0:02

Before you listen, just a warning. This

0:05

podcast contains references to suicide.

0:09

If you need help, there are numbers to call

0:11

in the episode details. There's

0:16

no evidence of a forensic pathology kind

0:19

who positively support a conclusion

0:21

that this disease has been

0:24

homicidal, manually or legally killed.

0:29

It's time for defence pathologists to

0:31

present their evidence about what

0:34

they consider caused Pauline Hannah's

0:36

death. Her

0:39

husband, Philip Polkinghorne, a now

0:41

retired eye surgeon, is charged

0:43

with her murder and has

0:45

pleaded not guilty. The

0:53

Crown has already called two

0:55

pathologists who agreed the senior

0:57

health administrator died from neck

0:59

compression. But

1:01

they couldn't say whether that was due to hanging

1:04

or some form of strangulation. This

1:08

is the trial, season two, the

1:11

Polkinghorne case from Stuff Audio. I'm

1:14

Philippa Tolly. The

1:19

Crown's case is that Polkinghorne fatally

1:21

strangled Hannah before reporting her death

1:24

to police as a suicide, that

1:27

he was obsessed with meth and in

1:29

a COVID relationship with a Sydney-based sex

1:31

worker. Polkinghorne's

1:34

defence is that Hannah was

1:36

stressed and worn out by work, had

1:38

a history of mental health issues, was

1:41

on medication and sadly killed

1:43

herself on Easter Monday, The

1:48

trial has been going for nearly two months

1:50

and we're nearing the end. But

1:53

as this podcast is recorded, I have

1:55

no idea of the outcome. I'm

1:57

still following the case as evidence.

2:00

is presented to the jury. Please

2:05

step into the witness box and remain standing. Please

2:11

put your hand on the logo. Do you

2:13

still follow mighty God in the evidence you give today

2:15

as you'll be the truth, the whole truth and the

2:17

truth of the truth. I do. Thank you. Please be

2:19

seated. Pathologist

2:21

Stephen Cordiner flew in from Australia

2:23

to give evidence for the defence.

2:27

Cordiner told the court he was an

2:29

emeritus professor at the Department of Forensic

2:31

Medicine at Monash University in Melbourne. Largely

2:34

retired, although he still did some

2:37

work, such as giving expert opinion

2:39

in this trial. He

2:41

has a long list of qualifications,

2:43

including being a former director of

2:46

Victoria's Institute of Forensic Medicine, the

2:48

state organisation which examines bodies when

2:50

deaths are referred to the coroner.

2:54

Asked by Pockinghorns lawyer, Ron Mansfield,

2:56

to explain more about his role,

2:59

Cordiner said it was evidence-based.

