The Devil's Garden (32 page)

In March 2006 it was announced the Corruption and Crime Commission – an independent and impartial body responsible for overseeing and if necessary investigating complaints against WA government departments and the Western Australia Police – would hold public hearings on the Mallard case, to investigate allegations of misconduct by those involved in the investigation and prosecution of Mallard. Intense media scrutiny ensured the story continued to be a pot-boiler.

By mid-April 2006, a cold-case review was announced. Chaired by Deputy Commissioner Chris Dawson and with the assistance of Professor David Barclay, former head of the UK Forensic Services Institute and known to police through his work on the Claremont case, it found a startling new piece of evidence – an unidentified palm print found at the scene of the murder. In legal terms, it was late evidence: half past eleven and the clock was ticking. Evidence of this print had not been given to Mallard's lawyer at the time of his arrest – the same legal aid lawyer who also worked for convicted killer Simon Rochford, an English tourist in Australia serving life for the murder of his girlfriend, Brigitta Dickens, in 1994. The modus operandi of Dickens's murder was hauntingly similar – though not identical – to that of Pamela Lawrence. Both women were bludgeoned to death in the first half of 1994 in classy Perth areas and both were blonde. Hunted by his girl-friend's parents, one of Rochford's arresting officers was working on the Macro investigation. Rochford readily confessed to killing his girlfriend, a confession taken down in 1994 by one of the detectives who had been party to the Mallard interview a month before.

This time, the reaction was swift: the print was proven to belong to Rochford. But if he had readily caved in on his girl-friend's murder, he took knowledge of his guilt or innocence relating to Lawrence's murder to his grave. The man who had once shared a remand yard with Andrew Mallard in the 1990s slashed his wrists in his cell just nine days after the police interviewed him, his death adding another twist to an already tortuous case.

British detectives had already had Rochford in their sights before his trial. Prior to travelling to Australia, he had stayed at the same hostel in London where a German tourist had been murdered. 'You've got to ask yourself,' Quigley tells me, 'in light of what was known about Rochford and the time frame, why there was such a narrow focus on Mallard? This whole case is a litany of disasters.'

On 12 May, despite his earlier declaration that it was not necessary, Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan stood down, on full pay, the five senior officers involved in the original investigation into the Lawrence murder pending the results of the CCC investigation into the case. Dave Caporn. Mal Shervill. John Brandham. Alan Carter. Mark Emmett. Keeping a cool head, O'Callaghan described the decision as being about 'good governance'. He added that he had no information to suggest misconduct or that the officers had acted maliciously.

If O'Callaghan showed confidence in his officers – who said they welcomed the inquiry – it was not reflected in the public perception. Between them, the five officers had worked on hundreds of cases, including Claremont. If the CCC findings were adverse, what did that say about other cases in which they were involved? Particularly Macro. Director of Public Prosecutions Robert Cock is blunt in his appraisal of the case. 'The question is, why wasn't the palm print checked against Rochford's?' he asks. 'Why do we have to wait until technology is available and as an extension of that – is there material that can be checked for the Claremont case?' Cock believes that independent audits and scrutiny of investigations are vital. 'Who is marking Macro's report card? If that is done internally, it is not open to the scrutiny it requires. And therefore not good enough.'

John Quigley agrees, and makes no bones about it. Formerly energetic and super-fit, cancer and chemotherapy have debilitated his frame, sneaking up to waste his muscles and rob him of hair, his scalp now as bare as a winter tree. His loud voice still commands attention, as though he is seducing a jury. In remission, the man who was once the saviour of Western Australian police in need of legal advice is now regarded by many officers as a traitor and loose cannon. Between the two sides, it feels like a war. But he takes no prisoners. 'I look at certain sections of the police force today and it looks like a long conga line of suck-holes. They act like the slogan on my Bali T-shirt – "Admit nothing, deny everything. And then make counter allegations" – is a line from the police handbook. It's tragic.'

