THE FIGHT FOR JUSTICE
In 2012 I self-published my book exposing the central role Glen Patrick Hallahan, a detective for 21 years, had played in the endemic corruption that plagued Queensland for decades before the 1987-89 Fitzgerald Inquiry put an end to it.
Hallahan was found by three judges in 1963 to have given fraudulent evidence in order to gain a conviction. My week-long examination of transcripts of the 1958 trial of Raymond John Bailey for murder revealed Hallahan had done the same thing five years earlier in concocting an alleged confession. It resulted in Bailey being hanged.
Having published the book I felt obliged to try to do something to rectify this appalling miscarriage of justice.
In 2013 I crafted a petition requesting that a posthumous pardon shoudle be be granted. I believed the evidence clearly demonstrated that Bailey could not have been guilty of the murder for which he had been charged.
How wrong I was.
PETITION TO THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
His Excellency Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce AC CSC RANR
Governor of South Australia
Government House
GPO Box 2373
ADELAIDE SA
5001
February 15 2013
Your Excellency,
This is a petition for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy vested in Your Excellency as the Governor of South Australia to grant a posthumous pardon to Raymond John Bailey, of no fixed abode but formerly of Dubbo, New South Wales, who was found guilty on May 20 1958 by a jury in the Supreme Court of South Australia of the murder at Sundown Station, South Australia, of Mrs Thyra Bowman of Glen Helen Station in the Northern Territory, on December 5 1957.
I, Stephen Anthony Bishop, of PO Box 521 The Gap Queensland 4061, state that I have made a thorough examination and analysis of the transcripts of the committal proceedings, Supreme Court trial and the judgement of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Adelaide in the 1958 case of Regina v Raymond John Bailey.
I also state that I have carried out similar examinations and analyses of criminal cases between 1958 and 1972 involving Queensland detective Glendon Patrick Hallahan, who played a crucial role in the case against Raymond John Bailey.
I have set out details of the murder of Thyra Bowman, the resulting investigation, the police interview of Raymond John Bailey, his committal, trial and appeal and his hanging, together with an examination of the case in a book which I have entitled The
Most Dangerous Detective: the Outrageous Glen Patrick Hallahan which I enclose.
In this book I have also demonstrated that Glen Hallahan was a serial liar, perjurer and inventor of confessions.
In brief, for the purposes of this petition, the main reasons why the original conviction against Raymond John Bailey can no longer be accepted include:
1.
The alleged confession which bears Bailey’s signature does not tally with other evidence given by the prosecution at the trial. The post mortems of the two women and a man murdered at Sundown Station revealed that the two women had been bashed unconscious before they were shot. They were definitely not shot as they approached Bailey in an upright position, as the ‘confession’ says. They had been shot at close range while lying down, Thyra Bowman in the back of the neck and Wendy Bowman through the head when she was lying on the ground with the right side of the head downwards. The prosecution case depended almost entirely on this ‘confession’. The crime with which Bailey was charged was the murder of Thyra Bowman. Yet the description of the murder of Thyra Bowman in the ‘confession’ is completely and utterly untrue.
2.
The tracks of the murderer at the scene of the murders were said in evidence for the prosecution to be from shoes estimated to
be size 7, 7½, 8 or even 10. But the prosecution failed to produce evidence at the trial of the size of shoe worn by Bailey. It was left to Bailey in his unsworn statement to reveal right at the end of the trial: “I take size 5½ shoe or if I can’t get that size I wear a size 6.”
3.
Prosecution witness Sydney Stanes, said to be an expert tracker, was convinced by the tracks of a woman’s shoes that a woman
drove the car used by the murdered trio to its final resting place in the bush and that she then walked out of the bush. Evidence was given at the trial that Bailey’s wife could not drive.
4.
