Marco Rusterholz is serving a 45 year jail sentence in Tasmania for a double murder, a conviction that is demonstrably unsafe. The trial judge, the jury and the appeal judges all failed in their respective duties to deliver justice.
I make that claim without ever having met the man or having some interest in his well being, other than human good will. I base my claim on court records. Refer to our earlier post, Did “mistakes and misdirections” prompt Marco Rusterholz murder conviction?
Marco, 51 at the time, pleaded not guilty to the 2012 murders. The case against him was entirely circumstantial. As was the evidence, if we can call it that, against Sue Neill Fraser, another wrongful murder conviction the justice system managed to repeatedly fail to correct. (Judges Wood and Pearce were involved in both cases. At one stage, Pearce J, a Tasmanian judge, asked the police Sergeant in the witness box, “Sergeant, you said FSST; what’s that stand for? The Sergeant replied, “Forensic Science Services Tasmania”. A confidence draining exchange ….)
We have reported lots of details about both these cases, as well as several others (see menu on right). This post is not about the details of specific cases but an example that demonstrates the lived experience of errors that bedevil the system. The Marco Rusterholz case provides good examples:
“What was unique about this case,” comments his lawyer at the appeal, Fabiano Cangelosi, “was that at trial the defence were not just saying that the defendant had not committed the crimes, but were presenting evidence that a person named Matthew Coventry actually had — and moreover, Coventry was called as a Crown witness.” That must be taken into consideration by the jury … and the judge ought to have addressed that issue.”
On the one hand, the three appeal court judges recognised that the circumstantial evidence against Marco Rusterholz does not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, they found that the admissions Rusterholz was accused of making were sufficient to leave the convictions as “safe”, despite the fact that the alleged admissions were made to – and alleged in court by – persons of the lowest imaginable credibility. This is a contradiction that the judges failed to filter through either their common sense meter, or through the logic spectrum.
Here is an example of three cohorts contributing to the wrongful conviction: the prosecution intent on a conviction not the truth; the trial judge failing to properly direct the jury; the appeal judges incoherence; and a jury failing to act rationally in considering the various failures in the evidence.
Let’s take a ‘drone view’ of justice in Australia. After over a decade of observing and reporting, I regret to say that justice in Australia is a bit of a myth. Citizens cannot rely on the justice system delivering justice. It’s a lucky dip.
What are the elements that corrupt justice into injustice? Why do wrongful convictions occur and remain in place? What can be done about it?
What little research is available as to causes and contributing factors in wrongful convictions is disturbing, as reflected in research by Griffith University’s Dr Rachel Dioso-Vila:
Prosecutorial 17%
Incompetent defence 23%
Forensic error/misleading evidence 31%
Erroneous judicial instructions 32%
Police 55%
Note: in some cases multiple factors were noted
§ separate forensic labs from being police adjacent; they should not feel and act as part of the police service but as an independent scientific service, and available to defence as well as the prosecution;
§ purge police officers found guilty of evidence/witness tampering;
§ purge tunnel vision culture from police investigations;
§ identify and purge from the system prosecutors found guilty of withholding evidence;
§ judicial tribunal to examine complaints referred to it by defendants (via their legal team);
§ improve jury information & instruction;
The most vulnerable of accused are those charged with sexual assault (any kind) and those in circumstantial cases. The accused is often faced with the necessity of having to prove their innocence, in complete reversal of the burden of proof being on the shoulders of the Crown. (eg Sue Neill-Fraser, Marco Rusterholz, Robert Xie, Henry Keogh, the late Cardinal Pell, Kathleen Folbigg, Noel Greenaway, Gordon Wood – and others.)
We have argued over the years (and most recently) that the one reform, a first step, that is available to the Australian justice system is a Criminal Cases Review Commission network. But, surely, our learned friends in the legal profession are capable of reforming the elements contributing to wrongful convictions. Above is a menu; they could start wherever they like. They could add other items. Surely, they could just start. As things stand Australia’s criminal justice system is filled with the catastrophic failures that result in the jailing of innocents.
As Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher, said, “the worst form of injustice is pretended justice.”
In September 2010, during a violent extortion case, the Perth District Court was told that Finks motorcycle gang member Matthew James Coventry was a known “murderer and psycho.” It was his mate’s trial and Coventry had already been sentenced to a 12-month suspended prison term for threatening to cut the victim’s wife’s fingers off if the terms of the extortion weren’t met.
