Pardon Me:
The Anatomy Of An Australian Political Trial.
James Saleam. January 27 1999


Section Four

Michael White:
The Threat In The Police Cells;
The Explosion Of Credibility.





- Featuring New Evidence Led At The Appeal.

- With New Evidence Obtained In Support Of This Application.

When Michael White appeared to give evidence at the Committal of Saleam and Smith (December 4, 5, 6 1989), his conduct triggered a chain of events indicative of the tactics of Special Branch criminal conspiracy. The Committal Transcript shows White failed to give the anticipated Prosecution version of events; rather he declined to testify upon the grounds of "self incrimination", said that he had been affected by "drugs and alcohol" on the night of the crime and that his Statements had been "worked out" with the Special Branch detectives. He held to this view over December 5 and December 6 1989 despite aggressive examination as a "hostile witness".

I have maintained that White's position at the Committal reflected in various ways - the truth. His conduct was a brave act of a young man who had been threatened by Special Branch into testifying falsely and who, when confronted with having to commit Perjury, on this occasion at least, stood up to the blandishments of the State.

However, when White came to the Trial, he adhered not only to the Prosecution version of events, but had an explanation (as had been laid out in a Statement made on 18 June 1990) for his conduct at the Committal. He explained that he would have testified in accordance with his Statements had it not been for a threat he received on December 5 whilst in the police cells at Central Police Station; an unknown prisoner from Long Bay - supposedly an agent of mine - had threatened him and he opted for silence. The Prosecutor in her Address to the Jury, explained this as understandable, and his repeated Perjury as a response to fear. He had come to the Saleam Trial without any immunities said Prosecutor Davenport, and was now telling the truth.

The Defence tore into White's cacophony of lies. Counsel Brewer was hailed up by Judge Ducker at one point:

"What is the point of this cross-examination when the witness himself says it's lies and he admits it's lies... You suggested to him what he said before the Magistrate was correct" (T203)

And indeed that was the situation. What was said before the Magistrate contained more of the truth than the rehearsed rubbish given at the trial. The adversary system was never meant for monstrous fabrications, for shifts of evidence on such a scale, on twistings of story line and concealment of the arrangements between Police and their witnesses. An analysis of the evidence at the Trial reveals a story which was stretching credulity; it was suggestive of fabrication. This analysis will be followed by an assessment of material raised at the Appeal and comment upon the inadequacy of the Appeal process to assess that evidence in natural justice terms. Then further material is presented.

(a) White agreed that prior to the December 1989 Saleam/Smith Committal, he became aware of a real disparity between his Sentence (3 years imprisonment with 2 years non-parole) and Frost's Sentence (18 months periodic-detention). He agreed he was "annoyed" at this, but claimed this did not affect the evidence he gave at the Committal (T195,208). White did Appeal that Sentence and on May 10 1990, it was reduced to a 2 years imprisonment/12 months non-parole penalty. Interestingly, White lodged the Appeal papers in the same week as his evidence at the Committal.

It is likely that when White appeared at the Committal he was angry at the Special Branch and retaliated against them; he had co-operated and had received nothing. Even so, the scope of his evidence seems to go beyond that also, and implies he did not wish to falsely accuse others.

(b) White agreed that after he had given an exculpatory Record of Interview to Detective Ireland on 30 June 1989, he gave him an oral confession to the Funde crime, but he did not implicate Saleam or Smith in the offence (Re-Examination T222). He confirmed he had committed the offence with Frost but did not name other offenders. White said he thought he was "doing the right thing" and that he also did not wish to get in any strife. (T222)

Unlike Frost therefore, White's first confession was absolutely inconsistent with his later evidence. It was a significant prior inconsistent version of the crime.

Whilst it may not be unreasonable for "accomplice" evidence to have followed this pattern, it has a disturbing aspect: White's first confession was a version of events consistent with his evidence at the Saleam/Smith Committal. Summed together, White's conduct at the Committal should be viewed as the deliberate behaviour of a man who did not wish to falsely accuse other men of a crime in which they were not involved.