Because the alleged statement by Bailey is demonstrably untrue and Bailey’s shoes could not have left the footprints at the scene of the murders, the murder weapon becomes all important. In Detective Hallahan’s account of what Bailey told him about the fatal attack, there was only one rifle mentioned throughout the story – Bailey’s. “I saw my rifle on the front seat,” he said. “The wooden part of it was broken and it was covered in blood.” But it had been a Remington rifle belonging to the Bowman family that had been broken in half by the ferocity of the assaults. This discrepancy was not explored. Bailey said he sold his rifle, which he thought was a single-shot Huntsman, at Coober Pedy well before the murders were committed. The prosecution case was that the Huntsman rifle had been thrown away by Bailey while driving between Kulgera and Alice Springs after he had used it to kill Thyra Bowman and two other people. In his summing up the judge said that the Huntsman rifle was a very interesting point. A witness had given evidence that Bailey had acquired a Huntsman rifle and Bailey had said that he had sold it before the murders. The judge said that evidence that Bailey had a gun after that was from a man named Gordon-Browne, “which was open to doubt as to the accuracy of the witness’s impression”; and of a man named Norris, “who was not very interested.” The media were told by police on January 23, 24, 25, 28, 29 and 30 1958 soon after Bailey’s arrest and before he was taken to Adelaide for committal proceedings, that it was their intention to take Bailey back to the road south of Alice Springs to search for the Huntsman rifle. Police even told newspapers that black trackers had been assembled ready for the search. Despite the fact that finding the rifle would have been a compelling piece of evidence Bailey was never taken to the area and no search for the rifle was ever made.
5.
The alleged confession has Bailey saying that his rifle was broken during the murders. Intriguingly, Detective Kevin Moran
testified that Mrs Bailey had said that on the morning after the murders her husband had his rifle in his hands and the stock was broken and there were blood spots on it. But the alleged confession says that on this morning he shot two dogs with the rifle.
6.
There is proof that the main prosecution witness, Detective Hallahan was prepared to lie in his testimony at Bailey’s trial:
The Advertiser in Adelaide reported on the morning of January 22 1958: “At midnight police were still questioning a 22-year-old woman, believed to be the man’s wife.”On the same day The Courier-Mail in Brisbane said: “Police early this morning were still
questioning a 22-year-old woman.”The reports could only have come from a police source. Hallahan swore in court:“His wife was not questioned that night. She was not taken inside the CIB not at any stage that night. I swear that she was not questioned at all on
the night of the 21st.”
By January 21 1958 all police stations had been given specific details about the hunt for a car and a caravan in connection with the Sundown murders and the media had also published a description. In his memoirs, published in 2010 by the South Australian Police Historical Society, former Detective Charles Hopkins, who was involved in the hunt for the car and caravan, wrote: “On 21st January we returned to Kulgera Station and were advised by radio to return to Alice Springs immediately, because the offender had been arrested at Mt Isa.” At the trial Detective Hallahan was asked by the defending barrister of
the arrest of Bailey on January 21: “You told me earlier that you had no detailed information about the Sundown murders at the time of questioning Bailey.” To which Hallahan swore: “I had none connecting Bailey with them.”
7.
Hallahan’s record of lying and inventing confessions in court cases renders his testimony about the alleged confession by Bailey
unreliable:
I. In 1958 Hallahan was found to have wrongly induced a man to plead guilty to a charge, as outlined in The Queensland Law Reporter, vol 53, no 18, Weekly Notes, Hallahan v Kryloff, ex parte Kryloff.
II. On April 15 1961 Hallahan presented a Brisbane magistrate with a written confession from Anthony Cavanagh who pleaded guilty to stealing a sum of money from Lennons Hotel in Brisbane. The hotel later discovered the money had not been stolen. Cavanagh was pardoned.
III. In April and May 1962 in a case of rape in which defendant Hendrikus Plomp was found guilty at Brisbane Supreme Court Hallahan withheld a statement which at the Court of Appeal resulted in the verdict being overturned.
IV. In September 1962 a Brisbane Supreme Court jury, by finding Roy Clifford Hart not guilty of arson, essentially found that
Hallahan’s evidence of a confession was completely untrue.
V. On September 26 1963 three judges of the Full Court of Queensland decided unanimously that Hallahan had committed a fraud on Brisbane Magistrates Court by making a false statement in a case against Gary William Campbell. The case is mentioned in Queensland Reports of the Supreme Court 1964, Hallahan v Campbell, ex parte Campbell.
8.
There is great similarity between defence allegations regarding the false Cavanagh confession (7ii) and the alleged Bailey confession. Cavanagh told his solicitor he had been threatened by Hallahan: “You can either plead guilty, go before the court today and be home with your wife this afternoon or we’ll throw you in jail until you come clean and your wife will be worried sick at home.” Cavanagh continued: “I know I pleaded guilty but I challenge anyone else placed in similar circumstances to do anything different. I’d been taken away by the police and faced with a weekend in the watchhouse if I pleaded not guilty. Let’s put it bluntly, I was scared, scared for my wife and child, and with me they come first.” Bailey alleged three detectives, including Hallahan, had told him during questioning: “They are still questioning your wife and you won’t be allowed to see her until you sign a confession and they won’t stop questioning her until you do.”