3:02

But the evidence, you

3:04

know, different people can come to different

3:07

views. It's a question of how

3:09

strong the supporting evidence is. Cordiner

3:12

agreed with Mansfield that there was

3:14

no sign of disease contributing to

3:17

Pauline Hannah's death. So

3:19

the question here is,

3:22

has the deceased been

3:25

killed or did she

3:27

kill herself? Cordiner

3:30

told the court about the

3:32

importance of scene examinations and

3:34

of the attending pathologist documenting

3:36

what they saw. In

3:38

the case of a suspected suicide by

3:40

hanging, he would expect all

3:42

sides of the neck to be photographed in

3:45

the details noted and included in

3:47

the final report. A

3:50

reminder here, in episode 6, the

3:53

court heard that Kilik Keisha, the

3:55

pathologist who did Hannah's autopsy, did

3:58

not mention a mark he'd seen on her

4:00

neck. while visiting the scene in his final

4:02

report, although he told the

4:04

defence he thought it was an important

4:06

factor. This mark,

4:08

consistent with the pattern of a plaited

4:10

belt, had disappeared by the

4:13

time of the post-mortem examination the

4:15

following day, Keisha said. At

4:18

this stage the judge, Justice Graham

4:20

Lang, suppressed the reporting of some

4:23

details that might emerge in Cordiner's

4:25

evidence. That followed

4:27

discussions with both legal teams and

4:29

the media about reporting the mechanics

4:31

of a possible hanging. We

4:34

can, though, report the pathologist's opinion

4:36

that it would have been relatively

4:38

easy for Hannah to achieve a

4:40

partial hanging. Mansfield

4:43

asked about the lack of injuries to Hannah's

4:45

body. Cordiner said

4:47

it was generally accepted that an

4:49

assailant has to overcome their victim

4:52

to successfully strangle them using their

4:54

hands or some kind of

4:56

ligature. So very

4:58

often there is injuries, there

5:00

are injuries associated with a

5:02

more sustained assault. I've got

5:04

the numbers here. So

5:08

it's about 70%, something

5:11

like that, of the

5:14

cases and the numbers vary slightly

5:16

from in the

5:18

literature, but there's a

5:20

general acceptance that by

5:22

and large, if you are manually

5:26

or ligatually strangled,

5:30

then the likelihood is you've been the victim

5:32

of a more sustained assault. The

5:35

pathologist had warned the jury at the start

5:37

of his evidence that it would be pretty

5:40

grim. He

5:44

told the court that a small number

5:46

of people who are strangled have non-specific

5:48

injuries that don't really tell you much

5:51

about how they occurred. So

5:53

they could be associated with an

5:56

incomplete hanging. Yep,

6:01

I looked at 27

6:04

consecutive cases of hanging from

6:06

the Institute in some detail

6:08

and five of them had

6:11

a small number of

6:13

non-specific injuries which

6:16

are just the sort of injuries any of us might

6:18

have, probably a bit more than

6:21

what any of us might have

6:23

because these individuals are

6:25

sometimes intoxicated and falling over or

6:28

for other reasons a bit more

6:31

vulnerable to accidental injuries. The

6:34

defence asked how common it was

6:36

that people who died of suicide

6:38

left a note. 30%

6:41

close to a third. So

6:44

some people who take their life

6:47

by way of suicide may

6:50

not leave a note and may

6:52

not have attempted it previously. Yes.

6:57

Mansfield had more questions about the

6:59

disappearing mark on Hannah's neck. And

7:02

I wonder whether you can help us with

7:04

understanding that phenomenon. Why

7:07

might a mark like that dissipate

7:09

or disappear over time and

7:12

how might that be significant in

7:15

relation to when death occurred?

7:18

Well again, because we

7:20

can't tell the difference between a mark

7:25

resulting in hanging and

7:27

death and

7:30

someone who's died and

7:33

then is suspended after death, if

7:37

they're suspended within a couple of hours

7:39

of death, can't tell the difference. Court

7:42

had told the court that people

7:44

needed to imagine how difficult it

7:47

would be to manipulate an unconscious

7:49

body to stage a suicide scene.

8:01

is extremely

8:05

difficult to

8:10

sort of imagine. I think forensic pathologists

8:12

talking about this sort of thing, the

8:15

starting point is that it takes two

8:17

people to really successfully

8:20

and easily handle

8:22

a dead body. So I mean this

8:25

I found it

8:27

a bit hard to imagine how I'm talking about this in

8:29

a courtroom. Mansfield then

8:31

went through the report from

8:33

the post-mortem examination including injuries

8:35

such as a small scrape

8:37

on Hannah's nose. Cordina

8:40

said because there was no bruising

8:42

or sign of bleeding the injury may

8:44

have happened after her death. So

8:48

this is where forensic pathologists

8:50

start talking about the

8:52

pattern of injuries, the

8:55

number of injuries and

8:57

their distribution as

9:00

indicating the likelihood of

9:02

assault versus accident.

9:06

In this case I think the

9:08

number of injuries is not so great as

9:10

to be able to constitute a discernible

9:13

pattern. The

9:15

review of injuries noted in the

9:17

post-mortem examination then moved to a

9:19

group of bruises on Hannah's upper

9:21

right arm. Cordina

9:23

said it was impossible to say accurately

9:25

when they might have occurred and

9:28

he pointed out another difficulty. One

9:31

photo from the scene showed that portion

9:33

of the arm and

9:35

it appeared there weren't any bruises

9:37

there. At

9:39

this point prosecution lawyer Alicia

9:42

McClintock interjected. She

9:44

said the suggestion that one photo appeared

9:46

to contradict the record of bruising hadn't

9:48

been put to the pathologists called by

9:50

the Crown. Both

9:53

legal teams agreed the issue might have to

9:55

be dealt with later in the trial. Mansfield

9:59

asked how such bruising might

10:01

occur after death. So

10:05

I think there's two

10:07

possible sort of reasons

10:10

that there seems to be no bruising at

10:12

the same, but

10:15

bruising clearly at the

10:17

autopsy. So one possibility

10:19

is that there is actually bruising,

10:21

but it just simply has not

10:23

appeared. In the photograph. In

10:25

the photograph. But

10:29

actually it might take some

10:31

time for the bleeding from

10:34

the tiny little injured area underneath

10:37

the skin to

10:39

emerge superficially so it's

10:41

visible as a bruise. The

10:44

second thing is that it does raise

10:46

the possibility that it

10:48

is the movement of the body, the

10:51

manipulation of the body, the holding of

10:53

the body, body

10:56

arms after death to

10:58

move it around. But

11:01

that maybe is the reason

11:04

why there is bruising later. Kordner

11:11

told the court the bruising could have

11:13

happened after death, but he didn't know

11:15

for certain. Was

11:18

it what the court had heard

11:20

called a non-specific injury, Mansfield asked,

11:23

something that doesn't help inform what

11:25

happened. I don't think

11:28

that constellation of bruises on

11:31

its own constitutes or

11:34

justifies a thought that

11:37

it is a sultive in nature. Mansfield

11:41

raised the injury under the

11:43

skin on Hannah's right temple,

11:45

described as five centimetres by

11:47

two centimetres in the autopsy

11:49

report. Kordner

11:51

replied that it would have occurred at or

11:54

near the time of death and

11:56

could have been through a bump or

11:58

possibly a punch. but there

12:01

was no way to know. Again, it was

12:03

a non-specific injury that didn't

12:06

give any helpful information about

12:08

what happened. So,

12:11

considering all those injuries, Mansfield

12:13

asked, was an incomplete hanging

12:16

a reasonable explanation? There's

12:20

nothing incompatible, in my view, with

12:22

the presence of those injuries and

12:26

a conclusion of incomplete hanging.

