Speaker 1: The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Speaker 1: Detective sy a side of life the average persons never
Speaker 1: exposed to. 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: Welcome to another episode that I Catch Killers. Today, we're
Speaker 1: going to have a conversation I need to have. I'm
Speaker 1: going to talk about an investigation that has had a
Speaker 1: huge impact, not only in my own life, but has
Speaker 1: devastated other lives. To talk about the William Tyrell investigation.
Speaker 1: I led that investigation for four years before I was
Speaker 1: removed from the investigation over five years ago, and I
Speaker 1: was criminally charged and convicted. Some people might say, who
Speaker 1: cares what I've got to say? Well, I've sat on
Speaker 1: the sideline since that time and have witnessed misinformation and
Speaker 1: seen speculation flourish. Everyone seems to have an opinion of
Speaker 1: what happened to William. It's time the record set straight.
Speaker 1: I'm hoping the person I'm speaking to today will put
Speaker 1: a spotlight on the issues surrounding the William Tyrell case
Speaker 1: with an in depth podcast series called Witness William Tyrell.
Speaker 1: Our guest is award winning journalist Stand Box, who I
Speaker 1: have had the pleasure to work with on many occasions.
Speaker 1: I consider him a mate and respect his integrity. Hopefully
Speaker 1: we'll still be friends after this podcast. If you listen,
Speaker 1: you'll understand where I'm coming from with that comment, Dan Box, Welcome,
Speaker 1: Do I catch killers?
Speaker 2: Thank you?
Speaker 1: This is going to be a think an awkward conversation
Speaker 1: because of the subject matter.
Speaker 2: Look, it's going to be a sad conversation in places
Speaker 2: because of the subject matter, and it's going to be
Speaker 2: an angry conversation I think probably for you definitely, and
Speaker 2: maybe for me in places as well, because of the
Speaker 2: subject matter. And it's going to be awkward.
Speaker 1: Yeah, have you have you You've been a crime reporter
Speaker 1: for a very long time. Have you been involved in
Speaker 1: reporting on or investigating a matter such as William Tyrell
Speaker 1: that evokes so much emotion polarizes people. Have you seen
Speaker 1: anything like this in your time?
Speaker 2: No, And I was thinking about exactly this on the
Speaker 2: walk here today. There's things that set this case apart.
Speaker 2: And it's not just the fact that it's a child
Speaker 2: at the center of it, because I've worked on cases
Speaker 2: like you have that have had children at the center
Speaker 2: of them, and it's not just the emotions. But what
Speaker 2: it is I think is two things for me at least,
Speaker 2: One is the sheer scale of this case and the
Speaker 2: work that we've done on it. So we've been on
Speaker 2: this for two years, working on this podcast series. This
Speaker 2: case or the people involved in it have been to
Speaker 2: every court in New South Wales local court, District court,
Speaker 2: Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Coroner's court. So we've got
Speaker 2: court files and documents, an incredible amount of information with
Speaker 2: three four different coronial cases we've looked at as part
Speaker 2: of the research into this case, and it will be
Speaker 2: a fifth because I think to get access to that
Speaker 2: we're going to have to probably challenge a suppression order.
Speaker 2: And that's the other thing that sets this case apart
Speaker 2: is the secrecy that surrounds it. I have never worked
Speaker 2: on any criminal investigation as a reporter that has been
Speaker 2: shrouded in this amount of secrecy, non publication orders, suppression orders,
Speaker 2: legal bars and what you can and can't say. And
Speaker 2: maybe because of all that secrecy, the amount of speculation
Speaker 2: and the amount of misinformation, and the way people, including
Speaker 2: the media, have split into frankly two camps. You're either
Speaker 2: four Williams foster mum or you're against her. I've never
Speaker 2: seen anything like that before.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I think you've summed it up nicely, the
Speaker 1: type of intensity that surrounds it. But the way that
Speaker 1: polarizes people and what And I've been sitting on the
Speaker 1: sideline for five and a half years, almost six years now, Yeah,
Speaker 1: watching it. What concerns me. All the opinions don't seem
Speaker 1: to be fact based. It's an emotional investigation. People are
Speaker 1: very strong one way or the other, but they don't
Speaker 1: look at the facts. And coming from a homice, I
Speaker 1: had to take this point of view now myself. Moving
Speaker 1: into the media, I thought stories would be driven by facts,
Speaker 1: but they don't seem to me.
Speaker 2: You're talking about the public response. Look, A good example
Speaker 2: of that is the stuff that people are saying about
Speaker 2: us online, like I've been abused, which is fair enough,
Speaker 2: maybe I deserve it. The people I work with have
Speaker 2: been abused.
Speaker 1: When you're talking, this is the people you're working on
Speaker 1: the podcast with.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, called oh look, hohorendous things and yeah, okay,
Speaker 2: I went into this with my eyes open. I knew
Speaker 2: there was going to be a bit of abuse, but
Speaker 2: to say the things they have and about the people
Speaker 2: I work with, and about the fact that you and
Speaker 2: I have got a professional relationship that goes back a
Speaker 2: long time now, even just this weekend, people are I
Speaker 2: don't go looking for it, but sometimes it finds you.
Speaker 2: People are saying things. But they're not saying things because
Speaker 2: they know the facts. They're not saying things because frankly,
Speaker 2: they've got a legitimate opinion that they'd be happy to
Speaker 2: say in the same room if they were sitting here.
Speaker 2: They're saying things because they think we disagree with them.
Speaker 2: And so people are just throwing these kind of angry
Speaker 2: online abuse as because it has split into these two
Speaker 2: different camps. And you're right, a factual understanding of what
Speaker 2: happened in terms of the public response. Sadly, that seems
Speaker 2: to be more than some people can deal with.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, look, I doesn't hold me well when I'm
Speaker 1: now working in the media, but I hold the media
Speaker 1: partly responsible for it, because I think I've been in
Speaker 1: the media long enough now to understand that what the
Speaker 1: story should be based on. And it's some stories that
Speaker 1: I've read, whether it be in print media, on rate audio,
Speaker 1: or television, that is clearly misleading and all the facts
Speaker 1: haven't been presented. If you take one point in isolation
Speaker 1: and put that out as a story without giving a balance,
Speaker 1: of course, it's going to evoke people at reactions.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and this is the point where I start to
Speaker 2: lose friends because I am a journalist. I like journalists.
Speaker 2: I'm friends with some journalists. But I think you're right.
Speaker 2: There's been misreporting because people didn't know the facts. And
Speaker 2: that's one thing, like most of the time as journalists,
Speaker 2: we're scratching around trying to work out what the truth
Speaker 2: is and then telling our best version of it. But
Speaker 2: there's been misreporting that is Ah, look, I'd hate to
Speaker 2: say deliberately slanted, but at least subconsciously slanted. And there's
Speaker 2: been stuff that I've seen reported and then we've gone
Speaker 2: away and worked on it and come up with a
Speaker 2: bunch of documents or spoken to various people, and I've
Speaker 2: looked at these original reports and gone, you just got
Speaker 2: that wrong. But I go back to the fact that
Speaker 2: this case was shrouded in secrecy from the start. So
Speaker 2: William Tyrell is a foster child, and for I think
Speaker 2: years we couldn't say that. You and the police knew
Speaker 2: who he knew he was, We in the media knew
Speaker 2: he was, a bunch of people online were saying he was,
Speaker 2: but the laws prevented us from saying it. So there's
Speaker 2: a secrecy right from the start that has been compounded
Speaker 2: and made more secret by all these different court orders
Speaker 2: restricting what you can say. And so as a result, Yeah,
Speaker 2: people in the media have got some facts, and a
Speaker 2: lot of them are doing a really good job. But
Speaker 2: when you've got basically an absence of truth, an absence
Speaker 2: of facts, yeah, mistruths start to creep in to fill
Speaker 2: a void.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I can say it's been frustrating for me
Speaker 1: sitting on the sidelines watching it, for the people involved
Speaker 1: directly involved in the investigation. I taught the biological parents
Speaker 1: of Foster Pearance. I can only imagine what they're going
Speaker 1: through with the information. But wind it back the genesis
Speaker 1: of the podcast. Now people know, and I'm glad you
Speaker 1: mentioned that. I mentioned it in the introduction. We've got
Speaker 1: a relationship. It's been a professional relationship from when you're
Speaker 1: a crime reporter and I was in the police. We've
Speaker 1: since worked together and I think it's fair enough. And
Speaker 1: don't correct me here because it could be embarrassing. I
Speaker 1: think you could cause friends at this stage, but we'll
Speaker 1: depending on what happens here in the podcast. It was
Speaker 1: always my intent when I found myself out of the
Speaker 1: police and working in the podcast space, to do a
Speaker 1: podcast on William tyrrel because I wanted to set the
Speaker 1: records straight. And it's not about defending my position, it's
Speaker 1: just let get all the facts out. I made a
Speaker 1: conscious decision that I think it would have been better
Speaker 1: for me to step away from doing a podcast because
Speaker 1: I'm too heavily invested in it emotionally, professionally and everything else,
Speaker 1: and I think it could look like it's self serving.