9.
There is also a similarity between searches made for incriminating evidence in the Bailey case and the murder case against Donald Maher at Brisbane Supreme Court in April and May 1972. Various searches were made of Bailey’s car and caravan in January 1958. It was not until February that cartridge cases which were linked to a Huntsman rifle were found in obvious
places in the car and caravan. The home of Donald Maher was searched three times, including once by Hallahan. Hallahan went to the house to conduct a fourth search and spent a long time on a balcony. Later that day, in a fifth search, a cartridge case was found on the balcony. The cartridge case proved to be from the same gun that had killed the murdered man. The defence counsel alleged the case had been planted.
10.
I believe that a re-examination of the case will demonstrate that without the alleged confession by Raymond Bailey the case against him collapses.
This petition directs Your Excellency to this evidential material justifying the assertion that the conviction is insupportable and to the fact that there is clear evidence of injustice.
Signed:
Steve Bishop.
On September 16 2013 I wrote to Attorney-General John Rau asking for a progress report on my petition.
On October 16 I received a reply from Mr Rau which says in part: "The matter is under consideration. His Excellency the Governor of South Australia will be in contact with you in due course about the outcome of the petition."
A letter from the official secretary to the Governor of South Australia dated July 7 2014 awaited me on my return from a long holiday overseas.
It says: "His Excellency has received advice on your petition from the Attorney-General. In preparing his advice, the Attorney-General gave all relevant information full and careful consideration. The Attorney-General has accordingly advised that you have not shown that there are grounds for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.
"His Excellency the Governor has accepted the Attorney-General's advice, and accordingly has declined to exercise the prerogative of mercy in this case."
I would welcome any thoughts from the legal fraternity regarding whether a prosecution using the evidence advanced in court for this case would be brought or succeed in today's regime.
UPDATE 1
I then wrote to the Freedom of Information officer in the South Australian Government with this request:
"I am making an application under the Freedom of information Act 1991 and seek access to all documents, including temporary notes such as “stick-its”, emails, texts and any other record generated by:
The answer from the Department of the Attorney-General included no information relating to why my petition had been refused. It informed me that the advice to refuse my petition had come from the Solicitor-General - and the Solicitor-General is exempt from Freedom of Information legislation.
I wrote to the Solicitor-General.
Michael Evans QC
Solicitor-General
PO Box 464
Adelaide SA 5001
January 1 2015
Dear Mr Evans,
In November 2012 I petitioned for a posthumous pardon for Raymond John Bailey who was hanged in Adelaide Gaol on June 24 1958.
On June 2 2014 you provided advice regarding this petition to the Attorney-General.
After receiving a letter from his Excellency the Governor stating that my petition had been refused I made a freedom of information request for documents so that I could discover why this decision had been recommended to him.
This request resulted in no information being made available.
I now realise that you are not subject to Freedom of Information legislation but, nevertheless, I write to ask for a copy of the advice that you furnished regarding my petition – or at least the reasoning supporting that advice.
I believe my book The Most Dangerous Detective: the Outrageous Glen Patrick Hallahan provides evidence and an analysis demonstrating that the case against Bailey was so flawed that he should not have been found guilty of murder. Further, I believe the evidence shows that he was innocent of the charge.
If examination of the evidence I provided in my petition has been found to be inaccurate I need to correct the relevant pages in the book which is stocked in many libraries, has been read by thousands of people and is still selling.
I would be grateful for any information you can provide which would reveal what, if any, of the evidence I provided is incorrect.
It would seem that no harm would be done by such information being released.
Thank you,
Steve Bishop.
UPDATE 3
No such information has been received.
UPDATE 4
I launched an online petition on change.org.
You can find it here: https://www.change.org/p/the-attorney-general-of-south-australia-help-correct-an-appalling-miscarriage-of-justice
UPDATE 5
Unfortunately, the petition failed to gain momentum. A major injustice is still being protected by the South Australian Government.
In 2012 I self-published my book exposing the central role Glen Patrick Hallahan, a detective for 21 years, had played in the endemic corruption that plagued Queensland for decades before the 1987-89 Fitzgerald Inquiry put an end to it.
