The Collin Campbell Ross Case PDF

Preview

Summary

assignment on the case allocated to us. we got 98%...

Description

Colin Campbell Ross Georgina Clift (12575041), Fatima Manoun (12566372), Fergus Grey (98131941), Elaine Nguyen (12459412), Gabriel Gregory (12677833)



A summary of the case details

Colin Campbell Ross was a bar owner from Melbourne, who was executed in 1922, for the rape and murder of Alma Tirtschke. The reason this case is so talked about, is that there was evidence that proved that Ross was innocent and in 2008 the Governor of Victoria pardoned Ross and his name was cleared, almost 90 years after he was executed. On December 30th 1921, Alma Tirtschke who was twelve years at the time, was sent by her aunt to collect a package of meat from her uncles butcher shop and take it a short distance to deliver it to a customer. Alma, who was known to be dependable and obedient failed to return home from the errand that should have taken no longer than 15 minutes. Alma's grandmother had become extremely worried and reported her missing to the police. Her family searched for her throughout the entire night but could not find her. Her naked body was later found the next morning, near the address Alma had been sent to. She had been raped and strangled. (Blanco, 2008) Investigations revealed that Alma had been last seen alive between 2:30 and 3:00 pm on the afternoon she disappeared. Numerous men were interviewed about the incident, including Colin Campbell Ross. He described seeing a girl matching Alma's description, outside his shop. Police were convinced that he killed Alma despite the fact that he was cooperating with the police and also the fact that his description of events matched that of the several other witnesses who had also seen Alma. He was then arrested for Alma's murder on the 12th of January 1922. Ross was no stranger to the police, he had previously been charged with using threatening words and carrying firearms without permission. He had proposed to his partner in 1920, and when she refused his proposal he withdrew a gun, followed her and continued to threaten her until she promised to meet him later on that day. She of course had contacted the police instead. He was sentenced to 14 days imprisonment, along with a 12-month good behavior bond, and was fined for carrying the firearm. (Blanco, 2008) In 1921, another altercation arose between Ross and the police, which involved Colin being charged with armed robbery. These two incidents made the police familiar with Colin Campbell Ross and to them it was enough to convince them that he was capable of the rape and murder of a young girl. The only forensic evidence that was produced by the prosecution, was hairs found on a blanket that were compared to Alma's hair. The hairs were analyzed by Charles Price, who had little previous experience in the new field of forensic science which lead to him making very contradicting statements about the evidence. The judge refused to allow the evidence to be examined by a more qualified person, even after Ross' barrister protested. The jury found Ross guilty and he was sentenced to death by hanging.

Ross' barrister, Thomas Brennan, remained certain of Ross' innocence at stayed fighting to attempt to save Ross from execution. A letter had come for Ross from a man who admitted that he had been the one to kill Alma, despite the fact that he was consumed by guilt he was not willing to come forward as it will bring grief and disappointment to his family. The man remained anonymous in the letter so it was impossible to track him down, especially since the letter was sent the day before Colin was set to be executed. Brennan remained determined to clear Colin's name, even after his death. All his attempts failed. Many years later, in 1993, a former school teacher named Kevin Morgan became very interested in Ross' case and began to research the events surrounding the murder and the execution. In 1998 after much struggle, Morgan managed to get a DNA test on the hair samples from the case. The Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine and the forensics division of the Australian Federal Police both found that the two lots of hair (Alma's hair and the hair found in Colin's house) did not come from the same person. (Blanco, 2008) Therefore, completely disproving the most relevant evidence presented at Colin Ross' trial. Finally on the 27th of May 2008 Colin Campbell Ross was pardoned and his name was cleared, the first example of a pardon for a judicially executed person in Australia.



