Speaker 1: The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Speaker 1: Detective sy aside of life. The average person is never
Speaker 1: exposed her I spent thirty four years as a cop.
Speaker 1: For twenty five of those years I was catching killers.
Speaker 1: That's what I did for a living. I was a
Speaker 1: homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,
Speaker 1: I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.
Speaker 1: The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories
Speaker 1: from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw
Speaker 1: and honest, just like the people I talk to. Some
Speaker 1: of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
Speaker 1: no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Speaker 1: Join me now, as I take you into this world.
Speaker 1: Can murders be prevented? It's a complex question, but one
Speaker 1: that Aggie de Moro is not afraid to ask. Aggie
Speaker 1: is the mother of Celeste, a vibrant twenty three year
Speaker 1: old whose life was brutally taken from her. She was
Speaker 1: stabbed to death in her own home by a former
Speaker 1: co worker she hardly knew, who was consumed by obsession. Today,
Speaker 1: Aggie joins me on I catch killers to make a
Speaker 1: point that there's both heartbreaking and undeniable that Celeste's murder
Speaker 1: could have been prevented. Nothing said in this conversation will
Speaker 1: bring Celeste back, but Aggie's voice matters, and if the
Speaker 1: right people are listening, perhaps lessons can be learned, accountability
Speaker 1: can be demanded, and real change can follow. Because stalking
Speaker 1: is not harmless, it's dangerous, and far too often it
Speaker 1: is deadly. It's time to wake up before something like
Speaker 1: this happens again. Aggie Tomorrow, Welcome to I Catch Killers.
Speaker 2: Thank you Gary, and thank you for having me on.
Speaker 1: I know that you'd rather not be having a conversation
Speaker 1: with me in the circumstances that we're having the conversation,
Speaker 1: so I apologize upfront reliving things that are of very
Speaker 1: painful to you. But in the lengthy conversations that we've
Speaker 1: had in the lead up to this podcast, there's some
Speaker 1: very important messages that you want to get across. And
Speaker 1: I agree with you wholeheartedly on your concerns, concerns and
Speaker 1: mixed with anger about what happened to Celeste, and the
Speaker 1: fact that appears that no lessons have been learned from.
Speaker 2: Them, none whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Despite your all your efforts.
Speaker 2: Despite efforts, despite promises and commitments that were made, nothing's
Speaker 2: been on it.
Speaker 1: I've seen the pain that homicide causes. Unless you've been
Speaker 1: affected by it directly, nobody knows what you're going through.
Speaker 1: So my condolences for the pain that you're carrying.
Speaker 2: Still. Thank you, Gary, I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Before we start speaking about what our concerns are, things
Speaker 1: that haven't been done, I think it's appropriate that you
Speaker 1: tell everyone the type of lady celest was, the type
Speaker 1: of young girl, the daughter that you knew, just so
Speaker 1: people understand what we're talking about here.
Speaker 2: Celeste was twenty three years old. She had completed her
Speaker 2: bachelor's degree in criminology and psychology. She still had one
Speaker 2: more year, her honest year, to do, but decided to
Speaker 2: take a gap. Found employment at an agency called SOCO,
Speaker 2: which basically the department she worked in was handling contracts
Speaker 2: for services Australia. Became a team leader within six months,
Speaker 2: was there two and a half years. Celeste was this kind, gentle,
Speaker 2: loving young woman. She's just happy, go lucky, saw the
Speaker 2: positive in everything, always wanted to help people if she could.
Speaker 2: She was just a ray of sunshine. Honestly, she'd walk
Speaker 2: in a room and people were just drawn to her.
Speaker 2: They were drawn to her presence, her smile, just everything
Speaker 2: about her. So she was just a beautiful soul while
Speaker 2: she started working there in June of twenty eighteen. About
Speaker 2: a year later, she was handed over a new team
Speaker 2: to lead. She was upset the night, she told me,
Speaker 2: because she loved her previous team, but she'd done great
Speaker 2: work with them, and one of the team manager's team
Speaker 2: leaders had left, so they gave her a new team
Speaker 2: to lead, and the beast we're going to refer to
Speaker 2: was on that team. She was only his team leader
Speaker 2: for about two months before he left the company. The organization,
Speaker 2: and the way that came about was that he was
Speaker 2: put on notice by management. One day he decided to
Speaker 2: leave them in there, apologized for his behavior, and Celeste,
Speaker 2: been his team leader, was required to walk him to
Speaker 2: the exit door. She did so. She was telling me,
Speaker 2: you know, when she got home that night that she'd
Speaker 2: experienced the most embarrassing moment of her life because she
Speaker 2: felt quite bad for him. So she extended her hand
Speaker 2: to shake his hand and wish him all the best
Speaker 2: in his future endeavors. And what she didn't expect was
Speaker 2: for him to kiss her on the cheek, so she
Speaker 2: went apparently bright red. She said, Mama must have been
Speaker 2: tomato read. I was so embarrassed, And in that moment
Speaker 2: I thought she had just been a little bit of
Speaker 2: a drama queen. I said, don't worry about it. I
Speaker 2: didn't even know who she was talking about. I thought
Speaker 2: it was just a young kid, possibly her age, with
Speaker 2: some crush on her.
Speaker 1: At twenty three, as much as Celeste with the thought
Speaker 1: she was an adult. You are still a child at
Speaker 1: that age, aren't you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, she didn't even look twenty three. You know, she's
Speaker 2: still got as for id in some venues.
Speaker 1: So I saw the pictures her and I can understand
Speaker 1: why that would happen. Her choice of career or study
Speaker 1: criminology and psychology is an interesting path to go down
Speaker 1: to too. Did she have dreams and aspirations what she
Speaker 1: wanted to do.
Speaker 2: She wanted to help people. She used to do volunteer
Speaker 2: help for some of you know, these not for profit
Speaker 2: organizations where people can call in if they need some
Speaker 2: sort of help talking to someone. And she did that
Speaker 2: for a while, volunteering with that. But you know, she
Speaker 2: was a kind of kid at school, even in high school,
Speaker 2: if she saw someone on their own, she'd approached them
Speaker 2: and see if they're okay. She just didn't really like
Speaker 2: seeing people left out. So she just had this need
Speaker 2: to assist people. And yeah, she thought that she was
Speaker 2: a little bit undecided whether to go down legal studies,
Speaker 2: lawyer sort of work or psychology, but she really wanted
Speaker 2: to understand how people sought in, why they thought a
Speaker 2: particular way, how she could help them think differently. So yeah,
Speaker 2: she was very interested in that.
