Posted on 12/13/2005 11:37:13 PM PST by nickcarraway
POLICE always suspected David Graham Fleming of raping and murdering 21-year-old Johanne Hatty in Neutral Bay in February 1984, but never had enough evidence to prove it.
Twenty years later, and with great advances in DNA technology, the newly established unsolved homicide squad revived the cold case.
They tracked down Fleming, by then a one-legged pensioner living in a small town near Warrnambool, Victoria, but the law did not allow a DNA sample to be taken for a crime allegedly committed in another state.
During two days of surveillance he did not leave his house, so getting the DNA sample from a dropped cigarette butt seemed out of the question.
So police decided to trick Fleming into providing a sample. A local officer, who had previously spoken to him about trouble with a drover, went to his house.
"It's getting to that time of year again and I want to be prepared if [the drover] comes back this way," he told Fleming. "Would you be able to draw a map of the area where he was camped?"
He produced a notebook and Fleming started to sketch the map, explaining it as he did so.
As he spoke, droplets of saliva dropped onto the paper: the 52-year-old had just provided the DNA sample police needed. It matched semen samples taken from Ms Hatty's body with a likelihood of one in 39 million.
But that "trickery" might yet confound any prosecution.
Fleming's barrister, Richard Button, SC, challenged the officer in charge, Detective Sergeant Ashley Bryant, during Fleming's committal hearing yesterday. "Did you think at the time that it was legal for this trick to be played on the defendant?" he asked.
Sergeant Bryant replied: "His personal liberty had not been infringed upon. If there had been, it would be of a minor nature. The outcome would certainly outweigh the … act."
The court was also told that Fleming, who lived 500 metres from where Ms Hatty was murdered, was a suspect because he had been imprisoned in Queensland for sexual assault.
A month after Ms Hatty's murder, Fleming was suspected of assaulting a 66-year-old woman from Northbridge, and in May 1984 he was charged with assaulting and robbing another woman.
But in another potential hiccup, some evidence relating to these two inquiries has since gone missing, Downing Centre Local Court was told.
The hearing continues.
Ah, the old DNA trick. Works every time.
They'll still go for entrapment to suppress the evidence.
The officer just asked for a map, the murderer provided the spit sample of his own accord.
What the heck is a drover?
My dictionary says, "someone who drives a herd ; herdsman".
Wasn't the intent of the exercise to gain a DNA sample? If so it was an unwarranted search. I think the police may be on shaky ground.
Not necessarily. The police were invited to come inside and the suspect voluntarily met with the officer. The DNA sample was not requested, the suspect provide it on his own. There is no invasion of his rights.
Undercover operations include the officer being able to provide a front to get access to the criminal.
What it all comes down to though will be the political leanings of the court and appeals court that hears the case.
I look at it as good preparation and planning by the police. The cover was provided and the story got him access to the suspect. Nothing illegal about that.
The moral of this story: don't drool on maps.
I couldn't say what the rules on something like this are. This happened in Australia. They don't necessarily have the same rules.
I was under the impression that today drover refers to someone who drives an OTR truck filled w/livestock to the equivalent of a sales barn or slaughterhouse.
I always took the term to mean someone who had to do this driving for a long ways.
Could be wrong. It takes me several days of immersion to automatically understand a strong Australian accent.
He sure had a hard time coming up with anything that sounded like "yes" in answer to the "did you think it was legal" question.
Where is the search? The officers did not search him to obtain a sample. They asked for a map, which luckily included spittle which contained his DNA.
I know a former pastor of a humongous Australian Church who did a missionary gig in America back in the 90's.
This fellow grew up in the outback and used to be a cattle driver (drover). He'd hire out to landowners to drive their cattle to market for a cut of the herd, just like the old American West.
The custom at the time (40's-50's) was to have cattle you ate along the way included as your "expenses". He always hunted so he could save his "expenses" to be sold at market along with his cut of the herd.
He had some wild stories about travelling on horse in the middle of the outback.
Let me see if I've got this straight, the police have suspected this chap for over 20 years while in the meantime he has lost a leg, his ability to earn a living, he's a solitary heavy smoker, he drools when he studies and now the police sceme to collect his dribbles to imprison him where his state pension will be traded for a hospital bed; sounds like a good use for law enforcement funds to me.
For rape and murder? Heck, yes!
The capital of Drelaware?
What the heck is a drover?
My dictionary says, "someone who drives a herd ; herdsman".
Mine says.
Grammaw needed to go to the Dr so I drover.
It's questions like this that make the law interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.