Hallahan was found by three judges in 1963 to have given fraudulent evidence in order to gain a conviction. My week-long examination of transcripts of the 1958 trial of Raymond John Bailey for murder revealed Hallahan had done the same thing five years earlier in concocting an alleged confession. It resulted in Bailey being hanged.
Having published the book I felt obliged to try to do something to rectify this appalling miscarriage of justice.
In 2013 I crafted a petition requesting that a posthumous pardon shoudle be be granted. I believed the evidence clearly demonstrated that Bailey could not have been guilty of the murder for which he had been charged.
How wrong I was.
PETITION TO THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
His Excellency Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce AC CSC RANR
Governor of South Australia
Government House
GPO Box 2373
ADELAIDE SA
5001
February 15 2013
Your Excellency,
This is a petition for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy vested in Your Excellency as the Governor of South Australia to grant a posthumous pardon to Raymond John Bailey, of no fixed abode but formerly of Dubbo, New South Wales, who was found guilty on May 20 1958 by a jury in the Supreme Court of South Australia of the murder at Sundown Station, South Australia, of Mrs Thyra Bowman of Glen Helen Station in the Northern Territory, on December 5 1957.
I, Stephen Anthony Bishop, of PO Box 521 The Gap Queensland 4061, state that I have made a thorough examination and analysis of the transcripts of the committal proceedings, Supreme Court trial and the judgement of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Adelaide in the 1958 case of Regina v Raymond John Bailey.
I also state that I have carried out similar examinations and analyses of criminal cases between 1958 and 1972 involving Queensland detective Glendon Patrick Hallahan, who played a crucial role in the case against Raymond John Bailey.
I have set out details of the murder of Thyra Bowman, the resulting investigation, the police interview of Raymond John Bailey, his committal, trial and appeal and his hanging, together with an examination of the case in a book which I have entitled The
Most Dangerous Detective: the Outrageous Glen Patrick Hallahan which I enclose.
In this book I have also demonstrated that Glen Hallahan was a serial liar, perjurer and inventor of confessions.
In brief, for the purposes of this petition, the main reasons why the original conviction against Raymond John Bailey can no longer be accepted include:
1.
The alleged confession which bears Bailey’s signature does not tally with other evidence given by the prosecution at the trial. The post mortems of the two women and a man murdered at Sundown Station revealed that the two women had been bashed unconscious before they were shot. They were definitely not shot as they approached Bailey in an upright position, as the ‘confession’ says. They had been shot at close range while lying down, Thyra Bowman in the back of the neck and Wendy Bowman through the head when she was lying on the ground with the right side of the head downwards. The prosecution case depended almost entirely on this ‘confession’. The crime with which Bailey was charged was the murder of Thyra Bowman. Yet the description of the murder of Thyra Bowman in the ‘confession’ is completely and utterly untrue.
2.
The tracks of the murderer at the scene of the murders were said in evidence for the prosecution to be from shoes estimated to
be size 7, 7½, 8 or even 10. But the prosecution failed to produce evidence at the trial of the size of shoe worn by Bailey. It was left to Bailey in his unsworn statement to reveal right at the end of the trial: “I take size 5½ shoe or if I can’t get that size I wear a size 6.”
3.
Prosecution witness Sydney Stanes, said to be an expert tracker, was convinced by the tracks of a woman’s shoes that a woman
drove the car used by the murdered trio to its final resting place in the bush and that she then walked out of the bush. Evidence was given at the trial that Bailey’s wife could not drive.
4.
Because the alleged statement by Bailey is demonstrably untrue and Bailey’s shoes could not have left the footprints at the scene of the murders, the murder weapon becomes all important. In Detective Hallahan’s account of what Bailey told him about the fatal attack, there was only one rifle mentioned throughout the story – Bailey’s. “I saw my rifle on the front seat,” he said. “The wooden part of it was broken and it was covered in blood.” But it had been a Remington rifle belonging to the Bowman family that had been broken in half by the ferocity of the assaults. This discrepancy was not explored. Bailey said he sold his rifle, which he thought was a single-shot Huntsman, at Coober Pedy well before the murders were committed. The prosecution case was that the Huntsman rifle had been thrown away by Bailey while driving between Kulgera and Alice Springs after he had used it to kill Thyra Bowman and two other people. In his summing up the judge said that the Huntsman rifle was a very interesting point. A witness had given evidence that Bailey had acquired a Huntsman rifle and Bailey had said that he had sold it before the murders. The judge said that evidence that Bailey had a gun after that was from a man named Gordon-Browne, “which was open to doubt as to the accuracy of the witness’s impression”; and of a man named Norris, “who was not very interested.” The media were told by police on January 23, 24, 25, 28, 29 and 30 1958 soon after Bailey’s arrest and before he was taken to Adelaide for committal proceedings, that it was their intention to take Bailey back to the road south of Alice Springs to search for the Huntsman rifle. Police even told newspapers that black trackers had been assembled ready for the search. Despite the fact that finding the rifle would have been a compelling piece of evidence Bailey was never taken to the area and no search for the rifle was ever made.