(c) White was revealed as a man with peculiar logic-faculties. He was drawn to his 12 July statement which implicated Saleam and Smith. He explained away his previously un-cooperative behaviour as a product of "fear of reprisals" from Saleam/National Action. White admitted his father told him to say that. (T211-213)

Reasonably the 12 July statement had been composed to curry favour with the police. Upon this logic, White was not beyond manufacturing material when the purpose suited him. However, when it was asked of White if he had discussed the threat in the cells with his father, he said he had not wanted to concern him with it; "I didn't really want to put it on him." (T213) At that time, White was about to Appeal his Sentence and logically it would have been a matter of great importance. It may be he did not concern his father with it because the Special Branch had not decided to fabricate this story at that time.

It is clear White was a man who could play a devious game; it is also reasonably the case he had discussed his legal predicament with his father. That he did not discuss the "threat" suggests it did not occur.

(d) The "quality" of the supposed Perjury of December 5/6 1989 should also be examined. It was the Prosecution's case that shortly after being threatened, White was brought into Court to testify. The "Perjury" which followed was deliberate, expansive and persistent. The question has been whether it was a product of very-short-notice invention or whether it was the fruit of forethought. Two sub- questions emerge from the "Perjury":

- White claimed that on the night of the crime he was affected by drugs and alcohol. Given certain peculiarities of White's evidence, that statement should not he held to be necessarily untrue.

- It is well known for prisoner-witnesses to decline to give evidence upon the basis of being affected by "drugs and alcohol". This protects them from being labelled a "dog" (informer) by other prisoners. They can escape the consequences of their "mistaken" Statements with no loss of face with their jail-mates.

Both these possibilities are fairly open upon a review of White's Committal evidence.

The Prosecution's logic suggests White was a man capable of rapid- think invention, and able to maintain his fictions. Bad enough!

It is more reasonable however, to view the supposed Perjury as a product of forethought; it has too deliberate a quality. In that case, White must have had a reason for his actions; it could only be he did not wish to participate in a frame-up.

(e) White agreed he had an opportunity to tell the Magistrate of the intimidation he had allegedly "just" received, but he did not do so. White chose neither to inform the Court on December 5, nor on December 6, when there was no person present to carry on the intimidation. (T206-7)

I also refer to the Committal Transcript 6 December 1989 p.10 ; here White is asked whether any person has spoken him to about the case and White says no.

That White chose not to inform the Court of any threat is not necessarily unbelievable, but rather improbable. However, what was totally ridiculous was the sheer audacity I must have had to have carried out such a flagrant act of subornation.

The prison cells at Central Police Station were a "controlled" environment; after the alleged threat, White could easily have called for Police. It is a matter of fact that a police desk was within metres of the cell (see below for further information about this "Yard") where White was held. I could never have been sure - if I had conspired to threaten White - he might not have availed himself of the police. He could have "fingered" the standover man at once. Alternatively, he could have waited until he was in the body of the Court to make the accusation.

The immediate arrest of such an "agent" would have had dire results for the Saleam/Smith Defence. It would have opened a strong collateral attack upon the Defence case; there was no guarantee such an "agent" might not also have turned Crown Witness and revealed the conspiracy to suborn White.

The Prosecution never said for certain the threat came from an agent working for Saleam/Smith. However it was clear this was the only conclusion the Jury could have drawn. Since outside intervention in the case would be nonsensical it would be a situation where if such a threat was made, it was made by a person acting for Saleam or Smith. White's Statement of 18 June 1990 did suggest the threat came from a prisoner working for Saleam. That was what the Prosecution/Special Branch wanted the Jury to believe.

White had a clear chance to bring down the Defence on December 5 1989 by reporting the threat and seeking protective custody. He made no report.

I submit to the reader: White did not make the report because on balance, as his conduct suggests, there was no threat.

(f) White agreed that he appeared at Central Local Court again on February 2 1990 on a related matter and gave evidence (in the case against Perry John Whitehouse for attempt to pervert the the course of justice). He failed to inform the Magistrate on that date of any prior threat to his person (T209). It was publicly obvious on that date that White was a Prosecution witness in a case relevant to the Saleam/Smith case; it would have been obvious also that (had I been the person behind the earlier subornation) my threat against him had probably failed - because on this occasion he gave the Prosecution version of events against Whitehouse.

White said at the Trial that when he gave that evidence in 1990 he had considered the threat of December 5 1989 was continuing (T219). If he felt he was under threat he had the option to inform the Court - but did not do so. It was also peculiar if he had imagined he was under threat why he would have given Prosecution evidence.