12:29

At this point, Mansfield had

12:31

questions about the acrylic fingernails

12:33

Pauline Hannah wore. We

12:36

heard about them in the early episodes

12:38

in relation to the search of the

12:40

Polkinghorn home. Mansfield pointed

12:42

out that none of the nails she was

12:44

wearing at the time of death had been

12:46

dislodged, apart from one acrylic nail

12:48

from the big toe. In

12:51

earlier evidence from the officer in charge of

12:53

the scene, he'd said a nail was found

12:55

in a sheet in the washing machine that

12:57

could have been the missing fake nail. The

13:00

defence asked Cordina what he took

13:03

from so many nails being in

13:05

place. I think it

13:08

accords with common sense

13:10

that there hasn't been

13:12

any great disturbance of those nails,

13:16

and that could

13:19

be correlated with the presence

13:21

or absence of injuries on

13:23

the supposed assailant. Mansfield

13:25

asked about the possibility of a

13:28

carotid or choker hold being used

13:30

on Hannah, a theory

13:32

raised by the prosecution's pathologists. In

13:35

explaining what this neck hold involved, Cordina

13:37

said the SAS were thought to be

13:40

trained in using it from behind to

13:42

overwhelm people quickly. Mansfield

13:44

asked Cordina if he would expect

13:47

the hold to leave injuries. Cordina

13:50

thought there would be visible bruising.

13:52

He also confirmed that he would

13:54

expect to see injuries if someone

13:56

was manually strangled. What

13:58

was his opinion of the... finding of the

14:01

two Crown Pathologists, the Defence wondered

14:03

that Hannah's death was due to

14:05

neck compression, but they couldn't say

14:08

how it occurred. They leave

14:11

either suicidal hanging

14:13

or homicidal ligature

14:16

or manual strangulation open as

14:20

possibilities. So my

14:22

view is that it's reasonable and it's

14:24

my view to go a bit further.

14:28

And what would you say the cause

14:30

of death was? The finding

14:32

support hanging and

14:35

there's no finding to support homicidal

14:38

ligature or manual strangulation

14:42

and that's the way

14:44

we approach all the

14:46

hangings that we deal with. So

14:51

that's what I think a reasonable approach here is. Mansfield

14:57

asked Cordiner about the evidence

14:59

from Crown Pathologist Martin Sage

15:02

that it was dangerous to

15:04

use general probabilities to conclude

15:06

anything about a specific case.

15:09

While answers did not lie in

15:12

statistics, he replied, they did provide

15:14

context. However,

15:17

Cordiner continued with a caution about

15:19

Sage's suggestion that a pale line

15:21

on Hannah's neck could be

15:23

considered a ligature mark, even

15:26

though the autopsy showed no injury under the

15:28

skin. When

15:30

he says it's a dangerous business, we

15:32

are in a dangerous business, but I think

15:35

it's really important to keep your

15:37

eye on what is the evidence in

15:40

favour of a particular proposition

15:44

and try and resist speculative

15:48

stuff. During

15:51

cross-examination, Cordiner agreed with Alicia

15:53

McClintock that he was there

15:55

to give evidence on forensic

15:57

pathology, not, as McClintock put

15:59

it, to interpret all of

16:01

the evidence in the case and tell us

16:03

what the answer is. That

16:05

was a job for the jury, she

16:08

suggested, and Cordina agreed. McClintock

16:11

noted that all the pathologists for

16:13

the Crown and Defence had at

16:16

time said, I can't say,

16:18

because they were confining conclusions to

16:20

what the pathology told them. You

16:24

said on Wednesday something

16:26

like, when the

16:28

further things are away from the

16:31

body, that

16:33

starts to impinge upon the function and

16:35

expertise of others. Do you remember saying

16:37

something like that? That's both litful and

16:40

metaphorical, if you like. Yeah.

16:42

And there's many reasons for that sort

16:45

of approach, isn't there? One

16:48

reason is all experts, obviously, and

16:50

it'll be obvious to you as

16:52

an expert, to confine the evidence

16:54

to the area of expertise, correct?

16:56

Yes. And another

16:58

reason is to ensure that you

17:00

remain independent in your assistance on

17:02

a case and not

17:05

sort of start to advocate for a

17:07

particular party's view, right? Sure. Did

17:10

Cordina accept that Martin Sage was

17:12

one of New Zealand's leading pathologists?

17:15

McClintock asked. Look,

17:17

I've said in my report that,

17:20

you know, I think everybody involved

17:22

is providing their

17:25

professional evidence

17:27

and advice and contribution. So,

17:30

you know,

17:34

it's perfectly reasonable for people to have different points

17:36

of view, and other people will work out which

17:38

point of view is preferred. Of course. The

17:42

prosecution turned to the bruise under

17:44

the skin on Hannah's right temple.

17:47

You put it this way, I think it

17:49

could be the result of a fall into

17:51

something, but obviously the

17:54

possibility of something like a punch

17:56

cannot be excluded simply on the

17:58

appearance of the injury. a

18:00

lie, that's your view. Yep.