Speaker 1: Well, sounds like she was a beautiful young lady that
Speaker 1: would have contributed greatly to society. When we were discussing
Speaker 1: about coming on the podcast, and it's not something you
Speaker 1: openly wanted to do, but you wanted to get a
Speaker 1: message across. You didn't want to relive what happened to
Speaker 1: Celeste see aftermath, and it's a lead up to what
Speaker 1: happened that perhaps lessons could be learned or not, perhaps
Speaker 1: lessons should be learned. If it's okay with you, just
Speaker 1: so our listeners understand what we're talking about here for
Speaker 1: the few people that mightn't have heard about what happened
Speaker 1: to your daughter, is it all right with you if
Speaker 1: I just read out a summary of what's occurred. Yes,
Speaker 1: of course, Celeste was twenty three years old when she
Speaker 1: was brutally murdered in her family home in the early
Speaker 1: hours of the morning on the sixteenth of November twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: A former co worker, thirty five year old Leo Seiko,
Speaker 1: who Celeste hardly knew, had become infatuated with her, and
Speaker 1: in the twelve months leading up to her murder, he
Speaker 1: bombarded her with messages, stalked her, and harassed her. It
Speaker 1: made Celeste feel unsafe to the point that her mother
Speaker 1: and the daughter went to the police for help. The
Speaker 1: initial cries for help with the police were just dismissed.
Speaker 1: When the situation escalated and the communications became even more
Speaker 1: concerning and of her sexual nature, you went to the
Speaker 1: police again. This time your concerns were taken more seriously.
Speaker 1: A personal safety intervention order was taken out, which Seko
Speaker 1: bridged after Celeste posted a picture of herself and the
Speaker 1: new boyfriend on social media. Seko went to your home
Speaker 1: in the early hours of the morning when everyone was sleeping.
Speaker 1: Then he smashed his way in through her bedroom window
Speaker 1: with a hammer and stabbed Celeste twenty three times in
Speaker 1: a violent, frenzied attack. During the attack, Celeste attempted to
Speaker 1: defend herself, as shown by defensive wounds on the hands.
Speaker 1: This brutal attack lasted only minutes. You her mother were
Speaker 1: awakened by the noise and went to your daughter's bedroom,
Speaker 1: and she was dead. The murderer of the beasts you
Speaker 1: referred to him, and I fully understand that had run
Speaker 1: away by the time you'd entered the room. Seika discarded
Speaker 1: the phone he duws to harass and stalk Celeste, and
Speaker 1: then handed himself into police. He denied aspects of the
Speaker 1: offense and contested the matter through the courts for years
Speaker 1: before finally pleading guilty after he could not convince the
Speaker 1: courts he was not of a sound mind, and pleaded guilty.
Speaker 1: He was sentenced to thirty six years in prison. Aggie,
Speaker 1: that's just a brief overview. I want when people listen
Speaker 1: to this podcast, I want people to be angry. I
Speaker 1: want people to be shocked. I want people to think
Speaker 1: we've got to do things better. I think it's important
Speaker 1: to just spell out in the way that I did
Speaker 1: what has actually happened here. Quite often crimes like this
Speaker 1: looked at as statistics people don't give it a lot
Speaker 1: the thought it becomes a headline. Is there anything you
Speaker 1: want to add to what I just read out?
Speaker 2: Earlier? You said that I was a little bit reluctant
Speaker 2: to just do an interview because telling Celicia's story really
Speaker 2: does put a toll on me. But you're right that
Speaker 2: there are messages I need to get out there. I'm
Speaker 2: very angry. It's been five and a half years. This
Speaker 2: is not going to subside for me. It can't. I'm
Speaker 2: angry at many things. One the fact that absolutely this
Speaker 2: could have been prevented. But outside of that, I've been
Speaker 2: saying Celeste was failed again and again. She was failed
Speaker 2: by not being taken seriously the first time, but she
Speaker 2: was also failed once she was murdered. So you know,
Speaker 2: you got to the fact that he received thirty six
Speaker 2: years non parole thirty We have a system that will
Speaker 2: continue to excuse and justify offenders, murderers wanting, wanting, and
Speaker 2: not only them wanting it, but telling us that we
Speaker 2: want this, absolutely wanting a murderer's rehabilitation, which I don't
Speaker 2: believe any of us want. In Celeicester's case, in a nutshell,
Speaker 2: and this was all came out at the plea hearing,
Speaker 2: and obviously the judge read it out in her sentencing remarks,
Speaker 2: but in Soleicsti's case, you have an offender who decides
Speaker 2: to stalk a young woman who didn't even know him
Speaker 2: for well over a year. We have an intervention order
Speaker 2: in place that he decides to breach with a three
Speaker 2: and a half page letter where he is pleading with
Speaker 2: Celeste to drop that intervention order. And there are many
Speaker 2: messages in that intervention order that absolutely basically say drop
Speaker 2: it or else. We don't drop it, and not because
Speaker 2: I didn't consider it. I did want to do things differently,
Speaker 2: and I'm sure we'll go there as well, but we
Speaker 2: didn't drop it purely on police insistence to keep it
Speaker 2: in place. He then buys a hammer and a knife
Speaker 2: the very next day after he was arrested and released,
Speaker 2: goes quiet for three months, leading us to believe that
Speaker 2: he'd actually learnt his lesson and this was over, so
Speaker 2: we've completely dropped our guard at this point. Three months
Speaker 2: of silence from him goes as far as finding how
Speaker 2: our address on Google Maps according to him, downhiads the
Speaker 2: floor planned to the house to pinpoint Sir Leicester's room
Speaker 2: and in the middle of the night, jumps a side gate,
Speaker 2: smashes through her bedroom window and stabs her viciously. Twenty
Speaker 2: three times we rallied for an appeal. The first time
Speaker 2: didn't get anywhere with that. We rallied again, insisting on
Speaker 2: an appeal. Still didn't get anywhere with that. Once these
Speaker 2: decisions are made, they're made. I have not met and
Speaker 2: I've met hundreds of people I'm not exaggerating here from
Speaker 2: the cemetery and just around the community. Not one community
Speaker 2: member has ever said to me that they didn't believe
Speaker 2: he wouldn't get life. They were convinced he'd get life.
Speaker 2: The fact that the courts, the judges, everything they tell
Speaker 2: us through the Sentencing Act, that everything they do they
Speaker 2: do in the interest of the community, with community expectations
Speaker 2: in mind. It's a load of rubbish. And this is
Speaker 2: what I call gas lighting. They want to convince us
Speaker 2: that we want what they offer, and we don't.
Speaker 1: I understand where you're coming from. And in the numerous
Speaker 1: discussions we've had the issue of life sentencing for murder
Speaker 1: across the board that you raised, and I said, I'm
Speaker 1: not an advocate for it, and I explain, explain my
Speaker 1: way that each case needs to be, in my view,
Speaker 1: judged on the circumstances of the case on its own
Speaker 1: own merits. But what I also did say to you,
Speaker 1: and I want to put this out and with the
Speaker 1: research I've done on the lead up to the murder,
Speaker 1: I have absolutely no doubt. Not that my opinion counts
Speaker 1: for anything. You've got more of a right of an
Speaker 1: opinion that being the mother of a the young lady.