Speaker 1: It's just a narrative I'm putting out you come along,
Speaker 1: You're going to do a podcast, and I I said, well,
Speaker 1: I don't want to be involved in it. I'll come
Speaker 1: in as a guest. And you caution me that you're
Speaker 1: not going to slant the podcast in my favor. You're
Speaker 1: going to do a deep dive into the investigation and
Speaker 1: wherever that goes.
Speaker 2: So be it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I accept that, and I've got to say here
Speaker 1: and you can respond if you want. I was happy
Speaker 1: that you're doing it because I know the depth of
Speaker 1: investigative journalism that you do and your ethical approach to things.
Speaker 1: What's your take on the podcast? Why did you feel
Speaker 1: the need to do the podcast in the first place
Speaker 1: about William Tirel.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look, so just on that question and then going
Speaker 2: back to what you were saying about how the two
Speaker 2: of us do have this pre existing relationship, because that's
Speaker 2: I've got to be frank about that as well. Think
Speaker 2: with the podcast and the reason I like working with them,
Speaker 2: there's two things. One is there massive So this thing
Speaker 2: is the series we're right in the middle of making
Speaker 2: at the moment. So I'm going to walk out here
Speaker 2: and I'm going to script one of the episodes. So
Speaker 2: we're right in the heart of it now. That's probably
Speaker 2: going to run to maybe eleven episodes, maybe twelve episodes.
Speaker 2: It's going to be running until the end of the year.
Speaker 2: Each of those, let's say it's forty five minutes long.
Speaker 2: I can't even do the maths in my head, but
Speaker 2: that is hours and hours and hours of documentary reporting.
Speaker 2: There isn't a medium available today that gives you that
Speaker 2: much time that you know, you look at four Corners.
Speaker 2: We're going to do multiple the equivalent of multiple episodes
Speaker 2: of Four Corners. We're going to do the equivalent of
Speaker 2: probably something like sixty to seventy thousand words of script.
Speaker 2: That would be like an entire newspaper, maybe two days
Speaker 2: worth of a newspaper. So we're going to get into detail.
Speaker 2: We're going to be able to interrogate those facts that
Speaker 2: have maybe been misunderstood or misreported. We're going to be
Speaker 2: able to challenge different people's accounts and just give a
Speaker 2: better understanding of this thing, which isn't really that well
Speaker 2: understood because a podcast series is so big. So that's
Speaker 2: one of the reasons to do it. And the other reason,
Speaker 2: and this goes back to something new and I have
Speaker 2: worked together on is a podcast lets you hear people
Speaker 2: tell their story in their own words, so you can
Speaker 2: hear the most honest version. And I'm not just talking
Speaker 2: about telling the truth honest, but emotionally honest. So you
Speaker 2: can hear the catch in their throat as they're trying
Speaker 2: not to cry and they're talking to you. You can
Speaker 2: hear that kind of pause when they're almost trying to
Speaker 2: process just the fact that they're dealing with, in this case,
Speaker 2: the loss of a three year old boy. And that
Speaker 2: is a better way of telling this story than I
Speaker 2: can do on my own. I can write stuff down
Speaker 2: and it might be in a newspaper, but it's never
Speaker 2: going to be as powerful or as honest emotionally as
Speaker 2: having the people who are at the center of this
Speaker 2: story tell that story in their own words. But to
Speaker 2: go back to you and I, because you and I
Speaker 2: first met and first ended up working on something that
Speaker 2: became another podcast, which was the Bauerville Murders, murder of
Speaker 2: three children up in little town called Bauerville in the
Speaker 2: mid North Coast. And I remember at the time that
Speaker 2: I didn't know you from Adam, You didn't know me.
Speaker 2: You I was a journalist, but you were working on
Speaker 2: that case and have been for twenty odd years. I
Speaker 2: came in and said, look, let's let's try doing a
Speaker 2: podcast about it. And I remember you saying, I think
Speaker 2: I can't remember if you said, what's a podcast? But
Speaker 2: you weren't impressed, like you'd never really heard of.
Speaker 1: It in fairness, and then you're quite right, Yeah, that
Speaker 1: was a great statement. I think I did say, what
Speaker 1: do you mean a podcast? What's a podcast? But that
Speaker 1: was that was one of the very early true crime podcasts.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it worked. It told that story well. And
Speaker 2: at the same time you guys and the police were
Speaker 2: calling for the the a ledged suspect to go be
Speaker 2: sent back to court. The families were doing the same thing.
Speaker 2: And then we came along and at the same time,
Speaker 2: and we created enough of a noise and he ended
Speaker 2: up getting sent back to court and that was a
Speaker 2: good result. But it does flag you know, that was
Speaker 2: the best part of a decade ago. Now, so you
Speaker 2: and I have known each other for that long. We
Speaker 2: worked in as much as I was a reporter on
Speaker 2: that case, and then I've reported on other cases you
Speaker 2: worked on, not because I well, you do do some
Speaker 2: interesting work, but also that was my job. I was
Speaker 2: a crime reporter and you were working on high profile cases.
Speaker 2: But then you left the cops. You and I co
Speaker 2: wrote a couple of books which were memoirs, so you're
Speaker 2: talking about your career. And then I came back to
Speaker 2: Australia and ended up working for News Court in podcasting,
Speaker 2: including overseeing the podcast that we're talking on now. So
Speaker 2: you and I have a professional relationship personal relationship that
Speaker 2: goes back a long time. So you talked about with
Speaker 2: this William Tyrrell podcast wanting to step back, and probably
Speaker 2: the thing I've got to say, and I will say
Speaker 2: in the podcast is you know, Gary and I have
Speaker 2: got a long and established relationship. That doesn't mean I
Speaker 2: always agree with you on everything, and I don't, and
Speaker 2: I've told you that. But people listening to this today
Speaker 2: and to the William Tyrell podcast, if they do, are
Speaker 2: going to have to judge for themselves. If I can
Speaker 2: still be objective about you and your actions and what
Speaker 2: I think you got right and what I think you
Speaker 2: got wrong, even though you and I do know each other.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, yeah, and I look and I think it's
Speaker 1: important we get it out in this forum. Talking about
Speaker 1: your podcast series that people understand we're not hiding the fact.
Speaker 1: I don't want people to come out and go, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: but Dan and Jubeian know each other and blah.
Speaker 2: It's not a secret.
Speaker 1: But just to reassure people because they're trusting us on
Speaker 1: what we're saying here, I got respect for you as
Speaker 1: a crime journalist, and I think I've said this to you.
Speaker 1: But in case people haven't heard this story, it was
Speaker 1: over an investigation. I forget which investigation I was working on,
Speaker 1: but you were doing an article where there was going
Speaker 1: to be some criticism of the police in an investigation,
Speaker 1: and you pulled me aside at the court and you said,
Speaker 1: can we just catch up for a second. I just
Speaker 1: want to tell you something, And you said to me, look,
Speaker 1: I don't know, this is an awkward conversation, but I'm
Speaker 1: going to be reporting on something. I'm going to be
Speaker 1: critical of an investigation you were involved in or leading
Speaker 1: or whatever. And I think my response was I laughed,
Speaker 1: and I laughed at well, that's your job, Dan, Like
Speaker 1: I had respect for you, that the fact that you
Speaker 1: would report unbiasedly regardless of whether we were forming a
Speaker 1: friendship or you knew me, and I respect journalism like that.