18:04

Yep. And you go on to

18:06

say there is nothing to positively

18:08

suggest that this injury could be

18:11

from a punch, correct? Correct.

18:15

But equally, Professor, there's nothing to

18:17

positively suggest that this injury has

18:19

resulted from a fall. So

18:23

the word non-specific comes to mind. Yes.

18:25

And we're careful about saying there's

18:28

nothing to positively suggest this injury

18:30

has happened by an assault because

18:32

in relation to

18:34

this injury, the converse is true,

18:36

isn't it, when we're talking about

18:38

the possibility she bumped into something

18:40

or fell into something. There's nothing

18:42

to positively suggest that either. A

18:44

hand to second conclusion that non-specific

18:47

injuries. The

18:49

prosecution repeated to Professor Cordner

18:51

the findings of Crown Pathologist

18:53

Khila Keshia that something

18:55

hit Hannah's head or her

18:58

head hit something. The

19:00

Australian said that was an entirely

19:02

true statement. McClintock

19:05

raised Cordner telling Mansfield that the

19:07

graze to Hannah's nose could have

19:09

happened after death. She

19:12

said Keshia had noted bleeding in the

19:14

area. Cordner said

19:16

he wasn't aware of that and

19:18

it raised the likelihood that the

19:21

injury happened while Hannah was alive.

19:24

The prosecution reviewed the blood found

19:26

between Hannah's fingers. Tests

19:29

proved it was hers. Cordner

19:31

had told the defence the blood may have

19:33

come from a hemorrhage in her ear caused

19:35

by pressure to the neck and

19:38

been transferred to her hand as the body

19:40

was moved. McClintock

19:42

asked the pathologist to confirm this

19:44

that somehow the only blood on

19:47

her hand was between her fingers.

19:50

That's right, Cordner replied. Really?

19:55

Well, I

19:57

really don't think you should be sceptical about that.

20:00

that's what's happened based

20:02

on this is the only place

20:04

we have blood is

20:06

in between her fingers and

20:09

not otherwise on her

20:11

hand. That's the way it is. And

20:15

as a pathologist, not interpreting

20:17

the rest of the evidence,

20:19

but as a pathologist you

20:23

can't discount that their hand's been cleaned and

20:26

that blood's been missed. As

20:29

a pathologist, but you know, I imagine they looked

20:32

for that sort of possibility were there

20:34

fibers or anything on it that might

20:36

have suggested that. As a pathologist you

20:38

can't discount it though can you? No,

20:40

no. The prosecution

20:43

asked more about what the defence

20:45

pathologists have described as the lack

20:47

of significant injuries. If

20:50

someone was being attacked, would their ability

20:52

to resist be affected by their body

20:54

position such as lying on their front?

20:57

Cordina agreed. Or being

20:59

pinned by their arms or wrists? Correct

21:02

he responded. So

21:04

did he agree that if someone was incapable

21:06

of putting up much of a fight there

21:09

wouldn't always be injuries? McClintock

21:11

asked. He agreed. The

21:14

degree of injury would depend on what

21:16

was happening at the time. And if

21:19

they were surprised or asleep that

21:21

might affect their ability to resist?

21:25

It might, the pathologist replied. But

21:27

the expectation would be that a

21:30

person would wake rapidly and do

21:32

all they could to free themselves.

21:37

The prosecution returned to Hannah's use

21:39

of the sleeping drug Zopoclon and

21:41

whether she had been incapacitated at

21:43

the time of death. We

21:47

heard in earlier episodes that tests on

21:50

her blood showed levels up to twice

21:52

the prescribed dose and that

21:54

tests on her hair showed she had

21:56

used it for at least six months.

22:00

McClintock said that in truth it wasn't

22:03

known how long she'd been taking it.

22:07

Because it's

22:09

not prescribed to her, it's

22:11

prescribed in the name of

22:14

Dr. Polkinghorne. She

22:16

may have been taking it over a period

22:18

of about six months, but we

22:20

don't know for sure. McClintock

22:23

said the sleeping pills were

22:25

relevant because they were taken

22:27

alongside alcohol. We heard

22:29

in earlier evidence that alcohol can exacerbate

22:32

their effects. Cordiner

22:34

agreed this was relevant but said

22:36

more information was needed. It

22:40

may have impacted the

22:43

ability to resist and that's

22:45

all we can say about

22:47

it. May have, may have, it may not

22:50

have, it may have had little or no

22:52

effect. Cordiner

22:54

was then asked to respond to some

22:56

of Crown Pathologist Martin Sage's evidence. Sage

23:00

said that Cordiner had supported the possibility that

23:02

Hannah died by hanging without

23:05

truly accounting for the alternative explanations

23:07

in a neutral way. Cordiner

23:11

disagreed. He

23:14

said he was trying his best to represent his

23:16

discipline and

23:18

what it could contribute to the resolution of the matter. The

23:20

defence then returned to

23:23

address Hannah's zopiclone use. Mansfield wanted to

23:25

ensure there was no suggestion that she had

23:27

been unconscious around

23:30

the time of death. McClintock

23:32

agreed. She

23:34

did not intend to suggest that but

23:36

rather to discuss whether Hannah might have been

23:38

sedated to some extent by a combination of

23:41

alcohol and medication. Cordiner

23:44

said he was unable to comment on

23:47

that. Mansfield asked more about the injuries

23:49

that might occur if someone was restrained

23:51

from behind while lying down. Cordiner

23:54

said there would stay in the area. will

24:00

be the opportunity for some resistance

24:02

and the possibility of injuries to

24:04

the assailant and the victim.