It reasonably follows, that White's behaviour on February 2 1990 was consistent with the contention there never had been any threat in 1989.

(g) White was also Cross-Examined at Trial as to various aspects of his conduct on 2 February 1990 (T209):

Q. Why did you not fess-up on the second of February? Why did you?
A. Because I didn't want to get flogged.
Q. Flogged by whom?
A. By criminals back at the gaol.
Q. You could have asked Ireland for protection, could you not?
A. I didn't want to go on Protection.
Q. Why not?
A. Because I didn't wish to be dog.
Q. You by your own admission were a dog?
A. Well, no one knew that, did they?

The situation endured by informer-witnesses is well known. However, if White was a willing Crown Witness, protection was his option. He did not take it. There is another aspect: White clearly remained in the "main gaol" and deceived other prisoners as to his status as a "dog". This reasonably indicates White was a person able to exercise his talents at falsity.

White was capable of living an untruth. There exists a question as to his general veracity.

(h) White was asked at Trial to attempt an identification of the man who threatened him in Central Police cells. Other than the claim the man had an "Australian" accent, White could not provide a description of the offender nor would he attempt to do so from materials clearly in possession of the Defence (T188-9).

White did limit himself to a person with an Australian accent which is important to the proceedings upon the Appeal and hereafter.

White's refusal to attempt an identification of the person should be taken as an indication that he dared not attempt it. There was never any reason why he should not have tried. His behaviour at the Trial was suggestive of falsity and a collateral proof of the argument that there was never any threat in the police cells.

(i) White was Cross-Examined concerning evidence given on 2 February 1990; he was asked if, after the Saleam/Smith Committal, Detective Ireland had visited him at Parramatta Gaol to discuss his evidence.

White had said two contradictory things: that Ireland had visited him a week or a fortnight after the Committal and that Ireland did not visit him (T191-193). This contradiction was not resolved.

The issue was linked to when it was White supposedly "told" Ireland about the threat of December 5 1989. White appeared to settle on not being able to recall whether he told Ireland prior to the Statement made on 18 June 1990 and it appeared from the evidence it was only on that day he reported the threats.

The evidence was confusing and uncertain. White was keen to repudiate the suggestion of Defence counsel that Ireland had put him up to giving the story of a threat in the cells (T190, 210). However, there was no reason why he should not have been able to remember his dealings with Ireland over so important a question.

There was uncertainty where there should have been none. There was a contradiction which became smoothed out during the evidence. It was suggestive of collusion being covered over.

(j) Under Trial Cross-Examination White agreed that on June 18 1990 ("Yes, I think so") he was told he would not suffer any legal penalty for his refusal to give the Prosecution version of events at the Saleam/Smith Committal (T184).

In a sense therefore, White had an "undertaking" that he would not suffer retribution. His Statement was, from the evidence, made on that basis. Logically, he gave sworn evide about his conduct of December 1989, without fear of a prosecution for Perjury.

White's allegation of subornation was crucial for the Prosecution and no amount of circumlocution can conceal that reality. Crown Prosecutor Davenport misled the Jury in her Final Address when she said White had no immunity and had come to the Trial to tell the truth. In a narrow sense this was true. However, White had made a Statement on 18 June 1990 and received an "undertaking" he would not be prosecuted for supposed "perjury" arising from the Committal. He therefore appeared at Trial as a special class of witness.

The Court of Criminal Appeal cast no comment upon my Submission in this area any more than did the Trial Judge. This area of the preparation of the Prosecution case has remained in shadow.

There was also one disturbing aspect concerning the genesis of the 18 June 1990 Statement. White said he was told he might not have to testify and there was a clear implication that he was told this when he made the 18 June 1990 Statement. Detective Ireland took the State- ment. White had assumed the case was "finished" with (T220).

The Jury was misled as to White's status as a witness. A question as to the credibility of his evidence on the cells threat issue exists if he testified under a variety of compulsion. How White obtained his effective-immunity casts yet another shadow over the behind-the-scenes machinations of the Prosecution. There was a suggestion White was bambouzled into making the Statement of 18 June 1990 which casts a doubt as to its credibility as a Statement of truth; once trapped into having made it, White may have felt forced into Perjury.