Speaker 1: So that's where I'm comfortable in what you're doing on
Speaker 1: the Terial investigation. And I've always said with the Teral investigation,
Speaker 1: bring on an inquiry. I invite your scrutiny. In the
Speaker 1: William Tyrell podcast, I've deliberately not got involved.
Speaker 2: We're deliberately well you as much as we do interview you,
Speaker 2: but you're not involved in No.
Speaker 1: You interviewed me, and I think you apologized before we
Speaker 1: walked into this very room. You said you might like
Speaker 1: me after this and with the stuff that you put
Speaker 1: to me. But from my position, and I challenge everyone
Speaker 1: for this that unless you ask the hard questions, I
Speaker 1: can't justify my position. So I didn't want it brushed over,
Speaker 1: and I'm confident with the podcast you're going to do that.
Speaker 1: The other thing about the Witness William Tyrell podcast, I've
Speaker 1: seen how hard you've worked on it, and I haven't
Speaker 1: stuck my nose and go what are you doing here?
Speaker 1: What are you doing there? And I'm mainly listening to
Speaker 1: the podcast episodes when they come out and available to
Speaker 1: the public because I don't want to be involved, because
Speaker 1: I want I don't want criticism saying I jub once
Speaker 1: had his hands over this, so where it falls, it falls.
Speaker 1: And I think when I'm talking from a police point
Speaker 1: of view, when you're being handed the responsibility of investigating
Speaker 1: the disappearance of a three year old child, you should
Speaker 1: be accountable. You should be responsible, and if you've made mistakes,
Speaker 1: they should be acknowledged and learned from. So that's my position.
Speaker 1: So I think we can still be friends.
Speaker 2: Are so far so far, but we actually haven't done
Speaker 2: the episodes about you yet.
Speaker 1: Jesus, Okay, no, Look, Dan, I invite it. It needs
Speaker 1: to be scrutinized. It's too important.
Speaker 2: Look, I'm with you one hundred percent. I think these
Speaker 2: things do need to be scrutinized. And I think this case,
Speaker 2: and particularly the fallout from the investigation, so in ten
Speaker 2: years William's been missing, we're still in terms of the
Speaker 2: public still have no idea what happened to him. Maybe
Speaker 2: the police do, but if they do, they haven't charged anyone.
Speaker 2: I think that does deserve scrutiny because it's it's like
Speaker 2: a collective responsibility to say, what happened here and did
Speaker 2: we get the response right? If only to stop it
Speaker 2: happening again or help stop it happening again. That said,
Speaker 2: it's going to be uncomfortable. I joke before that I'm
Speaker 2: going to lose friends over this, but I will. I've
Speaker 2: been aware of that for a while because any account
Speaker 2: of the investigation into William Till's disappearance is going to
Speaker 2: involve saying that some things weren't done well, and some
Speaker 2: things weren't done well by the police, and some things
Speaker 2: weren't done well by the media, and some things weren't
Speaker 2: done well by the state government, particularly the foster care authorities.
Speaker 2: And I know people in all of those groups, and
Speaker 2: already there's one person who I thought we had a
Speaker 2: really good professional relationship with who is no longer responding
Speaker 2: to text messages. And that's fair enough. You know, people
Speaker 2: get to make their own judge, but I don't really,
Speaker 2: I don't really have any choice. I'm committed to doing
Speaker 2: this the best way I know how, which won't be perfect,
Speaker 2: and I'll make mistakes, and people have already spotted a
Speaker 2: couple and pointed them out and we've corrected them. But
Speaker 2: if I'm going to do this the best way I
Speaker 2: know how, then it is going to be uncomfortable.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, And look at the two I won't say
Speaker 1: take a stand, that's not the right thing, but to
Speaker 1: look at something in depth objectively, there is always going
Speaker 1: to be collateral damage. That's the nature of what you do.
Speaker 1: Hendley Thomas Teachers Pet, and I use that as a
Speaker 1: reference point because I'd see here comfortably saying if the
Speaker 1: podcast series Teachers Pet didn't occur, that that investigation wouldn't
Speaker 1: have been solved. That created an environment where the investigation
Speaker 1: was solved. I think the landscape has changed greatly. And
Speaker 1: I know this from being a police officer for thirty
Speaker 1: four years that it was very insular in what came
Speaker 1: out in the place. You had your contacts in the
Speaker 1: in the media, and the senior place would be contacting
Speaker 1: that brief briefing the media. It was very controlled. Podcasting
Speaker 1: has turned that world upside down. Police can no longer
Speaker 1: control a narrative. I think with Teacher's Pitt Place lost
Speaker 1: control of the narrative there and look what resulted.
Speaker 2: In One thing that was interesting about Teacher's Pet. And
Speaker 2: I think I probably know this from maybe listening because
Speaker 2: you interviewed Headley on this podcast, and maybe he was
Speaker 2: talking about it then. But at the start, when Headley
Speaker 2: was working on that. The police weren't cooperating at all,
Speaker 2: which is basically standard, and that's fair enough. They're running
Speaker 2: live homicide investigations. They got to control what said and
Speaker 2: what's known to the best of their ability. So the
Speaker 2: police weren't cooperating with Headley. But then you stop putting
Speaker 2: the series out and things change because people see their
Speaker 2: under scrutiny. And that's where we are. So we're two episodes.
Speaker 2: Three episodes have been published so far. People now know
Speaker 2: they're under scrutiny and people are coming forward. We're being
Speaker 2: contacted with tips constantly, which is part of the reason
Speaker 2: I'm so tired at the moment, because we're trying to
Speaker 2: make the podcast but also investigate all this new stuff
Speaker 2: that's coming in. And Hedley was doing the same, but
Speaker 2: the big thing that changed with him was the police
Speaker 2: came on board. So I remember Hegley saying he sat
Speaker 2: down and had lunch with the then police commissioner Mick
Speaker 2: Fuller and basically said, you guys aren't cooperating and explained
Speaker 2: what he was doing and how he was doing it,
Speaker 2: and the relationship changed. So where we are at the
Speaker 2: moment is the police aren't talking to us, and I've
Speaker 2: been in and I've sat down with different heads of
Speaker 2: their media operation, because people have left the job and said,
Speaker 2: this is what we're doing, this is why we're doing it,
Speaker 2: and how we're doing it, and these are the people
Speaker 2: I want to talk to, and so far they are
Speaker 2: saying nothing. But if we've got a common purpose, which
Speaker 2: I do think we have, which is to try and
Speaker 2: establish what was done right and wrong in the ten
Speaker 2: years since William went missing, to hopefully stop it happening again,
Speaker 2: then the more we can talk to the police and
Speaker 2: the more they can at least engage with us, then
Speaker 2: I think the better everyone is. That said, we are
Speaker 2: being quite critical of them, well, you know, and what
Speaker 2: I say in response to that, because I was part
Speaker 2: of the investigation. There's a responsibility that comes with investigating
Speaker 2: a three year old child. It's a big responsibility and
Speaker 2: to step into that role you need to accept the
Speaker 2: consequences of it. The police not cooperating on a podcast,
Speaker 2: I can understand that. I'll give a benefit of doubt
Speaker 2: on certain aspects.
Speaker 1: With policing. Sometimes there is stuff that you want to
Speaker 1: withhold and we're always cautious not to overstep the mark.
Speaker 1: But We've got an investigation now ten years and there's
Speaker 1: been missing for the public, the media, the police have
Speaker 1: gone off in all different directions. It's chaotic. I look
Speaker 1: from the sideline and I think I'm as confused as
Speaker 1: the rest of the public about what's going on. When
Speaker 1: I was involved in leading the investigation, part of my
Speaker 1: responsibility was to keep the public informed, make appeals for witnesses,
Speaker 1: and answer questions from the media. So there was no
Speaker 1: address misinformation. Because there's a lot of rumors going around
Speaker 1: when I was running, I haven't seen that for the past,
Speaker 1: and it's now it's almost going on six years since
Speaker 1: I've been off this investigation. I have not seen a
Speaker 1: senior police officer stand there and take open questions about
Speaker 1: the wim Tyrrell investigation.