The court heard that Coventry had a lengthy criminal record, including theft, disorderly conduct and being an accessory after the fact of murder. The murder victim was Scott Hepburn, a young man from Broken Hill, NSW, who lived in Matthew Coventry’s family home in Latrobe, Tasmania and was brutally murdered, dumped and burnt in 2001?.
Coventry is a self-confessed thug and parades his social failings on Instagram for all the world to see. He has 6 sons who mean the world to him and Covo, as he likes to be called, is proud of everything they achieve. His devotion to them is obvious by the streams of social media posts made when he used to spend time with them and his reposting of those now that he is deemed by their various mothers to be too dangerous to be a part of their daily lives.
Covo’s Instagram is Covo187, the number being a shout out to the LA? Penal Code for murder and his Instagram and Facebook feeds are rife with dark humoured memes and connotations about being a hardcore killer. In the 2010 extortion court case, his own mate called him a murderer. But where are the bodies? For someone who shouts to the world, “look at me wrong and I’ll kill you, I’ve killed before and I’ll kill again”, there seems to be a serious lack of dead bodies in Covo’s swag.
Coventry has been publicly linked through the Tasmanian Courts to two murder cases and three victims. In the 2001 murder of his friend Scott Hepburn, he was found not guilty of murder as was his 17yo co-accused. The judge? expressed that he did believe one or both of them committed the murder but it was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
After the 2012 murder of his friend Angela Hallam and her partner Joshua Newman, Coventry was a witness for the prosecution. Marco Rusterholz, a former Australian weight lifting champion is currently serving time for the murders. In both the Hepburn murder and the Hallam-Newman murder cases, the victims were murdered at home and Coventry had a key to that home. A coincidence, perhaps, but what if it isn’t? What if he has gotten away with these three murders? Covo declared after his father died that he was now free to commit crimes that would have devastated his dad.
In 2001, after an argument with his former close friend, Matthew Coventry, 24yo Scott Hepburn was brutally murdered in the home he shared with Coventry’s father. His body was dumped and burnt. When interviewed, Coventry and his 17yo co-accused pretended they found the body and were forced to dispose of it by strangers hiding in the house. Later they both accused each other of murder and the jury, unable to determine which one killed Hepburn, found them both guilty of being an Accessory After the Fact of Murder and sentenced them to 7 years and 5 years in prison respectively.
In August 2012, soon after a failed attempt to steal $40,000 off her former close friend, Matthew Coventry, 31 yo Launceston woman Angela Maree Hallam and her 21 yo visitor Joshua Newman were brutally murdered in Hallam’s Ravenswood home. When interviewed, Coventry had blood under his fingernails, owned the same model car seen in the victim’s driveway before the crime, and bragged about killing the victim. Coventry was a suspect but was never charged with the murder. Coventry claimed his former friend Marco Rusterholz had confessed to committing the crimes and testified for the prosecution. Rusterholz, who claims he was framed by Coventry and his mates, is currently serving a 45 year sentence.
With advances in AI technology, it is now possible for even the most amateur of investigators to compare the modus operandi, victimology, and criminal signature aspects of the 2012 double murder with the murder of Scott Hepburn in 2001.
How does that work?
To organize the circumstantial evidence and details of Coventry’s crimes into groups based on modus operandi (MO), victimology, and signature aspects, we focus on the patterns that indicate how the crimes were committed (MO), the characteristics of the victims and their relationships to the perpetrator (victimology), and any unique behaviors or actions that are specific to the crimes and reveal something about the criminal’s psychology (signature aspects).
1. Modus Operandi (MO)
Modus Operandi (MO) refers to the method or procedure that an offender uses to commit a crime. It can include the tools used, how the crime is executed, and any specific techniques that the offender employs.
Murder in company: Both the Scott Hepburn murder and the murders of Angela Hallam and Joshua Newman involved multiple perpetrators. The murderer was not acting alone; he had accomplices in both crimes who helped to destroy evidence.
Violence and use of weapons: In both murders, significant physical violence was used:
Scott Hepburn Murder: Coventry and his friend were involved in the murder, using brutal force.
Hallam and Newman Murders: Both victims were murdered using brutal force.
Burning evidence post-crime: In both murders, there is a pattern of burning evidence:
Burnt Victims’ Bodies: In both murders the victims’ bodies were partially burnt.
Burning Boots and Clothing: Coventry mentioned that boots and clothing were burned to hide evidence from both crime scenes.