A summary of the key forensic evidence that were presented in Court

It is important to be aware, when assessing the evidence provided in this case, that any recourses recounting the facts of the original case and trial existent today are relying upon contemporary sources other than the official transcripts of the trial as they have been lost during their 80 years of storage. The primary recourse used in this summary of evidence has been the Australasian Legal Information Institute (Austlii), and their recourses include the contemporary; accounts of the Argus Newspaper 1922, the record of the original coronial inquest, the prosecution brief in 1922 and finally a book, published in the same year Ross was executed (1922), by his defense barrister Thomas Cornelius Brennan who became obsessed with the case after it was lost. The material of all sources is largely consistent with one another. (Teague et al. 2008) The Majority of the Evidence in the case of Collin Ross is immaterial evidence provided by the prosecution. This evidence primarily consists of witness statements, some of which are the circumstantial evidence provided in the statements of people placing either the victim Alma Tirschke or the accused Mr. Ross in and around the wine saloon and the Eastern Arcade on the evening of the event. Specifically, these are the depositions of David Alberts, claiming have had a minor interaction with Mr. Ross in the eastern arcade between 7.00 and 7.45 pm, and Alexander Olson stating he observed Mr. Ross near the arcade at around 9.00 pm. Aside from these pieces of evidence which merely imply the existence of the fact and Mr. Ross’ location in the vicinity, the bulk of the Witness statements relied upon by the prosecution are more substantial. These statements consist of the depositions of Olive Maddox; a prostitute and frequenter of Ross’ saloon, Ivy Mathews; a barmaid at the saloon employed prior to the incident and Sydney Harding; an inmate at the Melbourne Gaol serving a sentence and awaiting the trial for his crimes of burglary. The reason for these testimonies being considered of more substance and to be more damning than the previously mentioned circumstantial evidence is due to these three witnesses claiming that in their interactions with the accused, Mr. Ross had personally admitted to his involvement in the murder of Alma Tirschke. Ms Maddox claims to have been in the saloon at 5.05pm on the night of the crime and to have seen a girl matching the description of Alma Tirschke in a small side room

consuming alcohol. Both Ivy Mathews and Sydney Harding claim to have received an undeniable confession of the killing from Mr. Ross in person on different occasions. Mathews states that Mr. Ross told her the very next day; “I pressed round her with my hands. I did not mean to kill her; but it was my passion that did it.”. Similarly, Harding tells of Ross’ confession while in prison on the 23 rd of January 1922 where Ross disclosed more intricate details of his whereabouts after he murdered Alma Tirschke as well as admitting his guilt. (Teague et al. 2008) The single material piece of evidence is referred to as “the hair evidence”. On January 12 th during the arrest of Mr. Ross at his home in Footscray, West Melbourne, two Police Investigators Brophy and Piggot were directed to two blankets one ‘grey’ and one ‘brown’. Upon unfolding the blankets Piggot noticed some strands of lightly colored hair. Without further investigation on the scene the blankets were delivered to a Mr. Price, a chemist at the time however not a practising forensic scientist and by no means a hair analysis expert. Prior to this on January 3 rd, Constable Portingale went to Alma’s Body where it was being held before burial and cut of a sample of her hair roughly “six inches from her head” and placed them in an envelope. This sample of Alma’s hair was also delivered to Price. During Mr. Prices’ analysis of the evidence 22 hairs were removed from the blankets and 10 – 12 hairs from the envelope containing Alma’s hair. He noted that all of the samples of hairs ranged in size from 15 inches down to 2.5 with both set having an average of 6.5 inches in length. Price also made the initial observation that the two set of hairs did not match in colour, as the hairs from the blankets taken from the Footscray home were a light auburn colour while the hairs from the head of the deceased were a darker red colour. He also made the observation that they were different in diameter. Mr Price examined them microscopically and noted that they had a similar coarseness and that when treated with an acid they both produced the same white section he called a ‘pith’. With these differences and similarities in mind Price was able to conclude that it was possible, but not probable that the hair samples had different origins. The defence tried to challenge this by requesting that Price be called back to examine the hairs from; Gladys Wain (friend of Ross), Carolin Ross (spouse to brother of Mr Ross) and her sister Alice Valentine. The defence stated that all of these woman had sat on the blankets days prior to the murder. This was dismissed quickly as Price confirmed that the hairs taken from the heads of these women did not microscopically match the hairs form the body of Alma Tirschke. (Teague et al. 2008) In 1995 interest from researcher Kevin Morgan prompted the DNA analysis of the hair samples at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine which yielded a null result as they concluded that there was insufficient retrievable DNA as well as contaminant DNA from years of mishandling. The Institute did however refer the evidence to an expert in the science of hair analysis Dr James Robertson who stated; “The hairs from all three sources, Tirtschke, Wain and the blanket, were all easily differentiated at the stereo microscopic level based on colouring. This was confirmed at a more detailed microscopic level where there were very clear differences in colour, pigmentation and other features. In my opinion, the hairs recovered from the brown-grey blanket could not have come from the deceased Tirtschke, or from Wain.” This conclusion from Dr Robertson was strongly considered in the reopening of the Ross case. (Teague et al. 2008)