Speaker 2: And you know the reason they're giving us. So at
Speaker 2: the moment every episode I write, I send the cops
Speaker 2: an email and say this is basically what we're going
Speaker 2: to say. And every news story we write, because we're
Speaker 2: also writing news stories for news dot com dot ae,
Speaker 2: every one of those right to the cops and we
Speaker 2: say this is what we're going to say. And every
Speaker 2: time they write back and say we cannot comment because
Speaker 2: there's an ongoing inquest, which is right, and the inquest
Speaker 2: is going to have its next public hearing next month.
Speaker 2: But what they're not doing, and what I've asked them
Speaker 2: if they want to do, pretty much every single time,
Speaker 2: is say, all right, let's have a conversation about what
Speaker 2: you're saying. So I'm happy to say to them in
Speaker 2: this upcoming news story or this upcoming episode, I'm broadly
Speaker 2: going to say this, this, this, and this, and there's
Speaker 2: no secrecy because it's all going to get made public
Speaker 2: when it's published. But it gives them an opportunity to
Speaker 2: tell me if I'm wrong, to say, well, actually you've
Speaker 2: misunderstood that, you've got that fact wrong, so why don't
Speaker 2: you correct that so at least the version that's going
Speaker 2: out to the public is more accurate and for you
Speaker 2: to be honest. The big part of the reason I'm
Speaker 2: trying to talk to them is so that can happen,
Speaker 2: so we can get the disinformation, the misinformation and corrected.
Speaker 2: And hopefully there's none in our reporting, but it would
Speaker 2: help if the police would engage on there. Just not
Speaker 2: for me and maybe not for them, but both of
Speaker 2: us would like people's understanding of this case to be
Speaker 2: as accurate as possible, So if nothing else, I would
Speaker 2: have thought they'd want to engage with that. But the
Speaker 2: attitude at the moment is much more now, we're just
Speaker 2: not going to say anything.
Speaker 1: I call it like a hidden the sceand approach. And
Speaker 1: that's interesting saying that, And this is my opinion, not yours.
Speaker 1: I'm amused by the fact that we're not commenting because
Speaker 1: it's a meta before the coroner. But then they come
Speaker 1: out and say there's only one suspect, or the senior
Speaker 1: serving police officer as in the commission that comes out
Speaker 1: and says there's only one suspect in this matter.
Speaker 2: Well that is true. So the line we get is
Speaker 2: we're not going to comment because it's an ongoing in quest.
Speaker 2: But the lead detective detective Chief Inspector laid Law was
Speaker 2: on TV admittedly a couple of years ago, but the
Speaker 2: inquest was still going and he was asked, do you
Speaker 2: know who did this? And he goes he's basically says, yeah,
Speaker 2: we've got an idea who did this? And then you're
Speaker 2: right that. Then Police Commissioner Mick Fuller is interviewed and
Speaker 2: he confirms the police have one person they're particularly looking at.
Speaker 2: And we know the police are speaking off the record
Speaker 2: to different newspapers about the same thing. So there is
Speaker 2: communication that's happening from the police about this case while
Speaker 2: the inquest is ongoing. When they choose to communicate, and
Speaker 2: it's not happening with us, And look, that's not sour grapes.
Speaker 2: They can do whatever they like. They're running the homicide investigation.
Speaker 2: That's a big, important job. But it's just different at
Speaker 2: different times and in different cases.
Speaker 1: All right, then I just check your not check you
Speaker 1: on one thing, but just bring back one one point.
Speaker 1: You're saying that you hope with the podcast that you know,
Speaker 1: if there's failings in the investigation, they're identified so correct
Speaker 1: that it doesn't happen again one hundred percent. But I
Speaker 1: think we all, all the different parties and the people
Speaker 1: that hate you like you, the people that hate me
Speaker 1: like me, everyone, we all should the hot focus should
Speaker 1: be on finding out what's happened to William Tyrol. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And I think with a podcast, what you're doing, a
Speaker 1: factual podcast, it really opens the door and it opens
Speaker 1: the door to laying the facts out so people fully understand.
Speaker 1: It has to set up the best possibility of getting
Speaker 1: the result with the investigation.
Speaker 2: Oh look, this is one thing I say to people.
Speaker 2: So when I talk to people in my line of
Speaker 2: work as a reporter, and I've had a conversation last
Speaker 2: week which has said exactly the same thing. You're often
Speaker 2: talking to people who are grieving a loss, and sometimes
Speaker 2: with an unsolved thomicide. They're grieving a loss and they've
Speaker 2: got they're grieving the lack of answers. They just don't
Speaker 2: know why happened to their loved one. And I talked
Speaker 2: to them and I say, look, you might talk to me,
Speaker 2: we might do an interview, and probably nothing will change.
Speaker 2: And I've got to be honest like that. I don't
Speaker 2: have the ability to fix things as a journalist. All
Speaker 2: I can really do is say this is the best
Speaker 2: version of events is I've got it, and hopefully point
Speaker 2: a spotlight to that. But it doesn't always make a difference.
Speaker 1: Well, you're right, but in my experience solving homicides, it's
Speaker 1: at one percent that little thing that can your across
Speaker 1: the line.
Speaker 2: You were always interested in that, you were much more
Speaker 2: happy to talk to the media, and let's be honest,
Speaker 2: you weren't doing it out of the goodness of your heart.
Speaker 2: You were doing it because you saw the media as
Speaker 2: a tool one hundred percent to use to help you
Speaker 2: and what you were doing, which was trying to catch
Speaker 2: a killer, probably I used as a tool. In fact,
Speaker 2: definitely I got used as a tool. That how we
Speaker 2: met was you asked the State Crime Command media officer
Speaker 2: to put you in touch with some journalists to talk
Speaker 2: about that Bower Ofville investigation because you wanted some publicity
Speaker 2: around the case, probably because you worked on the basis
Speaker 2: that more publicity around the case meant more political pressure,
Speaker 2: meant more resources for your case. And I was one
Speaker 2: of the journalists who came in and went, well, definitely
Speaker 2: I'm going to report on that. So did kind of
Speaker 2: what you wanted. But I don't necessarily see that as
Speaker 2: a bad thing.
Speaker 1: I don't I look at it. And if you felt used,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: No, I didn't feel used. I think I think we
Speaker 2: both had to go into that again like with our
Speaker 2: eyes open. Like definitely I wasn't there to do your
Speaker 2: bidding one hundred percent not and I'm not now, but
Speaker 2: I could see there was a public interest and reporting
Speaker 2: on that case, you could see there was a public
Speaker 2: interest in having the media report on that case, and
Speaker 2: so it helped at that point that we had those
Speaker 2: conversations I'm talking about that aren't happening at the William
Speaker 2: Tyrell investigation now.
Speaker 1: And look, I don't know what the mindset is in policing,
Speaker 1: but as I learned my career as a major crime
Speaker 1: detective and working with people that I respected, people that
Speaker 1: were experienced major crime investigators, that the media was a
Speaker 1: tool to use. It's in the tools of every other
Speaker 1: thing that you use forensic evidence, you make appeals to
Speaker 1: the media, you keep the public informed. It's a tool.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying that in a disrespectful way or
Speaker 1: using but every time that I spoke, and particularly on
Speaker 1: the William Tyrel matter, I spoke in consultation with a
Speaker 1: forensic psychologist on what messaging to get out. When I'm
Speaker 1: doing those doing the media, I'm making specific appeals. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it is an important role. But just bringing
Speaker 1: it back what we're talking about here with podcasts is
Speaker 1: that police have lost control with podcasting because they don't
Speaker 1: have the narrative. It was normally the media organizations and
Speaker 1: whatever camp they are in, they could release information that way.
Speaker 1: What's happened. Like with Hedley Thomas's Teacher's Pet Bearable, you
Speaker 1: went a little bit rogue. You're reporting on things that
Speaker 1: the police would make no comment on. It makes people
Speaker 1: scrutinize the investigation. Then I can say, from an ex
Speaker 1: cops point of view, scrutiny on an investigation is a
Speaker 1: good thing.
Speaker 2: You know what to do? You know what you have
Speaker 2: to accept to do this job is you have to
Speaker 2: accept that you're an outsider and you're going to stay
Speaker 2: an outsider. So Hadley is some Queensland, was reporting on
Speaker 2: a murder case in New South Wales. So by dint
Speaker 2: of that, he's already a bit of an outsider. He's
Speaker 2: not relying on the New South Wales Police every day,
Speaker 2: Toma his stories and his contacts with this one. I've
Speaker 2: got to accept that if I do this podcast we're
Speaker 2: working on now about William ty Or, honestly, then maybe
Speaker 2: there's going to be people who don't want to talk
Speaker 2: to me afterwards, including maybe the New South Wales Police,
Speaker 2: because we are critical and we're critical of the police
Speaker 2: investigation right from the beginning. I mean right from day one.