(k) White agreed at Trial that, when giving evidence at the Committal, he had used some curious words in discussing his original police Statement which implicated Saleam/Smith. He had said: "I worked the Statement out along with Detective Ireland" (T215). In Re-Examination he maintained this implied only the document was typed by Detectives (T223).

It was even clear at the Trial (and can be confirmed from the Committal Transcript) that White had said the suspicious words just prior to refusing to testify further upon grounds of self-incrimination (T215-218).

A "worked" Statement was a suggestion of criminal conspiracy which gave a meaning to a refusal to testify further for fear of self-incrimination. It suggested why White would have refused to give the Prosecution version of events at the Committal; it would explain the Ireland's desperation to obtain an "explanation" for White's Committal conduct which would reverse the situation.

Any suggestion of a criminal conspiracy in the construction of the Prosecution case ( White had raised this issue at Committal before giving an inane explanation for his words when he appeared at the Trial) casts a doubt upon the worth of the cells threat story.

(l) The Defence produced at Trial (retired) Police Sergeant Lange, the officer in charge at Central Police Cells on December 5/6 1989. The officer explained the layout of Central Police Cells and certain procedures (T338-344). Lange's evidence establishes that an element of uncertainty would exist as to the placement of Prisoners within the complex.

For a threat to have been organized by Saleam or Smith, it would have been necessary for it to have been known that White would be placed in a particular cell with the "agent". The Prosecution has never been able to show how that could have been arranged. It would have been remarkable luck for the plan to have succeeded.

In 1989, and under peculiar circumstances, I had been held as a Protection prisoner; how I could have recruited a "main gaol" prisoner to register the threat would be problematical (and I have always been the "suspect"); how Smith would have organized it was never explained at any point in the tale.

It would be most improbable for Saleam/Smith to have been able to have anticipated the arrangements at Central Police Cells for that day in order for the audacious act of subornation of Michael White to have been organized. No method for the recruitment of the agent is apparant. (I contend such a thing could never be demonstrated if only because no threat was ever made.) It is reasonable to believe White's story was a crafted lie.

(m) Detective Ireland was also Cross-Examined closely as to his role in the prepa ion of evidence on the Cells-threat issue.

Because the 18 June 1990 Statement had been made after the Saleam/ Smith Committal, Ireland's evidence in this area was "new" and the processes of investigating his incredible conduct limited by the adversarial/evidentiary rules which operate in a criminal trial. It was the position this "collateral" question was shunted aside and Ireland was able to easily circumvent interrogation. Only a Judicial Inquiry can draw out the improbabilities of his conduct.

Ireland - unlike White - was certain his witness had told him about the threat of December 5 1989 orally and prior to the making of the 18 June 1990 Statement (T260-261). Ireland agreed he took no further action; he just "accepted what he said" (T261). Ireland agreed he could have established who was in the Central Cells complex on December 5 1989 with White, obtained photographs of these prisoners and requested of White to attempt identification (T262). In Re- Examination Ireland said White had said he could not identify the man: "had I approached any of the men who were the suspects, they would have denied it" (T280).

Trial Judge Ducker intervened at this point and gave Ireland an "amnesty" for this theatre-of-the-absurd conduct. He said:

Q. I suppose another feature of that might be it could also alert various people of the fact that a complaint had been made by Mr. White?
A. That's correct, Your Honour. (T280)

This misbehaviour of a Judge was not objected to though it was pointed out to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Judge had given Ireland an effective grant of leave not to have investigated a most serious offence.

As explained above, the apprehension of the person who committed the act of subornation against Michael White would have been a body blow to any defence of the charges. Not to have ever searched for the offender is the type of conduct which has been labelled corrupt by the Royal Commission Into The NSW Police Service. It is a mockery of police work. It would have been clear to Ireland - after White's appearance against Whitehouse on February 2 1990 - that if Saleam/Smith had organized the earlier threat they must have recognized it had probably misfired. If Ireland's absurd conduct had any credibility, it had none after that date.

Significantly, Ireland did say: "I believe I spoke to all the staff" (T261); "- when I spoke to the cell staff, there was some discussion about the people who were there" (T262). It was clear Ireland had been to Central Police Station and had supposedly made some enquiries. Sergeant Lange could not recall any official enquiries directed to himself (T341-2). If Ireland had "accepted" White's version, his appearance in the cells complex is mysterious - unless of course he was merely examining the ground upon which evidence could be fabricated.

