking to the pathologist that may well clarify this aspect that I've placed a lot of store in at the moment may fade away at some stage.
Over and over again, experts, family members and anyone with a wide view of this case believe that it should be reinvestigated so that the family can finally get peace.
And it's something that doctor Collins also believes.
Yes, I do, even if it's simply just by the measures that I want to do as a forensic pathologist. But I think that what the police have done or a peer to have done at the moment should be questioned and if there's any more information, it should be provided, and if there isn't, well then it's been pathetic.
Are you hopeful that you'll get to see those photos on behalf of the family.
I am hopeful, you know. Look, I have said in my report, it beggars belief why the photographs haven't been provided, particularly to somebody like myself who is an expert in the area and who's been engaged by the family, who have a desperate interest in the accuracy of the autopsier report and the findings. I just can't understand why they haven't been sent to me with the proviso that I won't show them to anybody or talk in detail about them.
The reasoning that the coroner has provided seems to me to be meaningless, and it appears that there is no real understanding by the cranial system as to how valuable these photographs are. Firstly to me to verify the autopsier report, and secondly to be able to answer the questions or the concerns that have been expressed by the family in
relation to the presence or otherwise of facial injuries. Now, there are certainly some pictures that were taken at the scene, but these are not of sufficient quality for me to properly interpret at least the facial features in relation to injuries. And secondly, they're certainly not the extent that one would have in a post mortem examination set.
I want to ask a personal question here, and feel free not to answer it if you don't want to. But you're not being paid by anyone to ask these questions, So what drives you to find an answer here? Dr Colin?
The answer to your question is no, I'm not being paid. I often get asked this question by the prosecutor when I'm giving evidence for the defense in a matter, and my simple answer is, yes, I am being paid counsel, but so are you look it. I am not a hired gun for a particular side. I do do work for the prosecution that that's relatively minimal, because, as I said before, sitting out in the public domain as an expert,
it's usually the defense that requests my expertise. I do do pro bono work, although not a huge amount, and that's what this is. Except I should say that I was paid a small amount by Channel nine to provide my initial views, but I have not rendered any account at all to the family. I am concerned that justice has not been done in this case, and I'm happy to assist if I can and provide what I think
is a detailed and unbiased examination of the material. The bottom line is that if I'm ever accused of being biased in a report, then my credibility goes out the window, and so I have to remain down the line so that the court can be assisted by what I say, whether it's advantageous or useful to the defense or the Crown. Or whoever employed me is irrelevant. And just if you've got time, and now you've asked the question, I'll have
to tell you. There was the case some years ago where I was employed by the defense to provide a report at the committal hearing for an accused person. I did so, it was of no use to the defense. Somehow it got tabled and the Crown used it in the trial. So I went from one side to the other side with the same report. So, in other words, it was down the middle and it was to assist the court, not to assist my pecuniary interests or anybody else's, or to get somebody off or to convict somebody. It
was there for the court to look at. So that's a long answer to a fairly short question. But that's it.
And finally, you've worked in Tasmania a fair bit. I'm aware of some of the cases you've looked at in Tasmania. Is there a difference in dealing with the Tasmanian coronial process than other parts of Australia? Is it harder or is this just the way things are? I think it's probably just the way things are.
I've never found a croner to be quite so recalcitrant as in this matter. Generally speaking, I will be provided with all the materials I require and request in a case there are differences from state to state. For example, Western Australia won't send me the light microscope slides, so I have to rely on the pathologist's actual written report or go to Western Australia to look at the slides.
Other states will provide them to me. I suppose I have to couch these comments in relation to the fact that I'm usually working in a case that has legal ramifications, and so the legal problems were on foot at that time, and that may well be why the coroner in Tasmania in this particular case was reluctant to provide me with the information. But I think if that's the reason, then as ap port reason