Speaker 1: But I believe this person should get life imprisonment. I
Speaker 1: am campaign and I an advocate for rehabilitation if possible.
Speaker 1: But this to me is and I bear in his
Speaker 1: mind there was a homicide detective for a long time.
Speaker 1: This is the worst type of crime. This was premeditated.
Speaker 1: There was red flag's steps the whole way that he
Speaker 1: could have walked away from it, and he continued on.
Speaker 1: And I know there was a lot of discussion about
Speaker 1: mental health, and you know it was he impaired at
Speaker 1: the time of committing committing the offense. Well, he had
Speaker 1: enough now to know what he did was wrong because
Speaker 1: he went to the police. He also discarded the phone
Speaker 1: that he was stalking and harassing your daughter on, discarded
Speaker 1: the phone before he went to the police, and then
Speaker 1: had selective memory about what happened when he went to
Speaker 1: the place. So, Aggie, what I'm saying, what I'm saying
Speaker 1: to you is I support your anger on this. I
Speaker 1: can understand it. And this is coming from a person
Speaker 1: that doesn't believe every murderer should get a life sentence.
Speaker 1: But I for this one. If it's Judge Onett's merits
Speaker 1: for the life of me, I can't see.
Speaker 2: Gary. I'm still always going to continue to you know,
Speaker 2: We're going to have differences of opinion where I'm referring
Speaker 2: to murder murder when there is a question on whether
Speaker 2: something deserves a life sentence or not. Maybe when we're
Speaker 2: considering manslaughter. But murder is murder. Murder is the intentional
Speaker 2: killing of a human being. And so to me, the
Speaker 2: person they killed does not get a second chance. Let's
Speaker 2: was twenty three. I will never understand or agree that
Speaker 2: any murderer deserves a second chance. And we see, we
Speaker 2: have seen it for years, time and time again, murderers
Speaker 2: that are parolled only to commit murder again. I mean
Speaker 2: me personally, I'd be locking up those the parole board,
Speaker 2: the people who made decisions at the parole board, because
Speaker 2: this is not how we should have to No family
Speaker 2: should have to have their loved one murdered by someone
Speaker 2: who had previously murdered because we have a system that
Speaker 2: continues to insist that we rehabilitate them and give them
Speaker 2: a second chance, and we've seen rehabilitation doesn't always work.
Speaker 1: I look at it from the perspective of what was
Speaker 1: the lead up to this case, what was behind this case.
Speaker 1: This was just some beast as you call him, and
Speaker 1: that sits comfortable with me, infatuated with a young woman
Speaker 1: and just stalked and harassed repeatedly, was given warnings, was
Speaker 1: brushed off politely, not humiliated. There wasn't a relationship. They
Speaker 1: virtually didn't know each other. Just became obsessed. And when
Speaker 1: he gets in trouble, when orders were taken out and
Speaker 1: he breached those orders, and then that three and a
Speaker 1: half page letter, it's almost like she did him wrong
Speaker 1: and it was the revenge the preparation for it.
Speaker 2: So it was absolute revenge. It was payback. It was
Speaker 2: didn't you didn't listen to me dropping the intervention order.
Speaker 2: You didn't listen to me. This is what I'm going
Speaker 2: to do you know at the end of the day.
Speaker 2: I know it's always been reported that the night that's
Speaker 2: Less uploaded that photo. Let's just remember he bought the
Speaker 2: hammer a knife in August, just after he'd been arrested
Speaker 2: and released. He murdered Celeste in November. You know it
Speaker 2: had to take I suppose what can we call it,
Speaker 2: some courage to see through his plan. The nights uploaded
Speaker 2: that photo was simply the when. It was, not the
Speaker 2: why it was the when. This was pure revenge payback,
Speaker 2: and that is exact exactly how the courts should have
Speaker 2: treated it.
Speaker 1: I agree with you for what it counts. I agree
Speaker 1: with you. If this isn't in the category of the
Speaker 1: worst type of murder, I don't know what else you
Speaker 1: need to add to it. So what we want to
Speaker 1: talk about is, Okay, this has happened. We'll talk about
Speaker 1: the lead up to it, but we'll also talk about
Speaker 1: what's happened after it. Has any lessons been learned? And
Speaker 1: I know you've been pushing and advocating for an inquest
Speaker 1: to be heard in relation to this where they can
Speaker 1: look at could have this death been prevented? Can you
Speaker 1: tell me what's happened on that front in regards to
Speaker 1: your efforts to get an inquest.
Speaker 2: So first I just want to correct something here. I've
Speaker 2: been pushing for an inquest because five and a half
Speaker 2: years later it still hasn't taken place. But I was
Speaker 2: never the one who I didn't even know what a
Speaker 2: coronial inquest was when this happened. I was told from
Speaker 2: day one there would be a coronial inquest, and I
Speaker 2: was told that by the Attorney General I met at
Speaker 2: the time with the Secretary of the Department of Justice.
Speaker 2: Because obviously when I met with these people, I wanted answers,
Speaker 2: and I was told that I would get those answers
Speaker 2: after the coronial inquest. I was told those very same
Speaker 2: words by the police Commissioner at the time when I
Speaker 2: was introduced to him and his deputy. Again, I went
Speaker 2: in there not to meet these people. I wanted answers.
Speaker 2: How did this happen? Why did you allow it to happen?
Speaker 2: Because I don't know. When you're introduced to the police
Speaker 2: commissioner and deputy commissioner, you don't know what they know
Speaker 2: about the local police station or how everything unfolded. And
Speaker 2: again I was met with condolences and apologies and told
Speaker 2: that an internal investigation had already begun and that whilst
Speaker 2: they understood I wanted answers, they wouldn't be able to
Speaker 2: give me anything until after the coronial inquest. So this
Speaker 2: was something I was told from the get go. But
Speaker 2: five and a half years later, there's still no inquest.
Speaker 1: So the inquest, the thought of an inquest, and I
Speaker 1: take on board what you're saying there. You didn't understand
Speaker 1: the system. The thought was put in your head by
Speaker 1: those people, the people in authority that will give you
Speaker 1: answers after the inquest, And here we are five and
Speaker 1: a half years later and there's still no inquest.
Speaker 2: No inquest. In fact, the commissioner's words at the time
Speaker 2: were that although he understood, he said, Aggie, I understand
Speaker 2: and realize that this might not give you any solace,
Speaker 2: but a coronial inquest will make findings and it'll teach
Speaker 2: us what to do better next time. You know, I
Speaker 2: did my research. I understood what the coronial inquest intends
Speaker 2: to do, what it's going to look at the system failures.
Speaker 2: How could this be prevented? So, given the significance of
Speaker 2: an inquest and why it's done, why hasn't it been done.
