Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

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?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
185 Responses to
Eastman innocent?
TAD 7:35 pm 05 Nov 11

Psst, I’ll tell you who killed Don McKay. (hint, the bloke tried and convicted of his murder)

If you want to know who killed Colin Winchester, I can tell you that one as well.

mareva 6:55 pm 05 Nov 11

The people who think he dun it, you’ve got nothing left. The conviction was a joke. You Wait and see if the appeal is allowed. It will be. Wait and see if the conviction is quashed. It will be.

creative_canberran said :

WillowJim said :

I just can’t understand how anyone – cop or not – would be ready to sneer at new evidence like this.

What new evidence?

This is evidence:
“Eastman bought a Stirling rifle fitted with a telescopic sight from Geoffrey Bradshaw on February 10, 1988. He returned the gun, but not the sight, later in the day. He said he smashed the sight and threw it in a bin. At the time of the purchase, he had parked his car out of sight and gave Bradshaw a false name and address.

Three days later, he bought a Ruger rifle from James Lenaghan. He asked if he could buy it without a licence and again parked out of sight. Some time later — Eastman said it was one or two months later — he placed the Ruger and 46 rounds of Stinger ammunition, both in a gunbag, in a drain under the Old Federal Highway. These were found by a member of the public on May 1 and handed to police.”

Normal people do not go around buying rifles under false identities. Normal people do not buy guns illegally then stuff them under a public road.

The fact that a school teacher may have borrowed his car sometime in the 80s to carry a weapon is inconsequential given Eastman was obviously locked and loaded enough times himself.

And let’s be honest, Jack Waterford is the last person who should be spouting criticism at others given the dying paper he presides over.

1. re the evidence you cite, look at the process by which it was obtained and tendered before you assume it’s reliable (hint: it’s not);
2. “normal”? (a) Eastman was insane, so no probably not normal (b) abnormality is not an element of murder.
3. your comments about the journo are of zero relevance to Eastman’s guilt or non guilt.

Wait for the appeal. My money is on the jury conviction being quashed and Eastman walking free. The conviction was a joke and everyone knows it. Enough is enough.

I-filed 5:54 pm 05 Nov 11

Kuku said :

1. MacKay died in 1977
2. The AFP came into being in 1979
3. In the 1980’s and 1990’s there were no undercover police. The AFP had a policy of not having UC during this time.
4. The entire the AFP knew? Get real.

1. And? – yes, 30+ years ago.
2. And? – the “investigation” into McKay’s death was and still is “unsolved” (publicly)
3. And? – maybe not technically labelled “undercover” – but a very shadowy character, whose role in the AFP was unclear. Same character has more recently (early 2000s) been on assignation in the Middle East with a rather clumsy alibi [his partner referred to “taking the opportunity to live overseas (in the Middle East!) after “winning some money”]
4. All right then, “anyone in the AFP who should be in the know, would have been in the know”.

buzz819 5:04 pm 05 Nov 11

Kuku said :

I-filed said :

I have always had a very uncomfortable gut feeling about Eastman’s conviction – knowing how corrupt the police are. One of the nastiest people I’ve ever come across is an AFP undercover police officer whose then-teenage daughter told me once that he knows exactly who murdered Donald McKay in Griffith 30+ years ago. The entire AFP knows, apparently, and I’m not privy to why that information is kept quiet. The Griffith connection with the Winchester suspects from Bungendore has always had me concerned that Eastman was a fall guy. Of course the AFP could stitch him up. I think the truth is yet to out re Eastman. Clearly he’s an unpopular troubled and difficult individual with a flawed personality – just the kind of person who will alienate his legal reps etc and annoy the judiciary. Prime candidate for a travesty of justice.

1. MacKay died in 1977
2. The AFP came into being in 1979
3. In the 1980’s and 1990’s there were no undercover police. The AFP had a policy of not having UC during this time.
4. The entire the AFP knew? Get real.

But… On Underbelly….

Kuku 4:24 pm 05 Nov 11

I-filed said :

I have always had a very uncomfortable gut feeling about Eastman’s conviction – knowing how corrupt the police are. One of the nastiest people I’ve ever come across is an AFP undercover police officer whose then-teenage daughter told me once that he knows exactly who murdered Donald McKay in Griffith 30+ years ago. The entire AFP knows, apparently, and I’m not privy to why that information is kept quiet. The Griffith connection with the Winchester suspects from Bungendore has always had me concerned that Eastman was a fall guy. Of course the AFP could stitch him up. I think the truth is yet to out re Eastman. Clearly he’s an unpopular troubled and difficult individual with a flawed personality – just the kind of person who will alienate his legal reps etc and annoy the judiciary. Prime candidate for a travesty of justice.

1. MacKay died in 1977
2. The AFP came into being in 1979
3. In the 1980’s and 1990’s there were no undercover police. The AFP had a policy of not having UC during this time.
4. The entire the AFP knew? Get real.