24:11

The defence then called a

24:13

second pathologist, Christopher Millroy, who

24:15

gave evidence via video link from Canada.

24:19

The court heard he'd been awarded

24:21

an OBE for services to forensic

24:23

pathology over 30 years. Trained

24:26

in the UK, Millroy is now a

24:28

professor at the Department of Pathology at

24:30

the University of Ottawa and has given

24:32

expert evidence to trials around the world.

24:36

Millroy confirmed he'd also given

24:38

lectures in New Zealand, including

24:40

in Christchurch at the invitation

24:42

of Crown Pathologist Martin Sage.

24:45

Ron Mansfield asked Millroy to tell the

24:47

court about a case Sage had raised

24:49

with him. Well,

24:51

the question was, have I ever seen

24:53

a case where someone had had neck

24:55

compression without internal injuries? And

24:57

I said at the time I had

24:59

seen one case and

25:03

it's not entirely, it

25:05

involved a struggle, it

25:09

involved an arm lock

25:11

and it involved a man on cocaine. It

25:13

was witnessed by other people who

25:15

was in a street. And so it

25:19

wasn't a pure neck compression

25:21

case, but I sent him a copy

25:24

of that. Yes. And that was probably about

25:26

20 years ago. Mansfield

25:29

asked how Millroy became involved

25:31

in this case. Professor

25:33

Cordiner has been a long standing colleague

25:35

of mine. I've known Professor Cordiner for

25:37

30 years. And

25:40

you would be aware that for the

25:42

purposes of assisting us in this trial, he

25:44

prepared a lengthy and detailed report.

25:49

Yes. And then he sent

25:51

that report to be peer reviewed

25:54

to a colleague of

25:56

yours in Canada. That's

25:58

correct. then when we

26:00

were looking for someone

26:03

else to give expert evidence in

26:05

this case because of

26:07

the evidence that Professor Cordenow was trying

26:09

too hard, then

26:12

I understand we were

26:15

referred to you to see if you could assist

26:17

us, correct? That's correct. When

26:21

Mansfield referred to Cordenow trying

26:23

too hard, it might

26:25

be helpful to remember that Martin

26:27

Sage told the court during his

26:30

evidence that Cordenow hadn't assessed explanations

26:32

for Pauline Hannah's death in what

26:34

he said was a truly neutral

26:36

way. At

26:38

this stage, Mansfield repeated the question

26:41

put to all expert witnesses, including

26:43

Milroy, that High Court

26:45

rules state that all experts must

26:47

operate as witnesses of the court,

26:49

not assisting one party over another.

26:53

Milroy agreed and said the rules were the

26:55

same in Canada. Was

26:58

it his opinion, Mansfield went on,

27:00

that Cordenow had gone too far

27:02

in concluding that Hannah's death was

27:04

caused by neck compression through an

27:07

incomplete or partial hanging? In

27:10

my opinion that is a reasonable opinion

27:12

to give. And what

27:14

would Milroy's conclusion have been, Mansfield

27:17

asked. Perhaps I

27:19

should say that the ordinary

27:21

course of events, we as forensic

27:23

pathologists give our

27:25

opinion based on the most likely

27:27

cause of death. And

27:30

that's really on a

27:33

more likely than not basis. I

27:36

mean the evidence may be more powerful

27:39

than that, but that's the standard. And

27:43

if there were concerns, I might express

27:45

them in my opinion, but

27:48

I would still say that the most

27:51

likely cause of death in this case

27:53

was hanging with

27:56

partial suspension features, but we would therefore give the

27:58

cause of death as hanging. Millroy

28:01

told the court how rare it was

28:03

in his experience for an individual to

28:05

be strangled, either by hand or with

28:07

a ligature, and for there to

28:09

be no injuries. And

28:12

we've heard that you were

28:14

present and you've seen the

28:16

various experts give

28:19

their evidence in relation to the autopsy

28:22

findings, correct? Yes.

28:26

And beyond what have been described

28:28

as minor injuries

28:33

that are nonspecific, there

28:37

are no other injuries

28:39

of the kind that you would be

28:41

looking for, correct? That's

28:44

correct. I mean, they've been described as nonspecific.

28:47

I agree with that. They do

28:49

not take us further forward in

28:51

distinguishing the two scenarios proposed

28:54

in this case. And

28:56

it's not uncommon to have nonspecific

28:58

injuries in people when

29:01

we come to do postmortem examinations. We see them

29:03

all the time. Asked

29:06

for his opinion on Hannah's use of

29:08

zopiclone, Millroy said the toxicology evidence gave

29:10

a range for how much she had

29:13

in her system, and it

29:15

was unclear how long she'd been taking it.