Speaker 2: In fact, over the last five and a half years,
Speaker 2: what's been done differently by Victoria police? Absolutely nothing. Intervention
Speaker 2: orders are still being breached. Women are still being murdered. Okay,
Speaker 2: we haven't heard murders in the context of say Celeste
Speaker 2: where she did not she wasn't intimately involved with this person,
Speaker 2: didn't really know him. The ones we hear about domestic
Speaker 2: violence murders just as important. Intervention orders in place breached.
Speaker 2: Nothing's been done different.
Speaker 1: It's concerning, isn't it. Very You said you've done research,
Speaker 1: and I know in speaking to you you've got your
Speaker 1: head round so many different aspects. The inquest is determined
Speaker 1: cause and nature of death. Well, that's been established through
Speaker 1: the criminal courts. But could that death be prevented? And
Speaker 1: that's what you were hoping to get from the inquest?
Speaker 2: Yes, absolutely been prevented. What could the police have done differently?
Speaker 2: There's so many things that could have been done differently,
Speaker 2: but we want, we want the current to make those findings.
Speaker 1: Have you been given a date for the inquest yet?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the stalking aspect of the offense. I've
Speaker 1: always had a concern about stalking. I think that it's
Speaker 1: a very worrying, red flag type of offense. If someone's
Speaker 1: stalking someone that there's a real concerns. In my experience
Speaker 1: in the police, I don't think or police fully accept
Speaker 1: that or fully understand it. I don't think the courts
Speaker 1: understand it as well, and the politicians don't understand it.
Speaker 1: One of the campaigns that you've been pushing through is
Speaker 1: about getting more understanding of the offense and nature of
Speaker 1: stalking and make sure that police respond to it in
Speaker 1: an appropriate way. Can you tell me about your thoughts
Speaker 1: and efforts in that regards well.
Speaker 2: Again, when this happened, the Attorney General at the time
Speaker 2: asked the Victorian Law Reform Commission to do an inquiry
Speaker 2: into stalking the laws around it, as well as the
Speaker 2: laws or legislation around the Personal Safety Intervention Order. That
Speaker 2: inquiry was done, it took eighteen months. It came up
Speaker 2: with forty five recommendations. There were two reports, an interim
Speaker 2: report and then a final report. The report was recommendations
Speaker 2: specific for Victoria Police in which it made I think
Speaker 2: it was nine recommendations which form part of the forty five.
Speaker 2: So you know, going back to politicians don't understand it,
Speaker 2: police don't don't understand it, but an inquiry was done
Speaker 2: and it's allowed them to know where legislation is lacking,
Speaker 2: what police could be doing differently. Part of those recommendations
Speaker 2: makes reference to what they refer to as SASH, which
Speaker 2: the former Attorney General in Victoria decided through a sixty
Speaker 2: minutes interview that was done just after that Beast was
Speaker 2: sentenced to say that Victoria police had responded appropriately to
Speaker 2: Celesta's murder by trialing the SASH pilot, which at that
Speaker 2: point she still couldn't say where it was at. They've
Speaker 2: trialed it, we know nothing else. The SASH pilot is basically,
Speaker 2: let's call it a screening tool. It's a questionnaire among
Speaker 2: other things that they will delve into, but it's a
Speaker 2: questionnaire that allows police to categorize the level of risk
Speaker 2: that an offender poses, a stalker poses, and depending on
Speaker 2: that level of risk, they'll categorize him low, medium or
Speaker 2: high risk. When I was taken through the pilot and
Speaker 2: what it meant, that's as far as they got at
Speaker 2: the time. This was at the end of this was
Speaker 2: December of twenty twenty two. They still had to do
Speaker 2: Stage two and Stage three and some sort of evaluation
Speaker 2: which I was supposed to be kept informed with never happened.
Speaker 2: I have been following up on that every six months.
Speaker 2: Still know nothing. But you know, when I had this
Speaker 2: meeting with the Assistant commissioner that was spearheading that pilot,
Speaker 2: my question at the end of the meeting was very,
Speaker 2: very simple, when you've categorized that the offender poses a
Speaker 2: high risk, what do you do then? Now at that
Speaker 2: point there was no answer because they hadn't gotten that far. Honestly,
Speaker 2: this is not rocket science to anybody. Clearly, my statement
Speaker 2: was to the point, well, in my opinion, you're telling
Speaker 2: me that this has been done to prevent what happened
Speaker 2: to Celeste from happening again, and in my opinion, you
Speaker 2: will not prevent that same scenario. You will not prevent
Speaker 2: another death if you do not detain or detect. Either
Speaker 2: you're going to keep the offender, the high risk offender,
Speaker 2: in remand until he is before the courts, or you're
Speaker 2: going to detect through whether it's an ankle bracelet or
Speaker 2: some other advice device, but through electronic monitoring that has
Speaker 2: been dismissed all together. Our premier here in Victoria in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four announced that electronic monitoring would not be implemented.
Speaker 2: She did state her reasons. Her reasons were it would
Speaker 2: give women a false sense of security.
Speaker 1: I've read the judges summary in the sentencing for this matter,
Speaker 1: and I broke down some points and I just want
Speaker 1: to read those points out, and there's a lot of them.
Speaker 1: But I want people to listen to specifically what we're
Speaker 1: talking about, what you and your daughter experienced in the
Speaker 1: lead up to this, and when they do look at
Speaker 1: how many red flags they were, how many indicators there
Speaker 1: were that something bad was going to happen. Seiko was
Speaker 1: employed with in April twenty eighteen. Let's listen to the
Speaker 1: dates too, how long this went on for. In twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: so Less became his team leader. June twenty nineteen, Saiko's
Speaker 1: employment was terminated. Celeste was tasked with escorting him from
Speaker 1: the premises. As Sache was leaving, he thanked Celeste for
Speaker 1: her kindness without encouragement, he kissed her on the cheek
Speaker 1: as you talked about the start of the podcast. Three
Speaker 1: days later, after he left, he tracked down various social
Speaker 1: media accounts held by Celeste, including Instagram accounts. Again direct
Speaker 1: messaging her on Instagram declaring his feelings for her, which
Speaker 1: he politely declined and told him she was not interested.
Speaker 1: So there is a person that a very distant association
Speaker 1: with a person and being told that your interest in
Speaker 1: me is not appreciated or not reciprocated. That should be
Speaker 1: a warning sign enough to tell someone to stay away.
Speaker 1: He continued to message her until she blocked him on Instagram.
Speaker 1: A few weeks later, he created a second Instagram account
Speaker 1: and again resumed messaging Celeste again warning signs red flags.
Speaker 1: Told you're not interested, then star So surreptitiously change his
Speaker 1: addresses so he can get in contact again. Celeste did
Speaker 1: not accept Sacho as a follower, but was able to
Speaker 1: continue to view his messages. Occasionally, Celeste would respond and
Speaker 1: request Saka cease his communications again understandable. What do you
Speaker 1: do when someone keeps repeatedly reaching out to you? No,
Speaker 1: I'm not interested, to stay away from me. He'd create
Speaker 1: new accounts after this, and then you Her mother asked
Speaker 1: him to stop contacting around the thirty first of December
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, sent a series of sexually explicit and derogatory messages.