The failure to investigate the alleged threat to Michael White is suspicious to the point of rendering the evidence an absurdity. There was no reason for Ireland not to have investigated such a serious matter. His conduct was consistent with the Defence charge of fabrication and this is resubmitted as the only plausible explanation for Ireland's remiss conduct. Ireland could have investigated the"crime" after White's release from custody if it is allowed that he had worries of revealing his hand. The foolish comments of Judge Ducker compounded the problem with this phase of evidence.

New Evidence At The Appeal.

I opted to lead various pieces of new evidence at the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Court however, rejected the weight of this material while also maintaining it was not "fresh". The issue of "fresh evidence" is not a concern in a natural justice Application and the material shall be reviewed for its content.

(a) I produced the Cells Book of Central Police Station and caused it to be tendered on the Appeal. Michael White had maintained consistently he was threatened by a Prisoner who came in from "Long Bay". I showed there were four Long Bay Prisoners placed in Cell 1 with White - Shane Martz, Peter Malincevski, Peter McKinnon and Michael Portelli. The records also showed three other male prisoners arrived from the Sydney Police Centre; each was bailed from court and reasonably each was a "fresh custody" and could be eliminated from a conspiracy against Michael White; these men also arrived in the complex before the other male prisoners. Necessarily, if there was a conspiracy to suborn White, only the four named Long Bay prisoners could be considered relevant. The unimpeachable Cells Book is a key to the demolition of the Prosecution allegation.

(b) I produced two of the Long Bay men as witnesses on the Appeal - Michael Portelli and Peter Malincevski (Appeal Transcript June 11 1993 p 2-16). Portelli denied any acquaintance with me or any knowledge of the case; he said he heard no threat on December 5 1989. Peter Malincevski deposed in a similar vein; in his case, he registered a strong Macedonian accent. White had claimed a man with an "Australian accent" had given the threat. Malincevski could also be eliminated from the equation.

In Judgment (CCAJ 24) the Court of Criminal Appeal naturally stated that these men could not be expected to affirm having made or heard such a threat. The Court also indicated my evidence was incomplete, as the other two men were not called to give evidence. I could not have helped that.

I had been in custody for over two years and had been released from prison on a special grant of Bail some 16 days before. However, the Prosecution lottery was stuck with the four "suspects" one of whom hardly fits the bill. If such a threat was made, only one in three persons could be the culprit. In producing Portelli and Malincevski I have narrowed the field. I note that at the Appeal the Crown failed to produce White to identify Portelli or to cause to be carried on any further enquiries.

(c) I produced and caused to be tendered on the Appeal, White's Statement of 18 June 1990. An oversight at Trial had made this necessary.

White had confirmed each part of this Statement as was put to him by Defence Counsel (T186-9); White was obviously maintaining the truth of each part of this document. He said the offender wore "green clothes" (which almost certainly narrowed the offender to one of the gang of four and which excluded the Sydney Police Centre Prisoners). Defence counsel neglected to put to White one line of his Statement:

"When I was brought back down after Court, I was put in a different cell so I didn't see the bloke again".

The Cell Book before the Court of Criminal Appeal showed this to be a palpable lie. It showed that "after Court" White was placed in Cell Y with the same four suspects - Portelli, Malincevski, McKinnon and Martz. It seemed the "process" of Central Cells was to move a prisoner from Cell 1 to Cell Y after his attendance in Court.

Applying the logic of the evidence rules of Appeal, the CCA said (CCAJ record Sheet at 28):

"This, it is said, is new evidence and is "final proof of manifest perjury" on the part of White. We do not agree ... we regard it as an extremely weak argument that it discloses perjury on White's part".

Allowing that the CCA's comment is limited to the procedures of Trial and Appeal, it would be appropriate to examine the matter again. It shows that White has lied about a matter disprovable from the only independent source available - the Cells Book. This lie reflects gravely upon the entire tale offerred to the Trial Court. Very likely, those who fabricated the story of the threat did not "remember" which prisoner moved where and did not take close account of the movement of the prisoners after being placed in Cell 1. This lie is a further nail in the entire story. Reasonably, a case existed to charge Michael White with "attempt to pervert the course of justice".

