DREW ROOKE A Witness of Fact: The peculiar case of chief forensic pathologist Colin Manock. Reviewed by Braham Dabscheck
Drewe Rooke outlines a decades-long litany of errors by South Australia’s forensic pathologist.
How can we trust what we think we know? The only way to have any certainty is to test our conclusions to see if they contain weaknesses – elements that do not conform with the evidence, for example, or whether there are other, more all-encompassing (and therefore superior) explanations. Scepticism and an open mind are necessary. When it comes to forensic pathology, we would expect well-worn investigative methods to be essential to the work of determining a cause of death. We want to have confidence in the findings of a forensic pathologist to ensure that those who committed murders are brought to justice and the innocent exonerated.
In A Witness of Fact Drew Rooke argues that the work of Colin Manock, who was in charge of South Australia’s forensic pathology services from 1968 to 1995, did not earn this confidence. Rooke’s findings are based on an examination of court cases; investigations by boards, tribunals and commissions; and the testimony of other forensic pathologists concerning Manock’s work.
A Witness of Fact is divided into three sections. The first concerns Manock’s background, his initial appointment in South Australia, and broad details of his career. Manock was educated in England and obtained a medical degree in 1966. In 1968 he applied for a job as the director of forensic pathology – a growing area at the time – at South Australia’s Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science (now known as SA Pathology). Rooke refers to a ‘cultural cringe’ in the medical establishment that viewed someone educated and trained in England as superior to local candidates and thereby worthy of appointment.
Manock was appointed even though he was not trained in forensic pathology or, crucially, in histopathology, which is the study of changes in tissues caused by disease. Rooke points out that:
An accurate diagnosis of the cause, timing, or manner of a person’s death is sometimes reliant on the proper collection and close microscopic examination of tissue samples … a forensic pathologist must know the microscopic morphology of a whole suite of medical conditions and injuries. If they do not know this, they can easily miss – or misinterpret – clues about when and how someone died.
Following Manock’s appointment, concern was raised by his superiors concerning his lack of training in histopathology and his lack of a specialist qualification. Five years training was required for admission to the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. Manock objected to undertaking this. His superiors agreed to exempt him from this training and for him to complete a ‘limited course’ with the Royal College instead. This amounted to nothing more than a 20-minute oral exam, which he passed; and so he was granted his fellowship of the College.
Rooke points out that Manock did not follow accepted procedures in conducting his work as a forensic pathologist. He had an aversion to looking down microscopes to examine tissue, which lies at the heart of histopathology. Rooke’s overall criticism of Manock is that he didn’t follow procedures considered essential to the work of a forensic pathologist. Manock took limited samples of tissues. He had a predilection for finding a quick single explanation for the cause of death, lacking scepticism or testing for other possible explanations. His notes on the procedures he employed were limited and did not provide enough information for replication and testing. He also did not like working with other forensic pathologists, discussing cases or keeping abreast of developments in the growing field of forensic pathology.
The second and longest section of A Witness of Fact examines examples of Manock’s mistakes that resulted in miscarriages of justice. Possibly his most glaring error was when he was called to inspect a man’s body that was found soaked in blood. He concluded that the man had died naturally of a brain aneurysm (the bursting of a blood vessel in the brain). In fact the man had been shot in the head.
An inquiry was held into three cases where Manock had concluded babies had died from bronchopneumonia (a lung disorder). The resulting report found that the three had died as the result of shaking and abuse by their carers; they had broken bones and brain damage. Manock’s determination of natural death had meant police did not investigate further and no one was ever charged with the deaths.
In another case Manock concluded that a young Aboriginal man had died as the result of falling off a truck, despite the many marks on his body and his crushed ribs and other broken bones. Later, two men confessed to the killing, having savagely beaten the man with a brass rod and driven their ute ‘backwards and forwards’ over his body. Rooke examines two other cases where Manock’s findings resulted in the jailing of persons for long periods for murders they had not committed. One, who was found to be innocent and released after 20 years, received $2.5 million in compensation; small comfort having wasted 20 years of his life.
In the third and final section of A Witness of Fact Rooke provides examples of other forensic pathologists who have been found to be inept – thankfully, few in number – and a more general critique of the weaknesses of forensic pathology. This includes the limitations of accepted methods of criminal investigation that have been discovered in recent years; and a general condemnation of South Australia’s legal, criminal and forensic pathology systems for not conducting an investigation into the mistakes committed under Manock’s watch. Rooke is highly critical of:
… an entire legal and political system which has failed – and was still failing – to properly address or even acknowledge its flaws and to ensure that the interests of justice, science, and truth were upheld and protected.
Drew Rooke provides a readable account of what can go wrong when a person who does not have appropriate qualifications is appointed to a position of trust and responsibility. The key error was enabling Manock to escape the discipline of five years of training for admission to the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. More generally, the book emphasises the importance of following scientific methods, of being sceptical and having an open and inquiring mind, following protocols and well-established procedures, and exploring alternative explanations when trying to understand what happens in the real world. This is the only way that we can have any confidence in what it is that we think we know.
Drew Rooke A Witness of Fact: The peculiar case of chief forensic pathologist Colin Manock Scribe 2022 PB 240pp $32.99
Braham Dabscheck is a Senior Fellow at the Melbourne Law School at Melbourne University who writes on industrial relations, sport and other matters.
You can buy A Witness of Fact from Abbey’s at a 10% discount by quoting the promotion code NEWTOWNREVIEW.
Or check if this book is available from Newtown Library.
If you’d like to help keep the Newtown Review of Books a free and independent site for book reviews, please consider making a donation. Your support is greatly appreciated.