Speaker 1: Celeste began to fear for a safety was encouraged to
Speaker 1: report the matter to police and also reported it to
Speaker 1: her employer. Celeste had seen him sitting in his car
Speaker 1: outside of her work observing her car. I mean red
Speaker 1: flag warning concerns is not normal behavior and it should
Speaker 1: be noted. Around this time, or I think it was
Speaker 1: on the third of February twenty twenty, you and Celeste
Speaker 1: went to the police station and reported the matter, and
Speaker 1: this wasn't in the judges comments because the judge left
Speaker 1: this out of the comments, But in my conversation with you,
Speaker 1: it fits into the timeline. But nothing was done or
Speaker 1: recorded when you went in and explained this to police
Speaker 1: at this point in time.
Speaker 2: It wasn't in the judges comments because it wasn't in
Speaker 2: the opening summary from the prosecution, because it was that
Speaker 2: first time into the police station was never recorded.
Speaker 1: Can you tell me what happened and why it wasn't recorded.
Speaker 2: I have no idea, that's part I suppose of what
Speaker 2: the Coronial Inquest should be investigating.
Speaker 1: So were you at the police station when you went
Speaker 1: in on this time or it was a Celeste.
Speaker 2: We did all of it together. We went to the
Speaker 2: police station together. The first time we went to the
Speaker 2: police station together. The second time, which was in July,
Speaker 2: we went to the magistrates caught together, both in July
Speaker 2: and again in August. She always did it all with me.
Speaker 1: Okay, So when you went in there on the third
Speaker 1: of February twenty twenty, tell us what happened, and why
Speaker 1: did you go in there, and what was the purpose
Speaker 1: of going in there, and what happened when you got
Speaker 1: in there.
Speaker 2: We went in there because the messages from him had
Speaker 2: been going on for six months, and at this point
Speaker 2: they were sounding to me, they sounded quite They started
Speaker 2: to sound angry, and so I said to Celeste, look
Speaker 2: because she just wanted to ignore him for a while.
Speaker 2: She just thought he'd go away, he'll get bored. But
Speaker 2: it wasn't working. And so because I felt that he
Speaker 2: sounded angry, I said, well, was sweety, We've got to
Speaker 2: go in But also the last message he sent, which
Speaker 2: you stated he sent it, it was the thirty first
Speaker 2: of December. I mean, this is New Ye's Eve. She
Speaker 2: didn't see that message until that third of February. So
Speaker 2: that morning was when she's telling me about it, because
Speaker 2: she wasn't always looking at her Instagram messages, and it
Speaker 2: was such a vulgar message. I just so yes, I
Speaker 2: replied to that message. I was not as sweet as Celeste.
Speaker 2: Seleste always used please to stop contacting her. Mine was
Speaker 2: very direct, capital letters, telling him to stay the hell
Speaker 2: away from my daughter and that we were going to
Speaker 2: the police. Yeah, this is a person that comes back
Speaker 2: with a question mark, and you know another message to Celeste. Honestly,
Speaker 2: your mother, we went to the police, tried to show
Speaker 2: this particular message. This is a disgusting message. He just
Speaker 2: looked at Celess and said, look, now, there's nothing we
Speaker 2: can do about it. She could have say, Mom, they're
Speaker 2: not going to do and I'm insisting getting the car,
Speaker 2: we're going to the police. So I didn't even know
Speaker 2: what to say to her. Try telling a tw three
Speaker 2: year old to get off social media.
Speaker 1: Could I just break that down a little bit more? So,
Speaker 1: you're telling me you've gone into the police station a
Speaker 1: mother and a daughter, So you know you've got to
Speaker 1: form an opinion when someone walks into a police station.
Speaker 1: He's a mother and a daughter here both reporting. It's
Speaker 1: not someone that's come in making up allegations. You've got
Speaker 1: the actual communications there. You're trying to show police you're
Speaker 1: concerned enough to go to the police station. This is
Speaker 1: a person that's not a relationship. It's not love Gode Sow,
Speaker 1: which is dangerous enough as it is. This is someone
Speaker 1: that's shown repeatedly he's obsessed with your daughter, and you've
Speaker 1: gone into the police station exactly.
Speaker 2: And can I just add to that that before we
Speaker 2: actually went to the police station, I called the police station,
Speaker 2: explained what was happening over the phone, and that officer
Speaker 2: that I was speaking to, which obviously was someone else,
Speaker 2: said if you're concerned about anything, you should come in
Speaker 2: and report it, which is why I said, so lest
Speaker 2: we're going, and we went in. Yeah, there was nothing
Speaker 2: they could do about it. In fact, he said a
Speaker 2: crime hasn't been committed, to which you can imagine My
Speaker 2: instant reply was, so we have to wait for the
Speaker 2: crime to be committed. And we walked out quite I
Speaker 2: felt completely helpless. So just prior to appearing in court,
Speaker 2: the prosecution got us to go in and sit down
Speaker 2: with them because they had to take us through that
Speaker 2: opening statement. And when they were reading that out, I
Speaker 2: remember interrupting and saying, because they've gone straight to the
Speaker 2: July report at the police station, I said, no, no,
Speaker 2: you've forgotten February, and they've looked at me and said, Aggie,
Speaker 2: we haven't forgotten. It was never recorded, so we can't
Speaker 2: have it. In the opening summary. I was livid and
Speaker 2: I remember saying, but what do you mean?
Speaker 1: And on that what concerns me. I don't think there's
Speaker 1: an excuse if someone comes in and reports that, that
Speaker 1: is a warning sign to me. Someone's obsessed with someone
Speaker 1: enough that they're sending these messages repeatedly, changing the address
Speaker 1: so they can stay in contact, and the warning signs
Speaker 1: are there. Even if a criminal offense couldn't be established,
Speaker 1: you would take the details down in cases escalated, in
Speaker 1: case it's reported again. Maybe he's doing it to other women.
Speaker 1: There's so many things that could be done. I'm choosing
Speaker 1: my words carefully here, but it infuriates me because it
Speaker 1: would be so easy for me, if I'm a police
Speaker 1: officer dismiss you and your daughter. If you walked into
Speaker 1: the police station, you'd be seeing there thinking well, I've
Speaker 1: come to the police, so police know what to do,
Speaker 1: and I could just bullshit like that, and you'd walk
Speaker 1: out of the police station and think, oh, well, there's
Speaker 1: nothing that can be done. But my anger and frustration
Speaker 1: is the fact that indicators, red flags are missed in
Speaker 1: situations like that. That is concerning to me.