29:18

But in terms of its effects, I

29:21

mean, the person may have taken it,

29:23

helped them go to sleep. They may

29:26

be a little bit more groggy than they would otherwise

29:28

be if they weren't on it, but they may be

29:30

very tolerant because they'd been on it for six months.

29:34

And one would expect them to wake up

29:37

if attacked. Under

29:40

cross-examination by Alicia McClintock, Millroy confirmed

29:43

he was instructed on August

29:45

21, 2024, after the trial began.

29:53

That followed Crown Pathologist Martin

29:55

Sage, raising his concerns about

29:57

Professor Corden's approach during COVID.

30:00

questioning. Milroy

30:02

was asked to review Cordina's evidence.

30:05

McClintock wanted to clarify the cases

30:07

referred to by Sage where there

30:09

were no sign of injury after

30:11

strangulation. She said that

30:14

in the case mentioned by Milroy, the one

30:16

involving the arm lock and the man on

30:18

cocaine, there were witnesses.

30:20

In the case cited by Sage,

30:23

there were not. So

30:25

McClintock went on Sage had

30:27

mentioned two cases of neck

30:29

compression where there were no

30:31

external or internal injuries apparent.

30:34

Milroy agreed. The

30:36

prosecution also asked about another area

30:39

in which Milroy is an expert,

30:42

non-fatal strangulation. McClintock

30:45

asked if it was a common feature

30:47

of violence against women. Yes,

30:49

he replied. And is

30:52

it also well known in the

30:54

medical profession that non-fatal strangulation is

30:56

a key marker for the escalation

30:58

of domestic violence? Again,

31:01

Milroy agreed. The

31:04

prosecution asked how many strangulation

31:06

cases the Canadian had dealt

31:09

with that involved an alleged

31:11

strangulation by a surgeon. None.

31:15

To my, I

31:19

do not recall any

31:22

case of strangulation

31:24

that I've dealt with that

31:26

involved a medical practitioner, either

31:30

fatal or non-fatal. And

31:32

you would accept as a general

31:35

proposition that medical practitioners have a

31:37

better understanding of the workings

31:39

of the body than

31:41

non-medical practitioners. Well, I

31:44

would accept that they obviously have a

31:46

better understanding, but I'll go back to

31:48

a comment I made in chief. Forensic

31:52

pathologists and those who teach forensic

31:54

medicine lament the lack

31:56

of knowledge of their colleagues. in

32:01

general about forensic medicine

32:03

issues. Milroy

32:07

said Cordiner's approach had been

32:09

fair, objective and scientific.

32:12

Milroy also said Cordiner was

32:14

cautious not to criticize the

32:16

other pathologists called as witnesses.

32:20

He told the court this

32:22

case involved people considering possibilities.

32:26

McClintock went on. I

32:28

think you've made this clear, but just so

32:30

everyone's clear, you're not saying pathology is the

32:33

one source of truth here. No,

32:36

no, absolutely not. Milroy

32:39

said his role in a

32:41

criminal case was to present

32:43

pathology evidence objectively. He

32:46

hadn't heard all of the evidence in the

32:48

Polkinghorn trial and should not be

32:50

what he called the trial of fact. McClintock

32:56

returned to the effects of Zopoclone. While the

32:58

toxicologists said hair samples indicated

33:00

Hannah had been taking the drug over a

33:02

six-month period, there

33:05

was no way to know how frequently she had taken

33:07

the pills or if she had built

33:09

up a tolerance. Milroy agreed. McClintock

33:12

asked the pathologist if he

33:15

knew of concerns that Zopoclone was used to drug

33:17

people, to sedate them, especially

33:20

in combination with alcohol, although the lawyer

33:22

said she wasn't suggesting that that was

33:24

happening here. Milroy said it wasn't

33:26

a drug he was familiar with, but

33:29

that could be the case. He also agreed

33:31

that although he'd talked earlier about

33:35

people using Zopoclone waking up if attacked, it

33:37

would be difficult to know exactly how fast

33:41

any individual would become alert again, especially

33:44

if alcohol was involved. McClintock

33:47

went through a long list of circumstances that

33:51

could apply to both hangings and strangulations. Didn't

33:54

that mean that the Zopoclone was not a drug

33:56

that was used to treat people with a similar

33:58

type of drug? the pathology

34:00

was neutral that you couldn't say for

34:03

sure what happened she asked. I

34:07

wouldn't say the pathology is neutral between

34:10

homicide and suicide but

34:13

one cannot exclude the application

34:15

of a homicidal hold on

34:17

this person. Philip

34:29

Pockinghorn's legal team used an engineer

34:31

to do tests at the family

34:34

home in Remuera as part of

34:36

its argument that Pauline Hanna committed

34:38

suicide. Andrew

34:40

McGregor is the director of ProSolve,

34:42

a company that investigates engineering failures

34:45

and accidents in New Zealand and

34:47

the South Pacific. McGregor

34:49

has 30 years of experience as

34:51

a mechanical engineer and is considered

34:53

an expert witness. He's

34:56

another who didn't want his voice recorded. McGregor

34:59

told the court he was instructed

35:01

to consider whether Pockinghorn's police statement

35:04

about how he found his wife

35:06

was consistent with a partial hanging.

