The Devil's Garden (27 page)

The Schramm review team's work is cut out for them. Beyond 'thinking outside the square', which they pledge to do, visiting the disposal sites and trying to get into the head of the killer, they have a tea-chest size pile of reports to wade through. And a relentless media scrum. Hounded from the time they arrive in Perth, the presence of local, national and international reporters trailing them through Claremont, Wellard and Eglinton slows down their work. It becomes something of a circus, the review team dodging cameras and constantly door-stopped for comment. Schramm quickly sizes up how best to play his hand. Be accessible, but ask they also respect what the team is trying to do.

There are several terms of reference for the review. Its primary purpose is to assist and support the taskforce in achieving a successful conclusion, but of equal importance is the identification of practices and avenues of investigation to assist in future investigations. The specific terms of reference are: to examine the known facts of the disappearance and murder of the three Claremont victims; to examine the investigative avenues explored to date and their outcomes; to review and, where applicable, re-examine all forensic exhibits and other crime-scene materials including the post-mortem examinations; to assess persons of interest investigated by Macro officers and any other persons identified within the review; to assess the potential for other offences to be connected to the crimes linked by Macro; to comment and advise on any potential further investigative opportunities; and to comment and advise on the practices adopted by Western Australia Police and make recommendations for the future conduct of this investigation or any other major homicide investigation.

Collecting DNA samples from bodies is a sensitive, painstaking task, particularly from those long-dead or exposed to extended periods in water or sun. If DNA evidence is not properly documented, collected, packaged and pre-served, it will not meet the legal and scientific requirements for admissibility in court. The four criteria are vital. If not properly documented, the DNA origin can be questioned. If not properly collected, unintentional contamination by the investigators can occur and biological activity can be lost. If not properly packaged, cross-contamination can occur later. And if not properly preserved, decomposition and deterioration can and do take place.

In cases where a body is not located for some time, DNA will have suffered deterioration before it is collected. The most common cause is naturally occurring DNA digesting enzymes, from a biological source or associated bacteria. Where deterioration has set in, forensic investigators look to bone and teeth. But there is hope even if that yields little. The use of small stretches of nuclear DNA – known as STRs – in modern forensic techniques can yield clear-cut results even in badly deteriorated samples. Science can provide a means for victims to reach out from beyond the grave. Mitochondrial DNA, used for archaeological DNA analysis, is found in larger initial amounts than nuclear DNA and is more resistant to deterioration. But it has limitations. It is not as individually discriminating as nuclear STR.

In the years since the girls were murdered, there have been remarkable advances in the science of matching DNA with even microscopic samples. The matching of hairs, semen and vegetable matter for identification has also advanced immeasurably. If, as was indicated with Jane Rimmer, the crime scene was 'not fertile', the job of the forensic scientist is difficult. Samples can be taken from inside mouths, from under fingernails or from foreign fauna that may be near the body. But the continuing question is: what have forensic scientists got to compare
against
?

***

The Schramm review team, working out of the secure police academy court building, listens to verbal presentations from police involved in Macro and those who had worked the 24 other unsolved missing or murder cases in Western Australia. Examining profiles developed of the victims against the offenders' profiles, they also have full access to the HOLMES system.

Schramm identifies the enormity of their task. '50,000 calls were logged by Crime Stoppers. 2100 cabbies were interviewed. 50,000 cars were recorded and analysed. We went over all these records again. We interviewed the victims' families at the beginning and the end of the review, read witness statements and crimescene autopsies. We watched security camera footage.' The forensics area, he recalls, was an enormous juggernaut of information balanced with what was known of the victims. 'We agonised over how those girls were abducted,' he admits. 'And we were always pragmatic. History shows that we can never afford to rule out possibilities.'

Within hours of Jane and Ciara's disappearance, police had doorknocked a five-kilometre radius in the Claremont area. 'The girls would have needed to be controlled quickly,' Schramm hypothesises. 'They would have put up a fight, so it's very possible that they were taken to a safe house in the area. Those doorknocks generated an enormous amount of intelligence which we sifted through.'

I query the number of reviews – 11 – that have been under-taken into the Macro investigation. Is it, I email Neil Poh, standard practice for a taskforce or investigation to have so many reviews or is this figure excessive? The answers to that question are typically brief, a simple reiteration of what I already know with a dash of paranoia. 'Is this a criticism of police?' Poh asks. 'It is standard practice to review homicide and other major police investigations. And as for the number of reviews of Macro: the Claremont case is unique and still ranks as the biggest homicide investigation in WA history. The number of reviews is more reflective of the length of time of the investigation and strong desire by WA police to make sure every investigative avenue is explored and exhausted.'