The Crown did its best to discredit my argument with confusion. The Crown submitted on the Appeal White only "assumed" the Prisoner came from Long Bay, but the impress of White's story was unmistakeable and this shifty attempt to add the Sydney Police Centre prisoners as suspects - was a vain exercise. Further: if the Crown had believed this rubbish they would have produced the arrest- photographs of the three prisoners at issue to check for "green clothing". The Crown was stuck again with White's words: if his Statement was truth incarnate, then it must stand.

It was clear White lied about not seeing his tormentor again.

(d) The Appeal process itself was unsatisfactory in resolving this "collateral issue". It was noted by the Court of Criminal Appeal that I could have called the four men at the original Trial and had chosen not to do so. Whatever the reasons were for not calling the evidence of these men at the Trial, is irrelevant here. The CCA said (CCAJ at 28) that it was "a wise decision of counsel" not to run too hard with the matter of the cell threat as there would be an implication Saleam "organized the threat". This implication had been made already in the very workings of the adversary nature of the proceedings.

The defence could have allowed the matter of White's conduct at the Committal to remain mute; but this conduct was a key to his entire conduct.

The story brought forward by Ireland/White was the best tale in the circumstances (despite its flaws) because it had an inflammatory quality with a Jury (and in the context of the kidnapping issue was a powerful attack upon the Defence). The Defence had run the story before the Flowers kidnapping and could have called the men - but by that stage, contrary to the logic of the Court of Criminal Appeal, it would have been even more dangerous to have done so. It was most certainly considered by Counsel that White had been thoroughly discredited in Cross-Examination; it was also considered the calling of the evidence of the four prisoners would have been suicidal by the time this evidence could have been called. The logic of the CCA (Judgment at 26-7) was incorrect in fact. The CCA logic did not (indeed could not) take into account the impressions of the Defence as to how our case had been fatally enervated by events outside of the courtroom.

The Trial was a facade for extralegal (or illegal) conduct operating all around the Defence which had already suffered from the absence of Smith. After the cells threat evidence, Ireland had mentioned the murder of Smith (contrary to judicial instruction) and there was even less utility in calling any of the four men. This point was never understood by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The entire process was unfair and dangerous to the administration of justice.

The CAA also added in (CCAJ28):

"For the false explanation to reflect upon the credit of White, the jury had to assume that White was simply not prepared to say on oath what he had said in his statement to police, yet here he was saying it on oath at the trial."

This was naive in the extreme. White was a cornered rat compelled to act in accordance with an effective-indemnity. There was no information (and probably never will be) to assess what terrorism was applied to White to compel him to give his litany of falsity. The suggestion of the entire pattern of White's cells-threat evidence was that it was false; this pattern of falsity should have suggested to the Court of Criminal Appeal that White could have had any number of reasons to go on with the Crown version of the Eddie Funde crime.

The appellate process was of no use in resolving this collateral question or any other issue.

I draw some general conclusions on the Cells Threat evidence at the Appeal:

The evidence demonstrated that White had lied about not seeing the man again after he had testified in court and his lie was exposed from the Cellbook. It was shown the allegation of a threat could only be levied at three men and the Prosecution (after some attempt to cast the net more widely) had not attempted to further examine the alleged crime. Portelli and Malincevski gave evidence and were not exposed as liars. The Appeal process failed to resolve this collateral question and was flawed because it ignored the unfair nature of the proceedings arising from the destabilization of the Defence by factors outside of the Court.

New Evidence.

(i) Prior to the Appeal in June 1993, I instructed a solicitor to seek out Shane Martz who was then a prisoner at the Malabar Training Centre, the minimum security section at the Long Bay jail complex.

This solicitor, who has provided an affidavit, obtained direct material from Martz.

Essentially, Martz did not know who I was, had never heard of the case and could recall nothing of his attendance at the Central Police Cells in December 1989 which would help anyone. He never made any threats to anyone, nor recalled any incident.

Martz has yet to make a statement in this affair. The same can be said for McKinnon.

If we assume that Martz's "evidence" to the solicitor removes him as a suspect, we are left with the hapless Mr. McKinnon (whomsoever he may be). Will Michael White finally finger him? Well, without Ireland to apply a little pressure, it is less than likely.