Speaker 2: Very concerning. This is what I mean when I said
Speaker 2: at the start, very angry, because I absolutely believe that
Speaker 2: Celester's murder was preventable. What I mean by that is
Speaker 2: you're dealing with an individual who has within those first
Speaker 2: six months turned what must have been an infatuation turning
Speaker 2: into an obsession, right because there are messages that come
Speaker 2: at a later stage where he states that this is
Speaker 2: becoming unhealthy for him because she's already thinks about He
Speaker 2: says he can't eat, he can't sleep, he can't function,
Speaker 2: he can't look for work. So you know it gets
Speaker 2: to an obsession. And so what I'm saying is if
Speaker 2: it had been taken seriously the first time, and you've
Speaker 2: got this individual coming in, having a discussion with them,
Speaker 2: letting them know what the repercussions will be offering. I've
Speaker 2: heard a lot about these men's behavioral program who are
Speaker 2: they for because they only seem to be for the
Speaker 2: rehabilitation purpose before they release them from prison. How about
Speaker 2: we start trialing those before they end up in prison.
Speaker 2: That's what preventative measures are. Why do we only have
Speaker 2: them there as something to use to rehabilitate them so
Speaker 2: that they don't re offend. Why aren't we using these
Speaker 2: same programs to fix what's obviously quite not right with them.
Speaker 2: So I absolutely believe that if they if they had
Speaker 2: done things differently, maybe, just maybe he would have taken
Speaker 2: it more. He would have been He can't deny that
Speaker 2: he has been told what the repercussions will be, what
Speaker 2: the consequences we will be. He absolutely should accept help.
Speaker 2: Does he recognize he needs help? Does he need to
Speaker 2: be told by professionals that he needs help? But what
Speaker 2: I'm saying is it could have de escalated the situation
Speaker 2: as opposed to what ended up happening.
Speaker 1: Well, I think you made a valiant point that he's
Speaker 1: infatuated and that led to becoming obsessed, and you could
Speaker 1: see the build up and it's like you're seeing murder
Speaker 1: here in slow motion. I wanted to raise the fact
Speaker 1: that you went in there, and I believe that's unforgivable
Speaker 1: and this if change needs to be done, this is
Speaker 1: the type of change that needs to be done. If
Speaker 1: someone comes in and reports that to a police station.
Speaker 1: There should be an expectation that records have made of
Speaker 1: that not fobbed off. On the first of July twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: your game went to the police station and reported the
Speaker 1: continued stalking. You've got a different response in so this
Speaker 1: is five months later. What happened there, Well.
Speaker 2: The response there gave us hope because that turned out
Speaker 2: to be leading constable. His reaction was the complete opposite.
Speaker 2: He was shocked to see the sexually explicit message, and
Speaker 2: the first thing that came out of his mouth was
Speaker 2: have you been here before, which of course led to
Speaker 2: me saying yes, absolutely, six months ago. Are you saying
Speaker 2: something should have been done then? And his reply to
Speaker 2: that was, I'm just never going to forget it. Let's
Speaker 2: just say some of us do our job better than others.
Speaker 2: And then he asked us to go into a room
Speaker 2: where we were there for a couple of hours because
Speaker 2: he took photos of every single message on Celesti's phone,
Speaker 2: and there was That was probably especially because to take
Speaker 2: the screenshots. Sometimes when you take the screenshots, it doesn't
Speaker 2: capture the whole message. So you know, there was over
Speaker 2: I've got two hundred and twenty pages because they were
Speaker 2: all printed as well to take it at the magistrate's court,
Speaker 2: So a completely different response.
Speaker 1: Can I just say there because I've criticized police in
Speaker 1: the previous encounter you had with police, But yes, he's
Speaker 1: quite quite right, and that's the difference. But it shouldn't
Speaker 1: depend which officer or who's in the police station at
Speaker 1: the time you come to report. These are the things
Speaker 1: that if there wasn't in quest, or if there was
Speaker 1: an internal investigation, these are the things that need to
Speaker 1: be tightened up that there is a standard response if
Speaker 1: someone comes in and reports a situation of the nature
Speaker 1: that you and Celeste reported.
Speaker 2: That is what a coronial inquest should be looking into.
Speaker 1: So that was the first of July. You went in
Speaker 1: and reported, and you had the police officer taking the
Speaker 1: details at that stage, and again this is from the
Speaker 1: judge's comments. At that stage, Seyko's behavior had been ongoing
Speaker 1: for twelve months when it was reported Celeste produced all
Speaker 1: the messages to police, so that's twelve months. On the
Speaker 1: third of July, you attended a magistrate's court and took
Speaker 1: out a personal safety intervention order at PSIO. On the
Speaker 1: eighth of the seventh, twenty twenty, that order was served
Speaker 1: on him. The harassment stopped for a while. On the
Speaker 1: fourth of August, Celest attended the magistrates court for an
Speaker 1: introm order to be made final.
Speaker 2: So Celesta know Yep Yep and.
Speaker 1: Seiko refused to consent to the final orders, and a
Speaker 1: hearing was sent set down for the nine ninth of
Speaker 1: March twenty twenty one. So we're going from August. He's
Speaker 1: not consenting to the orders, and the orders I would
Speaker 1: imagine would be not to communicate harass or the standard
Speaker 1: type of features in the order. He wouldn't consent to it.
Speaker 1: So a hearing was set down so he could contest.
Speaker 1: What's in there?
Speaker 2: We should add that the day he contested, however, the
Speaker 2: magistrate's courts still put in place an intram order with
Speaker 2: the same conditions that a final order would have.
Speaker 1: Had, okay, and that carries through until the hearing until March.
Speaker 1: On the tenth of August twenty twenty, Sekah was arrested
Speaker 1: and interviewed at the police station for repeated messages. He
Speaker 1: was released pending further investigations. The eleventh of August, purchased
Speaker 1: the murder weapon. Now you've indicated I've just pulled that
Speaker 1: out from the summary. I'm not making whether he knew
Speaker 1: it was the murder weapon, but that's the date he
Speaker 1: purchased the weapon that we used to murder Celeste.
Speaker 2: What you referred to as the date just prior to
Speaker 2: that when you said on the tenth of August he
Speaker 2: was arrested. That was for breaching the interventional.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and he was interviewed at the police station, released,
Speaker 1: and the next day he just happened to buy this
Speaker 1: knife and a hammer, and the hammer, the hammer that
Speaker 1: he used to.
Speaker 2: Just smash into Celesta's bedroom window.
Speaker 1: Yes, so let's workplace put in a safety plan escorting
Speaker 1: her to a car. So this is how concerned concerning
Speaker 1: it is at this stage.