I also ask that details of all reviews are further fleshed out, to see exactly what has been achieved. The answer is to beat retreat behind police lines.

Poh concludes the email: 'We can't really flesh out the information [already] provided on the reviews at short notice. Also, in some cases to do so would mean revealing sensitive information which we don't want made public.'

Margaret Dodd has kept meticulous records of all correspondence, the reams of material she writes, relentlessly and unashamedly hounding those who deal with missing persons and homicides. On 11 November 2004 she addressed this formal request to the Macro Review Panel.

Dear Sirs and Madame,

With great insult and disgust I find myself in the position of having no other choice and therefore I am putting forward this written submission to your panel. Our family has found ourselves having to fight and beg (cap in hand) for the minutest of input from the WA Police Service in the search and investigation of our daughter, Hayley. We desperately seek an independent review of Hayley's case, named 'Operation Blue Gum'. We have experienced on several occasions information not followed up by the investigating team, reluctance to accept any outside assistance and a blatant attempt to constantly place Hayley's case on the 'back-burner'.

Schramm wrote to Margaret at the end of November 2004 in response to her letter. 'While it might be reported that we are solely focusing on the death of three girls from Claremont, I can assure you that we have sought to widen our search to include other disappearances such as your daughter's.' Assuring Margaret that they had met with detectives involved in Hayley's case, and that they were encouraged by their commitment, he continued that 'the facts surrounding your daughter's disappearance will be taken into consideration in our overall review of various investigations undertaken by the Western Australia Police.'

***

Days before the review team concludes their month-long investigation, they discover something that was hitherto unnoticed: samples of foreign material taken from Jane Rimmer's disposal site. Well preserved and therefore able to be used for comparison purposes, it had not been compared with any material found on vehicles or suspects. Repeating the words of criminologist Edmund Locard that 'every contact leaves a trace', David Barclay extrapolated on the theory. 'Every contact is an opportunity to transfer saliva, hair, fibres and other material. We haven't anywhere near reached the end of the process in the Claremont investigation.' The murders, he says, could possibly be solved by linking scientific samples to another crime apparently not related to Claremont. But the panel's hopes that the new information could possibly solve the case prove premature.

My request to speak to David Barclay is denied by Deputy Commissioner Chris Dawson. 'We believe that we should leave Supt Schramm, the head of the review panel, to do the talking on behalf of that group,' he writes. 'David Barclay is not authorised to talk publicly about the Macro review.' But Paul Schramm, for all his willingness to help, passes the buck back to Barclay. It is a vicious circle. Why are police hesistant in allowing me to speak with Barclay? Are they concerned he may tell me things they want to keep from the public?

Napper had a package together for the review team outlining his concerns about a person he suspected may be responsible for the Claremont serial killings. 'It took me a long time to prepare the material and I expected that it would be read,' he says. But in 2005 Napper saw Malcolm Boots, with whom he used to work, at a conference in London. 'He told me that he didn't recall seeing my paper or the name of my suspect. He would definitely have recognised my name – Boots is a friend and former work colleague. Perhaps the way the review was structured, Boots didn't get to see all the parts, but it gave me a terrible sense of disquiet. Bottom line is, the police in Western Australia don't have any interest in an outsider like me coming in and maybe, just maybe, solving this case.'

Despite Chris Dawson's edict that Dave Barclay is not to speak to me regarding his forensic findings at the Schramm review, I email a request to speak to him by telephone in Britain in November 2006.

'I don't have any problem talking to you, except that my employers were the WAPS, and I am currently involved in the Mallard miscarriage of justice for them, which is about to come to the Corruption and Crime Commission,' he replies. 'However, I should be able to answer general to
fairly
specific questions, and if you wanted I could also read the relevant sections of the book and suggest additional text or emendations just for your consideration as they might be inappropri-ate.' Beyond generalities, he says he will have to go back to Dawson for approval but he would like to talk to clear up inaccuracies that inevitably occur in a sensational case of this magnitude. I start with the obvious: what was found at the crime scene?

'Two of the bodies were so decomposed,' he says, 'that the opportunity to get any DNA was very limited. Then there is the compounded problem of Sarah still not found.'