35:10

Justice Lange suppressed part of McGregor's

35:12

evidence in case it endangered public

35:14

safety but we can still report

35:17

his conclusions. McGregor

35:19

told the court he conducted four

35:22

simulations at the Pockinghorn's home testing

35:24

four possible ways a hanging could

35:26

have occurred. There

35:29

were some aspects of the scene he

35:31

couldn't recreate. He did not have the

35:33

exact rope and didn't know the exact

35:35

positions of everything at the time. But

35:38

all four simulations allowed enough

35:40

force to cause death. In

35:44

cross-examination, McClintock asked if he

35:46

had to quote, rely entirely

35:48

on Pockinghorn's account

35:50

to conduct the simulations. That's

35:53

correct, he replied. I had to

35:56

rely on the statement he gave to police in his

35:58

video. McClintock

36:00

said she meant no disrespect,

36:02

but McGregor was a qualified

36:05

engineer without a pathology qualification?

36:08

He agreed and said he had

36:10

to research partial hangings before

36:12

the tests. Just

36:16

to recap, when police responded to

36:19

Pockinghorn's report of Hannah's death, they

36:21

found two lengths of orange rope.

36:23

It was tied around the three vertical

36:26

balustrades. One was tied to a

36:28

balustrade above the body. We

36:32

heard in an earlier episode that a

36:34

section of the balustrade was removed and

36:37

taken for testing after one of the

36:39

first detectives on the scene checked how

36:41

tightly the rope was secured. He

36:46

became suspicious that it wouldn't hold

36:49

enough weight for someone to hang

36:51

themselves. And with a minimum

36:53

tension, that rope that's tied around the

36:55

three balustrades slipped down a little bit.

36:58

The defence said they asked

37:00

for that part of the

37:02

balustrade to be reinstated for

37:04

McGregor's simulations. At

37:08

this point, Justice Lang had some questions. Had

37:10

McGregor tied the rope over the top row

37:13

of the balustrade as shown in the evidence

37:15

photos he'd taken at the scene? He

37:18

agreed he had. And

37:20

did the second of his photos show the

37:22

rope tied at the bottom, hard

37:24

up against a wooden edge? Again,

37:27

he agreed. McClintock

37:30

asked a further question. In

37:33

his tests, had McGregor tied the

37:35

rope in the middle of the balustrade where

37:38

it was found by police? He

37:40

had not, he said. McGregor

37:42

later told the court he was focusing

37:45

on what pressure could be generated and

37:47

had left others to determine whether the

37:49

rope was tied at the top, bottom

37:52

or halfway. focused

38:00

on expert witnesses, but also those

38:02

who knew and worked with Philip

38:04

Pockinghorn. The prosecution had

38:07

previously questioned senior staff from Auckland

38:09

Eye, the private clinic where he

38:11

worked, now the defence called other

38:13

colleagues. Receptionists Sharon

38:16

Jenkins worked closely with Pockinghorn, she

38:18

was allocated to be his point

38:20

of contact with a wider reception

38:22

team. Harrison Smith,

38:24

one of the defence lawyers, asked

38:26

how Pockinghorn got on with his colleagues. Jenkins

38:30

said he had a good relationship with

38:32

them. And his patients,

38:34

Smith asked? His patients

38:36

loved him, Jenkins said, he always

38:38

treated them well, he wouldn't charge

38:40

patients that didn't have the money

38:42

to pay for consultations. That

38:45

was something mentioned by two other witnesses from

38:47

Auckland Eye. Smith

38:49

then asked Jenkins about a house-sitting

38:51

arrangement over Christmas 2017. Jenkins

38:55

stayed at the Pockinghorn home to feed the cats

38:58

and water the plants. She house-sate

39:00

six times until Christmas 2020. Smith

39:04

asked Jenkins if she'd ever noticed

39:06

red buttons in the spare room.

39:10

Jenkins said her partner had seen them and

39:12

told her they were panic alarms. Under

39:15

cross-examination, Jenkins told the prosecutions

39:18

Brian Dickey she didn't know

39:20

if they worked. Dickey

39:22

asked if in a couple of years before his

39:25

wife's death, Pockinghorn had seemed

39:27

tired and lost a bit of weight. Jenkins

39:31

said he seemed to have lost a considerable amount

39:33

of weight and wanted to reduce

39:35

his workload. In

39:38

re-examination by the defence, Jenkins told the

39:40

court, I did wonder if

39:42

he did have cancer or something like that

39:44

as it, and

39:46

she's talking about the weight loss here, was

39:48

quite dramatic. A

39:51

registered nurse who worked alongside Pockinghorn for

39:53

a number of years told the court

39:55

she appreciated his work and his willingness

39:58

to share his knowledge. Gilliam

40:00

Blakely was asked by defence

40:02

lawyer Harrison Smith about Polkinghorne's

40:04

relationship with his patients. She

40:07

said many spoke highly of him. And

40:10

what was he like in the operating theatre

40:12

Harrison asked? A reminder here that

40:14

in episode 7 we heard

40:16

senior staff at Auckland Eye say

40:18

that there were complaints about Polkinghorne's

40:21

behaviour during operations. Blakely

40:24

told the court Polkinghorne could

40:26

get a bit rattled during

40:28

stressful operations. His tone

40:31

might change slightly, she said. He

40:33

liked silence in the theatre. So

40:36

if people taught, that wasn't good. Was

40:39

he ever disrespectful or discourteous

40:41

to other staff Harrison enquired?