Speaker 2: So even the safety plans were put in place, you know,
Speaker 2: from earlier on, because obviously I was very concerned, and
Speaker 2: so I wanted to I was very worried about Celeste
Speaker 2: leaving work, and he knew where she worked, so we
Speaker 2: didn't need him finding out where we lived. So I
Speaker 2: wanted to start, you know, going to Celestia's place before
Speaker 2: she finished work every day and then follow her home
Speaker 2: to make sure that nobody was following her. But she
Speaker 2: kept insisting no, Mom, I'm fine, but I'll keep an
Speaker 2: eye on things. There's someone walking me to the car
Speaker 2: every night, and I know that that was happening. They
Speaker 2: had a separate staff car park this building, and she
Speaker 2: was being walked to the car park to the car
Speaker 2: every night, another team leader. So that was that was
Speaker 2: already happening from the start.
Speaker 1: Okay, On the fifteenth of August twenty twenty, Saiko contraverting
Speaker 1: the introm psio, sending her a three and a half
Speaker 1: page letter. That's the letter that you've referred to. That
Speaker 1: was on the fifteenth of August. On the twenty fifth
Speaker 1: of August twenty twenty, he was interviewed by police regarding
Speaker 1: his contravention of the intram order and attempting to pervert
Speaker 1: the course of justice. I'm assuming the perverter course of
Speaker 1: justice is because he was telling her to drop the
Speaker 1: drop the order exactly. To me, that's concerning. So here
Speaker 1: is it's been the core, that's been to the police,
Speaker 1: it's been to court, the orders are in place, and
Speaker 1: he's still sending three and a half page page letter.
Speaker 1: So he's not learning from this. He is not learning
Speaker 1: from it. Interviewed by police, so he wasn't wasn't charged.
Speaker 1: He did not attempt any further contact after that interview.
Speaker 1: On the sixth of September, the intram order was on
Speaker 1: Sako by post to appear at the magistrates Court on
Speaker 1: the fifteenth of February twenty twenty one. Can I just
Speaker 1: break that down because that concerns me. So you've got
Speaker 1: the build up that we've talked about, You've attending the
Speaker 1: police station twice. On the second time the PSIO has
Speaker 1: been taken out, it's appeared at court. He wants to
Speaker 1: contest the conditions in there. But an intramor that's been there.
Speaker 1: He's then breached that intram order, been interviewed by police
Speaker 1: and when it was served on him, it was served
Speaker 1: by post to appear at the magistrate's court on the
Speaker 1: fifteenth of February. I think there's and I can't blame
Speaker 1: an individual officer here, but my instinct here is there's
Speaker 1: obviously a record that's building up here now like a
Speaker 1: pattern of behavior. One would think that instead of serving
Speaker 1: it by post, go knock on the door. You would
Speaker 1: knock on the door and have a very harsh conversation, wouldn't.
Speaker 2: The perpetrator just Tony Ever, receiving anything by post.
Speaker 1: Well, it doesn't have the impact of two police officers
Speaker 1: knocking on the door, standing there and warning and making
Speaker 1: it very clear that this type of behavior is not
Speaker 1: going to be tolerated. Does it change things? I don't know,
Speaker 1: but I do know you'd have a better chance of
Speaker 1: changing things if you served it in person and explained
Speaker 1: how serious this was getting. On the eleventh of November,
Speaker 1: he emailed the officer in charge of the case asking
Speaker 1: for electronic copies of each brief so it's still in
Speaker 1: his mind. Eleventh of November, and then the sixteenth of
Speaker 1: November was the night that Celeste was murdered. That's the
Speaker 1: build up for it. There's so many things that concern me,
Speaker 1: and that and now that people are listening to this,
Speaker 1: understand what you and your daughter were going through. Where
Speaker 1: do you think it should have been stopped.
Speaker 2: It should have been stopped from that first visit. From
Speaker 2: the first visit it wasn't. And again I will go
Speaker 2: back to now let's go to the leading constable that
Speaker 2: did take it seriously once he's then breached the intervention order.
Speaker 2: And remember, because of what I was reading in that
Speaker 2: three and a half page letter, I was terrified. I
Speaker 2: felt that there would be retaliation for not dropping this order.
Speaker 2: So I picked up the phone. Even though Celeste didn't
Speaker 2: want to hear me because she'd already met with the
Speaker 2: constable who'd convinced her not to drop the intervention order.
Speaker 2: I picked up the phone to say to him, you
Speaker 2: know what, why don't we just drop this intervention order?
Speaker 2: And he didn't want to hear about and I continued
Speaker 2: I was trying to speak above him, to say, just
Speaker 2: he clearly lives at home, that was understood by the letter.
Speaker 2: Call him in, call him in with his family, which
Speaker 2: will have a meeting. He just needs to get through
Speaker 2: his head. He needs to stay away. We don't want
Speaker 2: to ruin his life because he's put a lot in
Speaker 2: this letter about how it's going to destroy him. He
Speaker 2: won't be able to look after his sick mother and
Speaker 2: whatever he's carrying on about. But the Constable is absolutely
Speaker 2: insisting that we do not drop this intervention order. And
Speaker 2: the more I'm trying to get him to do things
Speaker 2: my way there, the more insistent he is, to the
Speaker 2: point that he says, if Celeste drops this intervention order,
Speaker 2: we won't be able to protect it. He literally made
Speaker 2: me freeze with those words, because it made me feel
Speaker 2: like I would be the one putting my daughter in danger.
Speaker 2: So of course at that point I was quick to reply,
Speaker 2: we won't drop anything. But it also puts Celesta and
Speaker 2: I who was right next to me, she could hear
Speaker 2: the conversation I had him on speaker. It also put
Speaker 2: both of us under the impression that they must be
Speaker 2: monitoring him. I was absolutely convinced with those words that
Speaker 2: they must be monitoring his movements. So, you know, to
Speaker 2: say to someone whether he had said it to and
Speaker 2: I'm sure he had said it to Celeste herself, and
Speaker 2: now to me, if Celeste drops this the intervention, we
Speaker 2: won't be able to protect her. That means you have
Speaker 2: something in place that's clearly going to protect her. Well
Speaker 2: they didn't, did they. There was nothing in place. They
Speaker 2: weren't monitoring anything. So again, you know, this goes to
Speaker 2: earlier in the conversation where we're talking about the VLC
Speaker 2: the recommendations, and you know the non recommendation being the
Speaker 2: electronic monitoring. Monitoring would absolutely have prevented what happened that night.
Speaker 2: And there's no one that's going to take that out
Speaker 2: of my head.
Speaker 1: No, Well, I agree with you, and we will talk
Speaker 1: about that in depth with the police saying don't withdraw it.
Speaker 1: I can understand the logic of that. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: be balanced in it, but I certainly can understand your concerns,
Speaker 1: and that would be, yeah, why are we picking the
Speaker 1: fight and when they're saying don't withdraw it because then
Speaker 1: we won't be able to protect I can understand you
Speaker 1: also making the assumption that there must be some sort
Speaker 1: of protection in place, like police are monitoring him, and
Speaker 1: police are going.