Speaker 2: There's a lot that was done right, and there's some
Speaker 2: that was done wrong, and we're going to say that,
Speaker 2: but you've got to accept that that means they're not
Speaker 2: going to help me out with stories in the future,
Speaker 2: or there's always that possibility. I'm not saying they are
Speaker 2: that petty, but there's that possibility they're not going to
Speaker 2: want to talk.
Speaker 1: Well, isn't it, aren't they patheious?
Speaker 2: Well that's kind of human nature, though that's charis but no.
Speaker 2: But the thing is a lot of journalists don't necessarily
Speaker 2: make that same judgment. And I'm not pointing out anyone
Speaker 2: at the moment at all, but there are journalists out
Speaker 2: there who rely on politicians, rely on institutions like the
Speaker 2: cops to get their stories. And I've been there. I've
Speaker 2: got stories from politicians and I've got stories from police forces.
Speaker 2: And then when you find yourself working on a story
Speaker 2: that's a bit critical, you do find yourself thinking, oh,
Speaker 2: I write this, I might not get that next drop
Speaker 2: of a story. But you have to accept that that
Speaker 2: is going to happen, and you have to be happy
Speaker 2: to be the outside.
Speaker 1: I see that, and they understand what you're saying. I
Speaker 1: just don't respect that. I don't respect the fact that
Speaker 1: police who are public servants feel like they've got control
Speaker 1: over what they'll release because it might reflect badly on them.
Speaker 1: They're there to serve the public.
Speaker 2: But if they are using the media, and I'm not
Speaker 2: trying to pick a fight, but if they are using
Speaker 2: the media to further their investigations like you used to,
Speaker 2: then fine. But the thing is, like all of this
Speaker 2: is done in the shadows, isn't it like that there's
Speaker 2: no official rules of engagement. Maybe the police have got
Speaker 2: a long book on media practices, but I'm sure it
Speaker 2: doesn't include the off the record briefings that I know
Speaker 2: happen because I've had them, and I'm sure it doesn't include,
Speaker 2: you know, the very frank exchanges of information when it
Speaker 2: suits the police. And I'd be amazed if it included
Speaker 2: the fact that the police can basically decide who they
Speaker 2: talk to because they think this journalist is more sympathetic
Speaker 2: than the other. And all of that's fine, that's their job.
Speaker 2: But as the journal you have to accept the reality
Speaker 2: of all of that. And if you are going to
Speaker 2: do this, and you're going to do it honestly, it
Speaker 2: is going to mean possibly that people don't want to
Speaker 2: talk to you afterwards.
Speaker 1: Well, I suppose for what it's worth. I respect the
Speaker 1: journalists that yeah, I think the journalists I look up to,
Speaker 1: and I've now been in there long enough to understand
Speaker 1: who i'd like to I won't say follow, but adopt
Speaker 1: the practices. Are the ones that have got the carriage
Speaker 1: to report the truth. I thought that's what journalism is
Speaker 1: all about. And in regards to police, like what you're
Speaker 1: going to because it doesn't reflect well on you, you're
Speaker 1: going to withhold that from the media.
Speaker 2: But that's the problem with it all being done in
Speaker 2: the shadows, isn't it. Like if it's all done informally
Speaker 2: through these bluntly, fairly cozy relationships, then there's no way
Speaker 2: of knowing if the police are doing this engagement with
Speaker 2: the media because it's in the interest of the investigation,
Speaker 2: or they're doing it because it's in their own interests.
Speaker 2: And look, you've got to be really honest, particularly in
Speaker 2: New South Wales, and I do have some experience of
Speaker 2: this because I've been a crime reporter in New South
Speaker 2: Wales for a long time. The police in the media
Speaker 2: have a really cozy relationship. We're really tight and the
Speaker 2: New South Wales police leaks like a sieve, and as
Speaker 2: a journalist that's great, but it means they have the
Speaker 2: ability to leak like a sieve to certain journalists and
Speaker 2: they get to choose who they do work with. Anyway,
Speaker 2: I'm not complain I'm definitely not complaining. I'm definitely not
Speaker 2: saying I'm bitter about it. But it is the reality
Speaker 2: of it, and it has affected this investigation into William
Speaker 2: Thiol's disappearance.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, look, I'm probably burning bridges for you as
Speaker 1: we keep talking.
Speaker 2: I seem to be merrily burning the.
Speaker 1: Look, Dan, let me give you some advice. I've basically
Speaker 1: burn every bridge I've.
Speaker 2: Ever walked down.
Speaker 1: Well, I keep moving forward because you can't go back.
Speaker 1: It's probably not the best practice.
Speaker 2: Okay, So just one thing that is worth flagging on
Speaker 2: this whole thing about leaking to the press. You've been
Speaker 2: accused of that time and time and time again. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and I've spoken to people in the course of making
Speaker 2: this podcast who have swarm blind to me that you've
Speaker 2: leaked X to Y as a detective, and it's been
Speaker 2: said in court. I've sat in court when people have
Speaker 2: been talking about how you leaked. No one ever actually
Speaker 2: asked you in court. But he's been said about you.
Speaker 2: I know from the limited dealings I had with you
Speaker 2: that you didn't leak to me, because I tried to
Speaker 2: get you to leak more than once, and I tried
Speaker 2: quite hard sometimes and you didn't. But I'd be remiss
Speaker 2: if I didn't flag that people have accused you of
Speaker 2: the thing I'm accusing.
Speaker 1: Others of speculation here. And sometimes if you don't know
Speaker 1: the answer, shouldn't ask the question. I learned that, but
Speaker 1: I'm going to ask this question. Has anyone said directly
Speaker 1: I leaked, like a journalist said directly?
Speaker 2: I know, But there's a problem. Like journalists, it's kind
Speaker 2: of like an ethica, I can't ask each other. But
Speaker 2: as an example, sorry to interrupt, and we can talk
Speaker 2: about this all now because it's all come out and
Speaker 2: it's all been made public. One of in fact, the
Speaker 2: early we can call him this because he's subsequently been
Speaker 2: found to be completely not guilty of anything to do
Speaker 2: with William's disappearance. But one of the first high profile
Speaker 2: suspects in that case was a guy called Bill Spedding,
Speaker 2: who was a local washing machine repair man, and one
Speaker 2: of the things the police found when they raided his
Speaker 2: home and his business and searched his cars. Was a
Speaker 2: Spider Man toy in his work fan and that was
Speaker 2: significant because William Tool was wearing a Spider Man suit
Speaker 2: at the time he went missing, or at least it
Speaker 2: was thought to be significant. Now that subsequently came out
Speaker 2: in the papers, and I don't know how it got out,
Speaker 2: and people have speculated it was a deliberate leak from yourself.
Speaker 2: I've seen that speculation. But the one thing I do
Speaker 2: know is I found out about that Spider Man toy
Speaker 2: from talking to another cop who wasn't on the strike force,
Speaker 2: who wasn't even in homicide, because it was obviously just
Speaker 2: chatter around the police force. And he mentioned it to
Speaker 2: me over a coffee and I tried to get you
Speaker 2: to confirm it. I can remember the conversation. We were
Speaker 2: actually up near Kendall on the mid North Coast where
Speaker 2: William went miss and I'd been told this and I
Speaker 2: tried to get you to confirm it so I could
Speaker 2: write it, and you asked me please don't report that
Speaker 2: because it was sensitive for the investigation, and as a result,
Speaker 2: I didn't report it because the most important thing was
Speaker 2: that the investigation did its best job to try and
Speaker 2: find William and if I was going to trip that up,
Speaker 2: then I didn't want to part of that. So all
Speaker 2: I do know is that when I have tried to
Speaker 2: get you to leak, and that's an example, you've actually
Speaker 2: refused to and then said if you think that's true,
Speaker 2: please don't report it.