The reader can see that the Defence team at the Trial, and I subsequently, have effectively demolished the entire story. It has a whiplash effect: if this story was a fabrication, then the prosecution case was corrupt. White lied. Ireland lied. It covered up a hole in the prosecution case. You decide!

(ii) Michael White's Signed Confession To The Funde Crime.

It could not be used at the Trial, but the Defence was in possession of a signed confession from Michael White which was exculpatory of Saleam/ Smith.

This confession could be used in conjunction with the Cells evidence, and generally, to point to Special Branch conspiracy. The confession said that White had acted with Frost alone on the Funde shooting and that Ireland had wanted to do a deal with him to name Saleam. The document said that White had met Frost about a week before the crime and had agreed to participate.

BUT: the confession has a special history - which excluded it from the trial. It also contains some very-likely falsities. It is advanced here on a very special basis: that Michael White intended to assist the Defence as best he could; he did not wish to participate in a malicious prosec- ution.

The confession was the result of conversations conducted at Parramatta Gaol between Michael White and Perry John Whitehouse. White told Whitehouse a number of things about Ireland and the case, although he did not tell him that he had made a Statement alleging that Saleam/Smith were involved in the Funde crime. Whitehouse recorded these conversat- ions as notes. Whitehouse performed favours for White and generally acted in his interests. Whitehouse asked White if he would sign a record of these conversations. Whitehouse prepared a Statement and White signed it.

The Statement made in September 1989, before White was Sentenced was also remarkable for one other thing. White said that he had been using drugs in the period leading up to the crime, THE VERY THING he deposed to at the Committal. He reported "threats" from Ireland.

On October 3 however, White made a Statement to Ireland at Parramatta Gaol, informing him of the existence of the confession. On October 16 1989, Ireland arrested Whitehouse and charged him with "attempt to pervert the course of justice".

Despite this charge hanging over him, Whitehouse intended to testify at the Saleam/Smith trial. It was intended that the confession would be introduced as cross-examination against White.

Of course, Whitehouse's breakdown, which resulted in the Smith murder, meant that neither Whitehouse nor the confession could be produced. We could not take the chance in introducing this evidence. We could not have brought Perry Whitehouse to testify.

What would the Jury have thought of the confession had the circumstances been different? Very likely, they would have acquitted me.

It is significant that in 1992 the "attempt to pervert the course of justice" charge was withdrawn by the Director Of Public Prosecutions. This was undoubtedly a strategic decision. Counsel William Brewer was to represent Whitehouse. I was to appear in Whitehouse's defence to deny particular parts of Whitehouse's Statement of October 3 1989, bits that had me writing notes to White etc. Brewer would have had the opportunity to cross-examine White again and the confession would have become "evidence". There was a risk that Whitehouse might win the trial and therefore "complicate" the conviction won against me. No wonder the DPP ridded itself of a most inconvenient trial!!

The White confession is startling new evidence which demands an Inquiry be directed into the Funde prosecution.





Links to the Sections of "Pardon Me":

Main Page
Introduction

Section One
Prosecution Case/Defence Case: An Abstract. (The Cases As Presented At The Trial)

Section Two
A Political Case: A Conspiracy To Affect An Extra-Legal Result

Section Three
The "Doubt" on The Evidence At Trial: A Special Review Of The Evidence Of Prosecution/Defence.

Section Four
Michael White: The Threat In The Police Cells; The Explosion Of Credibility.

Section Five
Catherine: Gross Irregularities In The Investigation. New Material Raises Questions.

Section Six
The Role Of Neville Ireland: Questions Concerning Ireland's Evidence
And His Relationship To The Prosecution Witnesses And Their Evidence.

Section Seven
The Inadequate Appeal Process:
Doubts And Questions Raised By New Evidence And Argument At The Court Of Criminal Appeal.

Section Eight
The ASIO Operation, Special Branch And The Trial And Appeal Processes.
New Evidence And The Need For An Inquiry Into Conviction.

Section Nine
A Table Of New Evidence In Support Of A Judicial Inquiry. Explanation Of The New Material. Its Relevance.

Section Ten Special Branch Files Opened: How They Impact On This False Process. Revelations Shatter The Guilty Verdict.