Speaker 2: Because if you're going to tell me her mother when
Speaker 2: I am pointing out that I am seen retaliation if
Speaker 2: we don't. At the end of the day, the person
Speaker 2: that was at risk was only Celeste, right, It's not
Speaker 2: the person you're dealing with. My daughter was that risk.
Speaker 1: These are the things that we've got to appreciate, and
Speaker 1: I think it comes back to not fully appreciating the
Speaker 1: nature of nature of stalking and understanding how dangerous offense
Speaker 1: that is. I've had on a high profile investigation I
Speaker 1: was working on and I was so surprised we came
Speaker 1: across a person of interest that was stalking someone. Horrendous
Speaker 1: case of stalking just an infatuation, obsession, that type of thing,
Speaker 1: and I was surprised by the amount of police that
Speaker 1: didn't think that was a serious red flag in the investigation.
Speaker 1: I was gobsmacked by it. And I've had the benefit
Speaker 1: because I do get a b in my bond about
Speaker 1: stalking that people don't appreciate how serious it is, and
Speaker 1: it's probably because I see the tail end of it
Speaker 1: as a homicide homicide detective. But I had the benefits
Speaker 1: of speaking to Laura Richards on the podcast, and she's
Speaker 1: a world renowned criminal behavior analyst international ecurred on stalking,
Speaker 1: homicide and risk Assessment. She trained with the FBI and
Speaker 1: she also worked for New Scotland yard she developed the
Speaker 1: domestic abuse Stalking on the Base violence which is called DASH,
Speaker 1: which is similar to what you're saying with SASH, which
Speaker 1: is a risk identification, assessment and management model which has
Speaker 1: currently been implemented in the UK. And she also was
Speaker 1: the founder of the world's first national stalking Advocacy service,
Speaker 1: So she knows what she's talking about when she's talking stalking,
Speaker 1: and when I spoke to her, she made a number
Speaker 1: of interesting points about stalking. Firstly, she said that stalking
Speaker 1: is often used in a comedic sense like ah, I'm
Speaker 1: not stalking you and we all laugh and sort of
Speaker 1: the innocent stalker, it's just someone obsessed, And she said
Speaker 1: that gives the wrong connotation of what stalking is. Stalking
Speaker 1: is a very serious predatory behavior. She also made the
Speaker 1: point that in her first five years working with New
Speaker 1: Scotland on stranger rape, murder and abduction cases, she would
Speaker 1: call the majority of the offenders we caught with predatory stalkers.
Speaker 1: So let's break that down. She was working on the
Speaker 1: stranger rape, murder and abduction cases and the majority of
Speaker 1: the offenders caught in that five year period were predatory stalkers.
Speaker 1: She talked about how stalking is often missed by police
Speaker 1: as predatory behavior, but predators are the most dangerous type
Speaker 1: of offenders. So this is the world's expert on it.
Speaker 1: And she talks about murdering slow motion. She talks about
Speaker 1: red flags of the mist and the need to make
Speaker 1: police fully understand how serious stalking is.
Speaker 2: Yes, police don't take I don't believe take stalking seriously.
Speaker 2: In the case of family violence, where you do have
Speaker 2: ex partners that are stalking their wives, girlfriends, what have
Speaker 2: you in Celes case, because you know, that was the
Speaker 2: first question that was asked, are you involved with him
Speaker 2: or something like that, because it was none of that,
Speaker 2: just someone that used to work there. Doesn't even work
Speaker 2: there at this point in time when we're going in
Speaker 2: the first time, so six months after it had been happening.
Speaker 2: He hasn't been working there for six months. But the
Speaker 2: fact that they were never involved in anything, there was
Speaker 2: no relationship, I think that there was reason for that
Speaker 2: police officer to take it even less seriously because it
Speaker 2: was just ignore him. I'm sure he'll go away, even
Speaker 2: though we were saying she has been ignoring him for
Speaker 2: six months.
Speaker 1: You make an interesting point there, Aggie, and I think
Speaker 1: you're probably right, Like we have this height and awareness
Speaker 1: now of domestic violence and stalking for disgruntled ex partners
Speaker 1: and that and this the police officer that dismissed it
Speaker 1: out of hand first up and didn't do their their job.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because they're not seeing a disgruntled X, right, It's
Speaker 2: like the disgruntled X has reason to be angry at her,
Speaker 2: therefore it makes sense he's stalking her. But like I said,
Speaker 2: they're still not really treating that any differently. But in
Speaker 2: the case where you're not.
Speaker 1: That could be a simple layman's understanding of stalking. Oh well,
Speaker 1: it's not a domestic relationship. But from a police officer's
Speaker 1: point of view, I think it's more scary that someone
Speaker 1: becomes obsessed with someone that they've had literally hardly or
Speaker 1: nothing to do with, and they've become obsessed with them.
Speaker 2: Yes, it should show if anything, and it's been going
Speaker 2: on for six months at that point, How does six
Speaker 2: months not indicate that they're not going to get bored?
Speaker 2: How does it not indicate that it's become or becoming
Speaker 2: a fixation? How is that not a red flag?
Speaker 1: There? It is a red flag. And that's why I
Speaker 1: hope people listening to this discussion get an understanding of
Speaker 1: what we're talking about here and don't dismiss this. And
Speaker 1: police need to understand that, the courts need to understand that,
Speaker 1: the politicians need to understand that the ones that make
Speaker 1: laws need to understand that stalking is a dangerous, dangerous
Speaker 1: crime and if someone is stalking, there's potential for something
Speaker 1: tragic to happen likes happened to celest Well Gary.
Speaker 2: So far, politicians in particular are not understanding it. At all,
Speaker 2: Because when you have a premier who heard from the
Speaker 2: get go and with all the discussions around stalking and
Speaker 2: breaches of intervention orders, regardless of the context family violence
Speaker 2: or not, when you're hearing that those orders are getting breached,
Speaker 2: and you're then saying that electronic monitoring is a no
Speaker 2: because it gives women a false sense of security. But
Speaker 2: then decide to say, the way you're going to make
Speaker 2: women feel more secure is you're going to extend the
Speaker 2: intervention order. That crappy piece of paper that they have
Speaker 2: admitted time and time again is a worthless piece of paper.
Speaker 2: You're going to extend the intervention order for two years.
Speaker 2: That is going to give women a sense of security.
Speaker 2: So what has never made them feel safe, keeping it
Speaker 2: in there for longer, making them feel unsafe for longer
Speaker 2: will give them a sense of security. Make that make sense?
Speaker 1: I can't. I can't make it make sense, Aggie. Let's
Speaker 1: have a break now. When we get back, we'll talk
Speaker 1: again in more depth about how your daughter's murder could
Speaker 1: have been prevented, and let's push for what can change.
Speaker 1: If other people aren't going to make changes, let's talk
Speaker 1: about what changes could could be made. So this type
Speaker 1: of thing doesn't happen because I can guarantee it will
Speaker 1: happen again.
Speaker 2: Absolutely will happen again. Unfortunately.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's have that break