I-filed 3:43 pm 05 Nov 11

krats said :

Felix the Cat said :

I-filed said :

One of the nastiest people I’ve ever come across is an AFP undercover police officer whose then-teenage daughter told me once that he knows exactly who murdered Donald McKay in Griffith 30+ years ago.

As if the guy is going to tell his teenage daughter such a crucial bit of information – even if he suppoosedly did know.

“Pillow Talk”

I didn’t say he told her – I said she knew. She may have overheard – exceptionally intelligent young person, likely to have had it assumed that she wouldn’t have known what they were talking about. She would have had no reason to inflate the topic in a conversation with me.

krats 3:31 pm 05 Nov 11

Felix the Cat said :

I-filed said :

One of the nastiest people I’ve ever come across is an AFP undercover police officer whose then-teenage daughter told me once that he knows exactly who murdered Donald McKay in Griffith 30+ years ago.

As if the guy is going to tell his teenage daughter such a crucial bit of information – even if he suppoosedly did know.

“Pillow Talk”

Felix the Cat 3:06 pm 05 Nov 11

I-filed said :

One of the nastiest people I’ve ever come across is an AFP undercover police officer whose then-teenage daughter told me once that he knows exactly who murdered Donald McKay in Griffith 30+ years ago.

As if the guy is going to tell his teenage daughter such a crucial bit of information – even if he suppoosedly did know.

The Frots 3:04 pm 05 Nov 11

Hmmmm.

Firstly, have they located the actual firearm used in the killing? Serious question – I didn’t they actually had the firearm even after a nation-wide search.

Secondly, if there is new information (including a sworn affidavit apparently), then lets see it. Some in the legal arena have always thought there was a ‘smell’ about the case and indeed some in the AFP have been split over the conviction.

I-filed 2:19 pm 05 Nov 11

I have always had a very uncomfortable gut feeling about Eastman’s conviction – knowing how corrupt the police are. One of the nastiest people I’ve ever come across is an AFP undercover police officer whose then-teenage daughter told me once that he knows exactly who murdered Donald McKay in Griffith 30+ years ago. The entire AFP knows, apparently, and I’m not privy to why that information is kept quiet. The Griffith connection with the Winchester suspects from Bungendore has always had me concerned that Eastman was a fall guy. Of course the AFP could stitch him up. I think the truth is yet to out re Eastman. Clearly he’s an unpopular troubled and difficult individual with a flawed personality – just the kind of person who will alienate his legal reps etc and annoy the judiciary. Prime candidate for a travesty of justice.

creative_canberran 2:17 pm 05 Nov 11

WillowJim said :

I just can’t understand how anyone – cop or not – would be ready to sneer at new evidence like this.

What new evidence?

This is evidence:
“Eastman bought a Stirling rifle fitted with a telescopic sight from Geoffrey Bradshaw on February 10, 1988. He returned the gun, but not the sight, later in the day. He said he smashed the sight and threw it in a bin. At the time of the purchase, he had parked his car out of sight and gave Bradshaw a false name and address.

Three days later, he bought a Ruger rifle from James Lenaghan. He asked if he could buy it without a licence and again parked out of sight. Some time later — Eastman said it was one or two months later — he placed the Ruger and 46 rounds of Stinger ammunition, both in a gunbag, in a drain under the Old Federal Highway. These were found by a member of the public on May 1 and handed to police.”

Normal people do not go around buying rifles under false identities. Normal people do not buy guns illegally then stuff them under a public road.

The fact that a school teacher may have borrowed his car sometime in the 80s to carry a weapon is inconsequential given Eastman was obviously locked and loaded enough times himself.

And let’s be honest, Jack Waterford is the last person who should be spouting criticism at others given the dying paper he presides over.

Tooks 2:14 pm 05 Nov 11

mareva said :

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

Exactly. The amount of people who have said rubbish like, even if he didn’t do it he deserves to be in there, is sickening. Consider that he really didn’t do it – well if it was me I’d be spinning out, personally.

Tooks “the mountain of other evidence” was equally circumstantial.

So what. Circumstantial or not, the evidence was compelling. Most people who go on about conspiracy theories and suggest that the dozens of police involved in the investigation were corrupt and framed Eastman, know bugger all about the case and haven’t even bothered doing any basic reading about the evidence in question.

WillowJim 1:37 pm 05 Nov 11

Well, maybe you were involved in that trial, Tooks, and know it well. I wasn’t, but I know Waterford covered the trial as a reporter. So I assume he was being factual when he wrote:

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.

I just can’t understand how anyone – cop or not – would be ready to sneer at new evidence like this.

mareva 1:14 pm 05 Nov 11

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

Exactly. The amount of people who have said rubbish like, even if he didn’t do it he deserves to be in there, is sickening. Consider that he really didn’t do it – well if it was me I’d be spinning out, personally.

Tooks “the mountain of other evidence” was equally circumstantial.

Tooks 12:28 pm 05 Nov 11

Now all Waterford needs to do is discredit the mountain of other evidence and he’s on to something.

1 2 3 13

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site