5.
The alleged confession has Bailey saying that his rifle was broken during the murders. Intriguingly, Detective Kevin Moran
testified that Mrs Bailey had said that on the morning after the murders her husband had his rifle in his hands and the stock was broken and there were blood spots on it. But the alleged confession says that on this morning he shot two dogs with the rifle.
6.
There is proof that the main prosecution witness, Detective Hallahan was prepared to lie in his testimony at Bailey’s trial:
The Advertiser in Adelaide reported on the morning of January 22 1958: “At midnight police were still questioning a 22-year-old woman, believed to be the man’s wife.”On the same day The Courier-Mail in Brisbane said: “Police early this morning were still
questioning a 22-year-old woman.”The reports could only have come from a police source. Hallahan swore in court:“His wife was not questioned that night. She was not taken inside the CIB not at any stage that night. I swear that she was not questioned at all on
the night of the 21st.”
By January 21 1958 all police stations had been given specific details about the hunt for a car and a caravan in connection with the Sundown murders and the media had also published a description. In his memoirs, published in 2010 by the South Australian Police Historical Society, former Detective Charles Hopkins, who was involved in the hunt for the car and caravan, wrote: “On 21st January we returned to Kulgera Station and were advised by radio to return to Alice Springs immediately, because the offender had been arrested at Mt Isa.” At the trial Detective Hallahan was asked by the defending barrister of
the arrest of Bailey on January 21: “You told me earlier that you had no detailed information about the Sundown murders at the time of questioning Bailey.” To which Hallahan swore: “I had none connecting Bailey with them.”
7.
Hallahan’s record of lying and inventing confessions in court cases renders his testimony about the alleged confession by Bailey
unreliable:
I. In 1958 Hallahan was found to have wrongly induced a man to plead guilty to a charge, as outlined in The Queensland Law Reporter, vol 53, no 18, Weekly Notes, Hallahan v Kryloff, ex parte Kryloff.
II. On April 15 1961 Hallahan presented a Brisbane magistrate with a written confession from Anthony Cavanagh who pleaded guilty to stealing a sum of money from Lennons Hotel in Brisbane. The hotel later discovered the money had not been stolen. Cavanagh was pardoned.
III. In April and May 1962 in a case of rape in which defendant Hendrikus Plomp was found guilty at Brisbane Supreme Court Hallahan withheld a statement which at the Court of Appeal resulted in the verdict being overturned.
IV. In September 1962 a Brisbane Supreme Court jury, by finding Roy Clifford Hart not guilty of arson, essentially found that
Hallahan’s evidence of a confession was completely untrue.
V. On September 26 1963 three judges of the Full Court of Queensland decided unanimously that Hallahan had committed a fraud on Brisbane Magistrates Court by making a false statement in a case against Gary William Campbell. The case is mentioned in Queensland Reports of the Supreme Court 1964, Hallahan v Campbell, ex parte Campbell.
8.
There is great similarity between defence allegations regarding the false Cavanagh confession (7ii) and the alleged Bailey confession. Cavanagh told his solicitor he had been threatened by Hallahan: “You can either plead guilty, go before the court today and be home with your wife this afternoon or we’ll throw you in jail until you come clean and your wife will be worried sick at home.” Cavanagh continued: “I know I pleaded guilty but I challenge anyone else placed in similar circumstances to do anything different. I’d been taken away by the police and faced with a weekend in the watchhouse if I pleaded not guilty. Let’s put it bluntly, I was scared, scared for my wife and child, and with me they come first.” Bailey alleged three detectives, including Hallahan, had told him during questioning: “They are still questioning your wife and you won’t be allowed to see her until you sign a confession and they won’t stop questioning her until you do.”