An explanation of issue/s that arose from the forensic evidence presented

There were a variety of issues that arose from the forensic evidence that were discovered and presented in the case of Colin Campbell Ross convicted for murders. Some, which includes the evidence, was collected under pretenses, while others were being examined by techniques that were not validated. Witnesses’ statements were one of the main strong evidence that were provided in supporting that Ross was guilty. The witness includes John Harding, Ivy Matthews, Julia Gibson and Olive Maddox testified that Ross had confessed the crime and that he is guilty of murder (Silvester, 2008). However, the judge and jury failed to acknowledge whether these statements as well as the witnessed were reliable to produce an honest statement. They were unknown to the benefits that these witnesses were to receive for giving unreliable testimonies, as well as their personal background. In which, John Harding was convicted for perjury, Olive Maddox was a prostitute and Julia Gibson was a fortune-teller. After Ross was convicted as guilty, Maddox, Matthews and Julia Gibson were rewarded with money, and Harding sentence was reduced. This evidently shows that the witnesses have presented false testimony, and the judge and jury have failed to acknowledge the reliability of these witnesses and their statements. Besides from the witness’ statement that prosecutors have presented, the defense also presented Ross’ alibi witnesses, who verified that he was heading home on a tram and was at work (J. Silvester, 2008). However, this information was not presented until almost a decade after Ross’ death. Reliable witnesses that had been kept from court at the time of the trial made these statements. One of the witness’ statements was not acknowledged due to the police failing to collect essential evidence of finding the suspect. During the trial before Ross was convicted of murder he had an alibi but his behavior and lack of witnesses at the trial have effectively caused the defense to weaken (J. Lack and K. Morgan, 2005). Another issue that arose from the evidence presented was the lack of expertise in the forensic science field as well as the technique used was not validated. Charles Price was the chemist at the time, which had little experience in the forensic field, were to examine the hair strand of Alma Tirtschke and the hair strand found on Ross’ blanket with a microscope (Headsman, 2014). He examined and compared the hair, which concludes the differences of the hair strands, which the one found on Ross’ blanket is light auburn color whilst Tirtschke’s hair was dark red, and both had different thickness. Although Charles Price can observe the colors and the thickness of hair, but DNA and other factors such as hair compositions or chemicals cannot be determined by just examining both of the hair samples under the microscope. He also testified that the hair found on Ross’ blanket would have been from a regular visitor. It is obvious that there were no strong evidence supporting the hair found in Ross’ house was Alma Tirtschke’s, but by stating what he personally belief, which he believes both of the hair strands were from the victim (J. Silvester, 2008), can effectively influence the jury to misunderstanding that was being scientifically proven, that the hair strands were from the same scalp. Moreover, as a chemist he possibly have no access to forensic science equipment and lack of knowledge of forensic techniques that could be utilize to examine the hair strands in details and differentiate them. Price only used the microscope to examined the hair strands and have concluded with his presented result, and have not utilized any other validated technique to obtain a validated result. Further tests and examination could have been carried out (which were testified by experts) by forensic science expertise for instance, chemicals in the hair strand, compositions of the hair, available DNA for testing, and etc. This demonstrates one of the major issues that arose from the evidence presented.