Finally, in mid-September 2006 there is a breakthrough in my relations with police. The commissioner's media adviser, Neil Poh, has agreed to approach Karl O'Callaghan with a request to allow some officers involved with Macro to speak to me. For eight months I have been frustrated by their stubborn silence. Poh, a former journalist who reporters joke has now 'gone over to the dark side', is canny about the media. It is better, he reasons, for police to defend possible criticisms now, than to wait until the book is published and then enter into a siege mentality.

His rationale is given voice in this email which read, in part: 'I suppose in fairness it was WAPOL's fault for not engaging you earlier, which meant you had mostly been speaking with the naysayers, the likes of Quigley, Napper and Christian, all people with personal vendettas or vested interests, and importantly no REAL knowledge of the inner workings of Macro.'

Poh calls me. Deputy Commissioner Chris Dawson, he says, has agreed to give clearance to certain people to talk to me. But there are caveats. Anthony Lee needs first to complete writing up the findings of the cold-case review into the Andrew Mallard case before he will have time to give me a full interview. He will see who else is willing.

Neil Poh and the Special Crime Squad's media officer, Jim Stanbury, meet me at the squad's office in the centre of Perth. The office is sterile, locked down. They run over my questions with a critical eye.

After repeatedly asking when and if Dave Caporn will contact me, I make the decision to call his mobile number in early November. Warned that he is under pressure from the Mallard case, I have until now resisted calling the number that I have had for months. His voice is clipped and professional.

'May I speak to Dave Caporn, please?'

'Speaking.'

Finally, I have made contact with the man who can answer most of the big questions about the investigation into the Claremont murders. Although he can have a smooth tongue, he is not known for his patience with journalists and I cut to the chase. Introducing myself, I tell him I would like to talk to him regarding his role in Claremont and his perceptions of the investigation's successes and failures. How had it affected him on a personal and professional level?

'How did you get my phone number?' he brusquely demands. It is an inauspicious beginning and I push past his question.

'You were the face of the investigation, Mr Caporn. I would really appreciate if you would share some insights with me.'

'Why are you asking me this? I haven't been involved in that case for years. It is an ongoing case and I can't comment on it.'

I tell him that I have been given verbal clearance to speak to him and that he may talk to me if he chooses. 'I haven't been informed of this. Who gave you this information?'

'Interviews have been facilitated with many former Macro officers,' I tell him. 'But you headed the investigation through its most critical period. I know you can't give me details of the investigation, but I would really like your personal perspective. What it was like to head up this terrible case? The pressures must have been enormous. I can call you back after you have checked I've been cleared to speak to you, if you prefer. Is that okay?'

'I'm not prepared to speculate on whether I'm permitted to comment or whether I will comment.'

'But if you are satisfied that you are cleared to speak, will you then talk to me?'

'This is all just conjecture. I can't speculate on that.'

I suppress an exasperated sigh. I have been writing this book for eight months and have been told many times from Neil Poh that it is in the best interests of the Western Australia Police if Dave Caporn talks to me if he chooses to. Given his elevated role in this story, I am confident that Caporn knows that there is a book being written on the case. I give it one last tactful shot.

'I will call Neil Poh to get the appropriate person to confirm with you that clearance had been given and I will call you back. Is that okay?'

'This is all just conjecture. I can't speculate on that.'

It is starting to sound like a scene from
Yes, Minister
. Deflated that I have gained so little from an interview for which I have waited for so long, I realise there is no point in continuing the conversation. One of us is about to hang up. I get in first. 'Thank you, Mr Caporn.'

I call Neil Poh to advise him I have contacted Caporn with no success.

'No wonder,' he says, more than a hint of chagrin in his voice. 'The cold-case review Mallard findings only came out twenty minutes ago. I told you they were being released today. You could have picked a better time to contact him.'

He is right, but I don't recall knowing when the findings were to be released and doubt that regardless of when I had called Caporn it would have made any difference. Shortly after, I receive an email from Chris Dawson.

Dawson – with whom I have never spoken – responds negatively and in full defensive mode to my request to inter-view Dave Caporn. 'I have determined that I will not permit Assistant Commissioner David Caporn to comment about the Macro investigation,' his lengthy reply begins.