'I have been told that the girls' throats were cut. Can you confirm this?'

'To know, categorically, that a knife was used there has to be a cut in the flesh or bone. Neither of those was evident because of the extent of decomposition. So that is not a hard fact. But the probability from the insect manifestation is that there has been interference to the neck area consistent with their throats being slashed.' He pauses for a second. 'In violent situations, a person does what they have to do to protect themself. If they are desperately fighting back to save their life, the killer's modus operandi can and often does change in accordance with that fight. So if the intention was to cut a throat but the knife is lost, they will settle for suffocation, or strangulation.'

Of the 235 cold-case crimes he has worked on, Barclay admits he can barely remember the names of the victims. His job, he says, is not to look at cause of death but the
lead-up
to it, which gives opportunity to recover evidence. 'Everything is a sequence of events which we piece together. Was a victim held by her ponytail? Then the scrunchie that tied her hair may reveal low-copy DNA. Was she knocked to the ground or did she fall? The scratches on her knees reveal she was knocked down.'

The Claremont case, he says, was always very difficult. 'These girls were abducted from the streets with apparent lightning speed and not quickly found. There was nothing to indicate a dumping pattern by their killer – they hadn't, for example, been tied down with weights. There was no roll of tape or anything similar found at the scene. But investigators may get enough evidence if this killer does something else. They may then be able to find a link.'

Finally, I raise the subject of Robin Napper, who had worked with Barclay in the United Kingdom.

'It's been repeatedly suggested to me by various police officers that you hold a somewhat dim view of Napper's talents. Do you?'

'Not at all,' Barclay replies. 'Not at all. His talents lie in lecturing and getting things done. I think, though, that he takes a black-and-white view of forensics. But he was a very good cop.'

We finish the call with his promise to contact Chris Dawson to see if he can be given clearance to speak to me further. He does not hear back from Dawson.

Eight days before Christmas 2004 Margaret Dodd published this letter in the local Perth paper. It was addressed to the editor, 'in the hope that we may find our daughter, Hayley'.

To whom it may concern.

Dear Sir,

I would not be so presumptuous as to try and analyse you or understand why you took our daughter, Hayley, from us, just as I don't expect you to understand the pain and anguish we live with every day of our lives. Once again Christmas will soon be upon us, a time of goodwill, peace and joy, a time to give, a time to celebrate, for us another day without Hayley, Christmas is no more. My husband looked into my eyes and asked me what would I like for Christmas; he needed no answer as he too wants the same, neither he nor I have the power to grant each other's Christmas wish, the only one with this power is you. I pray that you will find it in your heart to grant us this wish; by contacting crime stoppers or any media outlet from a payphone or a letter giving them the location where you have hidden Hayley. If you fear that by doing this, your identity may be revealed due to DNA – please have no fear because given the rigors of time the only DNA likely to be found would be Hayley's, as DNA deteriorates and is only likely to remain in bone. Please, please use your power and let Hayley come home; and give us the meaning of Christmas back.

Margaret Dodd, Mother of missing teenager, Hayley Dodd.

Margaret is merciless in her attack on the police, but mostly it is softened by humour, the only thing that keeps her sane. She names two officers whom she respects, but shakes her head about the others she has dealt with. 'I wish I had something good to say about them,' she sighs. 'But I don't.' She cites the way police have handled Hayley's case as best summed up by the way in which clothes that belonged to her were returned to them. 'They gave them back, all right,' she says, her voice dripping with contempt. 'They were in a bag marked "Garbage disposal".' She does not begrudge one cent spent on the Claremont investigation, but seethes with indignation that that case was afforded so much press and financial attention. Why, she asks, is one missing or murdered girl more important than another?

Hayley's father, Ray, a three-time British flyweight boxing champion in the 1960s, can only now mention his daughter's name without sobbing. 'He is a broken man, compared with how he used to be,' Margaret says. 'Hayley's sister, me, Ray. We're all broken. Our Hayley's been murdered, but we don't know where she is, or who did this to her. Her case is not closed in our minds. It never will be.'

Police shift the focus of Hayley's disappearance back to the girl herself. 'Margaret is understandably distraught and wants to find someone to blame,' one officer tells me. 'But the fact is that Hayley, a slight, naïve girl, was hitchhiking on a lonely country road. She was a gift to her killer.'