9.
There is also a similarity between searches made for incriminating evidence in the Bailey case and the murder case against Donald Maher at Brisbane Supreme Court in April and May 1972. Various searches were made of Bailey’s car and caravan in January 1958. It was not until February that cartridge cases which were linked to a Huntsman rifle were found in obvious
places in the car and caravan. The home of Donald Maher was searched three times, including once by Hallahan. Hallahan went to the house to conduct a fourth search and spent a long time on a balcony. Later that day, in a fifth search, a cartridge case was found on the balcony. The cartridge case proved to be from the same gun that had killed the murdered man. The defence counsel alleged the case had been planted.
10.
I believe that a re-examination of the case will demonstrate that without the alleged confession by Raymond Bailey the case against him collapses.
This petition directs Your Excellency to this evidential material justifying the assertion that the conviction is insupportable and to the fact that there is clear evidence of injustice.
Signed:
Steve Bishop.
On September 16 2013 I wrote to Attorney-General John Rau asking for a progress report on my petition.
On October 16 I received a reply from Mr Rau which says in part: "The matter is under consideration. His Excellency the Governor of South Australia will be in contact with you in due course about the outcome of the petition."
A letter from the official secretary to the Governor of South Australia dated July 7 2014 awaited me on my return from a long holiday overseas.
It says: "His Excellency has received advice on your petition from the Attorney-General. In preparing his advice, the Attorney-General gave all relevant information full and careful consideration. The Attorney-General has accordingly advised that you have not shown that there are grounds for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.
"His Excellency the Governor has accepted the Attorney-General's advice, and accordingly has declined to exercise the prerogative of mercy in this case."
I would welcome any thoughts from the legal fraternity regarding whether a prosecution using the evidence advanced in court for this case would be brought or succeed in today's regime.
UPDATE 1
I then wrote to the Freedom of Information officer in the South Australian Government with this request:
"I am making an application under the Freedom of information Act 1991 and seek access to all documents, including temporary notes such as “stick-its”, emails, texts and any other record generated by:
- my letters of November 12, 2012 and September 16 2013 to the Hon John Rau in connection with seeking a posthumous pardon for Raymond John Bailey;
- my petition for a posthumous pardon for Raymond John Bailey dated February 15, 2013 to HE Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce AC CSC RANR which should have been forwarded to Mr Rau or the Department of the Attorney-General for action and advice."
The answer from the Department of the Attorney-General included no information relating to why my petition had been refused. It informed me that the advice to refuse my petition had come from the Solicitor-General - and the Solicitor-General is exempt from Freedom of Information legislation.
I wrote to the Solicitor-General.
Michael Evans QC
Solicitor-General
PO Box 464
Adelaide SA 5001
January 1 2015
Dear Mr Evans,
In November 2012 I petitioned for a posthumous pardon for Raymond John Bailey who was hanged in Adelaide Gaol on June 24 1958.
On June 2 2014 you provided advice regarding this petition to the Attorney-General.
After receiving a letter from his Excellency the Governor stating that my petition had been refused I made a freedom of information request for documents so that I could discover why this decision had been recommended to him.
This request resulted in no information being made available.
I now realise that you are not subject to Freedom of Information legislation but, nevertheless, I write to ask for a copy of the advice that you furnished regarding my petition – or at least the reasoning supporting that advice.
I believe my book The Most Dangerous Detective: the Outrageous Glen Patrick Hallahan provides evidence and an analysis demonstrating that the case against Bailey was so flawed that he should not have been found guilty of murder. Further, I believe the evidence shows that he was innocent of the charge.
If examination of the evidence I provided in my petition has been found to be inaccurate I need to correct the relevant pages in the book which is stocked in many libraries, has been read by thousands of people and is still selling.
I would be grateful for any information you can provide which would reveal what, if any, of the evidence I provided is incorrect.
It would seem that no harm would be done by such information being released.
Thank you,
Steve Bishop.
UPDATE 3
No such information has been received.
UPDATE 4
I launched an online petition on change.org.
You can find it here: https://www.change.org/p/the-attorney-general-of-south-australia-help-correct-an-appalling-miscarriage-of-justice
UPDATE 5
Unfortunately, the petition failed to gain momentum. A major injustice is still being protected by the South Australian Government.