Speaker 1: Well, thanks for saying that, Dan, And I just want
Speaker 1: to wind it back because you know, when I talk
Speaker 1: about the start, we're talking about the rumor, speculation, the
Speaker 1: neuendos that flow with the Ural investigation. I've been accused
Speaker 1: of so many things. And I say here and this
Speaker 1: is going out to all the public that listen, it's
Speaker 1: going out to the police, that's going out of the journalists.
Speaker 1: I defy any journalists to put their hand up and
Speaker 1: say I leaked information to them, because because I haven't
Speaker 1: leaked the information, and the fact that I wasn't going
Speaker 1: to get emotional or cranky during this podcast, but as
Speaker 1: we talked about the wim Tural matter evokes that type
Speaker 1: of response. I ran that investigation for four years. There
Speaker 1: weren't leaks going when I was running the investigator. There
Speaker 1: were from someone on which issue. So when Bill Spedding
Speaker 1: got arrested. There was a leak that that was going
Speaker 1: to happen, because the morning before he got arrested, pretty
Speaker 1: much every media organization was waiting outside his house.
Speaker 2: And I know because I was there, and I know
Speaker 2: you've been accused in court of leaking that.
Speaker 1: And you heard me give evidence under oath.
Speaker 2: No, because no one asked you about that.
Speaker 1: Did you get I got I asked, I got asked
Speaker 1: questions about that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and what did you say?
Speaker 1: I said, it wasn't released by me, and I'm confident
Speaker 1: that wasn't people under me.
Speaker 2: In that case. It's come up in two different court
Speaker 2: matters because I was thinking of another one where this
Speaker 2: was talked about and was basically said that you leaked that.
Speaker 2: I know that I got that from another journalist and
Speaker 2: it was it was kind of chatter, Oh, you know,
Speaker 2: Bill Spedding is going to get arrested on such and
Speaker 2: such a date. You might want to be there. And
Speaker 2: I remember calling you up again and trying to get
Speaker 2: you to confirm it, and you wouldn't. It's really I
Speaker 2: was really frustrated that you wouldn't, because I basically had
Speaker 2: to go to my editor and say, I think this
Speaker 2: is happening. We should definitely pay for the flight to
Speaker 2: get me there. But all I can substantiate that with
Speaker 2: is that another journal told me. Yeah, it turns out
Speaker 2: it was right. So someone was leaking.
Speaker 1: So someone was leaking. But that Bill Spedding situation, the
Speaker 1: arrests there, I think for the four years that I
Speaker 1: read the investigation, that wasn't names throwing out. This person's
Speaker 1: a suspect. And I think since you've done a deep
Speaker 1: dive into the investigation, you'd get a sense of how
Speaker 1: many people we were looking at during that four year period. Yeah,
Speaker 1: never ever came out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, other names that didn't come out. Yeah, point that's true.
Speaker 2: And the other thing I should say is Bill Spedding
Speaker 2: was arrested for unrelated offenses, which he was subsequently found
Speaker 2: not guilty of. Bill Spedding has never been charged in
Speaker 2: relation to William Teal's disappearance. No evidence has ever come
Speaker 2: to light that he was in any way involved in
Speaker 2: or had any knowledge of William's disappearance. He's always protested
Speaker 2: his innocence. He has said he's got an alibi that
Speaker 2: he was at the school watching one of his kids
Speaker 2: get an award. There's evidence to support that alibi. He's
Speaker 2: known to have made a payment in the cafe across
Speaker 2: the road. There is, frankly, nothing that I have seen
Speaker 2: that the police have come forward with to suggest he
Speaker 2: was involved at all. And this is the point where
Speaker 2: we might fall out. That was an investigation that you oversaw,
Speaker 2: and it was subsequently described is the worst case of
Speaker 2: malicious prosecution in the state.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think I've had the conversation with you
Speaker 1: that hit me harder than when I was criminally charged,
Speaker 1: like saying a malicious prosecution. I've said my evidence at court.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure how far I can push what I
Speaker 1: want to say about that. But the way that position
Speaker 1: was defended, I, in my humble opinion, think it could
Speaker 1: have been defended in a different, different way. And again,
Speaker 1: and people are probably sick of hearing me say this,
Speaker 1: I stand by what I did on the investigation and
Speaker 1: ivite proper scrutiny not Courts can only make decisions based
Speaker 1: on the information that's provided to them and probably enough
Speaker 1: said that moved on from that, but point not, well,
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to make a point. I want to
Speaker 1: talk about your podcast. But again, I think what our
Speaker 1: conversation just said it reflects so many people have got opinions.
Speaker 1: There's misinformation floating around, and what I sincerely hope and
Speaker 1: this is why I keep putting my hand up and say,
Speaker 1: let's have a parliamentary inquiry, Let's have a public inquiry,
Speaker 1: because I'm sick of the misinformation not just impacting on me,
Speaker 1: impacting on other people more importantly, whims, foster parents and
Speaker 1: biological parents of misinformation going around. So I'm hoping, hoping
Speaker 1: that your podcast will shine the light on it. You
Speaker 1: said you've been working on it for two years. Give
Speaker 1: us a sense of the magnitude of what you do,
Speaker 1: because I've seen how you work, and I've got to
Speaker 1: say this, Dan, you would have made a good homicide detective.
Speaker 2: Ah, that's very coming. But I don't know. That's a
Speaker 2: hard job. I've seen anyway, that's a side issue. Homicide
Speaker 2: detectives work hard. But this, I've never done anything like this.
Speaker 2: I mean I've done I've worked hard on other cases before,
Speaker 2: for podcasts and books, but the scale of this is
Speaker 2: unlike anything else. Just to give you an idea, just
Speaker 2: a sheer number of documents and it is literally folders
Speaker 2: and folders and folders full of documents and dozens and
Speaker 2: dozens and dozens of interviews, and to give you an
Speaker 2: idea of just how much information we're trying to process.
Speaker 2: One of the things I really like to do with
Speaker 2: these long investigations is just build up a timeline, just
Speaker 2: bullet points. You know, this happened, then that happened, then
Speaker 2: that happened, then that happened, and put a footnote at
Speaker 2: the end of each bullet point saying, this is the
Speaker 2: source of that fact, and it's always got to be
Speaker 2: a primary source. It's not a newspaper article or another report.
Speaker 2: It's you know, witness statement, it's a court transcript or
Speaker 2: an interview we've done. So just that timeline, that list
Speaker 2: of bullet points is currently at something over one hundred
Speaker 2: and sixty thousand words, So that's the length of two
Speaker 2: entire books, and that's our starting point. You know, from
Speaker 2: there you can follow the footnotes to of those documents
Speaker 2: or to the interview we've done. And it's massive and
Speaker 2: it's overwhelming, and that's also probably part of the reason
Speaker 2: I'm so tired right at the moment, because we are
Speaker 2: working through that. But that is kind of like the
Speaker 2: keystone in what we do. From everything there. We can
Speaker 2: write those episodes, we can write those new stories because
Speaker 2: we know we've got our facts as best we can
Speaker 2: laid out in order. But yeah, I and the people
Speaker 2: I'm working with, and there's several of us working on this,
Speaker 2: I've never worked on anything as big or as complicated
Speaker 2: as this.
Speaker 1: And I think the nature of this investigation, like this
Speaker 1: is organized crime investigations, there can be a lot of
Speaker 1: different pathways, different layers to that. This is complex in
Speaker 1: that the starting point with Whim's disappearance, no forensic evidence,
Speaker 1: no eyewitness Well.
Speaker 2: That's the thing, isn't it. Like, Actually, this shouldn't be
Speaker 2: that complicated. It's not an organized crime. It's not a
Speaker 2: financial crime, which is you know, huge amounts of financial
Speaker 2: reports and data. This was one child going missing. It
Speaker 2: shouldn't be that complicated to what it's become now. And
Speaker 2: a big part of that goes back to what you
Speaker 2: just said. There's no forensic evidence. And part of the
Speaker 2: reason there's no forensic evidence is when William went missing,
Speaker 2: it was treated as a little boy lost. The police
Speaker 2: were on the scene within minutes, like hugely impressive response,
Speaker 2: and they called in other officers, they called in mounted police,
Speaker 2: cops on trail bikes, they called in the sees, they
Speaker 2: had a helicopter up, they called in divers. Hundreds and
Speaker 2: hundreds of people just volunteered their time to look for William.
