Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Eastman innocent?

By johnboy 5 November 2011 185

Jack Waterford in the Canberra Times is raising the prospect that the chain of circumstantial evidence, linking the unlikely kook David Eastman to one of the world’s highest profile police assasinations, might be cracking:

The rifle, which belonged to a retired schoolteacher and former friend of Eastman, could explain something Eastman has never been able to explain: why the boot of his car contained microscopic specks of gunshot residue, including residue from the same type of ammunition thought to have been used to kill Mr Winchester outside his Deakin home.

The schoolteacher has sworn an affidavit saying that he had borrowed the car from Eastman to go rabbit shooting during the late 1980s. Eastman had not known that the teacher was going shooting, and that, in doing so, he had put the gun in the car boot.

Eastman was convicted from a strong chain of circumstantial evidence, much of which turned in a controversial, but at the time uncontested, set of linkages and deductions made from forensic findings about gunshot residue.

You’re not paranoid if they really are out to get you.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
185 Responses to
Eastman innocent?
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
cranky 6:40 pm 12 Jun 12

Today, finally, Lindy Chamberlain.

Tomorrow, with luck, David Eastman.

EandIprefix 10:39 am 06 Dec 11

Those who have the relevant case experience know that they could have made an even stronger case, but you cannot fit so much into a case in the time allowed: I am curious if Eastman’s claim of a Mafia hit would have backfired on him like the prostitute alibi did?

fgzk 9:10 am 01 Dec 11

Who did it aside, I am now confused over another aspect of the investigation and what it means. Tim Priest in his book “Enemies of the State” has a chapter entitled “Under the radar: The Winchester case”, where he comments on the removal of the highly regarded Commander Loyd Worthy from the case. Chris Masters on the Page One program made claims, from an undisclosed source, that a police officer leading the investigation was “now a suspect”. Loyd Worthy eventually sued Masters in a civil court and won. The bit I don’t get is the chapter then goes on to talk about Masters involvement with the NSW police “Commissioners Advisory Group”. Should the chapter have been titled “Under the radar: Chris Masters”?

What is Tim Priest trying to imply. Is he saying it was a media beat up or part of a controlled release of information? Has the unnamed source ever been named? What effect did the removal of Loyd Worthy have on the investigation? Why remove him? Why claim he was a suspect? Was this just Police politics playing out on TV?

Lookout Smithers 12:52 pm 19 Nov 11

Would anyone just like to say,” I have not seen the brief of evidence”, or “I wasn’t there so I can’t be certain” ” I only know what I have read in the news”? If you have read the judgement, then accept it based on what was presented. Of course there is always evidence that never makes court, for a whole range of reasons. Not necessarily in a bad way either. This is what is called process. If legally there is avenue to hear something, then it should be heard. Lets just settle.

HenryBG 4:30 pm 17 Nov 11

fgzk said :

Canberra Creative “Check the court records, he has over 25 cases to his name, Eastman has no credibility left.”

Ive always thought it was interesting that Eastman being an accomplished serial pest with the paperwork would switch MO and use a gun. Only once.

The prosecution made a lot of noise over the fact Eastman threatened to kill Winchester.

The fact is, he threatened to shoot half of Canberra’s public service, criminal justice, and legal fraternities.
But he never shot any of the rest of us – all *we* got were tedious, long-winded, insane, abusive ranting on the phone, in letters, and for the most unlucky amongst us, in person.

But nobody ever got shot by him, EXCEPT BY SOME STRANGE COINCIDENCE, he “shot” the one guy in Canberra who had also been threatened with death by a Calabrian mafia well-known for frequently making good on its threats.
AND, by another STRANGE COINCIDENCE, the cops were never able to present any actual evidence for Eastman having been in Winchester’s driveway with a gun on the evening Winchester was shot, although they did have to bury and/or ignore a fair bit of evidence which conflicted with their confabulated narrative.

I don’t even have to engage the conscious part of my brain for the analytic solution to this proposal to present itself.

As for the part of vg’s brain which gives him his analysis on this one – I’d suggest it’s the same part of the brain responsible for people giving in to peer-group pressure, groupthink and witch-burnings.


Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site