2. Victimology
Victimology focuses on the characteristics of the victims and their relationship with the perpetrator. It can provide insights into why certain individuals were targeted.
Acquaintance with the victims: The victims in both murders were known to Coventry:
Scott Hepburn: A close friend of Coventry.
Angela Hallam: A close friend of Coventry.
Victim’s location (their own homes): Both Scott Hepburn and Angela Hallam were killed in their homes, indicating a familiarity with the victims’ routines and locations.
Connection to criminal activities: In both instances, the victims had connections or were in the proximity of criminal activities or persons associated with Coventry:
Scott Hepburn: He was close to the drug network Coventry was a part of, directly tied to criminal activities with a similar social background involving outlaw motorcycle gangs.
Angela Hallam: She was close to the drug network Coventry was a part of, directly tied to criminal activities.
3. Signature Aspects
Signature aspects are unique behaviors or characteristics that go beyond the MO and reveal something about the offender’s psychological or emotional needs. These aspects are not necessarily required for the crime but are driven by the perpetrator’s compulsion or fantasy.
Reaching out for help post-crime: Coventry exhibited a pattern of reaching out for help after the murders indicating a reliance on his network and possibly a need to share the burden of guilt.
After the Scott Hepburn murder, Coventry reached out for assistance to clean up and burn evidence.
After the Angela Hallam murder, Coventry again sought help from others, asking a friend to hide him from the police for a few days.
Blaming others for the crimes: In both cases, Coventry accused others of the murders showing a consistent strategy to deflect guilt:
Scott Hepburn Murder: Coventry accused a friend of committing the murder and confessing to him.
Angela Hallam Murder: Coventry accused a friend of committing the murders and confessing to him.
Repeated involvement of family members or close associates in cleanup: Coventry involved others closely tied to him in covering up his crimes:
After the Scott Hepburn murder, multiple people were involved in the cleanup, including his family members.
After the Angela Hallam murder, Coventry again involved others, demonstrating a pattern of seeking assistance from his close circle. Despite his claim that Rusterholz was the murderer, Coventry rang a close friend and asked her to hide him out for a few days.
Burning of vehicles: A vehicle associated with the murder was burnt after each crime showing a signature pattern of destroying vehicles to eliminate evidence:
Scott Hepburn’s case: A vehicle allegedly driven by the “unknown” murderer was burnt by Coventry.
Angela Hallam’s case: A similar act was carried out. In Hallam’s case, it was Rusterholz’s car that was stolen and burnt. Rusterholz believes Coventry framed him for the murder with the help of Coventry’s criminal net work of associates and friends.
Lying to authorities and friends: Coventry lied to police and friends in both cases:
About his involvement: He denied any knowledge of the murders initially. He lied about the half burnt truck, Hepburn’s body was found in, saying the strangers in his house had stolen it and then admitting he had stolen it to dump Hepburn’s body.
Regarding the injuries of the victims: He provided false information about the nature of the injuries, indicating a conscious effort to mislead the investigation. In the Hepburn killing he told police Hepburn’s body had it’s hands chopped off. This was not the case. After the Hallam and Freeman murders he told friends one of the victims was kicked so hard, their body flew into the air which forensics denied, saying there was no blunt trauma injury. Hepburn however, died from blunt trauma injury so perhaps the drug addled Coventry was simply reliving the first murder through the story of the second.
Mirroring: Coventry’s stories about Rusterholz’s movements after the murder, mirrored his own actions after the Hepburn murder:
Coventry’s father asked his mum to burn his clothing after the Hepburn murder, which she did in her home fireplace. After Miss Hallam and Mr Newman’s murders, Coventry claimed that Rusterholz told him he had asked his ex-wife to burn his clothes in her home fireplace, a story that mirrors Coventry’s own experience after cleaning up a murder scene.
Summary
By categorizing the evidence this way, we can better understand the distinct patterns and behaviors that are exhibited across the different crimes. The modus operandi outlines the perpertrator’s practical approach to committing and covering up crimes, the victimology highlights his choice of victims, and the signature aspects reveal his psychological needs and consistent behaviors that go beyond the necessity of the crime itself.
Summary of Similarities between the Murders of Scott Hepburn, Angela Hallam, and Joshua Newman
Modus Operandi (MO):
Multiple Perpetrators: Both cases involved Coventry acting with accomplices, highlighting a tendency to not operate alone.