Speaker 2: And that's all incredible. But the one thing that wasn't
Speaker 2: done was a crime scene established. So I've spoken to
Speaker 2: people who were there that day and they talk about
Speaker 2: people just walking over the lawn in and out of
Speaker 2: house where William went missing, cars being allowed to drive
Speaker 2: up and down the road with no one checking who
Speaker 2: was in them or where they were going, or taking
Speaker 2: note of the regio plates. And as a result, that moment,
Speaker 2: when there would have been some forensic evidence, if there
Speaker 2: was going to be any, and let's be honest, there
Speaker 2: usually is, all of that was lost. It either wasn't
Speaker 2: collected or it was literally trampled into the dirt beneath
Speaker 2: the feet of the well meaning people who were looking
Speaker 2: for William because they thought he'd walked off.
Speaker 1: Look, I'm sitting there listening and that I'm agreeing with
Speaker 1: everything you're saying. And I've been asked questions in the
Speaker 1: past about that and the focus, the primary focus was
Speaker 1: on looking for the little boy loss, which in ninety
Speaker 1: nine point nine the central time they find the child.
Speaker 1: In those circumstances, I'm.
Speaker 2: Not look, you know, I was. It's dead easy for
Speaker 2: me being the journalist, because I get to just say, well,
Speaker 2: that was done wrong. I don't have to be the
Speaker 2: person on the scene, the inspector who's coordinating that massive
Speaker 2: response and is responsible for it. I don't have to
Speaker 2: be that person. So it's really easy for me to criticize.
Speaker 2: But it was done with the best will in the world. Fine,
Speaker 2: it was done under incredible pressure and everyone's concentrating on
Speaker 2: finding a missing boy, but the fact remains there's no
Speaker 2: forensic evidence, and that meant the investigation was struggling from
Speaker 2: the start.
Speaker 1: It made it harder. And I can obviously speak of
Speaker 1: that from my homicide experience. I made recommendations in accountable documents,
Speaker 1: progress reports and different things that we've got to look
Speaker 1: at the SAPs for that type of situation standing operating procedure.
Speaker 1: Yes that I was making this as strong as I could,
Speaker 1: and the recommendations that when a situation presents itself like
Speaker 1: that concurrently running independent of the search operation, there should
Speaker 1: be a criminal investig that might be after the first
Speaker 1: hour if the child hasn't been found, detective should be
Speaker 1: called out and they start running a criminal investigation.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, yeah, you are right on that on
Speaker 2: this one. I think there were detectives, local detectives on
Speaker 2: the scene looking at the investigation within about four hours. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so going through the police records, they were there. But
Speaker 2: still the focus is on has William wandered off? And
Speaker 2: strangely that seemed to still be the focus for weeks,
Speaker 2: or at least there was confusion over what the focus
Speaker 2: is because the case is given to the homicide squad
Speaker 2: about a week after William goes missing. But after that
Speaker 2: you've got the local police commander is still doing all
Speaker 2: the media interviews and it's still saying and I was
Speaker 2: checking this this morning, he's still saying, well, it might
Speaker 2: be a kid who's wandered off, or it might be
Speaker 2: human intervention. We don't know. And so you've got these
Speaker 2: mixed messages like who's in charge? Is it the locale,
Speaker 2: is it the homicide squad? What really is the focus
Speaker 2: in this investigation? It doesn't have that kind of laser
Speaker 2: like focus on this could be a homicide. We need
Speaker 2: to gather all the information and shut this down. And
Speaker 2: control the public perception of this. So it felt like
Speaker 2: there was a lot of confusion.
Speaker 1: Dan look in sitting down with you the day, I
Speaker 1: want to give people an understanding of what's going to
Speaker 1: be presented with the podcast series that you've done, but
Speaker 1: you've touched on things and I can't help but offer
Speaker 1: an opinion. I've been sitting on the sidelines for a
Speaker 1: long time, and I think, yeah, it's been ten years
Speaker 1: since we have disappeared, over ten years now. When I
Speaker 1: took over the investigation five months after the very thing
Speaker 1: that you talked about there I identified as a problem.
Speaker 1: And that's where I made a conscious decision saying, hey,
Speaker 1: homicide is running this investigation. I'm running this investigation. That
Speaker 1: wasn't a strake. My ego that was to get control
Speaker 1: of an investigation that was the wrong messaging was going out.
Speaker 1: We needed to get that laser focus, as you said,
Speaker 1: this is what we're doing, this is why we're doing it,
Speaker 1: and put the pressure on the person or persons that
Speaker 1: might be have knowledge or involvement of William's disappearance.
Speaker 2: So I guess that's the reason for it, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Because I remember being a reporter and covering the case
Speaker 2: at the time, and we didn't know who was in charge.
Speaker 2: Was it homicide? Was it the local police? Who were
Speaker 2: they looking at? And if you've got the local police
Speaker 2: commander saying bluntly saying, we don't know what happened. It
Speaker 2: could be this, it could be that, then whoever is
Speaker 2: responsible isn't feeling the pressure. They're feeling like they might
Speaker 2: have got away with it, and that changes what they do,
Speaker 2: and it changes what the people around them who might
Speaker 2: know something do. And that's when I talk about messaging.
Speaker 2: I don't you know, I'm not talking about pr here.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about was there an opportunity missed to put
Speaker 2: that pressure on to basically use the media to speak
Speaker 2: to that person or the people who know them and
Speaker 2: say we're coming for you. We're going to get you,
Speaker 2: just in case they slip up.
Speaker 1: Well, Dan, and again I'm not sure if it comes
Speaker 1: out in your podcast, but I got a certain amount
Speaker 1: of criticism for going out of aggressively with the media
Speaker 1: when I said, anyone move in a square kilometer that
Speaker 1: hasn't come forward, I'm wondering why you haven't come forward.
Speaker 1: We're going to be looking at you. I've got a
Speaker 1: lot of complaints about that, the members of the public going,
Speaker 1: how dare you accuse us of this? But that was
Speaker 1: done for a reason. That was an aggressive strategy to
Speaker 1: flush people out and put pressure on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and look again, it's really easy for me to
Speaker 2: criticize things that aren't done, and it's you know, it's
Speaker 2: easy for you to sit here and say, I think
Speaker 2: that should be a public inquiry. It's possible that we're
Speaker 2: wrong and that the current police who've been working on
Speaker 2: it for the past five and a bit years, have
Speaker 2: identified the right suspect and have gathered all of the
Speaker 2: evidence they need and are any moment about to crack
Speaker 2: this case wide open, and that will prove them right
Speaker 2: and us wrong. But if they've done that, then why
Speaker 2: haven't they done it yet? Why haven't they charged someone?
Speaker 2: Why haven't they made public what they know by going
Speaker 2: to a court and saying this is the evidence we've got.
Speaker 2: Why are they still sitting on it? You've got an inquest.
Speaker 2: It's all going to come to a head in the
Speaker 2: next couple of months. The inquest has got hearing in
Speaker 2: November and hearing in December, and I don't see how
Speaker 2: those hearings can happen without the police having to basically
Speaker 2: say this is what we've been doing, this is the
Speaker 2: evidence we've got. And if we do get to the
Speaker 2: end of that and we still don't know what happened
Speaker 2: to William a decade on, and we do know that
Speaker 2: several lives we talked about Bill Spedding, several lives have
Speaker 2: been damaged by the police investigation, then yeah, I'm with you.
Speaker 2: I think if we get to that point, there does
Speaker 2: need to be a public inquiry and some kind of
Speaker 2: public reckoning.
Speaker 1: Well, an inquest in effect is a public inquiry.
Speaker 2: It is, but it's not looking at the police investigation.
Speaker 1: That's true, that's true.
Speaker 2: Has specifically said I'm not looking at the police investigation.
Speaker 1: That is true, but I'm hoping answers information that comes out.