That investigation remains live and unresolved. My overriding priority is to ensure that the integrity of the MACRO investigation is not compromised. For that reason, I will not risk the release of information that may alert a suspect to a particular line of inquiry or the adoption of an investigative strategy or technique. The effluxion of time alone cannot be used as a valid reason to reveal operational matters and techniques, while the murderer remains at large.

Secondly, I understand your intention is to criticise the MACRO investigation and in particular, Assistant Commissioner Caporn. Because of the integral role this officer undertook in this investigation, I am of the view that this officer cannot meaningfully respond without recourse to information which remains confidential. It would be most unfair for me to permit Assistant Commissioner Caporn to be placed in a position where he is pressured to respond to allegations when he is bound by confidentiality.

Furthermore, I am also led to believe that you intend to draw parallels between Assistant Commissioner Caporn's involvement in the MACRO investigation and his involvement in the Pamela Lawrence homicide investigation. As you are aware, the Pamela Lawrence homicide investigation is the subject of a Corruption and Crime Commission hearing. Until that hearing has concluded, Assistant Commissioner Caporn is precluded from making any comment. Indeed, all of the original investigation team have been denied access to the cold-case review report into the Pamela Lawrence homicide. Therefore, those officers cannot comment on reports they have not seen. I wish to reiterate that this officer is not in a position to defend his actions, although I am certain he would want to do so.

Whatever comment you intend about the MACRO investigation or the Pamela Lawrence homicide, in fairness, you should make it patently clear to your readers that Assistant Commissioner Caporn has been prevented from responding for the reasons I have provided. There will undoubtedly be parallels drawn between a number of Western Australian homicide investigations. While the full details of the MACRO and Pamela Lawrence homicides cannot presently be published, any publication will necessarily be limited and therefore open to uninformed and incomplete interpretation. The fact that many reviews, the most recent headed by an internationally respected team of homicide and forensic experts [the Schramm review], gives me confidence in stating that the MACRO investigation has undoubtedly been one of the most thorough, complex and detailed investigations into homicides in Australia. The Western Australian Police will continue to protect the integrity of the investigation, which I have placed into the carriage of the Special Crime Squad, with the strong desire to resolve these homicides.

If Dawson's views were not abundantly clear before, they certainly are now.

Whilst many of the questions I sent through to the police were answered quickly and at length, some were not. How has the investigation affected Macro officers, personally and professionally? Anonymous stories of people who have come forward with false confessions or information? The difficulties in dealing with the parents, year after year, when no one is charged? Who are the heroes of this story to date? Comment on Peter Weygers complaining about police harassment? A comment on the perception that good people were driven out of the force when they did nothing wrong? What has happened to the DNA supplied by the cabbies? What is the police line re Robin Napper? Some, such as the last question, were met with outright indignation and either completely ignored or greeted with mirth. Others I was advised simply would not be answered and no reason given as to why.

But the police service wanted me to provide answers for them, such as why this story also concentrates on miscarriages of justice cases. What is the relevance of these, Neil Poh demanded to know, in a book about the Claremont serial killer? I replied, 'I have had police silence for eight months and am now have only six weeks until deadline. As we discussed on the telephone, I am not here to be critical of police simply because I can be, but nor is it my role to play police PR, as you understand. Re miscarriages of justice: I know they happen in all states and that Western Australia Police have got it right thousands of times (as Poh had pointed out to me). But the reality is that in cases like Andrew Mallard, that's what people remember and that is very often how sections of the force are judged, particularly if the feeling is that other cases may have been compromised as well. I appreciate the opportunity to even up the ledger and will do the best I can with the time I've got to do that.'

Amongst carefully worded police-speak, Paul Ferguson is a breath of fresh air. 'I've gotta say straight up,' he tells me, 'that I'm not talking to you to save anyone's arse. I'm blunt, and I tell it like I see it.' Now based in the Kimberley as a superintendent, Ferguson was surprised by the phone call a few days earlier from police hierarchy asking him to contact me. 'I wanted to talk to you eight months ago,' I tell him, 'but I was warned there was no way you would speak to me. Weren't you informed?' He is taken aback. 'No. Never heard anything about that. I never knew you were writing a book on Claremont. We courted the media for help all the time. It defies logic that we would pull the shutters down now.'

Ferguson is adamant that neither blame nor praise can go to one particular individual in the Claremont case. 'Caporn led Macro through its most critical phase, when the girls were missing and found murdered. But no one person solves a crime or comes to a conclusion. It is a combined effort by a group of people. The evidence draws a picture and people act on that picture.'

***

Months before the CCC handed down its findings into the Mallard case, the five police officers that were stood down early in 2006 – Caporn, Shervill, Brandham, Carter and Emmett – were reinstated. There was no evidence, according to O'Callaghan, of misconduct or corruption by any of them. Amid mounting speculation that the cold-case review would clear Mallard of Pamela Lawrence's murder, the commissioner reminded Western Australians about why they had been stood down in the first place: to avoid a perception they could interfere in any way with the cold-case review. The Corruption and Crime Commission, it appeared, had other ideas. Much to the Western Australia Police's chagrin, officers were gagged from talking about the review findings, and the CCC issued a request to further restrict access by the officers to certain documents and reports.

The reinstatement of Caporn and Shervill was short-lived. They were each put on 'special regional projects' pending the outcome of the CCC findings. 'Special projects' in police terms is often nothing more than a euphemism for 'appearing busy in purgatory'.

The police are circumspect in answering any questions regarding the CCC, refusing to speculate about the hearings or the possible findings. Their assessment is blunt. 'We don't see any relevant connection between the Mallard case and the Macro investigation,' Neil Poh writes to me after passing the questions to Anthony Lee. But the connections are obvious: that some of the same police officers were involved in both investigations and the outcome of the CCC hearings may reflect on their investigative techniques. But there is little point in pushing further: the drawbridge has gone up. I recall what Lee said to me during early conversations in Perth when I asked questions that police do not want to answer. 'We won't be bullied. There is no point being a white knight. It will only get people's back up.' In other words – back off.

Trevor Rimmer, already fed up with the lack of resolution to his daughter's murder, awaits the CCC findings with more than a passing interest. 'We've been told time and again that the cops have done a wonderful job. But it certainly doesn't inspire confidence in us to to see Caporn's name in the CCC list. Maybe everything will be fine when those findings are released, but what if it isn't? How can we be sure about the people who were investigating Jane and the other girls? How can we trust that everything was done exactly the way it should have been, that the wrong people haven't been hounded and the real killer has got away with murder? How can we be sure?'

After much ado, in October 2006 the Special Crime Squad released its cold-case review findings into the murder of Pamela Lawrence. For Andrew Mallard, it spelled complete and long-overdue exoneration. Eliminated as a person of interest in the murder of Pamela Lawrence, the evidence points to Simon Rochford as being her real killer. It also found that Pamela Lawrence's husband, Peter, who found her dying at the jewellery shop, had no part in her murder. The Special Crime Squad, O'Callaghan emphasised, was not tasked with examining the conduct of the officers involved in the original investigation. This is a matter to be considered by the CCC inquiry. Full details of the cold-case review report are to be kept under wraps until the CCC completes its inquiry.

While a beaming Andrew Mallard and a grim Peter Lawrence were issued with apologies, Mallard's lawyers renewed the cry for compensation.

John Quigley, awaiting the CCC findings in 2007, shakes his head about the Mallard debacle. 'It appeared that Caporn had solved that most difficult murder in about 12 days. This, despite not finding a murder weapon, no forensics, no eye-witnesses, no clues – just a meticulously documented dossier that claimed Mallard did it.' He is in high gear. 'What did they do then? They looked at Macro. Paul Ferguson hasn't made an arrest yet, and the commissioner is under the pump to find the killer. Ferguson is taken off the case and is soon under arrest himself – though they later found nothing against him – and he's replaced by Caporn and Shervill. They have a coterie of people underneath them who are taken up in their vortex, the people they want around them. And the wagon keeps rolling.'