Brutal Physical Violence: Both sets of murders were characterized by severe violence, including stabbing and other brutal acts.
Burning Evidence: In both incidents, there was an effort to burn the victims’ bodies and other evidence, such as clothing and vehicles.
Victimology:
Acquaintance with Coventry: All victims had a personal relationship with Coventry, indicating a pattern of targeting known individuals.
Murders at Victims’ Homes: The killings occurred in the victims’ homes, suggesting familiarity with their routines.
Involvement in Criminal Circles: Both Scott Hepburn and Angela Hallam had connections to criminal activities associated with Coventry.
Signature Aspects:
Seeking Help Post-Crime: Coventry repeatedly sought assistance from others to manage the aftermath of the murders.
Deflecting Blame: In both cases, Coventry accused others of the murders, showcasing a consistent strategy to divert suspicion.
Destruction of Vehicles: A vehicle linked to the crime was destroyed in both cases, suggesting a pattern of eliminating evidence.
Deceptive Behavior: Coventry lied to authorities and his associates, providing false information to mislead investigations.
Examination of Coventry’s Potential Involvement in Hallam and Newman Murders
The similarities in MO, victimology, and signature aspects between the murder of Scott Hepburn and the murders of Angela Hallam and Joshua Newman strongly suggest that Coventry could be implicated in the latter. The pattern of targeting acquaintances, employing brutal violence, and systematically destroying evidence aligns with Coventry’s established criminal behavior. His tendency to involve others in the cleanup and deflect blame further supports the possibility of his involvement in these crimes. This consistent approach across different murders highlights Coventry’s potential as a recurring perpetrator, raising significant questions about his role in the Hallam and Newman murders.
If this case were to be tried today, the testimony of Matthew James Coventry, a violent thug with a 75 page rap sheet, might not carry the same weight in court.
Another witness, testified that Finks member Coventry, threatened her and told her to stay quiet.
Since the establishment of anti-bikie laws in Tasmania, following similar moves in other Australian states, there has been a growing recognition of the dangers posed by the close-knit associations within outlaw motorcycle gangs, which are often involved in organized crime. The Australian government has acknowledged these risks by implementing laws that restrict members of such gangs from associating with each other. This has resulted in increased scrutiny and skepticism towards any testimonies given by OMCG members, especially in criminal trials. If Coventry’s testimony were evaluated under this new legal framework, it is likely that his credibility would be significantly questioned, given the potential bias, influence, and unlawful activities typically associated with OMCG members. Such a shift could fundamentally alter the landscape of this case, highlighting the evolving nature of law and justice.
Coventry wasn’t the only OMCG member whose testimony Justice Pearce considered significant in the Supreme Court. Brett Imlach, a prospect with the Rebels Motorcycle Club at the time, was involved in a clandestine affair with Rusterholz’s girlfriend. Imlach knew details of the crime only the murderer could have known and as he knew Coventry, it is possible he heard those details from Coventry and not Rusterholz. This raises a plausible theory: Coventry and his associates may have committed the murders and subsequently conspired to frame Marco Rusterholz to divert attention away from themselves.
Both committing murder and framing someone for it typically require a compelling motive. Did Coventry have a motive? Angela Hallam had stolen from him and his friends and had recently attempted to kill a friend of his, Jamie Smith with a drug hotshot. These motives seem far more substantial than the alleged motive attributed to Rusterholz, which was merely to impress his new girlfriend. It’s widely accepted that Joshua Newman was simply a tragic victim, murdered because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But what about a motive for framing Rusterholz? Coventry’s partner testified that he was an intensely jealous man. His temper well renowned, Coventry had served 8 months in prison for viciously assulting her during their 3 year reationship. She said Coventry was jealous of her relationships not just with Rusterholz, but with others as well. Yet, was this jealousy enough to drive Coventry to frame a friend for murder?
What if there was an alternative motive that the trial overlooked? Perhaps the jealousy wasn’t just about his partner but also about Rusterholz’s growing bond with Coventry’s young son. In a social media post from June 2012, just weeks before the brutal murders, Coventry expressed feeling wronged by Rusterholz because his son seemed to favor Rusterholz over him.
Coventry’s social media is filled with posts about his sons; he was a proud father who frequently shared photos and updates about his children. Would a man described as a “psycho and murderer” in a Western Australian extortion court case in 2010—a member of an organized crime group—go to such lengths as to frame someone to avoid punishment and eliminate what he saw as a threat to his relationship with his son? Would he or anyone in his position participate in or orchestrate such a violent crime?