40:45

A bit cheeky, but no, she said,

40:48

not discourteous. He always

40:50

thanked staff for their work. The

40:55

defence then called David Daniels one

40:57

of Polkinghorne's friends and a fellow

40:59

fisherman from Rings Beach. Daniels

41:02

is a mechanic in Auckland. His

41:04

wife has shared ownership of a

41:06

family batch next door to the

41:08

Polkinghorne's holiday home. The couples

41:10

had known each other for about 26 years,

41:12

he said. Daniels told

41:15

the defence he and Polkinghorne often fish

41:17

together at the beach. Mansfield

41:20

asked Daniels to describe Polkinghorne.

41:23

He could be quite eccentric and a

41:25

bit accident prone, quite a funny guy,

41:27

Daniels told the court. At any

41:30

stage through that time have you ever

41:32

seen him under the influence of any

41:34

controlled drug? Have you ever seen

41:36

him lose the plot and

41:38

get angry and aggressive? Never,

41:41

said Daniels, adding that Polkinghorne

41:43

and Hannah always seemed fine

41:45

together. In

41:49

episode four another Rings Beach regular,

41:51

Stephen McIntyre, said he thought Polkinghorne's

41:53

behaviour had changed over the couple

41:56

of years before his wife's death,

41:58

that he'd become an and McIntyre's

42:00

words a bit manic, a

42:02

little bit irrational. In

42:06

cross-examination, Brian Dickey asked Daniels

42:08

whether he was at Ring's

42:10

Beach every Christmas. "'Not

42:13

always Christmas Day,' he answered. "'Could

42:16

he remember Christmas 2019,' Dickey asked. "'It

42:20

was more than likely I was there, "'but

42:22

I can't definitely say,' Daniels replied. "'The

42:25

prosecution urged Daniels to be as accurate

42:28

as possible "'given he was a witness.'"

42:32

Asked again about Christmas 2019, Daniels

42:35

said he couldn't honestly answer any

42:38

questions about that time. Remember,

42:42

we've heard evidence that 2019 was the year

42:45

that Polkinghorne emailed Hannah to say he

42:47

was on a course over Christmas and

42:50

not allowed to take calls. Police

42:52

told the court that he'd flown to

42:55

Sydney. Dominic

43:00

Foote has been going to the family batch at

43:02

Ring's Beach since the late 1990s. Their

43:05

place was two doors down from the Polkinghorne's, he

43:07

told the court. Foote

43:09

said his parents had been close friends

43:12

with their neighbours, and as he got

43:14

older, he dived and fished with a

43:16

couple. Mansfield asked

43:18

if he was one of the so-called

43:20

fishing boys. He was. How

43:23

did he find Polky, as the defendant was

43:26

known by his beach buddies? Foote

43:28

said the former eye surgeon was

43:30

great, generous, fantastic with his kids,

43:33

and a great neighbour. How

43:36

would you describe his temperament from

43:38

your observations over all of those

43:40

years up there? "'I

43:42

don't think I've ever seen him raise his

43:44

voice,' Foote replied." And

43:47

that would include him the 80

43:49

months to two years before Polkinghorne passed?

43:52

"'It would,' he said." Have

43:54

you ever seen him obviously under the

43:56

influence of any controlled drug? "'Never.'"

44:00

Foote told the court. Seen him

44:02

around in a controlled drug. No,

44:05

Foote replied. Ever seen

44:07

him act erratically or

44:10

unusually? No, he's

44:12

about as consistent as you can get,

44:15

he told the court. Foote

44:19

said they had socialised with the

44:21

poking horns regularly. And

44:23

despite the defendant enjoying carrying

44:25

around a comically large wine

44:27

glass, he'd never seen either

44:29

of the pair drunk. In

44:35

the next episode. But

44:38

I don't know what to do with myself. So

44:41

I will go to bed and not sleep. Who

44:44

knows what might follow? Have

44:47

to tell someone, even if

44:49

no one, that God ever sees

44:51

this. This

45:01

episode was scripted and presented by

45:03

me, Philip Itali. Sound design

45:05

was by Connor Scott. Stuff

45:08

is 100% Kiwi-owned and committed

45:11

to great storytelling, like this

45:13

podcast. But it takes time

45:16

and resources. That's why

45:18

we're asking you to subscribe to Stuff

45:20

Extra. For about the

45:22

price of a coffee each month,

45:24

you'll get new episodes of the

45:26

trial before everyone else, plus add

45:28

free access to this and a

45:30

bunch of other Stuff True Crime

45:32

podcasts. Details are in the episode

45:34

description. And it would be

45:36

great if you left a review. It helps other

45:39

people find the podcast. Thanks

45:41

for listening and supporting New Zealand

45:43

storytelling. This

45:48

podcast took time to research and

45:50

resources to produce, right here in

45:52

Kiwi-land. Support this work by making

45:55

a contribution at stuff.co.nz.