Analysis of the issue(s)

The case of Colin Campbell Ross was the first case in Victoria's legal history to receive a posthumous pardon. This was a revolutionary case by which no other similar prior cases occurred, and marked the first major failing by the Victorian government to incorrectly sentence an innocent man to death. Many aspects such as ross’s previous conviction, his possible association with an armed robbery at his saloon, intense pressing for a conviction by the media, and the second guessing of effectiveness of the Victorian police, all led to a very bias approach to ross’s innocence. There are two main failures by the Victorian government that went underseen and ultimately led to the wrongful hanging of ross. Firstly, the day of the sentencing many witnesses were called in to attest whether ross was guilty, and despite many lay bystanders producing witness reports that ross at been tending the bar the whole night when Alma Tirtschke was murdered, many other statements by a convicted perjurer in jail (John Harding), an enemy of Ross (Ivy Matthews), and a local gypsy (Julia Gibson), all pointed the finger towards ross stating that he had personally told each of them that he had murdered Alma. The second wrongdoing in court was the choice of Victorian police to confide in a local chemist (Charles Price), to accurately distinguish between hairs found in Ross’s bed and the hairs taken from the corpse of alma. Price originally stated that he has analysed both hairs under a microscope and that the hairs neither matched in colour or thickness, but due to the long and intense trial, and large societal interest in the case, Price must have been overwhelmed with pressure before finally contradicting his original conclusion and stating the hairs had been “derived from the scalp of one and same person” (Morgan K, 2012). Ross was later sentenced to a brutal death by a new experimental noose. An example of a case where the suspect was wrongly accused in a similar fashion is the case of Steven Avery. Avery was wrongly convicted for the rape and attempted murder of Penny Beerntsen at a lake Michigan beach in 1985. Like Ross, Avery both had prior convictions (possibly creating bias against him), yet also similar to ross he had an alibi proven by a time stamped store receipt and a whopping 16 lay bystander witness reports stating he was 40 miles away at the time of the crime. Where the cases differ is when the victim Penny had picked Avery as her attacker when presented with many photos and live videos of possible perpetrators (this may have been due to the crime happening at night, or due to eyewitness misidentification* {to continue}). This strongly perceived evidence against Avery, despite the large amount of defence witnesses, still led to Avery being convicted and he served 18 years of his 32 year sentences after being completely exonerated in 2003. DNA testing (not available at the time of Avery’s original trial) proved that another man Gregory Allen, an already convicted rapist, had been the one who committed the crime. Overall the two cases of Avery and Ross are similar in the manner that they were both wrongly accused by false witnesses/victim and it was DNA evidence that had cleared them. Another notable difference is that Ross was pardoned whilst Avery was exonerated. This is an important difference as being pardoned only means that Ross was forgiven for his crime whilst being exonerated means that Avery was completely unburdened from all his charges. This point is relevant in Ross's case as the family of the victim, Alma Tirtschke, believe that the pardon was not enough and that he should have been exonerated. Convicting a suspect and later exonerating them based on DNA evidence that proves their innocent is not a very common issue in court. This predicament has happened in many past cases both here in Australia and also in the USA, but on the scale of success to failure rates, it is a rarity and forensic

evaluation usually is highly accurate. A large factor that needs to be considered is the bias towards both victims with a previous criminal history (theft/robbery charges in early adulthood shouldn’t be relevant in murder cases), and bias inflicted by overwhelming external sources such as the medias opinions and also societies opinions (no cases small or large should be subjected to influence from the media or society). Taking away an innocent person's freedom by putting them in jail or worse killing them on death row plays a significantly negative role on all aspects of society. Not only are years spent in prison lost and taxpayers dollars wasted for the wrongly accused person, but also the families of these individuals are heavily affected. The judges, jury, prosecutor and even the defence are also affected as they all played a role in sending an innocent person to prison. This wrong-doing may affect their subconscious and they are forever burdened by their mistakes and for everyone but the jury it shows a lack of professionalism as these people of the court failed to do their jobs correctly. The impact of these cases on forensic scientists is vast. Charles price the forensic scientist in charge of distinguishing between the hairs involved in Ross’s cases, had actually determined an accurate analysis in his opening conclusion, and despite being only a trained chemist and not a forensic chemist, he used a plausible method of cross co...