Did Brett Imlach have a motive to frame Rusterholz? Given that Imlach was secretly involved with Rusterholz’s girlfriend, it’s not hard to imagine he might have wanted Rusterholz out of the picture before his affair was exposed.
Both Coventry and Imlach, as members of outlaw motorcycle gangs, played crucial roles not only in Rusterholz’s arrest and conviction but also in the denial of his appeal. Their involvement casts a shadow of doubt over the integrity of the testimonies that led to Rusterholz’s fate. Was Morgan in on it too? Was he the driver for Smith and Coventry, whose medium builds match the two men seen getting into the passenger side of a car in Miss Hallam’s driveway on the same night? He was willing to implicate Rusterholz and he fled to Victoria the next day. Perhaps he was an accomplice, after all, an accomplice to Coventry and Smith rather than Rusterholz.
……………………….
Thanks for this thought provoking investigation. I’m sure not only Marco will be fascinated to read it.
Agree Brian. How do you change it though?
Multiple Mentions and delays eat up defendants money whilst they gather more evidence. They can take as long as deemed necessary or reasonable by individual Judiciary to build their case each time the DPP says not enough to take to trial.
Easier to take a big discount in sentence than fight a case.
Agree with your suggestions to alleviate injustice but it is a daunting high risk situation legally, emotionally and financially for the accused to take on Prosection narratives, incompetent counsel, judicial bias and police corruption or witness tampering. The new laws are seeing people incarcerated on remand pending sentence and carted off to court in prison vans escorted by 2 armed officers and in prison
greens to listen to arguments and
testimony guilty until proven innocent.
Co-incidence and Tendency trials are taking away alibi and burden of proof and allow hearsay to be included if the Judge deems it a fact!
Witnesses for the defence are denigrated and have their backgrounds pulled apart and are prevented by the Prosecution from elaborating I’d it does not fit the narrative.
Criminal justice is a myth. Personal responsibility is no longer needed by the plaintiff’s . Once an Advo or Avo is issued against a person their rights are immediately stripped. There is no presumption of innocence.
There needs to be easier access to appeal support and people with special needs should have advocates to ensure they are not being exploited and are understanding the proceedings against them.
Your blueprint could not be clearer and your decade of unfailing reporting is beyond exceptional.
Those minority of criminal lawyers who are genuinely concerned to reduce the shameful level of injustice in Australia can only do so much . Their professional bodies, such as the law societies, are inept and generally only interested in self promotion and it’s officers in personal advancement up the legal ladder; become President, get that judicial appointment etc, ad norseam.
The answer for reform lies only in our legislators who have the power. Finding politicians , particularly Attorneys General and Premiers who have the integrity and the guts, is desperately missing.
It seems to me the whole judicial system in Tasmania needs reform. I had personal contact with this system some 64 years ago……..prejudiced police did not follow through with orders from the court……eventually I fled Hobart…..and an abusive husband. Having worked briefly in the SA Police Force as a clerk, I saw failings in this system also. Referring to the Susan Neill-Fraser case…….I would encourage a complete search of the evidence lockers to find the DNA evidence that has been “lost” or in my opinion deliberately misplaced by officers of the crown.
I have read about this case several years ago.
Drugs. Why do the stuff in the first place.
If Coventry did it then solve the case. What was his motive. What was his alibi.
And why did Coventry carry out such a brutal killing.
Just because Rusterholz says he is innocent does not make him so.
I would not like to think the wrong person is in gaol.
What leads to innocents in gaol.
It is not tunnel vision, rather, it is the nominative approach. The police all to often quickly arrive at who is guilty and often before sufficient evidence is in.
Pretty much along the lines of the bastard did it. Build the case around him.
(In the case of Sue, the bitch did it build the case around her). Deplorable.
The police have huge resources funded by the taxpayer.
The police withhold much evidence.
The police want a prosecution.
Media work with police.
Along comes a defence lawyer with nowhere near the resources. it aint easy.
Possibly the only way to help Rusterholz is to solve the case with solid evidence.
If Coventry did it the defence needs to learn a lot about him and his activities.
Andrew, you were not there. Tread carefully. Facts are required.
Andrew, have you spoken with Fabiano Cangelosi if not you should.
If you have what can you share with us.