Speaker 1: So with the investigation that you've done and the work
Speaker 1: that you've done on the podcast, are you surprised by
Speaker 1: some of the things that you've come across.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I really have been. I knew the case because
Speaker 2: I worked on it at the time and probably for
Speaker 2: a few years, and then when we were co writing
Speaker 2: your books, A big part of those was the William
Speaker 2: Tooele investigation because it was the case that did lead
Speaker 2: essentially to the end of your career in the police,
Speaker 2: so we had to include it. And then again because
Speaker 2: you got publicly criticized by Mick Fuller, the then police commissioner,
Speaker 2: we had to change the way we wrote one of
Speaker 2: those books because we weren't planning on right in the
Speaker 2: second one and mentioning the William tool case at all,
Speaker 2: and then he came out and publicly criticizes you, and
Speaker 2: it felt strange not to be including that if you're
Speaker 2: now publicly identified with getting this case wrong and you
Speaker 2: put out a book and pretend that that hasn't been said.
Speaker 2: So we changed that book and we put the William
Speaker 2: tool case back in. So I've been reporting on this
Speaker 2: case in different ways for a long time over the
Speaker 2: past decade, and even then, the stuff we've heard in
Speaker 2: the last two years has surprised me, and it's been
Speaker 2: it's not been a good series of surprises. I haven't
Speaker 2: been surprised by how well everything's been doing. But like
Speaker 2: the one that stands out is what I've learned about
Speaker 2: how the unsolved homicide team work. Because when I used
Speaker 2: to be a crime report I had a huge amount
Speaker 2: of respect for new South Wales Police probably too much.
Speaker 2: And probably a bit of that was because I did
Speaker 2: get stories from them and I thought the Unsolved Homicide
Speaker 2: Team was part of the homicide squad and they did
Speaker 2: a great job catching the bad guys and then working
Speaker 2: on this, I've learned more about how the Unsolved Homicide
Speaker 2: Team works and some of this was made public. In fact,
Speaker 2: a lot of it was made public by a Special
Speaker 2: Commission of Inquiry last year. We're talking about missing evidence,
Speaker 2: not just bits of evidence, but palette loads of evidence
Speaker 2: that the police didn't know they had. We're talking about
Speaker 2: cases that have gone for decades because bits of paper
Speaker 2: were left in a pocket and had never been no
Speaker 2: by police. We're talking about DNA tests that weren't done
Speaker 2: even after the technology became available. They've got a backlog
Speaker 2: of cases that they haven't looked at. It's about four
Speaker 2: hundred cases haven't ever even looked at them. And yeah,
Speaker 2: they're working on all of those things, and you know
Speaker 2: they're trying to get it better now since that inquiry.
Speaker 2: But the one that really sticks out is the detective
Speaker 2: who's now leading the investigation to William Till's disappearance, David
Speaker 2: Laidlaw is from the Unsolved Homicide team. He's one of
Speaker 2: the most senior people in that team. He's the investigations coordinator.
Speaker 2: He has had nineteen files of unsolved homicides sitting on
Speaker 2: his desk for a year, which he hasn't opened. And
Speaker 2: these are files that other detectives have gone through and
Speaker 2: said I think you should have a look at this,
Speaker 2: and it goes to him to decide whether they take
Speaker 2: it to the next step and maybe reinvestigate it. Files
Speaker 2: sitting on his desk gathering dust which he hasn't opened
Speaker 2: for a year. So that's nineteen families who don't know
Speaker 2: what happened to their loved one. And he was asked
Speaker 2: in the Special Commission of Inquiry, why why have you
Speaker 2: not opened them? And he said, while I was busy
Speaker 2: mostly with the William Toole investigation. And they said to him, well,
Speaker 2: did you tell anyone about that? And he said no.
Speaker 2: He said did you ask for any other resources to
Speaker 2: work on that? And he said no, And they said
Speaker 2: why not and he said, I don't know. That shocked
Speaker 2: me that I get he's busy. I get he's working
Speaker 2: on the William tool investigation. But in the past few
Speaker 2: years I've seen him sitting in court for fairly minor
Speaker 2: matters as part of this investigation, day after day after
Speaker 2: day after day. I think thirteen days I counted them.
Speaker 2: So he's had all those files sitting on his desk
Speaker 2: and he's chosen not to open them because he's looking elsewhere,
Speaker 2: and he's not asked for any help to open them.
Speaker 2: And that did shock me. I can't imagine what those
Speaker 2: nineteen families who sat there not knowing that no one
Speaker 2: was looking at their loved one's case. I can't imagine
Speaker 2: what they felt.
Speaker 1: It's cruel, really, it's And I can speak speak with
Speaker 1: confidence with dealing with victims families in homicides that that
Speaker 1: type of thing is soul destroye. They suffer from losing
Speaker 1: their loved one and then suffer if it's not being
Speaker 1: followed up properly. And it's a difficult world to work in.
Speaker 1: But I suppose the relevance of that, And this is
Speaker 1: I'm looking from the outside, the relevance of, Yeah, the
Speaker 1: inefficiencies or what was happening with unsolved homicide. Willim's foster
Speaker 1: mother when she gave evidence at my court matter, when
Speaker 1: I was charged, charged, convicted, appealed, still convicted. So I
Speaker 1: put that out there and people have heard the story enough.
Speaker 1: She gave evidence, and part of her concern was if
Speaker 1: I was taken off the investigation, the mother was going
Speaker 1: to be referred to unsolved homicide and you're looking at
Speaker 1: unsolved homicide because well, are they legitimate concerns or yeah?
Speaker 1: Is it good that that went there?
Speaker 2: Well, that's it. I was in court when she said that,
Speaker 2: and I remember hearing her say it. She had this
Speaker 2: fear that William's case would be sent to unsolved homicide,
Speaker 2: and I from memory, I think she was told it
Speaker 2: was going to be by a senior officer, and at
Speaker 2: that point I remember thinking, oh, yeah, but the unsolved
Speaker 2: homicide team are pretty good, because I still thought that,
Speaker 2: you know, I thought the homicide squad were great. I
Speaker 2: thought the unsolved Homicide team were part of that, and
Speaker 2: they were great too, And in fairness, I have met
Speaker 2: one or two unsolved homicide detectives subsequently who've been great,
Speaker 2: and so I thought that maybe her fears were a
Speaker 2: bit overblown. But then what I've learned in the past
Speaker 2: two years working on this investigation, her fears were completely accurate.
Speaker 2: Missing evidence cases, you've never reviewed cases that will take
Speaker 2: years and years and years for them to even open
Speaker 2: the file. William's foster mother was right to be frightened
Speaker 2: that a case ends up there, and that is shocking.
Speaker 1: And I think you look at now, we're five and
Speaker 1: a half years since I've been taken off, or almost
Speaker 1: six years since I've been taken off. Part of my
Speaker 1: battle when I was running the investigation was that they
Speaker 1: wanted to shut it down and get it to unsolved
Speaker 1: Thomas side. And now I look and all there's been
Speaker 1: supposedly five and a half years more work to do
Speaker 1: on an investigation they wanted to shut down when I
Speaker 1: was running.
Speaker 2: That's interesting. I want you know, one thing the cops
Speaker 2: have said to us, because we wrote about these nineteen
Speaker 2: cases gathering dust. The one thing the cops did say
Speaker 2: was they said, we're not going to talk about William
Speaker 2: Tiol other than to say WILLIAMS. Toiol's case has never
Speaker 2: been formally refined to the Unsolved Homicide Team. And so
Speaker 2: I wrote back, and I said, that is true, but
Speaker 2: the guy running William Tool's investigation is in the Unsolved
Speaker 2: Homicide Team, and so are some of the other people
Speaker 2: on the William Tool strike Force, and they said, yes,
Speaker 2: that's true. So it's not formally an unsolved homicide, but
Speaker 2: it is unsolved homicide detectives who are working it's.
Speaker 1: These are the layers of the William Tyrell investigation. I
Speaker 1: haven't finished with your Dan. Look, we're gonna we'll have
Speaker 1: a break, and then when we get back, I just
Speaker 1: want to get more of a sense of the podcast,
Speaker 1: what people are to expect, and hopefully shed some light
Speaker 1: on I think it's fair to say this is the
Speaker 1: country's one of the country's biggest mysteries, isn't it.
Speaker 2: I think it's the biggest case that I've covered, and
Speaker 2: I think it's the most high profile case in the
Speaker 2: country in the last ten years. Yeah, nothing has come
Speaker 2: a place.
Speaker 1: I look at it. Everyone can identify with William and
Speaker 1: the circumstances of disappearing in your grandparents place, playing and
Speaker 1: safe space. So okay, we'll take a break and we'll
Speaker 1: get back shortly.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm